The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1882-01-05
CONTINUED FROM YESTERDAY.

WASHINGTON, Jan. Al. j. Brooks
Chief of the treasury Secret Service, was
called by Scoville. He visited the prisoner
on the night of the shooting Guiteau was
very angry at witness for disturbing his rest
at night. Witness reproved him as a
murderer and the prisoner said he was no
murderer but Christian gentleman. The
act was political necessity for the good
of the country. and that witness being a
stalwart could appreciate why he did it;
that he had thought over and prayed over
the matter for six weeks, and became con-
vinced that the president must go by his
hand
Scoville introduced letter written by
Scoville's father, which said the prisoner
was insane.
Guiteau sneeringly and insultingly re-
proved Scov:lle for introducing this,
threatened the balif and said he could get
plenty of experts to testify that he
was as crazy as loon, but wouldn't give
a cent for 8 basketful of expert testi-
mony.
DR.. Beard was called but ruled out and
an exception noted.
Scoville said he would like a little time
for this part Of the case. Davidge said
he would like little time for the proper
preparation of this part of the case Dav-
idge said the prosecution had already pre-
pared their statement, the law points upon
which they would rely and he would be
pleased to give the defense the benefit of
them. He then read as follows:
l. The legal test of responsibility where
insanity is set up as defense for alleged,
| is whether the accused at the time of com
| hitting the act alleged knew the differ
ence between right and wrong in respect
to such act and in the present case if the
accused at the time of committing the act
charged knew the difference between right
| and wrong in respect to the act; that if he
knew what he was doing was contrary to
the law of the land, he is responsible.
Guiteau-'1 didn't, because my free
agency was destroyed"
2. If the accused knew what he wai
doing and that it was contrary to the laws
| of the land, it contributes no defence
Even if it were true that when he commit
ted the act he really believed he was there
by producing public benefit carrying
/ ~ut an inspiration of divine origin or ap
| mr.. wal, such belief would not afford an,
| exeu.~e. nor would such excuse be afforded
bv the Fact that in the commission of th'
act he was impelled by 6 depraved mora
sense wbe, ,ther innate or acquired; or b,
evil passion O. indifference to moral obliga
| ton.
| Guteau-''Al Oh =" AiCh Ia Aoloo-
8. Insanity wou.'d, however, constitute
defense if BY reason of diseased mint
the deceased at the time OF committing tn
act charged did not know what ne was do
| ing, or if he did not know what ne wa
doing was contrary to law.
Guiteau-sfI had no choice IN the mat
| ter"
| 4. The only evidence IN the present cas-
tending to show an irresistible impulse t.
commit the homicide is the claim of tn
| accused that his free agency was destroye'
by his alleged conviction that the death
the President was required for the good o
! the American people, and was divineiy IN
spired But such conviction, even II
really existed could not afford any excus
| when the party knew what he was doing
and that it was contrary to law No mer
delusisn or error of judgment, not even
! fixed belieft that which is provided by Law
rs commanded or approved by Divine au
| thority, (Guiteau-t'God's law is highe
| than mans law'') can exempt the accuses
from the responsibility for breaking tn
law. To have such effect the commlsslo
| of the act charged must have been the re
| suit of an insane delusion, which was tn
product of disease and OF such force q
to deprive the deceased of that degree Q
reason necessary to distinguish betwee
right and wrong in respect of the act, s.
that at the time of committing the act
either did not know what he was doing, Q
if he did, that the act was wrong and COZ
trary to the law of the land.
Adiorrpad