Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-01-05

witnesses, and that the counsel since the
closing of the case has learned of certain
material witnesses. He gave their names
and what he would prove.
| Co1khill said that nothing need be said on
the motion to introduce this evidence.
Colonel Reed addressed the Court In favor
OF the motion. lie felt sure that the Ameri-
can people would not begrudge this justice.
He glowinely complimented Scoville.
Dayidge denied that there was any prece-
dent for re-opening the case, and it would be
scandalous.
scovILLE's ARGUMENT.
| Scoville replied at great length, and de.
tailed the hardships and difficulties under
which the defense had labored in the prepare
ton of their case. 1t was aluoss impossible
to get witnesses to come here. The experts
for the defense were compelled to be satisfied
with 81 % per diem, the regular witness fee;
! while those for the Government came here, it
is supposed, leaving great trusts behind them,
and remained for six weeks, and every one of
them plainly showed by their evidence that
they expected full pay for their services, and
| all know what that meant. And these ex-
perts, said Scoville, are still waiting here to
see the result of their evidence in hanging this
prisoner, but fortunately for the cause of JUS
tice, your Honor, this jury stand between
him and the gallows.
OBJECTIONS OF THE PROSECUTION.
Colonel Corkhill could not at this stage
allow the remarks of the counsel to go unan-
swered He said yesterday, and would
repeat to-day, that he would not object to the
introduction of any new facts material to the
1 dafapSa Tho cpIxy obiactiop To ha rooda b,,
the prosecution had already been mentioned
by Davi1ge. There had never been time
in this District where SO much liberty had
been shown by the Government.
GUITEAU's STATEMENT.
Guiteau insisted on being heard. The
Baiiif tried to silence him, but was met
with: "Let me alone, or will slap You in
| the mouth"
Guiteau called out: ''Yom Honor, all
want is to show that told these men on the
way to jail that it was the political situation
and the pressure of an inspiration that caused
me TO remove the President"
THE JUDGE RULES OUT SUCH EVIDENCE.
Judge Cox said that the counsel for de-
| Tense came here q stranger to the Courts of
the District, and even to the prisoner him
self, and found himself environed with diff
culties from the outset. The most serious
difficulty was that the odium attaching to the
assassination made witnesses unwilling even
to allow their names to be known to the de-
Tense. Approaching all these difficulties
which embarrassed the defense, he Judge
Cox) had felt disposed to offset this with an
equal latitude and more than ordinary fair
ness. The evidence of insanity couldn't be
offered in surrebuttal. In his opinion the
proof of insanity should be limited to the
evidence in chief of the defense and the re-
butting evidence Of the prosecution. He,
therefore, must exclude the evidence of DR..
| Mcfarland, who Scoville said would testify
TO the prisoners insanity. The testimony,
however, of these witnesses, by which the de-
Tense expected to prove that the prisoner
asserted upon the day of the assassination,
and upon the day after, the motive for his
act, the Court held should be admitted as
evidence in surrebuttal.
FURTHER TESTIMONY.
| j. J. Brooks, Chief of the Treasury Secret
Service, was called by Scoville. He visited
the prisoner the night of the shooting.
Guiteau was very angry at witness for dis
turbing his rest az night. Witness reproved
him as murderer. and the prisoner said,
mo murderer, but Christian gentleman
the act was q political necessity for the good
of the country and that witness being
stalwart, could appreciate why he did it !;
that he had thought over and prayed over
the matter for six weeks, and became con.
vinced that the President must go by his
hand.
Scoville introduced letter written by SEQ
ville's father, which expressed the opinion
! that the prisoner WIS insane.
Guiteau sneeringly and insultipgly re-
proved Scoville for producing this letter, and
said he could get plenty of experts to testify
that he was as crazy as loon, but he would
not give a cent for a bucketful of expert ties.
| timoDy.
DIR. Beard was called. but was ruled out,
and an exception noted.
Scoville said he would like little time for
proper preparation of this part of the case.
LAW POINTS OF THE PROSECUTION.
Davidge said the prosecution had already
prepared their statement of the law points
upon which they would rely, and he would
| be pleased to give the defense the benefit of
them. He then read as follows
First-The legal test of responsibility, where
insanity is set up as defense, is whether the
accused, at the time of committing the act
alleged. knew the difference between right
and wrong in respect to such act, and in the
present case if the accused, at the time of
committing the act charged, knew the differ.
ence between right and wrong in respect Of
such act that if he knew what he was do.
ing, and what he was doing was contrary to
the law of the land. be is responsible.
Guiteau-I didn't, because my free agency
was destroyed.
Second-If the accused knew what he was
doing, and that what he was doing was con.
trary to the law of the land, it constitutes no
defense, even if it were true, that when he
committed the act he really believed he was
thereby producing public benefit, or carrying
out an inspiration of Divine origin or APP
proval such belief would not afford any ex
cnse. nor would such excuse be afforded by
the fact that in the commission of the act he
was impelled by depraved moral sense,
whether innate or acquired. or by evil passion
or iodiffere1ce to moral obligations.
Guiteau-All Of which is false.
Third-Insanity would, however, consti-
tute 8 defense if any diseased mind &C
cussd az the time of committing the act
charged did not know what he was doing, or
if he did know what he was doing, did not
know it was contrary to law.
Guiteau-I had no choice in the matter.
Fourth-The only evidence in the present
case tending to show an irresistible impulse
to commit the homicide is the claim of the
accused that his free agency was destroyed
by his alleged conviction that the death CT
the President was required for the good of the
! American people, and was divinely inspired !;
but such conviction, even if it really existed,
could not afford any excuse when the party
knew what ne was doing, and that 1t was con.
trary to law. No mere delusion or error Of
jugment, not even fixed belief that what
was provided by law was commanded or ap-
proved by Divine authority
Guiteau-God's law is higher than mans
law.
Can exempt the accused from responsibility
for breaking the law. To have such effect
the commission of the act charged must have
been the result of an insane delusion, which
was the product of a desire, and OF such force
as to deprive the accused of the degree OF rea-
son necessary to distinguish between right
and wrong in respect of the act. He either
did not know what he was doing, or if he did,
that the act was wrong and contrary to the
law of the land.
At Scoville's suggestion the Court then ad
| iourned until Saturday.
scovILLE's WITNESSES.
WASHINGTON, January 4th. Following
are the names in Scoville's affidavit, as being
material witnesses, whose existence and
names have recently come GO the knowledge
of counsel: 7. Bragdon, Marshall Green,
James Brooks. Thomas Rathbone, Katie Col
lius, Geo. w. McElfresh. Manville A. Austin
and Il. Mcfarland Affiant is advised and
believes that he can prove by Bragdon,
Green, Katie Collins and Edward Austin,
| that they freqIently saw defendant In the