The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1882-01-26

insane? What does he say of this prisoners
sanity on the I'd of July? Probably insane.
Do you propose, gentlemen of the jury, TO
bring in verdict that he was probably IN
sane? Was he sane or insane? That is the
question. What does he say OF the prisoner as
a lawyer? He calls him third rate shyster, iE
a criminal court. / suppose Scoville can tell
you what that means. l cannot
"Wef, some of your clients can tell what
that is" retorted the prisoner.
Referring to the reference by Colonel Reed
to Charlotte Corday, Porter said it was left to
Reed to make the discovery and to announce to
this court and to the world that Charlotte Cor
day was insane. Rehearsing the circumstances
of Charlotte Corday's life and death, Porter
contrasted her act of patriotism with Guiteau s
foul murder. in most eloquent and string SEN
fences.
The prisoner was reused almost to fury and
beloved like an Infatuated beast, at times com
pletely drowning the speakers voice, "GodAI
mighty will curse you, Porter, you miserable
whelp. You can't make the American people
believe | am not q patriot. To-day / suffer in
bonds as patriot and God will curse you if a
hair of my head is injured"
Pausing moment, Porter said: Contrast
the conduct of this vindictive, cowardly wretch
with Charlotte Corday, who walked peacefully
to the scaffold with hands folded and crossed
upon her breast and the serene smi lie that de-
noted her willingness to suffer death for her
country and the patriotism which instigated
her act"
81 amt afraid to die, either" shouted the
prisoner. "You may put my body in the
ground if you can, but l tell you this nation
will go down in blood if you harm hair in my
head"
Next, Porter compared the prisoner to
Wilkes Booth, and showed the latter to be al
most patriot compared with the cowardly as
sassin now on trial, for Booth was actuated by
a mistaken motive of patriotism and was a
man of manhood and manliness, but this
sneaking, cowardly wretch who can plan for
his victims death and his own safety at the
same time, murdered his man for revenge and
for notoriety.
Guiteau.-I shot my man in broad day
light.
At 1890 recess was taken for thirty min
utes.
After recess Mr.. Scoyille gained the ear of
the court to state that he interrupted Judge
Davidge but once and Porter this morniug but
twice and each time in respectful manner.
He did not propose to interrupt again unless
it was warranted and he thought he was en-
titled to more respectful consideration than
had yet been accorded him.
Guiteau followed suit with the announte-
ment that he should not interrupt unless it was
warranted but the harangue which he seemed
about to start in upon was summarily cut short
by Judge Cox, who commanded him to keep
silence.
Judge Porter resumed "There is one man
OSiWooA JOo olio puO SidF0 VI tuO oieuSutOi on
President who knows whether this defence is
sham one or not.'
Guiteau-"It is a true defence and you know
it."
Judge Porter-'sThe truth will however
burst forth and reach the consciousness of any
one. If from no other source it will make its
way from the murderera himself" Judge
Porter then read from letter of the prisoner
to his father in which he said for years / was
haunted with the idea that was cut out for
some great mission but now | am convinced it
was but devilish delusion and renounce my
over weening vanity and egotism.'
Guiteau-"Wen I've changed my mind
since then, that was ten years ago.
Porter reading from Guiteau' scriticism upon
the religious and moral growth of the past six
himself have pronounced more sinister judy
ment."
Guiteau-"Judas Iscariot would have en-
ployed you as his attorney, you big lar
His whole life, said Judge Porter was in ac-
cord and all the evidence substantiated the as.
sumption that revenge and the morbid desire
for notoriety actuated the prisoner. How thor
oughly he had read up the noted crimes and
how familiar he had shown himself to be with
their defences. Where did he get that "Re.
move with which to soften the too harsh de.
finition of his too hideous crime? From read
characters in whose portraiture the great stud.
emit OF human nature had depicted
the very intensity Of human passion
Judge Porter passed to the discussion
of the direct issue of the case. Whether q
not the prisoner was insane on the I'd of July
The prisoner, himself, he said, does not claim
| to be insane.
Guiteau-I amt now, but was on the %
of July, and for thirty days previous. Transi
tory mania, that's what 1 claim.
Replying to this claim, Judge Porter pointed
out its absurdity, that like tn estroke of the
lightning all his insanity should vanish on the
instant; that it should envelop him completely
| day after day for the purpose of the murder
that it still chung to him after the first shot
was fred, and only left him after he saw his
victim sinking helpless to the ground, and
then it instantly was worked off" and left
him perfectly sane man.
Gu1teau-Well, transitory mania was the
plea that Sickles got off on, and you were on
The prosecution of the case and sgot .eftson the
very doctrine you are trying to fool that jury
on.
AS soon as Judge Porter had finished, Judge
| Cox delivered his charge to the jury, occupy
ing an hour and half At AS, the jury re-
tired, and at 5.35 returned with a verdict oil
guilty Following is
JUDGE cox's CHARGE.
Judge Cox, at 3 Is p. m, proceeded to deliv-
er his charge to the jury. He commenced by
saying that the Constitution provides that in
all criminal proceedings the accused shall en-.
JOY the right of speedy and public trial, by an
impartial jury. in the State or District where
the crime shall have been committed: that he
shall be informed of the cause and nature of
the accusation against him; that he shall be
confronted with the witness against him; that
he shall have compulsory process to obtain
witnesses in his favor, and that he shall have
the assistance of counsel in his defence. Those
provisions were intended for the protection of
the innocent from injustice and oppression,
and it was only by their faithful observance
that guilt or innocence could be fairly ascer-
tanned.
Every accused person was presumed to be in
nocent until the accusation was proved. With
what difficulty and trouble sthe law had been
administered in the present case the jurors had
been daily witnesses. 1t was, however, con-
ISOLATION to think that not one of these sacred
guarantees of the Constitution had been vio-
lated in the person of the accused at last the
long chapter of proof was ended, the task of
the advocate was done, and it now rested with
the jury to determine the issue between public
justice and the prisoner at the bar. No one
could feel more keenly than himself the great
responsibility of his duties, and he felt that
he could only discharge them by cl ose adj
herence to the law as laid down by its highest
authorities.
Before proceeding further he wished to no.
tice an incident which had taken place pend
ing the closing argument. The prisoner had
frequently taken occasion to proclaim that
puuuC OplHlUu, DIS 0VluouC6u ny Lu6 press ana
correspondence, was In his favor. These dec
larations could not have been prevented, ex-
cept by a process of gagging the prisoner.
Any suggestion that the jury could be inf1n-
enced by such .lawless cbattering of the prison
or would have seemed to him absurd, and he
should have felt he was insulting the intelli-
gence of the jury if he had warned them not
to regard it. The counsel for the prosecution
had felt it necessary, however, in their final
argument, to interpose contradiction to such
statements, and, as an exception had been
taken on the part of the accused to the form
in which that effort was made, for the sole
purpose of purging the record of any objection
able matter, he should simply say that any,
thing which had been said on either side in
reference to public sentiment or to newspaper
opinion was not to be regarded by the jury
The indictment charged the defendant with
having murdered James A. Garfield, and it
was the duty of the court to explain the nature
of the crime charged Murder was committed
where a person of sound mind and discre-
ton unlawfully killed reasonable being, in
the peace OF the United States, with malice
aforethonght. 1t had to be proved, FIRST that
death was caused by the act of the accused,
and further, that it was caused with malice
aforethought. That did not mean, however,
that the government had to prove any ill-will
or hatred on the part of he accused toward
the deceased. Wherever homicide was shown
to have been committed, without lawful
authority and with deliberate intent,
it was sufficiently proved to have been done
with malice and f0rethf night and malice was