Democratic Sentinel, Volume 5, Number 52, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 27 January 1882 — THE GUITEAU TRIAL. [ARTICLE]

THE GUITEAU TRIAL.

' / RDBTY-YOUBTH DAY. At the opening of court Guiteau stated that he had thirty checks, representing about $15,000, some of which were worthless, and that he wanted no more of the latter kind. When Mr. Scoville asked if the prisoner would be allowed to speak to the jury, the assassin exclaimed that be wouldn’t trust hisicase m the hands of the beet lawyer in America. Judge Cox said it was safe to assume that Guiteau would abuse the privilege of srguing in his own defense, for which reason it would not be granted. Mr. Reed Ihea commenced an argument which consumed ljjs day, and was mbjeCted to frequent inßrrwtions by the assiissin. There were portions cf the speech which seemed to considerably impress the jury—notably the very pathetic passages in which Mr. Reed denounced the crime for its atrocity, and pictured the widow nightly praying that the murderer of her husband might be pronotniced insane. Those who closely watched the jury observed that there were tears in the eyes of some. Reed’s method was earnest and ’ deliberate. His expression was always serious. He fought to prove that, from the time of his birth, Guiteau was a victim of mental disease. Commencing with the period of his mother’s maternity, ne showed that all through the weary-months she was an invalid, and argued that Guiteau -wasr the sufferer from this. The boy could not talk till he was 6 yeats old, and was whipped by his father because he could not — whipped from boyhood, Reed argued, because the hand of God was on him. He led a blameless life from that hour; it was maintained, to the age of 19, when he struck his father. That, the counsel claimed, was an act of madness. Then Luther Guiteau, woitby man as he may have have been in all other respects, was insane upon religion, and be forced young Guiteau to enter the Oneida Community, which was the vestibule of hell. From that hour, Reea enaeavored to show by Guiteau’s letters, which the prosecution had introduced, and by the testimony of the Governtoont witnesses, the prisoner was insane. The circumstances surrounding the shooting he dwelt upon with great emphasis, as indicating this. Reed drew a parallel favorable to Guiteau from the various prominent political assassinations of history, ending with William Lawrence’s attack upon Andrew Jackflbh. He even quoted the case of Charlotte Corday as one of insanity. Reed quoted Guiteau against himself to prove his insanity, and mildly characterized his outrageous outburst as “to some extent a boisterous manner.” When Reed went so far as to predict that Guiteau would become a driveling idiot, the latter from the dock hissed out an indignant “Pish!” In conclusion, Reed said: “Gentlemen of the jury, you all said, when you were sworn, that you would be governed by the evidence and stand up to it, without regard to the effect it might have upon you and your business. I adjure you to keep that oath. Falter not in the performance of the duty which shall save you and this fair land from eternal disgrace. I assert that the conviction of this man to the gallows, and his execution, would be an infamy beyond description—an indelible stain on American jurisprudence and American juries. Think of the scene if you condemn him to the gallows I Though not present in body to see the sight you cannot but be there in mind. If such a day shall ever come (and I do not believe it ever can come under this evidence) thirk of this man bi ought out from his cell with the same pale face and same weary, wandering eyes ! Tho officers of the law gathering round him, pinioning him, binding him with cords so that his muscles stand out, covering him with the black hood, shutting out the light of day from him, and leading him to the scaffold. Think of him—a lunatic—condemned to the gallows—a lunatic whom the Savior, if He were on earth, would heal! The picture is not overdrawn! I am yery much obliged to you for your attention. 1 only ask you, Pray do that which shall not, in after years, bring a blush of shame to your cheeks.” FORTY-FIFTH DAY. George Scoville began his argument for the defense, and consumed the day without finishing, He started by charging that there was a conspiracy to hang the prisoner. He then proceeded- to name the conspirators : The District Attorney, Judge Porter, Mr. Davidge and five of the Government experts, namely, Drs. Gray, Hamilton, Kempster, MacDonald and Wooster. The counts of this indictment, twenty in number, are : First—They have perverted the law in this case. Scoville, in illustration or support of this count, alluded to the introduction by Judge Porter of the decision of Judge Davis in a New York case. He said : “ Counsel upon the other side indignantly repudiated the suggestion that Judge Davis sat with Cardozo or Barnard, but I have yet to learn if either of them ever committed a more reprehensible act than that of Judge Davis.” Scoville warmed up with his subject, and de nounced in severe language the extra-judicial act of Judge Davis. “Had a newspaper been guilty of such a bold-faced attempt to influence the decision in a pending cause, the editor would have been subject to arrest for contempt.” Judge Porter—“ Don’t let us turn this courtroom into a town meeting.” Scoville resumed, but was soon interrupted by Davidge, who, with some impatience, said • “ Oh, no, no f Scoville; that’s not so.” Scoville—You may interrupt as much as you please; I shall not be deterred from saying just what I believe to be the truth. Davidge—Well, well, m not interrupt again, and say what you may. Guteau— That’s right, Davidge ; you keep quiet. You talked for two days and didn’t say anything either; qow give some one else a show. Scoville continued: When Judge Porter comes before this jury and undertakes to pervert evidence, I shall not keep quiet, as I did with Davidge, but I shall stop him. Guiteau—So shafi L Scoville—l shall stop him, and I shall correct him, if I find he is misstating evidence. Guiteau—Never mind; I'll attend to him. Judge Porter—There will be two Guitcaos then to attend to me. Scoville continued : “ The prosecution states that if the prisoner knew the fact was wrong on July 2, then he should hang. Now this is not by any means the whole of it, or a correct statement of the law. The court has added in substance as follows : * Yet if in this act he was overpowered by a consciousness coming through his diseased mind that what he Was doing was necessity for the good of the country and was specially approved bv God, then you cannot copyiot him of murder.’"’l Scoville proceeded to point out to the jury what he termed the perversions of evidence by Davidge. He attacked the theory of the prosecution that it was the prisoner’s own innate or acquired depravity that naturally led up to the killing of the President, and- discussed at some length the evidence introduced by them to show instances of the prisoner’s meanness and depravity. “This evidence,” said Scoville, “ has in almost every instance been perverted. Counsel parade here’ the debts owed by the prisoner, and attempt to mate much of them in this chain they are weaving.” Guiteau—l owe about SI,OOO, and I suppose that ought to hang a man. If these people will send in their bills now, I’ll give them checks for them, and get them ost of the way. I suppose Tve got some money now. I’ll get rid of these people, and thpn J wjga,’! owe an y* ■ Scoville then alluded to the incident sworn to *Mby Bhaw of Guiteau pawning a worthless watch Shaw— ‘ pshaw,’ I mean.” And added : “ That was meant for a pun, but they don’t seem to see it” Scoville denounced the witness Shaw. He believed he had deliberately perjured himself in thtecase, as had also the ctjjntetnpKble little Jew clerk who came down heeft to litip Shaw out. Guiteau screamed out: “This whole testimony of Shaw is false, and uo decent man would believe it for an instant.” FOBTY-SIXTH DAY. Scoville resumed his argument for the defense, and was at once interrupted tyr Qttiteau, who made one of his character rfidf speeches, asking the ctffixt 4o instruct that frit appear that he was forced by the Deity to remove the President he may bo acquitted on the ground of transitory mania. Sickles, McFarland and Hiscpck, he said, were acqnutted on thcusuroond of transitory mania. ■ 7 Scoville began with a general complaint of the aliened unfairness tm the of the prosecutronf particularly or the PrdWcuting Attorney. He had from thp beginning who should virit the jaiLand who should nbt. He had introduced persons into the prisoner’s cell under false guise, to worm out his secrete, and when the prisoner said anything which might inure |o his benegt tfee Prosecuting At-

torney has been very careful to let it become known. He complained of CorkhiU’s unfairness in destroying the notes of Stenographer Bailey, so that the defense could not have the benefit of them. The conduct of the prosecution in the court-room, he alleged, was not only unfair to the defense, but was often discourteous and more befitting a police court than this. ScoviUetben criticised seveiely the course of tie prosecution in refusing to permit the prisoner to address the jury for a brief hour or two, simply because they feared be might disclose by his manner or speech his true mental condition. Scoville then called attention to the letter written by Guiteau tothe District Attorney, and from which a portion had been clipped, as he claimed, by the prosecution, and in a spirit of unfairness Davidge (smiling)—“ Oh, just assume that one of the conspirators cut it out.” CorkhiH—“l suppose what you are driving at is that you want the jury to think I cut a slip out of that letter.” Scoville —“ I believe it was done by you, or by your direction, for the reason that you believed it for the interest of the prosecution.” “ So do L” shouted Guiteau. Scoville then proceeded to give the jury his viewg upon Judge Porter, and to instruct them as tn how much weight they should attach to his utterances, and as to the best means of counteracting the influence of his oratory. Porter, he said, was prostituting his fine at.tainments in an effort to hang an insane man. Scoville then reviewed the prisoner’s life, and said: “ When he left the Oneida Community, he sought out Beecher’s church, the Young Men’s Christian Association, and the society of Christian people. Hia tendencies at this time were not immoral, nor had he shown any indication of that awful (with sarcasm) crime of not paying his board-bills, for which this prosecution are trying to h&ng him.” Carkniil—“ Ob, no. If he is hung at all, it will be for murder—not for owing boardbills.” Guiteau called out: “I guess there ain’t much chance of my being hung, anyhow.” Scoville continued, up to the hour of adjournment, his review of the life of the prisoner, explammg his acts in the light of counsel’s (Scoville’s) theory upon the case. Guiteau occasionally commented, but never seriously disturbed the course of the argument. Scoville spoke of the monumental assurance of the prisoner in naming himself in connection with Grant, Conkling and Arthur. “I should say a pretty fine quartette,” exclaimed the prisoner. La ter ou, Scoville read from Guiteau’s speech, when Guiteau again called out: “ You better not read any more, Scoville; it goes dead against your ‘ fool ’ theory.” FOB.TY-SEVENTH DAY. Scoville resumed his address, taking up and discussing insane statistics introduced by the prosecution. Discussing the horrors of crime, as often shown in the acts of insane criminals, Scoyille said there was nothing in this act to compare with some of these acts of insane criminals ; “ and, gentlemen of the jury,” he said, "in my opinion, if there were not reasons, and powerful ones, at the back of this prosecution, this prisoner never would have been brought to trial. But I tell you, gentlemen of the jury, back of this prosecution is an influence which I have felt, and which you may feel, gentlemen, before this trial is concluded. There are politicians who seek to hide their own shame behind the disgrace of this poor prisoner and make him a scapegoat for their crime. I did not intend, gen;lumen of the jury, to take up this feature of the case, but when I find the power and influence of this Government used against me in denying the small pittance that I have asked for a fair and impartial trial, and the small facilities needed for a proper defense, I do not propose to keep quiet. I say that such men as Grant and Conkling and Arthur are morally and intellectually responsible for this crime. Mr. Conkling shall not escape, shall not shirk, the responsibility of tiie state of things that led to th.s act, and he snail not escape the condemnation of the American people, if I can help it, for his share in this disgraceful scramble for office that led to a conflict with the chosen ruler of this great nation, and led this poor insane man to compass—what they would have hailed with satisfaction, as would, probably, hundreds of other politicians, if it could have occurred other than through assassination —the removal of Garfield, who stood in the way of then’ unrighteous and disgraceful struggle for office. Neither shall Grant escape that condemnation to which he is so justly.subjected, when, coming from Mexico, and coming with undue haste to throw his own name into this petty quarrel about a small office in the Republican party, he sought to foment differences that had sprung up. I am not going to see the misdeeds of these men, big h in power, visited upon the head of this poor insane man if I can help it This clamor for his blood is not for tho purpose of avenging Garfield or of satisfying justice. Thentheory is that: If it can be shown that this was the act of a sane man, then these politicians in high places will say, ‘Of course we are not responsible for the act of a sane man. To be sure, we had sotie differences, but then it could never have led a sane man to such an actbut, on the contrary, gentlemen of the jury, what is the effect of "your verdi.-t if you acquit him as an insane man ? Why, people wul sav, * Some one is at fault;’ they will say, ‘We will fix the blame upon the heads aud . hearts of those men who waged the war upon our poor dead President until it drove this poor insane man, from reading daily in the papers what Grant says, wnat Conkling says, and from constantly thinking upon it, to bis insane act of killing the President; and there are men in high places, the really culpable ones, who will go down to posterity with the stigma upon their names and the detestation or their countrymen fastened upon thenmemories.” Scoville's denunciation of Conkling and others created a profound sensation m the court-room. The prisoner, who had been looking over the New York papers, called out.: “ I aee the New York Court of Appeals has just decided in favor of our theory on the insanity question. I thank you, Messrs. Judges.” Scoville discusi-ed the conduct and actions of Guiteau at the time and immediately after the shooting, and contended that they were entirely in keeping with the theory of insanity—that his coolness, his quietly going to bed and peacefully sleeping the night after the murder were characteristic incidents of crime such as would be expected from an insane man and insane mon. Scoville continued with his review of the evidence, and called attention to various incidents in Guiteau’s life, arguing his insanity as evidenced by the undoubted lack or something in his mental composition possessed by other men. FOBTY-BIGHTH DAY. Guiteau opened proceedings by thanking the New York Court of Appeals for its timely decision on the law of insanity. “Hitherto,” said the assassin, “ the law has been that the burden of proof was on the defendant, but the Court of Appeals, with grand magnanimity, says that the burden of proof is on this prosecution, to prove that the man not only committed the act, but also that he was sane at the time he committed it.” After the prisoner had delivered himself of this little speech, Scoville resumed his argument, reading from the evidence of several witnesses who were at the depot and saw the shooting and subsequent arrest of Guiteau, his object being to show that the priilonißr was perfectly calm and cool, and in a condition of nerves and intellect at variance Hith the hypothesis of sanity under such circumstances.

Ab Scoville proceeded, Corkbill made frequent and, as the speaker evidently thought, slighting comments, until, finally becoming irritated, he turned to the District Attorney and denounced in scathing terms his unfair conduct, and instanced his presentation as evidence in this case of a letter written by the prisoner,and which he (Corkhill) had intercepted and mutilated by cutting off the signature and such portion as he thought might benefit the prisoner, “ a thing,” said Scoville, “ which was never before permitted in a Court of Justice, not even upon the trial of a civil suit.” Corkhill (sneeringly)—“ That’s your opinion merelv, Mr. Scovilla It amounts to nothing as a fact” Scoville—“Well, let it be my opinion. I presume lam entitled to one, and so-is the Jury.” Guiteau (with energy)—“ It was a friendly allusion to President-Arthur that he cut out—the mean, dirty whelp.” As Scoville continued, counsel for the prosecution frequently interrupted him, and a running fire was kept up between counsel for some time, f The speaker disclaimed as his main motive f He'd Ssireto shield the prisoner for the honor of the Guiteau family. His greatest sire was to save the American people and the American Judiciary from the disgrace of hurrying to the gibbet an insane man. Commenting upon, as he claims, the alienee ,of motive on Guiteau’s part, Scoville read: u You cannot find a case in history—yon cannot suppose a case where a man 40 years of age, who haaneyer committed crime, who has never , for an hour associated with criminals or bad people; wfap, on the contrary, has always

sought the society, not only of the better class of people, but of Christian people ; you cannot conceive of such man’s committing such a crime without motive. Nothing but the theory of insanity can possibly account for such ftn ScwSle < the ksSuiription that Guiteau might have been actuated by desire for revenge, and argued the improbability of siicti assumption, from the fact if any ground for ill will existed on Guiteau’s part it was against Secretary Blaine, and according to the inexorable laws of mind it would have been executed against him. There cannot possibly be shown, said Scoville, any ill-will on his part toward President Garfield. ...... Scoville next took up the hypothesis that the crime was committed from an overpowering desire for notoriety, and claimed history failed to point out a case where such a crime was committed purely and simply from such motive, and that it was incompatible with reason and impossible for the human mind to conceive such motive as sufficient to induce any sane man to commit such crime. FOBTY-NINTH DAY. Scoville resumed his argument, and produced a diagram showing a section of the prisoner’s bead. Taking up the diagram of the assassin’s head, offered in evidence by Dr. Hamilton, Scoville said: “ I propose to show you that Dr. Kempster lied when he told you that this diagram was a Correct Representation of the shape of Guiteau’s head. He attempted to convince you that Guiteau had an Unusually st metrical head, and • 1 propose to show you that his evidence in this respect was absolutely false.” Scoville contended that DR. Gray s tables of bom cides by insane persons were prepared for this case and do not correspond With tables for the same years in Gray’s official Reports. In reading the accoiint Of one case of honlicide Scoville said : “ Had the District Attorney been there he would have said, probably, put him on trial for murder and hang him. This is a case of devilish depravity.” Guiteau shouted exultingly : “ Corkhill is an authority on the devil. Dr. Gray is a man with a big mouth. That’s the way I mark him.” Scoville discussed at some length the demoralizing influence of the scaffold, and expressed the opinion that crime would be diminished by the abolition of capital punishment He then porceeded to anticipate the argument of Judge Porter, and to point out to the jury the fallacy of the arguments which he predicted Judge Porter would advance to support the theory of the prosecution and to secure the hanging of Guiteau. In conclusion he said: “It has often been said that our jury trials are a farce, and I have in my practice frequently heard it said that the jury system ought to be abolished, because juries make a mistake, because they are influenced by the eloquence of advocates, because they are influenced, not by justice, not by evidence, but by the last address. But, gentlemen, I thank G'6d that there was a time when my English ancestors stood up against wrong and injustice, and wrested from a despot the right of trial by jury, ami I have never yet seen the time when I would wish to see that right ■ abolished. I feel more secure and more safe in this mode of administering justice than in any other. 8o long as juries are honest it does not require that you should have read Kent or Blackstone. It requires that you should have honest hearts and clear heads, and, above all, that you should be fearless to find for the right, regardless of what may come, regardless of whether your fel-low-men may approve it or not. This is what I shall expect of you, gentlemen, and I believe you wili'do it. I leave the case with you, gentlemen ,t hanking you for your kind attention.” As Guiteau was being taken out of the courtroom he stopped to speak to Scoville, when Biiliff Tall attempted to move him along. Guiteau turned angrily, and said to Tall: “ Behave yourself.” “ Gome, come,” said Tall, impatiently, trying to push the prisoner. “Let me alone 1” shouted Guiteau. “Mind your own business.” Tall having applied some “ pressure” to Guiteau, the latter, with his manacled hands, struck the officer in the breast, when he was at once aeized by the officers and turned out of ihe court-room.