The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1882-01-26
THE FINALSCgNEs.
Charge to the JuFy-The VerdIet-Ths
Actions OF the Assassin.

ActlOhA OI tne AhklSsIus
WASHINGTON, January 25.-Judge Cox
at S:15 p. NJ, proceeded to deliver his
charge to the jury. He commenced by
saying that the constitution provides that
in ali criminal prosecutions TIE accused
shall enjoy the. right Of speedy and pub.
lie trial by an impartial jury in the State
or district where the crime shall have been
committed, that he stall be informed o.
the cause and nature of the accusation
against him; that he shall be confronted
with witnesses against him; that he shall
have a compulsory process 10 obtain wit
nesses in his favor, and that he shall have
the assistance Of counsel in his defense.
These provisions were intended for the
protection OF the innocent from Injustice
and oppression, and It was only by their
faithful observance that guilt or Innocence
could be fairly ascertained. Every accused
person was presumed 10 be innocent until
the accusation was proved. With what
difficulty and trouble the law has been nd.
ministered in the present case the iuror
have been daily witnesses. 1t was. how.
ever, a consolation to think that not one oI
those sacred guarantees Of the constitution
had been violated in the person Of the &C,
cused. At last the long chapter Of proof
was ended; the task Of the advocate was
done and it now rested with the Jury TO de,
termine the issue between public Justice
and the prisoner ut the bar.
No one could feel more keenly than him.
self the great responsibility of his duties
and he felt that be could only discharge
them by close adherence to the law as ind
down by its highest authorities. Before
proceeding further he wished TO notice
some incidents which had taken place
pending the recent argument. The pris.
oner had frequently taken occasion TO bro.
claim that public opinion, as evidenced by
the press and correspondence, was in bis
favor These declarations could not have
been prevented except by the process d
gagging the prisoner, aud the suggestion
that the jury could be influenced by such
gathering ofthe prisoner would have Seemed
to him abused, and he should have felt thai
he was insulting the intelligence oil the
jury II he had warned them not TO regard
it. The counsel for the prosecution had
felt 1t necessary, however, in the final
argument to interpose q contradiction to
such statements, and an exception has been
taken on the part OF the accused TO the
form in which that effort was made. Fo,
the purpose OF purging the record of any
objectionable matter | should simply say
that anything which has been said on
either side in reference to public excite
ment or to newspaper opinion was 10 be re.
garded by the Jury.
The indictment charged the defendant
with having murdered James A, Garfield
and it was the duty OF the Court to explain
the nature ot the crime charged. Muir.
der was committed where person OF sound
mind and discretion uniawfuIty Killed
a reasonable being in the peace OF the
United States, with malice aforethought
1t had to be proved first that death
was caused by the act Of the accused, and
turther, that It was caused with malice
aiorethought; that did not mean, however
that the Government had 10 prove
any i'll will or hatred on the mar,
Of the accused toward the deceased
Wherever homicide was shown to have
been committed without lawful authority
and with deliberate intent, il was sufIi.
GENTLY proved TO have been malice afore,
thought, and malice was not disproyed by
showing that the accused had no personal
~ will 10 the deceased, and that he killed
him from other motives, us for instance
robbery, or through mistaking him foI
another, or, as claimed in this case, TO pro.
duce public benefit. II it could be shown
that the killing occurred in tho heat Of
P!Ssioh, or under any pr0vocatton, then II
would appear that there was no premedi,
tatton and therefore no malice aforethoupbt
and that would reduce the crime to man.
slaughter. It was hardly necessary, how.
ever, to say there was nothing OF that kind
in the present case. The Jury would have
TO say that either the defendant was guilty
OF murder or that he was innocent. In
order to constitute the crime OF murder the
assassin must have reasonably sane
mind. In technical terms he must be q
sound mind, memory and discretion. An
irresponsible insane man could not com.
NIT murder. II he was laboring under .
disease OF the mental faculties to such IN
extent that he did not know what he va.
doing, or did not know It was wrong, ther
he was wanting in that sound mind
memory and discretion, that was part o
the definition Of murder.
In the next place every defendant wa
presumed TO be innocent until the accuse
ton against him was established by proof
In the next place, notwithstanding thi
presumption Of innocence, It was equal,
true that the defendant was presumed to 5
sane, andto have been 50 at the time tn
crime was committed; that is TO say, III
Government was bound to show afirm1
| lively, as part Of its proof, that the deien
dant was sane. As insanity was exceE
tional, as the majority Of men are sane, III
law presumed the latter condition over
man until some reason was shown TO bI
/. lieye the contrary.
The burden was. therefore, on the d.
fendant, who set up insanity as an excus
for the crime, To produce proof in Ii
first instance to show that the presumtio
Twas mistaken rs far Is II relited to Il