Rensselaer Republican, Volume 14, Number 18, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 19 January 1882 — The Assassin’s Trial. [ARTICLE]

The Assassin’s Trial.

Masterly Argument of Judge Porter, Counsel for the Prosecution. .•*. 4"“ . A -if . . « • . Judge Cox Gives his Decision un the Legal Points of „ \ the Case. Exciting Colloquy Between the Prosecutor and the Prisoner, Judge Cox Rules Against the Prayers of the Defense, . z '* ■ "Worthless Drafts Sent to the Prisoner and His Coun- . l /sei, Etc.

FORTIETH DAY. Guiteau arrived at the Court House about 9:30, and was taken to the wait-ing-Toom. He appeared rather nervous, and his countenance indicated anxiety. When he had taken a seat in the dock, he glanced around stealthily over the audience, and immediately began a harangue evidently intendedforthe jury. “I have received’” he said, ‘Some 800 letters, a great majority of them from ladies. When I get time I shall attend to them. I want to send my greetings to the ladies of America and thank them for their sympathy. They don’t want me to be hanged. Public opinion is fast changing. I received Saturday a check for SI,OOO from the stalwarts of Brooklyn, and another for SSOO from the stalwarts of New York. I want this jury to understand how public opinion is on this case.” A bailiff here tried to silence him when he turned upon him in a most vicious manner and snarled out: “You keep quiet and mind your business. Do not interfere with me when lam talking. If you had any sense you would understand your place.” With this opening breeze the proceedings in due form were begun, and Mr. Scoville resumed his argument. Mr. Scoville proceeded without interruption for an hour. His remarks were listened to with marked attention. He laid stress upon the propositions that insane men often knew the difference between right and wrong, and for that reason conceal their plans, and that the benefit of the doubt should attach to the plea of insanity when raised with the same force as when urged in connection with the commission of a crime. His allusion to the decision of Judge Davis, “who went out of his way,” he said, “to pass upon something not involved in the case, he was then considering,” brought Judge Porter to his feet withan indignant reply that the charge was false.

Scoville retorted that the opinion of a man who sat on the same bench with a Barnard and a Cardozo should not be received with much consideration. Judge Portor, with even more vehemence reiterated that the charge of counsel was absolutely false. That . Judge Davis never set on the bench with either of the gentlemen named. “If an honorable member of the Federal Judiciary is’fo be put upon trial here, I demand,” said Judge Porter, “that the record be produced here upon which this charge is made.” Scoville insisted that when the style of proceedings best suited to a police court were indroduced here by the prosecution h® should comment upon them as he deemed fitting. He should not not be frightened by the tragic utterances of Judge Porter. He had heard the same notes, years ago, from owls at nights in the woods of Onio. Guitead laughed and called out sneeringly: “That’s a ' very fine speech, Mr. Porter.” Mr. Davidge protested that not five minutes had been devoted to the proper scope of argument, and the court warned counsel that they must abstain from personalities. Mr. Scoville concluded his argument at 12 o’clock, and in conclusion desired to make a few remarks of a personal character. Alluding to his controversies with Judge Porter he disclaimed any intention to transgress the bounds of propriety or the rules of practice, but he should criticise the conduct of counsel when it meritedcriticism, and threats of prosecution would not intimidate him. Citing the custom of counsel upon the other side of bowing to the jury upon entering, Scoville said: “Sometimes it is three bows all around; sometimes more; never less than three. It has never been done by counsel Upon this side, and Ido not hesitate to criticise the propriety of it.” s Judge Porter—The gehtlemanjs simply instancing his lack of politeness. If he has no apology to offer, I shall certainly not apologize for him.

Mr. Scoville says the drafts for Bums' amounting to $1,500 received by 'Guiteau to-day were worthless, and sent by some practical joker. It is not the first time during the trial that such a thing has occurred. Scoville himself has had worthless checks sent him, one. for $15,000. After recess, Mr. Corkhill stated that he had not expected to speak on the legal points, relying upon the assurance of the defense that the question of jurisdiction would not be raised, but as the last two prayers of the defense distinctly made that issue, he felt it his duty as prosecuting officer of the Government to address the court upon the question, to which he had devoted much careful consideration. He then proceeded to read from printed slips an exhaustive argument upon the subject of jurisdiction. The argument occupied the attention of the court one hour. Davidge then addressed the court upon the general propositions contained in the prayer: “I do not deem it necessary,” he began, “to advert to the question of jurisdiction at this time.” “A very wise decision,” piped in the prisoner. Davidge then discussed the question of “malice,” which, he said, in its legal sense, meant the intentional doing of a wrongful act. FORTY-FIRST DAY. When Gtiteau came into court, as he passed his brother, he whispered to him: “Come over to the dock, I want to see you about something of great importance.” Taking his seat, the prisoner laid down a large bundle of papers, and spreading out a manuscript, busied himself in looking it over.

Judge Porter began his argument shortly after 10 o’clock, and at once fixed the attention of every one in the room. Guiteau pretended to be engaged in nis manuscripts, but soon laid it aside and listened with wrapt attention. Nothing like it has been seen or heard during the past nine the Guiteau trial, as Judge the conduct of the prisoner and the conduct on the part of hisjCounsel of his cause in this court. The crime in all its hideous ugliness was held np to the destation of his hearers. The silence became oppressive, and the presence of the avenging justice in the near future was suggested with the force of conviction that swept from the court-room every vestige of that levity which has so long danced attendance upon every utterance of the prisoner, and, like a veil, obscured from the consciousness of the spectators the horrors of the crime and what should be the solemnity of judicial atonement. The prisoner winced and nervously twisted in his place, and for sever-, al minutes was unable to say anything that in any sense could approach to an interruption. Gradually the prisoner regained his usual assurance, and resumed his daily habit of interrupting with contradictions and denials. For once, however, the insufferable impudence of the prisoner was completely overawed. Neither his noise nor his abuse could interrupt or silence the avalanche of condemnation that swept from the lips of the eloquent counsel. “The prisoner is mistaken, your Honor,” said Judge Porter, “if he believes, by his unseemly brawling, he can prevent my voice being heard by the jury. The puppet cannot be moved in such good time as when he sat with his counsel, andjby hisoutbursts now, he is fast tightening the hangman’s noose about neck.” . -* With a nervous twitching of the mouth, Guiteau muttered, “We’ll see about that.”

The heretofore audacious aud wholly unabashed prisoner seemed ill at ease, and at a loss to understand why his would-be sallies of wit or impudence, wholly failed with the audience. While the more severe became the denunciation of counsel, the more frequent and marked were the demonstrations of approval. Guiteau yelled out: “I staked my life on the jssue, and I’m Willing to go to the gallows tomorrow if it’s the Lord’s will, I’m sick of this bosh, Judge Porter. I wish you would get your $5,000 and go home.” Judge Porter concluded his masterly argument at 11:30 by reading the now famous letter of President Garfield to Judge Payne, in which he complimented and thanked him for brushing away the net work of sophistries with which it has of late years been customary to envelop the plea of insanity when set up in excuse for crimes. Judge Porter began his address with reference to the disorder which had characterized the proceedings of the defense, and then spoke of Mr. Reed’s argument as lawyerliKe, and based on the only law points which, with any plausibility, could be adduced by the defense. Of Scoville’s argument, he said it could only have been delivered by one of the family of Guiteau, who, as he had himself boasted, had learned his law in the police courts, and acquired bis manners among hooting owls In the woods of Western Ohio. Mr. Porter reviewed the .argument of Mr. Davidge, pointing out its strong points. “Malice,” Mr. Davidge had rightfully said, “was in the presumption of law, a question for the Judge,

not the jury. Should the Judge de* clde, as defense desired, the malice was a question of fact for the jury, he would overturn the law. He would create a precedent in this famous case which would inevitably be condemned througn all time to come.” Mr. Scoville had objected that decisions in support of the prosecution’s postulate were as antiquated as his (Porter’s) style of oratory. “I never,” said Porter, “imitated any man and never commented on any one’s oratory.” “I never,” said Porter, “sat at the feet of that Gamaliel as Guiteau did. Whether my manners arid morals’have been improved is for others to say. Judging from the disciple who is before you, he would scarcely seem to be an appropriate instructor, for youth.” Proceeding to expound the law on the subject of malice, reading from the 1880 edition of Archibald’s “Criminal Practice,” Porter dwelt upon the premeditation of Guiteau, Referring to his lyings in wait and to his dogging the footsteps of the President he said: “Was this worthless vagabond the man to be selected and inspired by God, a cheat, a swindler, a creature of vilest habit. He, then, is junior in the firm of Jesus Christ & Co. This murderer, tracking his victim at night, at church, at railroad station, everywhere, till the deed is done. But grant this hideous pretension and allow him the inspiration of Paul, which he impiously quotes, that does not protect, as it did not protect Paul from stripes and death.” Porter went on to say that although the President had died, the Government still lived and his successor was prosecuting his assassin. “Yes,” said Guiteau, "and Arthur employed you under a misapprehension.” “Yes,” said Judge Porter, “under a misapprehension that the law was stronger than Guiteau. Guiteau seems to think that he’s stronger than the law.” “I do not claim to be stronger than the law, but God Almighty is stronger than the law,” said Guiteau sullenly.

“You will come before God Almighty presently,” said Porter solemnly. “Until then he would do well to refer but little to Him. He will feel soon what he has never felt before, the Divine pressure in the form of a hangman’s noose.” The prisoner had sworn on the stand that he was predestined to remove the President. He had forgottep to say that he was also predestined to be hung for it. Speaking again of his interruptions and of the promptings of his family, Porter said he had a supreme contempt for all Guiteaus—not the respectable ones—but- those who sympathized with the assassin. Porter then took up the authorities cited by the defense, pronouncing them either mis-reported or bad law from obscure benches. He sneered at the assertion of Scoville that the antiquated arguments of the prosecution could not stand in the light of those of the defense, which purported to be the outgrowth of arisen lighted age—an age of Guiteaus—when a hungry politician kills a President from pique. “A politician,” countinued Porter, “who had such a belief in the guillibility and depravity of mankind that he supposed he was doing men like General Grant, Mr. Conkling, the greatest parliamentian and one of the foremost statesmen, of his time, and even President Arthur, a service, for which he would receive a reward. Why, had General Grant, Mr. Conkling or President Arthur been standing at the door of the Baltimore and Patomac Railroad on the morning of the shooting; had they seen the assassin creeping upon bis victim, revolver in hand, aiming at his back, an iron hand would have descended which would have paralyzed the assassin and saved the President.” The audience, carried out of themselves by Porter’s eloquence, applauded despite the cries of “Order,” arm “Silence.” Even Guiteau was affected, but he managed to say: “The stalwarts are copaing to my side every day. You ought to see some of

the letters I get. They are all coming to think with me, and so are all decent people.” Porte' ran over the decisions of the State court collectedL in the St. Louis Law Journal introduced yesterday by defense and showed that thejcourts of eighteen States held the view of prosecution, that the insanity of assassin mutt be proved by the preponderance of evidence. The Federal courts unanimously adhered to the same view, while the Courts of eight States Held feebly that the accused was entitled t< the benefit of the doubt. Judgp Cox, at 11:45, began, the reading of ij is decision, which begins with a leng by review of the subject of jurisdiction. He occupied fifty-five minute!; in reading that portion touching upq a the question of jurisdiction. He reviewed the progress of opinion, and cited all important rulings from the earl; j days of the common law In England, and decided against the prayer of the defense. He summed up the question, “That jurisdiction is complete in the place where the wound is completed.” Consequently this court has full cognizance of the offense. Judge ICox next took up the question of the legal test of insanity, and decided that a knowledge and apprecia-

tion of the difference between right and wrong must be taken as the correct test. - //l —*/ Judge Cox concluded his decision at 12, haying consumed an hour and forty minutes with rapid speaking, upon every material point. His rulings were directly against the prayers of the defense. The only grain of comfort for the prisoner was offered when Judge Cox reached the question of reasonable doubt. Upon this subject he said: “I shall not charge the jury to acquit if they find reasonable doubt as to any one element, but I shall take into consideration and charge them relative to the elements, and that if, from all the circumstances and evidence they have reasonable doubt of the commission by defendant of the crime as charged, then they shall acquit.” As Judge Cox finished speaking Guiteau called out: “I am perfectly satisfied with that exposition of the law,”.