The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1882-05-23
GARFIELD'S ASSASSIN.
Justice James Announces the De-
cision of the Court in Banc.
THE COURT UNANIMOUS IN OVER
RULING THE EXCEPTIONs-AN NEW
TRIAL DENIED.

WASHINGTON, May 22.- The announcement
that the decision of the court in banc upon the
petitions in Guiteau's case would be read this
morning attracted an unusual gathering at the
circuit court at Washington. The space with
in the bar was occupied by members, among
whom were District Attorney Corkhlll and Mr
Davdge representing the prosecution, and
Charles A. Reed for the defence.
At 1918 the Judges took their places. JUS
tice James said "I am instructed by the court
to announce the decision in the case OF the
United States against Charles j. Guiteau upon
exceptions to judgment of the criminal court.
He then read from manuscript the decision
of the court and after reciting the crime for
which the accused was tried, passed to the con
sideration of the question OF jurisdiction. The
Indictment was drawn under section 5339 OF
the revised statutes of the United States, and
although Indictment under this section had
always been sustained by the courts of this dis
trict it was deemed best to review the question
in this connection, inasmuch as this iss1e had
been raised in this case The application OF
this section was sustained after a full and care
full examination of its language and evident
intent
Justice James then proceeded to review au-
thorities pertinent to the exception raised By
the defence that the courts of this district
could not take jurisdiction because the blow
was struck in one county and death ensued IN
another. By t % early authorities there was
could be enquired into when the fatal blow
was struck; that the murder Subsisted IN the
fatal blow and consequently was committed
where the fatal blow was struck. 1t was only
when new trials were introduced that juries
were no longer allowed to find verdict upon
their own knowledge, and under George Nv
juries were summoned from the courts where
the felony was committed. The confusion
which at one time existed on the question
where the trial of the felony should take place
when the blow was given in one county and
death occurred in another, arose from the un-
certainty whether the crime could be consider
ed as completed in either county The COM
mon law seemed to have settled the principle
that the crime was committed when the fatal
blow was struck.
However no such traditions or anachron-
isms as are found in the common law were
adopted by the constitution of the United
States when it adopted trial by jury. The
functions of our juries are TO hear witnesses
and to occupy all the ground covered by the
jurisdiction of the court. In this case the ap-
plication, and under this law the crime of MUIR
der is definitely defined and its punishment
prescribed, and where the terms of our statute
law are perfectly clear and well defined there
was no intention on the part OF Congress that
the courts should go back to the common law
for enlightenment The navy yards, forts, ar
senals, dock yards and the District of Colum-
bia were received from the Jurisdiction OF
federal law, and the ordinary a d reasonable
meaning of this federal statute 5339 meant pro-
lection from the crime of murder, and the
simple question here is whether this crime was
in this case committed within the time, mean
ing and intent of the statute. Upon this point
the court were of opinion that if the act of de-
fendant achieved murder, then the crime was
clearly cognizable under the federal statutes
by the courts of the district.
Summing up upon this question Judge James
said, eve hold therefore that the criminal
court had Jurisdiction to try, convict and sem
tence the defendant, and we now come to the
inquiry whether an error was committed upon
the trial"
After briefly discussing the alleged error in
the questions put to expert witnesses Judge
James said, eve find no error in the admls-
sion of this testimony, or in the ruling OF the
court upon the admission of Mrs. Dummies
evidence"
The remaining exceptions discussed by
Judge James were to the introduction by the
prosecution of evidence tending to show acts OF
immortality on the part of the defendant. This
he held was strictly rebuttal testimony and
was clearly no error. Upon the point that the
court below had failed to charge the jury that
the test of insanity was whether defendant had
the power to resist as well as to discrim mate
between right and wrong, Judge James said:
I'VE hold that the evidence did not call for
any ruling upon this point and consequently
there could be no error on the part OF the
COURT
The last exception was the day fixed for the
execution, which, in the opinion OF the court,
did not constitute an error.
Judge James said that although the court was
unanimous in THE views set forth, there were
some questions which it was desirable to dis
cuss more fully than could be we'll done in the
opinion. He had read and Justice Hagner had
consented to discuss those questions IN sep
arate opinion
Justice Hagner said although of the opinion
that nothing is necessary to be added to the
opinion of Justice James, still as so mvch
stress has been placed by the distinguished
counsel for the defence upon the law as it ex-
listed in Maryland when the federal statute
was passed, and upon the claim that under the
law as it then existed this crime could not
have been tried and punished here, L have
deemed it of consequence to show just what
that law was. He then proceeded at some
length to review the Maryland law, and held
that under the Maryland act of 1855 the indict-
ment would have been good in this district. 1t
appears passing strange said Justice Hagner
that the law should appear to be at variance
with common sense. Suppose that 1t mad nap
pened that boundary line should have been
run between the theatre where Lincoln was
shot and the house where he died, it would
have been most repugnant to common sense TO
have raised the issue that his murderer could
not have been tried because the crime was not
complete in either Jurisdiction. The law un-
doubtedly contemplated the trial and punish
ment where the felony was committed and the
murder was assuredly committed where the
fatal blow was struck.
Chief Justice Cartier then made the follow
ing announcement: The opinions which have
been uttered are the unanimous opinions OF the
court that new TRAILS denied and the judg-
ment below affirmed in this case. After which
the court was adjourned.