Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-01-26
GUITEAU FOUND GUILTY
PROMPT VERDICT OF THE JURY.
Outrageous Conduct of Ihe Assassin
Judge POrteF's Eloquent Close
Exhaustive Charge of the Court.

VIII 4uol . AlC Ou IC
a bloodman I" etc. He became so violent
and noisy that it was with the greatest diff
Guilty the bailiffs could quiet him. The in
terruptions of the prisoner increased in vio-
lence and frequency till, reinforced by
or sctions from Mr.. Scoville, the clamor
and din for a moment resembled a small
Babel, Judge Por'er continuing his argu-
ment amid a continued struggle to make
his voice heard against the clamor and vile
abuse Of the prisoner. He closed at three
O'Clock, and in conclusion said: "He who
has ordained that human life shall be shield
ed by human law from human crime pre-
sides over your deliberations, and the YER
be recorded where we are all to
come at the great day. l trust
that verdict will be prompt and
Will uphold the majesty Of the law, and re-
feet credit upon your integrity, and that a
warning shall reach all lands that political
murder shall not be permitted to aveDge
political wrongs or settle political disputes.
trust you will so discharge your duty thst
by your action, at least, political assassina
tion shall find no sanction to make it a
precedent hereafter, and l hope the time
will come when, by international agree
ment, the law shall be strengthened that a
political assassin shall have no place on the
face of the earth. The assassin Of Garfield
knew that against the law OF God he was
breaking with bloody hands into the house
OF life, but he did not know that over his
grave, II a grave he is to have, would be
written this inscription:
"'The grave of the cowardly assassin, the
sWipdler and murderer
"He did not know when Garfield yielded
up his life, that the hand that aimed that
pistol against his life wrote the name Of
James A. Garfield in characters of living
light upon the armament as radiant as If
every letter was traced in living stars"
Judge Cox then read his charge to the
Jury. He commenced by saying that the
Constitution provides that In all criminal
prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the
right of a speedy and public trial by an
impartial jury in the State or district where
the crime shall have been committed. That
he shall be informed of the cause
and nature of the accusation against
him. That he shall be confronted with
witnesses against him. That he shall have
compulsory process to obtain witnesses IN
his favor, and that he shall have the assist
ance Of counsel in his defense. Those pro-
visions were intended for the protection Of
the innocent from injustice and oppression,
and it was only by their faithful OBJ
servance that g lit or innocence could
be fairly ascerta aimed Every accused person
satiOn was proved. With what difficulty
and trouble the law had been administered
in the present case the jurors had daily wit
messed. 1t was, however, a consolation to
think that not one OF those sacred
guarantees Of the Constitution had
been violated on the person of
the accused. At last the long chapter
of proof was ended. The task OF the adv0-
cate was done, and 1t now rested with the
| Jury to determine the issue between public
| Justice and the prisoner at the bar. No one
| could feel more keenly than himself the
great responsibility OF his duties, and he
felt that he could only discharge it by
close adherence to the law as laid down by
| its highest authorities. Before proceeding
| further he wished to notice an incident
which had taken place pending the recent
argument. The prisoner had frequently
taken occasion to proclaim that public opin
| ion, as evidenced by the press and CORE
| spOndence, was in his favor. Those decla
rations could not have been prevented ex-
cept by the process Of gagging the prisoner.
Anv suggestion that the jury could
| be Influenced by such lawless clatter
ing of the prisoner would have seemed
| to him absurd, and he should have felt that
he was insulting the intelligence of the
| Jury If he had warned them not to regard IT,
| Counsel for the prosecution had felt 1t
necessary, however, in their final argument
| to interpOse contradiction to such. Ex
| ceptiou had been taken on the part of he
accused 70 the form in which that effort was
made For the sole purpose of purging the
| record of any Objectionable matter he
| should simply say that ANYTHING which had
been said on either side in reference to
public excitement or to newspaper opinion
| was not to be regarded by the jury
| Toe Indictment charged the defendant
with having mur iered James a Garfield,
/ I rr,fF = Flno lat,
| the nature of the crime charged. Murder
| was committed where a person Of sound
memory and discretion unlawfullV killed a
| reasonable being IN the peace OF the United
| States with malice atorethOught. 1t ha 10
| be proved: First. That death was caused
| by the act of the accused, and further that
It was caused with malice aforethought.
That did not mean, however, that the gov
ernment had to prove any Ill will or hatred
ward the deceased. Whenever hom
| icide was shown to have been
committed without lawful authority
and with deliberate intent, it was sufficient
ly proved to have been done with malice
sforethought, and malice was not disproVed
/ by showing that the accused had DO per-
! sonal ill-Will towards the deceased, and that
| Instance, robbery or through mistaking
him for another, or, as is claimed
| In this case, to produce a public
/ benefit. II 1t could be shown that
the killing occurred in the heat Of passion
or under provocsjion, then 1t would appear
that there was no premeditated attempt,
and, therefore, no malice afOrethought aud
| that would reduce the crime to mansl4ugh-
! ter. 1t was hardly necessary, however, to
say that there was nothing Of the kind in
| the present case. The jury would have to
/ say either that the defendant was guilty of
/ murder, or that he was innocent.
/ In order to constitute the crime
| Of murder the assassin must have
a remarkably sane mind. In technical
term he must be 'of sound mind, memory
/ and discretion" Au irrespOnsibly insane
man could not commit murder. II he was
laboring under a disease OF the mental fac
ulties TO such an extent that he did not
know what he was doing, or did not know
it was wrong, then he was wanting In that
sound mind, memory and discretion that
vas part of the definition OF murder.
ln the next place, every defendant was
presumed innocent until the accusation
against him was established by proof. In
the next place, Notwithstanding this pre-
sumption OF innocence, 1t was equally true
that the defendant was presumed 10 be
sane aud to have been so at the time the
crime was committed. That is 10 say,
that the government was not bound
to show affirmatively as part OF Its
proofs that the defendant was sane.
As insanity was an exception and as
the majority of men are sane, the law pre-
sumed the latter condition of every man
until some reason was shown to believe to
the contrary. The burden was, therefore,
on the defendant, who set up insanity as an
excuse for his crime, to produce proof in
the first instance, to show that that pre-
sumption was mistaken so far as it related
to the prisoner. The crime, therefore, in
volved three elements-the kill
ing, malice and responsible
mind. After all the evidence was
before the jury, If the jury, while bearing
in mind both those presumptions, that is
that the defendant is innocent until he is
proved guilty, and that he Is sane till the
contrary appears, -still entertained what
| is called reasonable doubt on any ground
or as to any of the essential elements OF the
crime, then the defendant was entitled to
the benefit of that doubs and an acquittal.
Judge Cox proceeded to say that it was
| difficult to give an exact definition, to detiue
| OF what reasonable doubt consisted. But he
gave number of illustrations conveying
| the approximate idea. He then proceeded
| to ssy that the jury would find no difficulty
! in reaching a conclusion as to all the ele-
1 ments that made up the crime
| charged In the indictment, except it might
/ be the one of sound mind, memory
and discretion, but that was only a
technical expression for responsibility. He
now approached a difficult question. He
| had already said that man who is insane;
| in the sense that makes him irresponsible,
cannot commit crime. The defense of
| insanity had been so abused as to be brought
/ inro orraat dfsPredit IL WAS the last resOrt