New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-01-26
THE CHARGE OF JUSTICE COX.

WAsuINGroY, Jan. 25.-Judge Cox, at
3:l5 D. NJ proceeded t. deliver his charge TO the jury
lie began by SAYING that the Constitution provides thai
IN all criminal prosecutions the accused person shall
enoy the rirG OF speedy and public ula by al Impair
nal ln in the state district where the crime snail
have been columitted that Le shall he informed OF the
came and the nature Of the accusation against him;
that he sIaL be confronted with the Witnesses against
hhc; tLat lie shah have compulsory process 10 obtain
wasfes IA his favor anu thai he shall have assistance
OF counsel In Eis defence.
T,s, provisions were intended for the protection Of
The innocent from injustice and oppression and was
only by their faithful observance that quit or Innocence
could be fairly ascertancd Every accused person was
presumed to be innocent until the accusation was
proved with difficulty and trouble The Law had
been administered in the present case the Jurors had
been daily witnesses. 1t was, however, consolation 10
,b,nk tt not one OF those sacred guarantees Of the
Constitution had been violated In the person ct the prs
oner AZ the long chapter OF proof wa, ended The
task Of TIE advocate done; and 1t now rested with
The iurv TO determine the issue between public Justice
and the prisoner tho bar. No one could feel more
keenly than himself the great responsibility OF his duties
aud he felt that he could only discharge the by close ad
berence the law laid down by its highest authorities
Before proceeding further lie wished 10 notice MI in
oident which had taken place pending the recent ar
ment The prisoner had frequently TAKEN occasion to
proclaim that public opinion as evidenced by the press
md correspoudence. was IL his favor Those declare
ons copll not have been prevented except by tho pro
cess Of gaging the prsuner ANY suggestion that the
iury could be Influenced by such lswless gathering OF
the prisoner would have seemed TO him absurd and lac
shoud have that lac insulting The intelligence OF
the Jury ii he warned them not to regard it, COun
sci for the prosecution had felt necessary however In
the final argument, intcrpose contradiction 10 such
statements; and exception had been taken on
the part OF the prisoner TO the form IL
which that effort was made. For the sole
purpose Of purging the record Of Objectionable mat
WI hlPl al heeI
.ad On either side to public excitement
tonsvspspcr opinion not To be regarded by tie jury
The indictment charged the defendant with having
murdered James A. Garfield, and II was the duty Of the
Court to explain the nature Of the crime charged Muir
der WA committed where person OF sound memory aud
dscret,on uulawfully killed reasonable being In the
peaee Of the United states with malice afOrethought
n had TO be proved first that the death was caused y
the act Of the accused person. and further that 1t
cansod with malice afOrethOnght. That dld not mean,
however that The Government haG TO prove any III will
or hatred on part Of the accused person toward the
doo.ssed nersOn. Whenever "a homicide shown
% have been committed without lawfal Authority,
and with deliberate intent II was sufficiently proved 10
have beea with malice afofethought, and malice
was not dsproved by showing that the accused person
had no personal VIII 70 the deceased person, and that
ne Killed linn from other motyesas for Instance, rob
~ or through mistaktng bin for another or jas
claimed IL this case 10 produce pubHc dement, il IL
could be shown that the killing occurred In heat OF
pason or under proyocatOn then 1t would appear that
there wss lao preInedita,d attempt and, Therefore no
malice aforehought and that would reduce the crime TO
granddaughter II hardly necessary, however, TO
say that nothing OF that kind in the present
GUiTEAU GUILTY OF MURDER OR INNOCENT
The Jury would have To say either that the defendant
WAS guilty murder that he innocent Ia order
"a the crime OF murder the assassin must have
n ,sasouaby sane mind. Ia technical terms, he must
he Of sound mind, memory aud discretion" An IRE
.nonsiDly insane man cO4ld not commit murder. II he
os aboripg under a disease of the mental faculties 10
.ucb m extent that he did not know what he was dJng
or 5id 10, know IL was wrong then he was wanting IN
I'll scund mind, memory and di eTcton that was a
81 the definition Of murder In the next iIace,
svery defendant presumed innocent uull INC aeon
sstof against him established by proof Ia lie
seyt nlace notwithstanding tuH presumption OF mhO
nsnce N was equally true that defendant was pre-
,ns1 10 be sane and have been 80 St the time The
or3me = a. committed 1hst tt0 say that the Govern
at q, ~ not bound 10 show at1rmatYt!, as part OI
~ proofs that the defendant was sane. AZ ~,
ss,dty vs. the exception, aud as the majority OF
.n re zane the law presumed the latter conan non oil
sr.ry ns n until some shown 10 DeleNe 10
d. contTry The burden wSs therefore on the dbieha
sa Who set up insanity as an excuse io1 cS' W O'0