Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1882-01-12
THE CLAIMS OF GUITEAU's COUNSEL.

| MT. SCOVllle'S prayers w Gle SoulV Aol III
structions to the jury in the Guiteau case are
long and complicated. They are fourteen in
number. Those relating to the alleged insani'
ty of the prisoner are sufficiently covered by
the first prayer, which is as follows
1. The legal test of responsibility, when in
sanity is set up as defense for alleged crime,
is not merely whether the accused knew at the
| time what he was doing, and that the act was
! contrary to law for an irresponsible insane
person may know those things, but was the
act done as the result of an insane delusion
or was it committed under an influence OF
power which the accused could not resist by
reason of his unsoundness of mind. And il
the jury find from the evidence that either OF
these last-named conditions existed, then the
accused is not legally responsible, and the yer.
dict should be mot guilty by reason of insani.
ty"
| The twelfth prayer reads as follows
That if the jury shall believe from the evil
dence that the prisoner was of sound mind, OF
not so insane as to be irresponsible for the act,
at the time of shooting at the President on
the I'd day of July, 1881, and that he then un.
lawfully and wilfully, but without malice, in
fact, in the District of Columbia, shot at and
thereby injured the President, of which shoot
ing and injury the person so injured subse.
quently died in the State of New Jersey, and
within the United States then the prisoner is
| guilty of the crime of manSlaughter and the
Jury could so find (Section 5,341, Rev. Stat
utes of the United States.)
The following is the section Of the Revised
Statutes referred to:
Every person who, within any OF the places,
or upon any of the waters described in section
$3.50, unlawfullv and wilfully, but without
malice, strikes. stabs, wounds, or shoots at, OF
otherwise inures another, of which striking,
stabbng or woundng, shooting Or other inju-
ry, such other person dies, either on land or
sea, within or without the United States, is
| guilty of the crime OF manslaughter. oec-
| tion $3.50, to which reference is made, pro-
vdes that the penalty of death shall be lntilct-
ed upon every person who cOmmltS murdeI.
| 1st. Within any fort, arsenal, dock-yard,
magazine or any other place or district of coun-
| try under the exclusive jurisdiction OF the
United States 3D. Or upon the high seas, or
in any arm of the sea, OF in any river, haven,
creek, basin, or bay, within the admiralty and
maritime jurisdiction of the United States,
and out of the jurisdiction Of any particular
State. 2d. Or who, upon any such waters,
malicously strikes, stabs wounds, polsons or
shoots, at any other person, OF Which STRIKING,
stabbing, wOunding, poisoning or shooting,
such other person dies, either on land or at sea,
within or without the United States.
So the points raised in this prayer are that
Guiteau had no malice, and that the District
of Columbia is district Of country under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the United States
within the meaning of the Act. But granting
that the deed was committed without malice,
under the section quoted Guiteau may be
found guilty of manslaughter. The last pray
er of the defense is as follows
That inasmuch as the evidence is uncontra-
dicted in this case that the wound was lnfllct-
ed upon the President by the accused on the
I'd day of July, A. D. 1881, in the county OF
Washington, in the District OF Columbia, and
that the President subsequently and in the
month of September, A. D. 1881, died OF such
wound in the State of New Jersey, the jury
are instructed that by reason of these facts
the accused is not guilty of the crime OF muir
der as charged in the Indictment, and the yer.
dict must not be guilty unless the jury shall
find him guilty of manslaughter, as charged
in the twelfth prayer of the defense.
This raises squarely the point of jurisdiction,
point which the Court asked might be argu-