The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-02-02
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS.



blood man." etc lle became 80 yiolcn
aud noisy that II was with greatest din
Guilty the bail'lls could q1let him. The IN
terrnptiOns of the prisoner Increased IN
violence and frequency, TILL reinforced by
The objections from SCOyllle, the calnOr aud
din Tor moment resemblcd small Babel.
Judge Porter continued his argument
amid continued struggle 10 make his
voice heard amidst the clamOr and vile
abuse of prisoner. He closed at 3
O'Clock, and IN conclusion said " lie who
has ordained that human life be shielded
by human law from human crime presides
over your deliberations, and the verdict
which you will give to-day will be recorded
where we are to come AZ the great day. |
trust the verdict will be prompt, and will
uphold the majesty of the law and reflect
credi: upon your, integrity, and that the
warming shall reach all lands that political
murder shall not be permitted to ayenge
political wrongs or settle political dis
putes. | trust you Will so dis
charge your duty that by your action
ut least political assassination shall find no
sanction to make precedent hereafter, and
i hope the time will come when by inter-
matte nal agreements the law shall be so
strengthened that political assassins shall
find no refuge on the face of the earth.
The assassin of Garfield knew that,
AGAINST law of the God he was breaking with
bloody hands into the house of life, but he
did not know that over his grave, il grave
he is to have would be wr tten this in
scrption: The grave OF the cowardly assas-
sin, the swindlcr and the murderer
He did not know when Garfield yielded up
his life, that the hand that aimed That PTS
toll against his life wrote the nameof James
A. Garfield in characters of living light
upon the armament as radiant as ii every
letter was traced in living stars"
Judge Porter concluded his speech late
this afternoon, when it was suggested that
court adjourn until tomorrow. Judge Cox
submitted to the jury the question whether
they would prefer to remain and Lar his
charge to day or wait until tomorrow.
They chose to hear the charge at once.
Judge Cox accordingly delivered his charge,
substantially as follows:
Judge Cox then read his charge to the
Jury. He commenced by saying
that the constitution provides that in all
criminal prosecutions that the accused shall
enjoy the right of speedy and public trial
bv an impartial jury in the State and dis
trict where the crime shall have been COM
mitted; that he shall be informed of the
cause and nature of the accusation against
him that he shall be confronted with
witnesses against him; that he shall
have compulsory process to obtain wit
nesses in his favor, and that he shall have
the assistance of counsel in his defense.
These propositions were intended for the
protection of the innocent from in
justice and oppression, and 1t was
only by their faithful observance that
guilt or innocence could be fairly ascer-
tanned. Every accused person was pre-
sumed to be innocent until the accusation
was proved. With what difficulty and
trouble the law had been administered in
the present case, the jurors had been daily
,tritn If n
think that not one of these sacred
guarantees of the Constitution had been
violated in the person of the accused. AT
last the long chapter OF proof was ended,
the task of The advocate was done, and it
, 1iGWfested with the jury to determine the
issue between public justice and the pris-
oner at the bar No one could feel more
sibility of I, ibis duties, and he felt
that he could only discharge
them by close adherence to the law as laid
down by its highest authorities. Before
proceeding further, he wished to noucc an
incident which had taken place. Pending
the recent argument the prisoner
had frequently taken occasion to
proclaim that public opinion as
evidenced by the prass and his correspond
ence was in his favor. These declarations
could not have been prevented except by
the process of gagging the prisoner. Any
suggestion hat the jury could be influenoe a
by such lawless mouthing Of the prisoner
would have seemed to him absurd,
and he should have felt
that he was insulting the intelligence of ire
Jury if he had warned them not to regard y
Counsel for the prosecution had felt 1t nee
essary, however, in the final argument, to
interpose contradiction to such statement,
and an exception had been taken on the
part of the accused to the
form in which that effort was
made. For the sole purpose of purging
the record of any Objectionable matter he
should simply say that anything which had
been said ON either side IN reference to the
public excitement or to newspaper opinion
was not to be regarded by the jury.
The indictment charges defendant with
having murdered James a. Garfield and it
was the duty of the Court tS explain the
nature of the crime charged. Murder was
committed where person of sound memo
nv and discretion unlawiully killed
a reasonable being, against the peace
and dignity of the United States,
with malice aforethought. 1t had
to be proved, first, that death was caused by
the act of the accused, and further that II
was caused with malice aiorethought; that
did not mean, however, that the govern
ment had To prove any iil-wlli or hatred on
the part of the accused toward the deceased
Whenever homicide was shown to have
been committed with lawful authority,
and with d. libcratn intent it was
sufficiently proved 10 hrre been done with
malice alorethougn', ari malice was not
dlsproveI by showing the accused had
no personal illwili To- ia. deceased, and that
he killed hun from otrer motives, as for
instance, robbery, or through installing
him ioranother. or as claimed IN this case,
toproduce public benefit. IL should be
shown that the killing occurred in the heat
of passion or under prOvocation; then IL
would appear that there was no premedita-
ted attempt. and therefore no malice atore-
thought and that would reduce the crime
TO manslaughter 1t was hardly necessary
however, TO say that there was nothing Of
that kind in the present case. jury
would have to say either that the defend
ant was guilty OF murder or that lie was in
nOpent In order to constitute the crime
of muir Ter the assassin mus; have reason
ably sound mind-in technical terms,
he must be of sound mind,
memory and discretion. An ir-
responsihlc, insane man could not COM
nit murder. II he was iaboring under dis
ease ofthe mental facilities to such an ex-
tent that ht did not know what he was
doing or did not know IL was wrong, then
he was waiting in Shat sound nina, mem
orv aud discretion that was part Of the
definition Of murder.
In the next place, every defendant was
presumed innocent until the accusation.
against him was established Dy proof
In the next place, notwithstanding this
presumution OF innocence. it was equally
true that the defendant was presumed 10 be
sane and t. have been 50 at the time when
the crime was committed; that is to say that
the government was not bound TO show al
Tentatively as a part Of its proofs that the
defendant was sane. As insanity was an
exception and a. a majority OF men are
sane' The law presumed the latter cendiii0i
of every man until some reason was shown
10 believe 20 the contrary. The
burden was therefore on the defendant,
who set I'D ifsafity a. an excuse iOr
crime. To produce proofs in the
first instance 20 show that that presump-
ton was mistaken 80 far as q related 20 The