Daily Los Angeles herald., 1882-02-04
Point Of Doubt In auiteau's Case.

The questions of fact IN 6ulteau'e
case are irrevocably settled unless
there proves to have been some
error Of law in the judicial proceed.
ings against him. II the Supreme
Court Of the District OF Columbia
had jurisdiction to try him, and
the trial was in all respects lawful
ly conducted, the verdict just rem
dered will be final, and the judg.
mept of death against the prisO ner
will doubtless be carried into ef-
feet.
His counsel propose, however, to
have the proceedings reviewed by
the full bench of Judges, and the
most serious question presented
for consideration on the appeal will
be whether the offence committed
by the pri' Oner is legally punisha.
BILE as murder In the District Of
Columbia.
As soon as President Garfield
died, the fact that his death had
occurred outside the territorial
limits of the District suggested
grave doubts as to the authority of
any court sitting In Washington to
try Guiteau for murder. The sub.
| ject WAS widely and carefully dis
cussed in the press, and the result
Of the discussion was simply to
strengthen the doubts entertained
ct first.
Nevertheless, the counsel for the
gov ernme ent resolved to proceed in
the District Of Columbia. Weeks
and months have been devoted to
the trial Of the case, and at the
conclusion this came question of
jurisdiction remains as perplexing
as it was at the outset.
It is true that Judge Cox passed
upon 1t adversely to the defence;
but it Is likewise true that in so
doing he disregarded the authority
of the former Circuit Court Of the
United States for the District Of
Colum bia, Of which his own tribu-
nal is the successor.
In 1909 q man named Elsden was
indicted in the District of Colum-
bia for granddaughter. The mortal
blow was indicted at Alexandra,
then within the limits Of the Dis
trict. The victim died In the State
Of Maryland. After verdict of
guilty, the prisoner was dis
charged. The Court, of which
William Cranch was then Chief
Judge, held, In the language of the
official report, "that as the death
happened In st. Mary's county, In
Maryland, although the fatal
stroke was given here, the judg-
ment must be for the prisoner, the
offence not being complete within
our Jurisdiction"
Is there anything which makes
the law on this subject In the Dis
trict Of Columbia any different
now from the law thus laid down
in 1909?
It has been said that certain
statutes Of the United Statas have
changed the rule. We examined
the laws cited in support OF this
contention, when the question of
Jurisdiction arose, and came to the
conclusion that they were inapplic-
able to such . crime as Guiteau's.
They are intended to affect only
such offences as are crimes against
the Federal Government, both in
the place where the criminality be-
gins and In the place where it ends.
But although murder is crime
against the Federal Government at
Washington. 1t is not 30 in New
Jersey, where President Garfield
died.
There is nothing in the reported
language of Judge Cox to indicate
that he sought to justify his disre.
gard of the rule in the Bladen
case by reference to the au-
thority Of any statute. He
seems to have felt at liberty
to consider the question irrespsct-
i've of that decision. "He ex.
pressed his conviction that the
English authority was decidedly
in favor of jurisdiction where the
blow had taken place, and that in
this country there was q strong ar.
ray Of authority In the same direc.
ti0D." But why single Judge
should thus practically override q
prior decision of the full bench on
the precise point of law before him
is not sufficiently plain.
It is possible that he may have
asked the opinion Of his brother
Judges, and that they agreed to re-
verse the rule in Bladen's case.
Otherwise, Guiteau's fate is by. no
means certain; for II the law of
that decision prevails in the Dis.
trict of Columbia to-day, he is not
puniahable there for the murder Of