Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1882-03-14

which they cannot be heard, or to con-
domination in their absence.
When in criminal trials insanity is SCI
up as defense. dealing with disorderly
conduct Of the prisoner consistently with
the fair and even handed course OF JUS
tice would, even if the field of discretion
were open to the judge in any case, be
much more embarrassing. The presence
of the accused and the allowance of free
scope to his speech might be of the
greatest value ia determining whether he
was really insane or was feigning. II
insane, he could not be guilty of con-
tempt of court, and of course could not
be lawfully punished for his dlsorderly
conduct. Sentence to punishment for
contempt, therefore, would, so far as the
Judge was concerned, PREJUDICE the very
question at issue; and to treat the &C
cused as mailman would be equally bad,
and tend to accomplish the object OF the
defense. Hence any action OF the Court
in such case beyond restraining physi
cal violence would seem to require the
adoption of one of two opposing hypoihc-
ses, either of which, il carried to its log
ical result, should end the case. The
fact that the prisoner insisted on his own
sanity would not relieve the embarrass-
men;, for really crazy men do that very
frequently.
From whatever point Of view, then,
we examine the course OF the late trial OF
Guiteau, the difficulties, both practical
and theoretical, in dealing with the prs
oner's violence and unseemlinesS Of speech
are seen to be great; and the more we
reflect upon the subject the less disposed
we shall be TO condemn the failure or
or omission of the judge presiding at the
trial to cause the prisoner to be chained,
whipped, gagged, or removed from the
presence of the jury and witnesses during
any part Of the trial. Possibly COM
mitment TO solitary confinement during
a recess, as punishment il sane, and as
discipline ii not sane, might be lawful.
The counsel, the RICH. TO whom the Goa
.,itution secured him, were not his SUBJ
s,itutes. They were, in the language of
the Constitution, to give him assistance.
and their presence would no; deprive him
Of the right existing before the Constltu-
ton to speak in his own defense, subject
TO the limitations we have already mem
toned and it is of infinitely greater con-
sequence TO the safety Of society that such
rights should be preserved unconditional
IL than tina, there should be no insolent
disorder or wicked speeches by person
accused Of great crime.
Long experience has shown that in-
stances of evil or constant speaking by
prisoner on trial, of a really serious and
obstructive nature, are very rare, and they
have never defeated. though they have
sometimes obstructed, the course of JUS
tice.
That it was fully within the compe-
tcnce of the court in this late case, as it
is in all other cases, 10 compel absolute
decorum in the conduct of the persons
attending the trial, is beyond all question,
and we think it is to be regretted that
this was not done to a greater degree
than appears to have been the case. If
after reasonable warning, the Court had
made one or two examples OF persons
guilty Of disorderly or indecorous behav-
Tor, By sentencing them TO proper imPFls-
onment for contempt, all demonstrations
on the part Of the audience would doubt
less have ceased, and the public would
have been taught the valuable lesson that
courts Of justice are not theaters, where
the acting is to be applauded or condemn
ed, as it may strike the various tenn
pers of the beholders.
Nothing is more deeply interesting to
a people. or more intimately connected
with their welfare, than their penal codes
and their procedure in criminal cases. l.
may be said, with substantial accuracy,
that where the criminal laws Of coun-
try are anything like humane and COM
plete, and when they are administered
fairly, all civil and social rights are in
general secured When crimes are care
fully defined and punishments fixed with
precision, and with adequate relation to
the degrees of the enormity of the Of
lenses, property-including the rights If
! labor as well as of accumulated capital
is secure, contracts are enforced, progress
developed, and intelligence prevails. But
the converse of this does not appear to
be true. The Roman civil law was car
ried to a high degree ofphilosophical and
practical perfection, while the Roman
criminal law and its administration con-
tinued to be, in many aspects, simply
atrocious and the same was, to consld'
cradle extent, true of the systems OF
Continental Europe and even OF the COM
mon law of Great Britain in its earlier
history. A large and dangerous proper
ton of all offsnses was drawn into the
fatal vortex of treason, and while the
ruler, or, in republican times, the assem-
blies of the people, by whatever name
they were called, were the tribunals, the
safe,y of those who were the objects Of
dislike or prejudice, was at all times pre-
carlous. Every reader of history knows
how tremendous and fearful were these
engines of oppression; and, indeed, those
accused of offenses otherwise classified
stood little chance Of that free, open and
deliberate justice that is now the chief
glory OF the most highly civilized conn
tries. The often quoted passage in Ter
tullian: 'If the Tiber overflow its banks
if there be a famine or plague If there
be cold, dry, or scorching season
il any public calamity overtake US; the