The new North-west. [volume] (Deer Lodge, Mont.) 1869-1897, 1882-02-03
THE APPEAL FOR A NEW TRIAL.

Guiteau's counsel are moving for new |
trial, the principal point being as TO Juris- |
diction, President Garfield having been shot
in the District of Columbia and having died
In the State of New Jersey. The New Jer-
sey Revised Statutes provide that If person
die within the State from wound inflicted
out Of 1t, the person who inflicted the wound
can be tried, convicted, and hanged in New
Jersey.
This suggests the salient point upon which
the defense in the Guiteau case will rely for
new trial or q reversal on appeal. The
State of New Jersey as a sovereignty could
certainly pass such law as that stated above
and give its courts jurisdiction where death
occurred within Its territorial limits, but
certainly could not take away the jurisdic-
ton of the United States, when the ofiense
was committed, or at least put in motion, in
the District of Columbia. We can readily
see from the bill of exceptions that the de-
Tense will base It's motion for a new trial,
LIST, upon the form Of the verdict Of the jury,
and, I'd, upon the jurisdiction of the court.
As to the fiji It gsound it may not be unin-
teresting 10 note that Sec. $3.50, Revised Stat
utes of the United States, afiixes the punish
ment for murder by death only, and does not
divide the crime as is usual in the different
States Of our Union, into murder in the first
and second degrees and with different PEN
alties. Section 5c41 does, though, define
manslaughter, really making ii aconstltuent
part of the crime of murder and for which a
party could be convicted under the charge In
the Indictment for murder. If such is the
case, will the verdict in Guiteau's case, We
the jury find the defendant guilty as indlct-
ed" warrant the court in indicting any
greater punishment than that for man
slaughter? Byanaloyy, our Supreme Court,
in the case of the Territory VS.. Stears, I'd
Montana 324, decided IL would not. The
same yIewis taken in California, as in Peo-
pie VS.. Marquis, Is Cal. IS and People vs..
Campbell, 40 Cal. 100. The Iowa Supreme
Coul. has decided The same way. Also Ohio,
Michigan, Missouri, Texas, Mississippi, aud
many other States, but they mainly base the
grounds of their respective dcci ions upon
statutory provision requiring the jury to
specify in their verdict the degree of the Of
tense Of which they find the defendant gull
ty. These various decisions, though, could
only be used by way Of analogy in the Gui-
teau case, as they are only 10 the eject that
where two or more degrees of one general
oiIense are provided for by statute, then the
jury must specify tue degree, and the court
is not warranted, upon general verdict, in
sentencing the criminal for the higher degree
The jurisdiction of the court that tried
Guiteau seems also TO be rather difhcult
, question for the consideration Of the court
on account of President Garfield dying inthe
State of New Jersey. Mr.. Bishop, in his
work on criminal law, section IS, says
: "The crime In a felonious homicide consists
in the infection of the blo,o and that the ACT
of dying, which is performed by the party
injured, does not enter into the crime IN any
measure" The Supreme Court OF New Jer
sew has decided in accordance with the above
quotation, but that of Michigan has decided
the other way, IN that where patty shot an
other in Canada and the injured party dice
= in Michigan, the Supreme Court of Michi
gan held their State Court had Jurisdiction
TO try aud convict, although the infection 81
the wound which caused death took place
: within the domain of another government
The States of the Union seem 10 be arrayet
against each other about equally and without
any apparent difference as to the culture aRt
ability Of their respe tive courts.
= The Supreme Court of the United state
"the Federal Courts have no cognizauce of I
case where the mortal s'roRe was gtsea OF
the high seas and the death occurred Oh
Q shore in foreign country"
This case would seem TO indicate tha
dea.h was one of the essential clemens o
u jurisdiction in cases Of homicide, and ii 81
that the court which tried Guteau had NJ
jurisdiction.
, We believe though in genera! the PROPOSE
II ton cited from Mr.. Bishop will prevail, ant
i that Guiteau will meet his just deserts, i
= there 10 any such thing as his receiving then
l. by being hanged. If either Of these propo
sitions as are maintained by the COUNSEL TO
o the defense, should meet with approval II
II the Appellate Court, tne American people
9 would feel that our judicial system was
mockeIy to protect criminals end our legis
J tors neglectful Of their duty in not prescrio
' ing the form of a verdict for the jury AM
jurisdiction when death follows abroa'
: from a wound infected in the District o
Columbia