Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-01-07
THE TRIAL OF GUITEAU.
ARGUMENTS ON THE PRAYERS.
MR.. DAVIDGE ON THE INSANITY QUESTION.
INTERRUPTIONS BY THE PRISONER.

The door-keepers, in pursuance of instructions
from the court, were very strict this morning re-
gardlng admissions to the court rooms The door
at the northeast corner of the room was kept
almost exclusively for the use OF the jury and the
court officers, and the space about the jury Yves
kept clear. The pressure for admittance was very
great, the two days intermSson in the trial having
served apparently to freshen the interest In the
proceedings. The day also marked the entrance
upon the final stage OF the trial. MeSsrs Reed and
Scovle in their seats as usual long before 10
O'Clock.
THE COURT OPENED.
The counsel for the prosecution and the Judge
were, however, late in arriving and court did not
open till 1918 o'clock. When the prisoner was
brought in, Mr.. Reed went to the dock and had a
brief talk with him.
THE JURY DECLINE TO TAKE WALK.
The court remarked that he did not think it
necessary that the Jury should be retained all day.
on the law points will take all day. They might
take a walk"
The jurynen, however, showed no disposition to
leave the court room and remained in their seats.
Judge Cox announced that he was ready to hear
arguments ON the prayers.
MIR. Davidge Opens the Argument on
the Prayers.
Mr. Davidge, rising, made brief review OF the
shut the door upon controversy in respect to these
prayers, he said, he proposed to read them again
to the court He thereupon read the four prayers Of
the prosecution, defining the law regarding 1nSan-
1ty as construed by the prosecution. He said. the
expression, contrary to the law OF the land' was
synonymous to wrong.
The object OF the first prayer was to demonstrate
Wnere the law draws the line Of responsibility. 1t
simply prOfeiSed to afford a human rule as to
now much intelligence IS necessary to make the
accused amenable to the law of the land.
commenting upon the second prayer, he said the
exercise or the mental faculties leading to belief
In inspiration would afTOrj no excuse. The whole
import OF the second prayer was that human
being reaching the degree of Intelligence defined in
the first prayer was responsible to human law, no
matter what his belief, what his passions or what
MS indifference to duty The prayer was intended
TO STAMP OUT THE DOCTRINE OF MORAL INSANITY,
which was not known in courts Of law and not
recognized by them. The law recognized no dis
ease OF the human nature independent OF the
human mind. Moral insanity, If his moral nature
be diseased, would be no excuse.
In the third prayer. they asked the court to de-
fine just when insanity would constitute a de
medical standpoint The question here waS
what sort OF insanity would constitute a defence
for Crime.
THE SUBJECT OF IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE,
OF delusion, was treated OF in the fourth prayer
human conviction, he said, no matter how pro-
found or how fixed, cannot afford any excuse for
crime. A man Is bound to know what is right, and
90 what Is right, providing he reaches the degree
or intelligence defined in the first prayer. In the
fourth prayer, he said. he used both expressions
wrong" and contrary to law"
AS TO THE PRAYERS OF THE DEFENCE
he had not, he said, expected any serious con-
troversy regarding the prayers. Yet he had seen
in the papers yesterday list of prayers, which it
was said, the defence would Offer SO far as these
prayers infriEged on law, they simply tended to
make obscurity. 1t might be unjust to remark
upon these prayers before the defence had had op-
portunty to explain them, yet If they meant what
they seemed to mean, he thought the most OF
them were not worth consideration.
THE TEST OF HUMAN INTELLIGENCE AND RULE RE-
GARDING RESPONSIBILITY.
Referring to the first prayer OF the prosecution,
Mr. DaVidge said the great central point in that
was the test OF human intelligence. They were
dealing here with crime. What degree OF intelli-
gence ought to fix the responsibility for crime and
such a crime! He thought the law fixed the age
Of years as the age at which a person becomes
for crime. The question Of RESPONSE
bility was involved in great doubt until the de-
clsions reached in the McNaughton case. There the
House OF Lords, alarmed at the acQuittal of o man
for shooting down another, under an insane de-
luson, summoned the judges to conference. and
The result OF That conference was the rule regard
Ing responsibility which has ever since been fol-
lowed in England, and has been almost universally
adopted Lint, In this country. the responsi6iity Of
ence between right and wrong. The law, he said,
made no distinction between high and low degrees
between for instance the iilustrouS victim OF this
prisoner on one hand, and this assassin On the
other. man might even be Partially insane, but
il he rose to the Intelligence where he knew the
difference between right and wrong, he was re-
SpOnSible.
GUITEAU's FIRST INTERRUPTION.
81 didn't know the difference between right and
wrong," interrupted the prisoner, ~ had no
choice"
"Weu see hereafter" said Mr.. Davidye,
I" whether he had choice" Mr.. Davidge then read
from the rulings of the English judges in the Nc
NaughtOn case. Having laid much stress ON one Of
the propositions that the responsibility Was syn
the difference between right and wrong, the pris-
oneT agan interrupted saying
Mr.. Davidge said that from the time of the Nc
Naughton case to the present there had been no
departure In England from the rule founded on hui
the difference between right and wrong.
Mr.. pavdge referred to the case of Flanagan
against the people, 52d New York, page 46s, and
quoted at length from the decision, holding that
the test of responsibility where a defence OF in
sanity was interpOsed was the capacity OF the In
a1vduaI TO 1 between right and wrong
was. he said, very late decision rendered by Mr.
Justice Davis, in New York, during the pending Of
Judge Porter relieved MI. Davidge, here, merely
to read from Judge Davis recent decision in the
coleman case, W0lcn mas been printed In The
STAR
MR.. sCOvILLE OBJECTS.
When Judge Porter finished reading Mr.. Scoville,
rising, said he objected to the counsel delivering a
speech under the guise Of reading as authority
which was no more authority than the
stump speech OF politician, as it did not apply
to the case in which it was rendered. He re-
marked that Judge Porter, in order to read the de-
cisiOn dramatically, had sought to relieve Mr..
Davidge, though the latter had not complained OF
hoarSenesS
THIS FARCE MUST END"
Judge Porter said this farce must end. They
had come to point in this trial where they must
stand upon their rights, and counsel must not
make broadcast assertions He paid high tribute
to Judge Davis who, he said, II he had peer, had
no superior in the magistracy OF the Union. The
decision was authority, he said. 1t applied to this
case, and applied to that. He read 1t to the court
because 1t had appeared only yesterday In Official
form.
JUDGE COX HOPES THERE WILL BE NO ALTERATION
BETWEEN COUNSEL
Judge Cox said he hoped there would be no
alteration between the counsel He thought it
was proper to cite Judge Davis decision. The
question as to its application to the case where IL
was rendered was subject for comment by coun.
sell
GUITEAU'S POINT.
The prisoner, who during this short debate had
h.oor laaY nm cla TO t.,o