Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1882-03-20
MASON AND aUITEAp.

Since the decision of the Court Mar
tial which tried Sergeant MASON for an
attempt to kill GUrTEAU, the press ofthe
country has been busy and fertile in ex-
pedients for discovering new principle
of law that would apply to his case and
relieve him from the penalty imposed.
Public sentiment seemsto be not quite
satisfied with the verdict and yet not
quite ready to declare or to point out
that il is illegal or unjust.
Ben BUTLER does not find any diff
Guilty with the law, and perhaps not
with the verdict. Shortly after the
shooting by MASON, he drew very
clear and forcible parallel between the
crime of GUrrEAU and MASON, which
is just as applicable after the verdict as
before. II was as follows:
al would like to offer a word or two
upon the crime Of Sergeant MASON, aS
to which some exceedingly loose ana
dangerous comment met my eye In
some Of the newspapers. / look upon
the 8ulAl vi AfiATONr II iC 10 60 N%N
actlY equal to GUITEAU, if he Is sane.
In our Government the life of each in
diyidual is rs sacred as the life OF any
other, and is as valuable in the eye OF
the law. There is no more hanging to
be done for the killing of one
man than for another. GCITEAU
conteJnniated taking the life
OF the President for days; that made the
act wilful murder. Mason contem-
plated for days taking the life of Gui-
teau; that made his act, in intent, will
full murder also. Guiteau shot an un-
armed man, who was not prepared to
defend himself, and took the risk, in
addition to the legal punishment, of
being torn to pieces by the mob. Mason
shot an unarmed man who could not
defend himself, but took no such risk as
Guiteau. Each was, in intent, the most
daStardly murder, because neither Is yet
completed, and We may hope that
neither will be. Both men undertook
to execute what they believed might be
popular judgment upon each victim,
and both had the same mOtive-desire
for nOtOriety. There the parallel ceases,
in favor of Guiteau. Mason was
the chosen guard of Guiteau,
placed there to see that nobody
harmed him, including himself 1t
was his sworn duty as an officer of the
UnitedStates army to do this. He was
one of the keepers of Guiteau, with
trust to keep him safely. He violated
that trust. He owed all the duty to
Guiteau that Guiteau owed to the Pres
ident, and the farther duty that he was
tOSave Guiteau from all harm. Let us put
this shooting of Mason in another light,
and its cnOrmity will at once be seen.
Suppose sheriff having the custody of
a prisoner who desired to escape the
disgrace of public execution, and to
deprive the public Of such an example,
should be bribed by the prisoner to cheat
the gallowS and defraud the public of its
rights, by poisoning him-wOuld such
an act be any different from that of
Mason? The brlbe in the one case
might he gold, and IN the other love Of
nOtoriety, and of the commentator
which some unthinking persons are
giving to him, even i'm the public press.
But the act of Mason has wider and
deeper significance. The last resort Of
all governments is to the army; the
army is the last hope of conservatism, of
public order and public peace. All his
tory teaches us that governments have
been overturned by armies-hOw? Be
cause the soldier turned the arms that
were furnished him by the government
upon the government itself. If one
soldier can do that and be sprlauded,
why not any number, or all of them?
The last hope of law, and the execution
of law only, is gone when the soldiers
of the United States army take the exc
cution of the law in their own hands, i'll
violation of their duty and their Osths.
Let us hope that the officers ofthe army,
when the case comes before them, will
see to it by their action that this most
stain upon the fair escutcheOn
OF the army is blotted out by condign
of the offender"