The Evening critic., 1882-02-11
THE EVENING CRITIC.
ESTABLISHED AUGUST. 1858.
GuiTEAu.
CUfTEAU,
A Physician who Thinks Him Sane.


DIR. Richard Gundry lectured to the stu
dents of the College of Physicians and Sur
geons, in Baltimore last evening on Gui-
teau and his crime. The lecturer com
menced by reviewing the early life Of the
assassin and his victim, and said the real
point at issue in the trial was whether
Guiteau was insane or not. The acts, the
lecturer said, relied on by Guiteau's coun-
sci to indicate insanity showed vicious
propensity and disposition to make the
world give him living without work.
ing for il. Guiteau claimed great things
for small services, and was unscrupulous
even in regard to his legal obligations; as,
for example, purposely obtaining divorce
by colluson, and at last soliciting Offices
upon great claims and no merits. The
only evidence of insanity was the opinion
of gentleman consulted some years ago,
and which seemed to be founded on slight
grounds and some hereditary taints in his
fathers family.
The denial of the existence of such
thing as hereditary insanity by the expert
witnesses for the Government was alluded
to; but DIR. Gundry explained that he
reditary insanity only meant hereditary
tendency, which rendered its possessor more
liable to attack of insanity from causes
which would not operate upon those not
possessing it. The conclusion drawn by
the lecturer was that the weight of evil
dence VISA against the idea that Guiteau had
been insane during his lfe but his moral
perception and intellectual capacity have
been undoubtedly weakened by habitually
vicious habits. "The practice of vice."
eaid DIR. Gundry, "tends to weaken mems
minds and to destroy self.control, as the
practice of virtue strengthens them.
The only physical evidence put forward
was the slight turning of the tongue of the
assassin and the inequality of the two sides
of the head. This is common among per-
sons not insane, and the illustrious Bichat
had head more irregularlv formed than
was claimed for Guiteau" The irresisti-
bic impulse" was shown by the lecturer
not to have existed, as proven by the fact
that at various times Guiteau did resist the
uncomfortable impulse. 1t was not de-
veloped by disease and put into action by
opportunity, but originated in deliberation
and thought. 1t was put down and taken
up again, as the assassin's Judgment showed
most suitable to his purpose. Guiteau
gradually developed reason for his action
which was not inconsistent with a correct
Judgment of events in all respects, and
which answered in its details to what his
reason required. He made the mistake of
believing that men were as base as himself,
and that if he would aid them by his act
they would protect and benefit him. This
was false belief founded upon reasoning,
and not an insane deluslon. Ihere does
not seem to be any ground for supposing
that he acted upon an irresistible impulse.
The Judges charge only included as the
test the knowledge of the right and wrong,
and would have excluded irresistible i'm
pulse, even if it had been successfully
shown. In that respect Professor
Gundry regretted that the Judge had
gone backward, for insane men, he
said, know right from wrong, and do wrong
things continually. The true test is the
power of controlling. Speaking of the
theory advanced by the prisoner, that he
was acting by Gods will, tho lecturer said
that, inasmuch as this rested on Guiteau 5
own testimony it was evidently of gradual
growth, originated in his own conception,
and was moreover apparently consequent
upon motives of revenge. 1t was also un-
supported by any other evidence of in
sanity, and seemed to be untenable. The
professor expressed the decided opinion that
Guiteau was sane and should be punished.