The daily gazette., 1882-01-12
guaEe Cox. Deet.Ion.

Judge Cox Yesterday gave an elabor-
ate opinion on the Law questions which
the counsel n tue case nave Deen dis
euss.lg for several days. He overrzles
the plea 10 the jurisdiction by holding
ina, Guitea1 Il properly tried for mur-
der in The Distinct Of Colum bis, decides
that the legal test Of respCn,ltiliiy j.
Sbethsr The accused a. the time OF com.
hitting the act knew the differe nee be-
tween right ard TTonk with respect 70
such act and defines the rule ofsFldence
70 be tuA. 1t tue jury have a reasonable
doubt OF the GU OF the accused they
must give him the benefit off.
ln explaining the test OF responBi bill.
ity 1dge Cox draws a distinction BE-
tween the capacity 10 distinguish be-
tween TigLt and wrong and tue ab,nty
% know whether or not an act Is IN vic
Iation OF the lsH OF the land. a man
may know tia what he does Is again.
the Law OF the land, but his reason may
be SO far affected that he Is incapahle
Of knowing that the act is wrong. 10
such case he Is not criminally responsl.
Ule. Under this rule If the iurg find
that when g ulteau shot the President
he knew what be was doing and knew
| that It was contrary to ths law OF the
| and he Is responsible, "unless In con-
sequence OF lhsaAe mental delusIous or
| other mental disorders q was lsboring
| under such defect Of reason "A To he Ino
| capable Of understanding the obligation
| Of the law Of the land and The dutv and
/ necessity of obedience TO 1t, aud Of m
! 1eTstanding that his act was wrong he.
/ cause II was in violation OF the law :"
| Comm z 10 tie more speclf questions
hat have been raised D. the Trdaest ot
| counsel Jddge Cox rules that II q oiteau
knew be was violating tbs law Is no
excuse that he believed he w-s doing a
! public good even If such belief actually
existed. Nor would belief that be a.
Inspired excuse bim II ~ b belief b. fIr
result Of bis own reasoning ami refl-c-
ton. To exempt him from Tesp1uslblI
ity the fancied inspiration must be an
insane urlusl9n which has taken DOS.
| session OF Ills mind not as Tesnit OF his
own rFh ecfions but independently Of
bis own Viii and reason and with snch
| force as to deprive him of the degree al
reason necessary to distinguish between
right aud wrong as TO the particular
act"
AS to whether,a perso7 ls res 5onsible
| who - driven by an irresistible to do an
act which he knows 10 be wrong Judge
Cox declines to lAy down any rule. f5I
the very good reason that there ia M
such case before tn Court Thare ia pr
| evidence that ulleau's tree agency wa,
destroyed exc pt his own dselaratious
and 80 far from claiming that he wa.
driven 10 do what he knew 20 be wronr
he has always Insisted that the act wa.
right.
Ine test Of rosponsib lity laid down by
Judge Cox IS substantially that ciailnel
0y the prOsecu ion. II fixes responsi
ollty where there is capacity to ,tln
guish between right and wrong as Il
ne act comm tied, and 1t REQUIRES !
nestal disease destructive of such capa,
city IN order to constitute irrespop.lbll.
ity. Rightly applied 1t is about as wei
calculated as any test yet formulated Ia
hold the guilty and shield the Innocent
10 ruling that iu order TO convicr the
Jury must be atlstied of the SANITY nj
the prisoner beyond reasonable d6uht
Jqdg7 Cox simply follaws a fnndamen.
al principle of criminal j1rispruieDce
though one not recognized in ali Of ouI
courts.