Morning journal and courier., 1882-01-26

, was breaking with bloody hands into tl bonds of life. He did it that over his gray (if grave he is to have) will be written b
 mankind in dark letters The grave of
 coward, an ingrate, a swindler, an assassin : The notoriety which he has sougt
 is to be found in that inscription He di
 not know what we do that even though by lingering death the President yielded up hi
 life the hand that aimed that pistol at his Tiff
 at the same time wrote Gf I may be permit
 ted to borrow an illustration from Attorne General Brewster on the occasion to which
 refer of the dedication of the statue of Alex
 ander Hamilton ill some respects akin in it
 reminders): When the assassin pointed hi
 weapon at the life of the patriot, even thougl
 he did not know it, he wrote the name ot
 James A. Garfield in characters of living
 light upon the Armament, there to endure as
 radiant as if every letter were traced in Hv-
 ing stars
 During the delivery of the above Guitear
 kept very still, but watched Porter closely al
 the while. As the counsel concluded, Gui
 teau said 'That's all very fine, Mir. Por
 ter. Put me in as patriot and you are cor
 rect Leave out all that bosh."
 Mir. Scoville arose and said he did not
 know that the court had intended to charge
 the jury to-day, but he and his associate
 counsel hoped he would not do so until to.
 morrow. Judge Porter said he had hastenec
 his argument to 8 close with the understand l ing that the court would charge immediately
 MT. Scoville said he had sent to the bench an l incomplete memorandum of points he want.
 ed to have charged upon, but he hoped to 1 have chance for further consultation be.
 fore the jury should be charged. Colonel Corkhill said all the points of law had been argued and the case now rested with the jury ] and the court. Judge Cox said he would consult the convenience of the jury in the TT II l low jurors and presently said they would listen to it at once. The window shades were raised, and at 316 p. m. Judge Cox be- 1 gan his charge.
 The court began by pointing out the pro- | visions of the Constitution in such cases and expressed the belief that not one of those 1 sacred guarantees had been violated. If the l accused was guilty of the crime charged no 1 one deserved the benefits of these provisions ! less. If innocent no one had more need of l them. He referred to the repeated declara- 1 tions by the prisoner as ts the weight of pub- l lie opinion being in his favor and he told the l jury that he would not insult them by warn- 1 ing them not to be influenced by the lawless gabble of the prisoner in regard to the opin- l ion of the public or the press. To convict \ of murder malice aforethought must be proved. To do this it was not necessary to prove i'll will. It was hardly necessary to ! say that there was nothing in this case. to make it manslaughter. The pris- one 9ner was noadt either ga guilty na.t?fn of mur narrowed down to one of insanity or as to 1 whether the accused knew his deed to be a wrong one. A man was supposed to be in nocent until he was proved guilty. But with regard to insanity it was different The gov. ernment was not compelled to show that the defendant was sane. It rested with the de- fense to show that their client was insane. ! Tripoo boJ +hroa aInponY1tc-tha kjllin@ poalioo aforethought and responsibility of mind. The prisoner was entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt should ground be found for the same on any point. There was little need of comment on the evidence in this case except on the one point that the prisoner did the shooting, that the shot produced death and that there was malice aforethought. If the accused was responsible man it could scarcely be gainsaid that the testimony filled all the requirements to prove murder except for the plea of insan- ity. Was the accused of sound memory and discretion as 1t is technically expressed i? The defense of insanity had been abused. It 1 was necessarily regarded with suspicion. The court proceeded to define different forms of 1 insanity in which all exercise of reason was wanting. A man did not always become irresponsible by being insane. He might be sane on the subject of his crime and insane ] in some other respects. The outgolngs of ! judicial minds on the subject of the degree and character of insanity had not always been satisfactory nor in accordance with the knowledge of medical people The greatest possible view of persons life was relevant l In ascertasning his saRity. Letters written spontaneously were good indication of the l mental condition, and insanity of ancestors was to 8 certain extent pertinent. The jury were to satisfy themselves as to the condition of the prisoner for number of years before 1 tba was tbOIICht nf tO whether his dinary state was such that he could not dis ! tinguish between right and wrong. If so he i was an irresponsible lunatic. They should sat- l isfy themselves as to whether if another man 1 had committed the crime the accused would i have appreciated it's enormity. It was the reliance of the defense that the accused was 1 laboring under insane delusion which so 1 possessed him that it incapacitated him from l distinguishing between right and wrong 1n l this particular case. The court cited an enli- nent British opinion that one of the con- monest instances of insanity defenses was l that the accused had been acting under a di- l rect command It was not always insane 1 people who had delusions. Sane people had I them. All absurdities had their supporters, l who became so either through mental disease 1 or perverted moral sentiment. What must ] be known in this case was the condition of 1 the prisoners mind at the time of the act. It l makes no difference what was his condition 1 before after the act. They had heard a 1 great deal of evidence respecting the peculi- arities of the prisoner during his life The 1 only value of such evidence was that it might 1 tend to prove liability to delusion. He re- l ferred to the prisoners own utterances at the l time of the shooting, showing that he had 1 made up his mind that the President had con- spired with Secretary Blaine to ruin the party l and must be removed. The testimony of 1 General Reynolds showed that the prisoner ! had poa6a O similar uttaranna af fha lima of 1 General Reynolds interview with him. The 1 prisoner had read an address to the American | people, in which he reiterated the same utter l ances. On the following day he wrote another similar address. They were to consider if 1 these utterances correctly represented the prisoners feeling at the time of the shooting. 1 If it was so, 1t did not answer any judicial description of an insane delusion that he had
 read His conclusion that President Garfield had betrayed his party was the result of reasoning. A man might believe an
 act to be right and yet know it
 would be contrary to law. A man might reason himself in the expediency and patriotic character of political assassination, l but to endeavor to shield himself behind that belief as defence would be simply mon- strous If the idea that the President had | betrayed his party and must be removed
 were the whole of his opinion, it furnishes
 only one of those vagaries of opinion for | Wh1cn the law naQ no COleraGlOn Auu WHICH
 afforded no excuse for crime. While the ac
 cused party could not make evidence for
 himself by his declarations subsequent to his
 crime, he could make evidence against him
 self by his admissions. Speaking of the con-
 ceit of inspiration, the Judge said that if it
 was a mere belief founded upon reasoning, ii
 was not an insane delusion. The theory of
 the prosecution was that the crime was i'm
 pelled by revenge and that he made pre-
 tence of inspiration until he learned his
 crime was denounced. It was true that the
 term inspiration" did not appear in the pa
 pers first written by the defendant nor in any
 paper before the one he wrote
 on the 18th of July. It was
 said in one paper that the shooting
 of the President was an fact of God, 'though
 whether he meant an act of God in the sense
 that all events ordered by God or moi
 was not clear. It became necessary to ex-
 anime the case on the assumption that the
 prisoners testimony was true and to ascer
 tain the nature of this inspiration. Dr. Strong testified that in jail the prisoner ha6
 laughed at the idea of his being inspired b,
 God. Dr. Mcdonald said he had told hin
 the act was conceived by himself, but that he
 had given the Almighty chance to interfere
 if it was wrong, while to Dr. Gray he had
 said the idea had come to him first and As