Rensselaer Republican, Volume 14, Number 20, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 February 1882 — GUILTY. [ARTICLE]

GUILTY.

A Jury’s Just Judgment —The Guiteau Inspiration Business at an End. And the Villain Must Stretch . Hemp Lik any Other v Murderer. FIFTY-SECOND DAY. As soon as the court opened, Judge Porter was about to begin his speech, when the prisoner forestalled him, and called out from the dock: “I desire to say that some crank has signed my name to a letter that appeared in a paper this morning. It was without any authority, and I repudiate it. I also want to say in -regard to a couple of cranks, who, I understand, have been arrested for hanging around here, that : if they undertake to harm me, they ■will be shot down. I want every one to understand this.” Judge Porter, who had paused to permit this preliminary announcement, began by saying: ‘*Theprisoner, as usual, has made the opening speech.” After thanking the court and jury for their consideration yesterday, which had made it possible for him to appear before them to-day, Judge Porter said: ‘-This whole department has been a sham and imposture —an imposture which was supposed to have gained a strength of credence from reiteration. The truth asserted by this defense is that truth which is uttered with effrontery enforced by persistency and re-duplicated by reiteration. This is the truth which they assert in opposition to that truth Which you are to ascertain and declare. In my remarks yesterday I showed you how the prissoner has belied by his acts the character given him by his counsel. I showed you that he had been a liar, a murderer, and a swindler at heart, from the beginning. That this man has grown worse every year of his life, we have all seeu and known.” Guiteau That’s bosh, and you know it, Porter. Judge Porter cont inued to depict the character of the prisoner and the fallacies of his defense, when Guiteau again and again interruptedjhim.at one time calling out: “Attorney-General MacVeagh wouldn’t have anything to do with it.” Judge Porter, half replying to the prisoner, said, “And this v hristiaa gentleman would have you even believe that Attorney-General MacVeagh had dipped his hands in Garfield’s blood. Guiteau—Gh, that’s very flue A moment later, allusion having been made by Judge Porter to the present Attorney General, Guiteau bawled out: “He’s a high-toned gentleman, and you are a wine-bibber. I’ve got your record, Mr. Porter.” Judge Porter (with deliberation)— ■Well, perhaps I am. Guiteau (with a drawing accent)— Well, I guess you are, Mr. Judge Porter.

Continuing, Judge Porter said: “This Christian gentleman, who prays every night and every morning, would have you believe that lam a wine feibber,” With great effect and impressive manner, Judge Porter em pbasieed, by an anecdote which he related, the distinction between the spirit of love and the spirit of evil; the latter being expressed in the life and character of the prisoner. Referring to the decision of Judge Martin of New Jersey, which had been re-enforced by a decision in Ohio, he was again interrupted by Bcoville, •who desired to know if the arguments were te be heard again upon the law points.

A sharp colloquy between counsel ensued, when Judge Porter removed the ottectioH by handing his authority to the Judge, saying it will answer every purpose of mine, your Honor, if you should have occasion to rule upon 4hat point. , Returning again to the crime and its commission, Judge Porter said: •■“Who killed Garfield?” Guiteau— I The doctors. Porter—The doctors? Guiteau—Yes; the Lord let them do At to confirm, my act. Judge Porter—Secretary Blaine was responsible? Guiteau—l say morally responsible. Porter—Mr. Blaine saved his life on that night before the murder simply •by his presence with him as they walked together. He might have saved his life oh that fatal 2d of July, but from the tact that the murderer stole up Jrom behind. Then Blaine is morally responsible -for not preventing the crime. The prisoner confessed that Mrs. Garfield’s presence with her hustband on a former occasion had presented Mm from shooting. He was «sked if Mrs. Garfield had been leaning upon his arm instead of Blaine on thac fatal morning, would have shot him, and he answered “no.” Then Mrs. Garfield is responsible for her husband’s death, according to the fallacies of the wretchedly fa'laclous defense. Referring to the oratorical, flight of counsel for defense

when he painted the President’s widow at her daily prayers, praying for the acquittal of the prisoner in the name of justice, Judge Porter, in burning language, showed up the profanity and inconsistency of such assertions, and rebuked the assumption of the man who had never exchanged a word with Mrs. Garfield, in presuming to credit her *with such monstrous sentidien ts. Continuing, Judge Porter said: “Who else is responsible? John H. Noyes, he is responsible. He killed Garfield. John H. Noyes, from whom the prisoner stole his lectures.”

Guiteau—That is false. I rely on my own brains for my productions. ji“Who else?” said Porter. “His father is responsible. That father whom he struck when eighteen years old: He killed President Garfield—that father whom he says he can never forgive, and with whom he had not, for the last fifteen years of his honored life, exchanged a word. Who else is responsible? Why, the' mother—the mother whom he scarcely even remembers, who was guilty of the monstrosity of having an attack of erysipelas, so as to necessitate the cutting off of her hair some weeks before his birth, and who for this reason, it is asserted, transmitted congenital insanity to this murderer. Who else is responsible? Why, Uncle Francis killed Garfield. Uncle Francis, who, as we are heing disappointed in love, either killed the husband of the woman he loved or fought a sham duel, and long after became demented. Then Cousin Abby—she is responsible—who, unfortunately, was taken possession of by one of this Guiteau tribe—a traveling mesmerist—and her young mind so wrought upon that finally she, for better protection, was sent to the insane asylum. She killed Garfield, by making this murderer ineaue, and as if all this were not enough to kill President Garfield.”

Guiteau There’s enough to kill your case, according to your own showing. Judge Porter—Why the Chicago Convention killed him. If it hadn’t nominated him he would not have been killed. His nomination was the act of God. His election was the act of God, says the prisoner, and he would have us believe the Deity who had thus tjice confirmed his choice, found it necessary to correct his labors by appointing this wretched swindler, this hypocrite, syphilitic monstrosity, to murder the President, whose nomination and election he had confirmed. Tlie Press killed Garfield, and the press is arraigned by the prisoner, and, without an indictment, the press is found guilty by the murderer. But; fortunately, they are found guilty only by the blistered tongue of a murderous liar himself After recess Judge |Porter resumed his argument, and pointed out the cunning, the duplicity, the acting of the prisoner since the beginning of the trial. “You are, gentleman of the jury, no more kings in respect of the law than is the prisoner in the dock, who sits uncrowned save with his own conceit.” Referring to the oft-repeat-ed assertion that he had sent Garfield prepared to meet his God, and he (Guiteau), too, was ready to die, if God willed it, Judge Porter, with deliberate emphasis, said: “I do not believe, in all this assemblage there is one soul that contemplates with such abject terror the possibility of finding his Maker as does this brazen murderer.”

Guiteau whirled around with the ferocity of a wild beast, and fairly yelled : “That’s a miserable lie, and you know it, Porter, and you are an infernal scoundrel. I hope God Almighty will send for you soon—both you and Corkhill. Such a miserable sinking whine as that is.” ‘‘The law,” said Judge Porter, “as it hears upon this case, is supreme. The court and" you are but simply Godmade men, under the obligation of a solemn oath, to bring in your verdict under the law and facts.” Summing the questions presented by the case upon which they were soon to be called upon to pass, Judge Porter said: The first of the questions for you to consider is

1. Was the prisoner insane on the 2d of July? If he was not, the case is at an end and your sworu duty is ended. 2. (If you reach thatl, if he was insane on that day, was he insane to that degree that on the 2d of July he did not know that murder was morally and legally wrong? if he was not insane to that degree, you are bound,under your oaths to convict him. 3. If* in utter disregard of his confession under oath, you shall find that he actually and honestly believed that God had commanded him to kill President ’ Garfield, and that he was under that delusion, unlessyou find the further fact that such delusion disabled him from knowing that such an act was morally and legally wrong, you are bound, under your oaths, to convict him. 4. If you find that such delusion did exist, and that God commanded hin\to do the act, and that such delusion was the sole product of insanity, then, and then only, you acquit him. When you find he was Unable to control his own will, you must remember that under oath he has sworn he was able to control It, for he said: ‘‘Had Mrs. Garfield been with him at the depot on the 2d of July, I would not have shot him.” 5. If you find that even though he was partially insane, it resulted from Ins own malignity, his own depravity, yet still you are bound, under the in-

of the court, to convict him. .6. If, upon the whole case yog have no resonable doubt whether he was partially or wholly insane; if you believe that he knew his act was legally and morally wrong, you are, under your oaths, bound to convict him. i “Thelaw,” said Judge Porter, “is founded on reason, and it must not be said that an American jury shall override the law and establish a principle which will let murder aud rape and arson lun riot through the land.” fiftY-thibd day.

As usual, Guiteau opened the proceedings of the court/by announcing: “My sister las been doing some silly talking in Chicago. She means well, but she’s no lawyer.” Judge Porter immediately resumed his argument. Admonished by the failing snow aud the severity of the weather from which he had suffered, and from which, doubtless, the jury had suffered, he felt it necessary to vary somewhat from his original intentions and trust to the intelligence and honor of the jury to supply his defects. He would not, therefore, linger over the dry details of the evidence. Feeling it imparatively necessary that this case should be brought to a couclusion as soon as possible, he would simply touch upon a few salient points of the evidence. “John W. Guiteau,” said Judge Porter, “I believe to be an honorable man. He came here ready to contribute his means, bis evidence, and his services to save a brother’s life and an honored father’s name, and yet the truth comes from his lips that must impress upon every one of you the conviction that on the 2d of July this prisoner was as sane as you or I, or the Judge upon this bench.” Beading from the evidence of J. W. Guiteau, and commenting upon it, Judge Porter said of the prisoner: “He has two faces—” Guiteau—How many have you got?

Judge Porter —He has two faces—one showing the sanctity of the Pharisee. and the other the hideous grin of a fiend that possesses him. As he continued to read from J. W. Guiteau’s testimony relative to his last interview with the prisoner, Guiteau interrupted with such comments a 3 “What I say, is always true, Judge Porter; what you say is generally false.” “I never said so.” “That is absolutely false.” Proceeding, Judge Porter contrasted the life conduct and deceitful practices of the prisoner with the Apostle Paul, in the light of the prisoner’s assumption that he, like Paul, was honestly engaged doing the Lord’s work. Paul never palmed off brass watches for gold.

“Neither did I,” spoke up Guiteau. “Paul never swindled his creditors out of their just does,” continued Porter. “Oh, you’re a blood-man,” retaliated Guiteau. “You belong to Judas’ tribe.” The picture drawn by Judge Porter was anything but a lovely one, and provoke the prisoner to most abusive retorts. “You’re a liar, and you know it; and I tell you so to your face, Judge Porter,” he called out. Continuing to read from evidence, Judge Porter was again and again interrupted by the prisoner, who called out: “Read the record; that’s bigger than my brother. He’s no brother to me, and never has'been till he came to this trial. It’s contemptible in you to speak about my brother in the way you do.”

Judge Porter, in an apparently incidental way, spoke of the horror and detestation with which men of all parties and all shades of opinion looked upon the prisoner, and the unanimity with which they execiate this act. “You’re a liar, and you know it,” shouted the prisoner with the energy of desperation: “the American people are on my side, and so is the press.” As Judge Porter continued his arraignment of the prisoner, Guiteau winced and nervously twisted in his seat, and finally drowned the voice of Judge Porter, who gave way to bis clamor. In savage tones he snouted : “A saint from heaven couldn’t stand the abuse of that man Porter, and I won’t stand it. I wilf relieve my mind. The idea of this man trying to make me out a fighting man, a man of bad character, and all that. It’s a lie, and he knows it. He’s a liar, and I’ll call him so.”

Judge Porter—l am sjmply giving the sworn statement of his own brother. Guiteau—He’s no brother of mine. I wouldn’t have spoken to him at the Fifth Avenue Hotel last Summer. I have nothing against him, but I don’t like his style. I did not like my fathers style, either. My sister sympa-. thizes with me, and my brother sympathizes with my father. I want that understood. It’s contemptible in that man Porter to undertake to convince the jury that I’m an unprincipled, bau mau. The interruptions of the prisoner became more violent and frequent, till reinforced by an objoction of Scovllle, the clamor and pin, for the moment resembled a small Babel. Scoville finally made himself heard, and desired au exception to be noticed to the statement of the construction put on the evidence by Judge Porter a sharp discussion ensued, during which' the prisoner made himself heard from the dock,

shouting, “It’s an outrage for that man to be allowed to speak. He ought to be under arrest for his insolence. It has been nothing but one strain of abuse from him all the morning. It’s enough to provoke a saint from heaven. It’s a disgrace upon a court of justice.” The bailiffs undertook to quiet the prisoner, and succeeded in drawing his attention from the dispute of the counsel, and attracting his abuse to themselves. It seemed for a moment more than possible that his vicious demonstration might provoke some of the officers beyond the point of endurance, and perhaps to the point of assuming the functions of the court in administering wholesome and muchneeded discipline. Judge Cox called for the reading from the stenographer’s notes of the passage which had caused the dispute, andpromptly decided againßt Scoville’s demand “that counsel be stopped.” Passing to the testimony of Dr. Spitzka, Judge Porter said: “I wonder, if Lucifer were on trial, would Dr. Spitzka pronounce him a moral imbecile a moral monstrosity. Satan fell from his high estate.” Pausing a moment. Judge Porter said: “Contrast the conduct of this vindictive, cowardly wretch, with Charlotte Corday, who walked peacefully to the soaffold, with her hands folded over the cross upon her breast, and a serene smile that denoted her willingness to suffer death for her country and the patriotism that instigated her act.” “I ain’t afraid to die either,” shouted the prisoner. “You may put my body in the ground if you can, but I tell you this nation will go down in blood if you harm a hair of my head.” Next Judge Porter compared the prisoner to Wilkes Booth, and showed the latter to be almost a patriot compared with the cowardly assassin now on trial. “For Booth was actuated by a mistaken motive of patriotism, and was a man of manhood and manliness. But this sneaking, oowardly wretch could plan for his victim’s death and his own safety at the same time, and murdered his man for revenge andfnotoriety.” Guiteau—“l shot my man in broadday light, and don’t you forget it, Porter.”

Pressing the assertion that Guiteau was actuated by revenge and a desire for notoriety, Judge Porter compared him to a noted criminal ; in Europe. “I don’t recall his name,” said Judge Porter, “but he said, ‘I am the ugliest man in Europe.’ ” “Well, you wasn’t there,” interrupted Guiteau. “You’ll be the ugliest man i 1 history, though ’’ Continued Judge Porter (quoting)— “I would rather be the ugliest man in Europe and have notoriety, than remain in the ranks of mediocrity.” After recess, Judge Porter resumed: “There is one man between you and the grave of the slaughtered President, who knows whether bis defense is a sham one or not.” Judge Porter then read from the*ietter of the prisoner to his father in which he said: “For years I was haunted with the idea that I was cutout for some great mission, but uow I am convinced that it was a devilish delusion, and denounce my vanity aui egotism.” “His whole life,” said Judge Porter, “was in accord, and all the evidence substantiated the assumption that revenge and a morbid desire for notoriety actuated the prisoner.” Porter concluded his argument and Judge Cox read his charge to the jury. Guilty. A special to the Journai, Indianapolis last night, states that the jury in the Guiteau case returned a verdict of guilty, after having been out only a few minutes. The penalty which is fixed by law, is death.