New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-05-23

exclusive care mater of power L was competent
for the Legislature to provide Tor such oiences
Tho death might happen. The question Il whether "
actually did 80 provide by this statute or omitted wna
so far as arsenals dockyards and MAGAZINES were con-
ocrncd were likely be the most numerous class Oh
ceses happening there We hold that these cases were
not ontted ana that where q murder Is committed at
ali is satute applies TO it II the fatal blow struck
i'm one of the designated places hsandnS te con-
sequont death happened III another place.
A FURTHER CONSIDERATION.
hcrc ia vet one consideration which peculiar to the
crime OF murder "a an offence against the Untcd States
and which bears upon the question under eXamhatioh
The sixth amendment Of the Consultation provides "that
in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall ENJOY thc
right to speedy and public trial by an impartial Jury OF
HE state and district the crime shall have been
committed" and this provision applies 10 tne Posecu
ton Of the crime OF murder committed IN a rGLt or
states that district but lying within state OF ths
district and other court and jury, nave 1ursuc-
ton 10 try the accused for murder cOmmltted III
such place This provision was made FOR the better
nrotecton OF accused persons against the hardship OF
being removed their friends, and perhaps into
hostile Soa rreacr es 4 dsfcHce and this pro
lection Is be ried away by ingenious theories
If the stricken person should die another state ana
district IT orbids that he should be removed and tired
in that district, upon theory that he had committed
crime in place where he had done no act Whatever
The amcndnc contemplated that there should be but.
place which he should In respect Of any criminal
act, be subject 10 trial. and 1t designated that place as
the IN which his criminal act was coinhttIcu..
IT, on the other hand. IL must be held tnat
no murder be said To have been committed In the
fort magazine where the fatal blow was struck ana
law because consequent death happened in another
State and district, then there would be one oHeuce
ments OF murder concurred but which could not be pun
ished murder by power under the Consttuuon OF
the United states In the construction OF fundamental
law IL is not admissible make oDllSStis by
theory The constitutional power OF the United 5taes
TO punish all crimes against themselves was intended TO
be complete and # must include the power to punish
murder as murder, whenever that offence eohst-
1t follows that this amendment which limits the place
OF trial, works Limitation or the power or the Govern
men
this protective provision all crimes are committed
wnere the i've agency the accused occurred Thus
the Legislature instructed by the Constitution sot
that murder should, In where 1t was punishable
the feonous blow struck We hold, therefore, tnat
the Criminal Court had upon the case shown by the
record jurisdiction to try c0nyl ana sentence te ue
PENDANT for murder committed within the District OF
We have now 10 inquire whether error occurred
in the trial. 1t appears that several experts
knowledge of the defendant asked whether In their
opinion he knew the difference between right and
wrong, and 10 this question and the affirmative answer
exception taken, the ground that witness can
only opinion as 10 sanity or INSANITY ana tnat
mus Do TiI no, 10 shles the accuse from Knowing
that his wrong The essence OF the inquiry IL
whether his insanity is such as 10 deP I'VE MN vi tat
opinion as to the condition OF the accused he il
competent to state his opinion as to the degree OF
capacity disorder and whether te degree OF insanity
was such deprive him Of the knowledge OF right
aud wrong. That capacity or incapacily Is lseh
question the extent OF the disorder II disorder eX
ists and il conclusion TO be drawn from the exist
ence of insanity These witnesses were competent TO
speak to the question Of sanity or Insanity, and hsfe
fore, rs this question one OF its degrees We hnd
In the ruling which admitted this question ana
the answer.
DIR. FORDYCE Bankers REPLY.
Dr. Fordyce Barker, expert on tue subject o. in
sanity was asked: "Is the habit OF Boosting Of init
macy with people holding high position and possessing
influence and power, when the fact is otherwise any
evidence, in your judgment as scientist OF an insane
delusion :" The answer was: 1t ID not
evidence OF the delusion OF an m
of of disease 'Y II result Of vanity ana sefconoet and
love OF nOtOrety These are vices ana not Diseases
TO this answer exception was take because the VIII
ness determining nature OF this trait said 1t was
and not disease Ino question whether certain
trait an indication OF Insanity involved e question
nature, and do not perceive mat the Witness
exceeded limits Of the inquiry in stating precisely
The act killing the deceased was conceded ana THIS
could nave no tendency to prove That inc ac-
u ni t md The aIsSer afeetrd that issue ACNE IL
could therefore. do injury to the defendanTs rights
the and 1t not irrelevant " the issue Oi n-
sanity Tine opinion OF eXper is not regarded
invasion rights and ONCE VI the jury, and II this
opinion to the actual character Of TRAIT was suDsan
TALLY statement Of its relation to insanity 1t was not
interference with that Office We hnd no error IN TINS
Mrs Dnnmire, who was married to the defendant in
july ls69 and was his VIE for four years Dnt had
11sstions: 81 viii ask You to state to
the july whether in your your ASSOCIATION aavt TltS
that would indicate that he was a man
OF unsound mind - The court had ruled n tina;
and wife protected IN tue examination Inc JUGS
ton admitted under exception and tue answer was
never did" This question called Tor the Witness
observation Of the DEFENDANTS sOundneds or unsOund
mess OF and the objection goes partly the ground
tnat nOtwitns andng ruling Of inc courts tha con
ndcntil communications between the hsDdhd anu WiIe
protected, may have included as part OF the
her what are understood AS conD uhlca
from her former husband We thlnk that the eA
hbiuOn oi SANITY OF INSANITY 10 io' d coiln az
all IN the OF tbs rule winch protects the privacy
and confidence the reiatOnany more than the
height OF cOlorDhuessor inc loss oI an III VI one Vi ue
parties u conuunieaIlon Tue rule "hcn IL SUPPOSED
been violated was established IN order that the
conduct the voluntary CONDUCT, Vi married nie' niSnt
upon oasis OF peace ana trust, ana reaes
10 matters which toe parties may eject 10 disclose or ot
uscios' - -. ,,P icb itonld MOI o a., M All without
n iIrDnucc nd iii ,reglrd bond OF peace and
confidence between the married pair Therefore ~ hds
not been ppied any matter when tue husband Tor
example, elected u make public by doing or say nS
II IN presence OF third persons along VITA HIS VIE,
and il cannot DO applied TO tna1 which,
the world well To his wife some Diseases husband
may conceal anu choose whether to reveal them
or not should reveal the existence OF such dis
ease wife, the prvacy OF their relation sue may
never disclose t1at even al'er t,e Ieia
ton them has ceased Bat SANITY or insanity
are conditions which not OF ohOlce, and wnen tne
disease OF insanity cxlsIs the exhibition OF Is helhe
matter of voluntary confidence nor Capable Oh Doing one
OF secrets Of the married relation. lhe TACT that
there are instances OF cunning conceament time
does anec the general trlth mat Instantly reveals
itself tue sufferer viii or no to friends and &c
uaintances the wiie. In short. the law can
not regard il or protect IL as one OF the peculiar
condolences "a par,cd relation. IL may DC added
tnis' ~ 70 Shc ienin t,t sne ad seen any id-
cations OF insanity said reveal any fact which
her husband I'd Communicated 10 hcr II our Oplhloh
that sanity insanity caDDt be COMMUNICATION
within the meaning the rule Bhould DO wrong, II mus!
be remembered that sanity Is PRESUMPTION vi law" ahu
that The wife would 10 reveal nothing 10 tue word
unless she should say mat the existence Of Insanity III
her husband hal been communicated to her DS his con
duct curing their connection. We are OF opinion That
nu error wac committed i'll receiving this evidence
FRAUDULENT ACTS OF GUITEAU.
Several witnesses allowed TO testify
to acts OF the defendant in 1872,
and in two or three years following which were fraudu
lent Evidence had introduced his part Tor the
purpose Of proving insanity which searched the history
life, down the time OF tine act charged IN
tine indictment. Tho defendant himself hail. Us a
y in IA ben