The evening light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1881-1883, 1882-01-05
the president must 60, and that it was
his duty to remove him.
ND%xy,t be<o I;rrr he ,,.~,,,:.o - a.

| = : y
his duty to remove him.
Notwithstanding his promise in the
morning, Guiteau continued to inter-
[rupt, and became involved in an alter
cation with one of the bailiffs who tried
to silence him. "I'll slap you in the
mouth" he frequently snorted at him,
but made no demonstration of carry
ing his threat into execution. AT an
other time he said to him: "You are
nothing but miserable Numbering
fool, while speak to $4,000, 900 peo-
pie. when / TALK
When Judge Cox had finished his
remarks upon Scoville's motion, Gui-
teau insisted on expressing his opin-
ion: "That's a frst-class decision,
judge; all / want to get before the Jury
is what ! said at the time relative to
the causes that impelled me upon the
president; as for the rest don't care
snap. would not give FIVE cents
per bushel for this expert testimony.
If had money enough ! could get
fifty of the best experts in the country
to swear l am as crazy as loon.
That's just how much that kind of evil
dence is WORTH" IL
Scoville introduced letter, written
by the prisoners father, in which he
speaks of the prisoner and expressed
an opinion that he was insane.
Guiteau called out, jeeringly: .Was
the object of reading that letter to
show my father was a crank, or that
am. You are the biggest jackass.
Scoville, I ever saw. If you cannot
learn any sense, shall have to rebuke
you in public"
The prosecution then submitted the
statement of the law points on which
they would rely, as follows, "First: The
legal test of responsibility, where ;nsan-
ity is set up as defense, for alleged
crimes, is whether the accused, at the
time of committing the act, knew the
difference between right and wrong, in
respect of such act. That is, if he
knew what he was doing and what was
contrary to the law of the land; his
responsibility
Guiteau-"I did; because my free
agency was destroyed"
Second: 1.-THE accused knew what
he was doing, and what he is doing
was contrary to the law of the landy it
constitutes no defense, if it were true
that when he committed 1t he really be-
lleved ne was producing a public BEN
eft, carrying out an inspiration of Dir
vine origin or approval, such belief
would.not afford any excuse; MOI, would
Such excuse be afforded BY the fact
that in the commission of the act he
was compelled by depraved moral
sense, whether innate or acquired, or
an evil passion, or Indifference to
moral obligations."s
Guiteau-"All of which is false"
"Third: Insanity would, however,
constitute a defense if, by reason of
a disease, the accused, at the time of
the commission of the act charged,
did not know what he was doing, or if
he did not know that what he was do.
ing is contrary to law"
Guiteau-"I had no choice in the
matter"
"Fourth. The only evidence in the
present case to-day to show an irresis-
table impulse to commit the crime is
the claim of the accused that his free
agency was destroyed by his alleged
conviction that the death of the presi-
dent was required for the good Of the
American people, and was divinely in
spired. That such conviction, if it
really existed, could not afford any ex-
cuse when the party knew what he was
doing, and that it was contrary 10 law.
No more delusion or error of judgment,
not even fixed belief Of what is pro-
hibited by law, is commended or ap-
proved by divine authority.
Guiteau: Goods laws are hiphe(
than MANS" "The law cannot exeu
the accused from responsibilities
breaking the law. To have such and
the commission of the act
must have been the result otEr for the
mind, which was the prodyent, which
ease of such force asAkd subsided.
accused of degree /Eere resumed.
sary to distinguish