382 



GUITEAU'S TRIAL. 



court permitting the summoning of twenty 

 witnesses for the defense, at the expense of the 

 Government. 



On the first day set for the trial, lack of har- 

 mony appeared between the counsel for the 

 defense. Mr. Robinson applied for a postpone- 

 ment, on the ground that he was not fully pre- 

 pared, and was endeavoring to obtain additional 

 legal aid. Mr. Scoville objected to his proceed- 

 ings, declaring that he had not been consulted 

 in the matter; and the prisoner violently de- 

 manded that Mr. Robinson "get out of the 

 case." The prisoner also attempted to deliver 

 an address to the court, but was not permitted 

 to do so. The address was, however, published, 

 and contained a reiteration of his motives in 

 "removing the President," to save the Re- 

 publican party, and prevent a new civil war ; 

 and of his claim that he was inspired by the 

 Deity, and compelled to the performance of the 

 act. No postponement was granted. After 

 the jury-panel had been sworn, Judge Cox 

 made the following observations regarding dis- 

 qualifications for the required service : 



Under the Constitution, the prisoner is entitled to 

 be tried by an impartial jury. But an idea prevails 

 that any impression or opinion, however lightly formed 

 or feebly held, disqualifies from serving in the charac- 

 ter of an impartial juror. This is an error. As the 

 Supreme Court says : " In these days of newspaper en- 

 terprise and universal education, every case of public 

 interest is almost as a matter of necessity brought to 

 the attention of all the intelligent people in the vicin- 

 ity, and scarcely one can be found, among those best 

 fitted for jurors, who has not read or heard of it, and 

 who has not some impression or some opinion in re- 

 spect to its merits." It the prevalent idea I have men- 

 tioned were correct, it would follow that the most 

 illiterate and uninformed people hi the community 

 would be the best qualified to discharge duties which 

 require some intelligence and information. It is now 

 generally, if not universally, agreed that such opinions 

 or impressions as are merely gathered from newspapers 

 or public report, and are mere hypothetical or condi- 

 tional opinions, dependent upon the truth of the re- 

 ports, and not so fixed as to prevent one from giving a 

 lair and impartial hearing to the accused, and render- 

 ing a verdict according to the evidence, do not dis- 

 qualify. On the other hand, fixed and decided opin- 

 ions against the accused, which would have to be 

 overcome before one could feel impartial, and which 

 would resist the force of evidence for the accused, 

 would be inconsistent with the impartiality that the 

 law requires. There is a natural reluctance to serve 

 on a case like this, and a disposition to seek to be ex- 

 cused, on the ground of having formed an opinion, 

 when in fact no real disqualification exists. But it is 

 your duty, as good citizens, to assist the court in the 

 administration of justice in just such cases, unless you 

 are positively disqualified, and I shall expect you on 

 your consciences to answer fairly as to the question of 

 impartiality, according to the explanation of it which 

 I have given to you. 



Three days were occupied in obtaining the 

 jury, which was constituted as follows: John 

 P. Hamlin, restaurant-keeper ; Frederick W. 

 Brandenburg, cigar-dealer; Henry J. Bright, 

 retired merchant; Charles J. Stewart, mer- 

 chant ; Thomas H. Langley, grocer ; Michael 

 Sheehan, grocer; Samuel F. Hobbs, plasterer ; 

 George W. Gates, machinist ; Ralph Wormley 

 (colored), laborer; W. H. Bra wner, commission- 



merchant ; Thomas Heinlein, iron-worker ; Jo- 

 seph Prather, commission-merchant. 



On the day on which the jury was completed 

 the prisoner, who claimed to be acting as coun- 

 sel in his own defense, succeeded in having an 

 appeal for aid " to the legal profession of Amer- 

 ica " published, in spite of the objection of Mr. 

 Scoville. 



The case for the prosecution was opened by 

 District- Attorney Corkhill, on the 17th of No- 

 vember. He detailed to the jury the facts re- 

 lating to the crime, and endeavored to show 

 that it was planned and executed as the result 

 of political disappointment, and for the purpose 

 of revenge. In regard to the question of mo- 

 tives and purposes, as bearing on the legal as- 

 pects of the crime, he said : 



The unlawful killing of any reasonable creature 

 by a person of sound memory and discretion, with 

 malice aforethought, either expressed or implied, is 

 murder. The motives and intentions of an individual 

 who commits a crime are of necessity known to him 

 alone. No human power can penetrate the recesses 

 of the heart ; no eye but the eye of God can discern 

 the motives for human action. Hence the law wisely 

 says that a man's motives shall be judged from his 

 acts, so that if one kill another suddenly, without any 

 provocation, the law implies malice. If a man uses a 

 deadly weapon, it is presumed he intended to commit 

 murder, and hi general the law presumes a man to in- 

 tend the natural consequences of his act. Were there 

 nothing more against the accused than the occurrences 

 of the morning of July 2d, the evidence of his crime 

 would be complete, and you would be authorized to 

 conclude that he feloniously, willfully, and with mal- 

 ice aforethought, did kill and murder James A. Gar- 

 field. But crime is never natural. The man who 

 attempts to violate the laws of God and society goes 

 counter to the ordinary coupe of human action. He 

 is a world to himself. He is against society, against 

 organization, and of necessity his action can never be 

 measured by the rules governing men in the every- 

 day transactions of life. No cnminal ever violated 

 the laws who did not leave the traces of his crime dis- 

 tinct and clear when once discovered. So in this case 

 we can only add to the enormity of this offense by 

 showing you its origin, its conception, and the plans 

 adopted for its execution. 



On the same day Secretary Blaine and SeCor 

 Simon Comacho, Minister from Venezuela, were 

 examined as witnesses of the act of shooting. 

 Mr. Blame was also examined with reference 

 to the prisoner's persistent and unsuccessful 

 application for office previous to his alleged 

 conception of the crime. The next day was 

 occupied with further testimony of eye-wit- 

 nesses of the shooting, and the examination of 

 the private secretary of the late President in 

 regard to the efforts of the accused to obtain 

 an appointment to office. Several letters re- 

 lating to the application were put in evidence. 

 In some of these the prisoner expressed his 

 dissatisfaction with the conduct of Mr. Blaine, 

 accused the latter of working for his own 

 nomination for the presidency in 1884, and 

 promised the President his influence and sup- 

 port for a renomination. He also intimated that 

 the course of Mr. Blaine threatened to bring 

 disaster to the Administration. The next two 

 days were occupied with medical testimony in 

 regard to the President's injury and its treat- 



