Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1882-05-11
The GUITEAU CASE.
Conclusion of Reeds Argument
he Claims.

S,ccial Dispatch % the Register.
WASHINGTON, May lO.-The court room
was crowded again, soon after opening, and
Mr.. Chas. H. Reed proceeded with his arsu-
mcnt in the Guiteau case, claiming that
the crime for which the defendant was con-
victcd was not begun in any judicial dis
trict or circuit of the United States as reCog-
nized by law, and it was completed within
the jurisdiction of State. IL the deceased
had died in the District of Columbia the Of
fence would have been against the United
States and not against any State. II the
defendant had shot the deceased at Elberon,
in the State of New Jersey, and he had
died there, it would have been an offence
against the State of New Jersey and not
against the United States. and no United
States court would have had any jurisdIc-
ton over it. This vas evident. Suppose the
defendant had shot the deceased at Elberon,
i'm the State OF New Jersey, instead OF the
District of Columbia. and he had been
brought into the District OF Columbia and
died there, would any United States court
in New jersey in such a case have jurisdic-
ton to try him? Clearly not Without
some act of Congress the Criminal Court of
the District of Columbia would not in such
n case have any jurisdiction.
He.then proceeded to argue that the SEN
tence was void, quoting the section OF the
Revised Statutes, giving a defendant not
exceeding thirty days after the next term
of the court. The defendant was sentenced
on the 4th day of February. 4. d. 1882,
which day wa. in and during the December
term, A. d. 1851, ii the Criminal Court.
The next term OF the General Term OF the
Supreme Court after sentence began on the
fourth Monday of April, \. ID. 1882, and
will continue till the fourth Monday OF
October, ID. lSS2 The defendant was
sentenced to be executed on the 3Oth day
Of June, \. D. lrS2 The date OF his exc
cution should by law have been fixed on the
same day within thirty days after the fourth
Monday of October, a. d. 1882. 1t needed
no authority to show that a Judgment
Of court TO sentence to death
is null and void if the day fixed for the ex-
ecution of the sentence is not authorized
by law. In this case the day fixed for the
execution of the defendant was not only
not authorized by law. but was expressly
prohibited by law. The section $50 above
quoted was not merely permisSive-it was
mandatory. The language i, The court
shall, &c The words to a reasonable
time beyond the next term of the court
most evidently meant and referred to the
next general term of the Supreme Court,
and not to the next term of the Criminal
Court. The manifest object of the
statute was to give the accused ample
time to have his case heard by the Judges
of the general term of the Supreme Court.
Such writ of error can be heard only in and
by the General Term of the Court. Where
terms OF Court are fixed by law, each term
continues from the day the Court conyenes
to the day designated by law for the com
menCement Of the next succeeding term.
The period from the fourth Monday OF
April, 4. D., 1SS2, to the fourth Monday OF
October, \. d.. 1SS2, constitutes the April
term, whether or not the Judges thereof
hold the Court every day during that time.
Col. Reed concluded his argument by an
appeal to save the Judiciary from the dis
grace OF hanging an insane man. Davidge,
on the part of the government. will follow,
tomorrow. He will be succeeded by Cork
hill, and Reed will close the case. 1t is
thought the argument will be concluded
BY Saturday. u.