Democratic Sentinel, Volume 5, Number 50, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 January 1882 — THE GUITEAU TRIAL. [ARTICLE]

THE GUITEAU TRIAL.

TttffiTY-riFru Bay. Ab the assassin was led into court by the bailiffs; he passed a moment at the table where his counsel sat and whispered to Scoville : “Il yob will only keep quiet to-day I will laugh this case out of court 11 As soon as he reached the dock he shouted out: “Some leading papers in America consider me the greatest fellow they have met in some time. At 8 o’clock last night 1 received a telegram, which jT will read for the edification of this audieuas and the American people: S “ Mr. Charles 3. Guiteau, Washington, D. Q. I “ All Boston sympathizes with. yoa. You ought to be President (Signed) “A Host of Admibebs. ” Pausing a moment, he branched Off into a rambling harangue, quoting scripture, and comparing himself to the “meek and lowly Jesus,” who used plain language, though sometimes severe. “I have been accused of using too harsh language,” he added, *• but I take my pattern from the Savior of mankind. I shall submit my name to the next National Republican Convention. I shall expect to be before it. There are only two men in the country who want me hung. One is Judge Porter, who expects to get $5,000 from the Government if I am convicted, and the other is Corkhill, who .expects to get bounced, and who knows I am the cause of it.” Dr. Kempster took the stand and Scoville resumed his cross-examination. Witness did not believe in temporary insanity io the sense that persons could be insane and wholly recover from it in an hour. Upon the witness leaving the stand Oorkhill announced that he had but one more witness to introduce on the part of the Government Scoville replied : “We have some witnesses whose names have been presented since we closed our case, and I shall ask tho court to permit us to have them sworn, and our reason will be upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence material to the case.” Davidge—” Could you give us an idea how much time you will want upon surrebnttal ?” Scoville—“Several days ; probably all of next week.” Davidge—“ We must object, your Honor, to a reopening of this case.” Scoville insisted that he did not desire to delay the trial or consume the time of the court, but the prosecution had consumed weeks with these expert witnesses, meeting with them nightly and conferring with them in preparation of this case, and ho did not propose to be cut short hi the mutter of limo. He would renew, however, his proposition that tho jury be allowed to separate and go to thoir homes, relying upon their honor ana integri; y. The question of permittng the jury to disband was dismissed by the foreman announcing that they preferred not to separate, provided that they could have reasonable opportunity for exercise and to obtain fresh air. Corkhill proceeded to reply to what he termed counsel's aspersions upon the “ distinguished medical gentlemen who did honoi to their States.” Scoville replied to Oorkhill, and surprised every one by making one of the best and most impressive speeches that has been heard in the court-room since the opening of the trial Some manifestation of applause followed the conclusion of bis speech, but it was quickly cheeked by the court. ..... Dr. John P. Gray, Medical Superintendent of the New York State Lunatic Asylum, took the stand. Witness had made the study of insanity his business since 1850, and in that time had treated or investigated 12,000 cases of insanity. He had never seen a, single instance where the only indication of insanity wa« an exhibition of immorality or wickedness. He did not believe in what had been called “moral insanity.” It was impossible to dissever mental unity so as to locate the impairment of moral nature that was not accompanied by intellectual deterioration. Insanity in itself had no more tendency to excite to crime than neuralgia or any other disease. It puts nothing new into a man’s nature ; it only perverts what is already there. Dr. Gray stated that he had made a thorough, complete and satisfactory examination of the prisoner at the jail, and gave at some length the details of his examination and conversation with the prisoner. Witness asked the prisoner the question : “ Suppose the President had offered the Paris Consulship during the time Sou were reflecting upon the subject of removig him, would you still have shot him ?” and he replied :. “Well, that would have settled the matter. I should have taken the position.” Guiteau called out from the dock: “I said if he had offered it to me at any time before the Ist of June. If he had offered it after the Ist of June it would not have made tho slightest difference. Witness asked prisoner how he came to shoot the President, and his reply was: “ I camo to the conclusion tho political situation justified it. I gradually became convinced of this, and I resolved upon his removal.” Guiteau shouted again : “ That knocks your Paris Consulship, and shows there was no malice in it—not an element of murder in it, but political necessity.” Witness then inquired of the prisoner in regard to bis alleged inspiration, and asked him if it came to him in the form of a voice, or vision, or direct command, and his reply was : “ No, it came into my head, a conception, and I reflected upon it until I resolved that it was justified by the situation.” Witness then asked the prisoner how this statement accorded with his theory of inspiration, and his reply was : “The inspiration was. in the form of pressure constantly upon me to commit the act.” Guiteau —“That’s all there is to the case, short and to the point. You can talk about it six years if you want to.” THIBTY- SIXTH BAY.

At the opening of court Guiteau called out: • One of my guards here, Cunningham, has got an eleven-pound baby for a New Year’s present.” [Laughter, in which the jury heartily joined.] Dr. Gray resumed the story of his conversation with the prisoner in jail. Guiteau continually interjected comments, and with Scoville’s frequent objections witness soon became sensibly disturbed, and, when asked to go on, said: “There have been so I many interruptions I don't know where I am.” Guiteau quickly retorted: “ I shouldn’t think you did, nor any one else. I have been trying all the morning “to find out where you are. The fact is, you are badly lost this morning, doctor. We will have to send a small boy to find you.” Witness dfd not find a single circumstance, as narrated by the prisoner, that would indicate to his (witness’) mind insanity. He was of opinion, judging by his examination of the prisoner in the jail, and from his observation of him in court, that he is sane at this time. Corkhill then read the lengthy hypothetical question of the prosecution. Guiteau suggested that there was no necessity to repeat that bosh, as everybody had heard it a dozen times. The suggestion was unheeded, and the prisoner added : “ Twothirds of that is false, and it makes me mad every time I hear it read.” As' the reading proceeded he continually called out: “That is false!" “All false!" “ How do you know? ” “That’s Smith’s ho ! ” and similar expressions. Witness replied : “I believe him to have been sane on July 2.” Guiteau shouted : “ The whole substratum of that thing is false. How can the doctor give a truthful answer? ” Witness then gave at great length full details of what he had observed in the conduct and sayings of the prisoner in the court that led him (Witness) to believe in his sanity. Referring to the prisoner’s claim that the Deity inspired the act, he was interrupted by Guiteau, who called out: “Yes, and He’ll take care of it, too. Dr. Gray. I’ll stake my life on it” Witness was asked: “Do you think the prisoner has been feigning in court ?” And replied : “ Yes, I do. He claims .an inspiration from the Deity. I don't believe that he believes any such thing, and in such a sense he is feigning and acting a part” Guiteau—“No such thing. I never feign. You are paid for your op.nion: the jury is not” Scoville began cross-examination. Witness was asked if he had testified as expert in cases of persons on trial for capital crimes, but before he could reply Guiteau supplemented the question by calling out: “How 'many*men have you helped to hang ? " Witness was not aware of a case where he had pronounced a sane man insane, or where he had adjudged an insane man sane. He admitted, however, that his views upon some types of insanity had changed since he began to study the subject. Gniteau— “ You live to learn, then, like other people. If you live’ -tjventy years longer you may know something - about insanity. You may reach the Abrahamic type by that tune. You are a growing man, doctor.’’ Witness stated that he abandoned the theory of “moral insanity” as far back as 1854. He did not think it would be found in bis reports subsequent to that date as a distinct classiflcaPOn. —r-- ’

After some further questions on this subject, Guiteau broke out impatiently : “ The amount Of it is, these experts will swear to anything sos money. They will swear to things to-day they would not have thought of swearing to twentyfive years ago, or would swear to twenty-five years henoe. This subject of insanity is a progressive one;” Witness was asked how be came to Visit Washington to testify in this case, and replied ! “I did not care to come, but the President Of our board said he thought it my duty to ome.” Scoville—“Then you came on his interpretation of your duty?’’ Witness (indignantly)—“No, sir; I came on a telegram.” Guiteau added: “How about Corkhill’s money ? I guess that was the influence that brought you here. This fellow Corkhill has got a bnnghole in tho treasury that will run out SIOO,OOO before he gets through with this case. It’s about time President Arthur was attending to his case. I wouldn’t let him stay here a week if I were President. However, I’ll attend to Corkhill in 1884.” Scoville endeavored to force an acknowledgment from witness that the conversation and conduct of the patient were the chief means of determining sanity or insanity. Witness insisted it was only an incident, and not an essential element in the determination. Scoville—“Why, you don’t have any other means when they are a'ive, do you ? You can’t o et at the brain to examine it, can you ?” Guiteau—“ The experts on this case want to kill the man and then examine his brain afterward." He was asked if he had ever seen any Case of feigned insanity that resembled that of the prisoner (assuming that he is feigning) and replied : “ I have not seen any such insanity, real or feigned." The hour of adjournment having arrived, Guiteau, who had been listlessly following the proceedings, called out : “ To-morrow will be New Year’s, 1882. I shall receive to-morrow in jail, and shall be happy to see all who can succeed in getting in. I wish every one a happy New Year. Come, Scoville, it’s 3 o’clock, let’s go home. ” The court adjourned till Tuesday. THIRTY-SEVENTH DAY. Guiteau opened court by announcing that he had many New-Year callers, none of whom wanted him hanged, and all of whom believed ho would be acquitted. Dr. Gray took the stand, and Scoville re--umed the cross-examination. Witncss had not, in giving his opinion on the direct examination that the prisoner was sane, taken into account lhe-evidenceof the prisoner himself, but taking that element into consideration his opinion would still be the same—that the prisoner is sane, and waa sane on tho 2d of July. Witness did not believe in what is termed by some writers *• emotional insanity,” or “moral insanity.” “Kleptomania," he considered simply thieving ; “dipsomania," drunkenness, and' “ pysomauia,” incendiarism. These designations'were simply convenient terms which had been invented to cover certain crimes. “ Insanity,” said tho witness, “is never transmitted any more than cancer." , Scoville desired to put in evidence certain tabulated statements from the annual reports of witness. From these it appeared that of fifty-four cases of homicides by insane people, seven were by persons acting under an intane delusion of divine authority for their acts. At the request of the District Attorney witness described briefly these cases and added, “ each case was one of marked insanity, independent of the homicidal act”

Dr. Gray wan asked a few more questions by Scoville, when the District Attorney announced the conclusion of the examination on the part of the Government Dr. Bowker, of Kansas City, waß called by Scovide. The witness met Mrs. Duumire at Leadville, Col., and conversed with her. She slid “she had entertained grave doubts as to the mental condition of Guiteau at the time she obtained her divorce, and thought at the time she had better defer the divorce proceedings, and await some further developments in the mental condition of her husband.” Clark Mills, the sculptor, was called for the purpose of identifying the plaster cast of Guiteau’s head. At the first question, “Did yon make a plaster cast of the prisoner’s head?” Davidge objected to any reopening of the question of insanity, such as would bo involved by the identification of the cast by this witness. The question of insanity had been gone over direct and in rebuttal. The prosecution had already admitted the genuineness of the cast That was all that could be asked by the defense. After further arguments, the court ruled against Scoville, and the witness was withdrawn. • Tho prisoner undertook to read a letter, as he claimed, from an old friend of President Garfield, in Ohio, showing that public opinion was making in his favor. Judge Cox ordered him to be silent. Guiteau —“It shows the state of public opinion outside of this court room." Judge Cox—“Be silent. Public opinion ha a nothing to do with this case.” Guiteau —“ When I speak, I speak to 50,000,000 people, not to this litttle crowd in this court-room.” Marshal Henry (rising and moving toward the dock)—Keep quiet, sir. Guiteau—l’ve got through. With this outburst he subsided, however, and turned his attention to writing auto-. graphs. Scoville again brought up the question of introducing new witnesses, and, after argurifeiit, an agreement was made that the defense submit a motion in writing to-morrow, giving the names of witnesses and the facts to be testified to, and supported by affidavit, giving tho reason why alien witnesses were not introduced before. THIRTY-EIGHTH DAY. Scoville, counsel for the defense, offered a motion for the admission of further evidence to prove the insanity of the prisoner. Dr. McFarland, of Illinois, was to prove from what he had read in the papers that Guiteau was insane, and some Government detectives were to testify to the same from interviews bold with him soon after tho assassination. Other witnesses would declare that he had acted in a crazy manner a few days before he committed the crime, and Dr. Beard, of New York, was ready to swear that the assassin was crazy. After a good deal of discussion on the part of Scoville, Corkhill and Davidge, Judge Cox ru’ed against the admission of evidence of insanity in sur-rebuttal. J. J. Brooks, Chief of the Treasury Secret Service, was then called as a witness, and gave the details of an interview with the prisoner on the night of the shooting The prosecution then submitted to the court tiwt points for the instruction of the jury. During tho reading of them, Judge Davidge was frequently interrupted by the assassin. They are as follows : 1. The legal test of responsibility, where insanity is set up as a defense for an alleged crime, is whether the accused, kt the time of committing the act alleged, knew the difference tietween right and wrong in respect to such act; hence, in tho present case, if the accused at the time of committing the act charged knew the difference between right and wrong in respect of such act; that is, if he knew what he was doing and that what he was doing was contrary to the law of th»land, he is responsible. Guiteau —“I-didn’t, because my free agency wa% destroyed.” 2. If the accused, knew what he was doing, and that what he was doing was contrary to the law of the land, it constitutes no defense, even if it were true that when he committed the act he really believed he was thereby producing a public benefit or carrying out an inspiration of divine origin or approval, such belief would not afford an excuse, nor would such excuse be afforded by the fact that in the commission of the act he was impelled by a depraved moral sense, whether innate er acquired, or by evil passion or indifference to moral obligation. Guiteau—“All of which is false.”

3. Insanity would, however, constitute a defense if by reason of the disease accused, at the time of committing the act charged, did not know what he was doing, or, if he did know it, that what he was doing was contrary to law, Guiteau—“l had no choice in the matter." 4. The only evidence in the present case tending to show an irresistible impiilse to commit the homicide is the claim of the accused that his free agenc; was destroyed by his alleged conviction that the death of the President was required for the good oi the American people and was divinely inspired; but such conviction, even if it really existed, could not afford any excuse when the party knew what he wa« doing and that it was contrary to law—no mere delusion or error of judgment, not even a fixed belie! that what is prohibited by law is commanded or approved by divine authority— Guiteau—“ God’s law is higher than man’s law." —can exempt the accused from responsibility for breaking the law. To have such an effect the commission of the act charged must have been the result of an insane delusion which was the product of disease, and such force as to deprive the accused of a degree of reason necessary to distinguish between right and wrong in i espect of the act, so that at the time of committing the act he either did not know what he was doing, or, if he did, that the act was wrong or contrary to tha law of the tend. Scoville announced to the court that .the case of the defense was closed, and the cohrt adjourned for three days, in order to allow counsel time fop the preparation of their ftp.