dent, and he is well seconded in his efforts by the enlightened zeal of the present Minister of Public Instruction, Don Delfino Sanchez. The "Institutos" of Guatemala and Quezaltenango, and the colleges for females in both towns, are establishments worthy of a progressive government and country. "Belen," with its efficient staff of lady professors, principally foreigners, excites universal admiration for its excellent management and the rapid progress of its pupils. This is the favorite educational establishment, and here the daughters of the leading members of society receive their education, side by side with many who are maintained at the public expense, with the expectation that they will afterward devote part of their time to the education of their less fortunate sisters, as teachers in the public schools that now exist throughout the republic.

The national revenue and expenditures for the year 1879 were as exhibited in the subjoined tables:

REVENCE.

Balance from preceding year

agencies, $70,007.12; bills receivable, $1,202,825.90; various debtors, $233,510.63; shares of the Bank of Salvador, $70,000; United States bonds, $57,612.50, etc. Bills of the bank circulated to the amount of $276,652. The reserve has been increased to $64,000, and the dividend-fund is $20,686.74. Discounts during the six months footed up to $2,063,224.70. The exchange business during the six months was profitable, and promises to be still more favorable on account of special advantages obtained for the bank in Europe, by Mr. J. F. Medina, the former manager. The net profits of the concern were $66,050.52 for the six months, out of which a dividend of $500 per share was paid, or at the rate of over 14 per cent per annum on the paid-up capital of the bank.

The exports and imports, with the destinations and sources thereof respectively, were as follows for 1880:

DESTINATION. Great Britain United States... France... Germany.

EXPORTS.

$21,617

Values. $585,000

Customs receipts..

2,510,369

1,776,000

Taxes, etc..

99,123

727.000

860,000

Reimbursements, interest, etc

18,869

Various

227,000

IMPORTS.

This total shows an increase of $1,964,829 as compared with the showing for January 1, 1879.

In the annual report of the Corporation of Foreign Bondholders, published in 1881, the statement concerning the Guatemala indebtedment growing out of British loans figured as follows: approximate principal unredeemed, £542,200 ($2,711,005); total, with overdue interest, £712,392 ($3,561,960).

We transcribe the following extract from the semi-annual returns of the International Bank of Guatemala for the period ending June 30, 1881; the situation described therein being as satisfactory as the showing of other prosperous banks in larger commercial centers: There are ninety-one subscribers to its funds, who, on a nominal capital of $910,000, have paid up $637,000. Casli in hand, $379,831.17; cash in

The quantity and destinations of the coffee exported in 1880 were as below:

Great Britain.. France...

Germany.

Lbs.

5,907,600

5.083,884

5,522,202

United States

New York... 3,192,185 San Francisco 8,143,421

11,335,606

Balize..

246,895

South America

855,858

Belgium..

171,380

40.380

12,522

Italy

All other destinations

The imports from the United States were as follows in 1880: from New York, $141,591.43; from California, $502,995.26; from New Orleans, $11,367.12; total, $656,913.81. The exports to the United States, in the same year, were of the total value of $1,776,214.70.

The work on the branch of the railway from Escuintla to the capital had been commenced; and a concession for the construction of a line from Santo Tomás, on the Atlantic coast, had been granted to Larrondo Brothers; distance, 240 miles; estimated cost, $14,000,000. This new line, if built, will materially facilitate our trade with Guatemala, there being already a line of steamers plying between New Orleans and Livingston, near Santo Tomás.

Guatemala is now in the Postal Union.

GUITEAU'S TRIAL. Within a few days after the death of President Garfield proceedings were begun in the District of Columbia for bringing his assailant to trial on a charge of murder. At first a question of jurisdiction was raised, the death of the victim having occurred in the State of New Jersey. The opinion was expressed that the rule of the common law prevailed in the District, and that its courts could not have jurisdiction in a case of murder unless the death as well as the criminal act occurred within its boundaries. There was no doubt that the courts of New Jersey would have jurisdiction, inasmuch as the statute law of that State provided that both in the case of death within its limits from criminal injury caused elsewhere, and injury within its limits resulting in death elsewhere, indictment could be found and tried in the county within which either the death or the injury took place. At the request of Judge E. W. Scudder, of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, Attorney-General Stockton considered the question of the proper action to be taken in that State. He wrote to District - Attorney Corkhill, of the District of Columbia, stating that he should not advise any legal proceedings to be taken in New Jersey with a view to the punishment of the crime of Guiteau, unless he should be informed that it could not be punished under the jurisdiction of the courts of the Federal District. The District Attorney replied that he had no doubt that the law in force there would be found adequate to meet the case. Judge Scudder accordingly, on the 4th of October, charged the Grand Jury of Monmouth County that it would not be advisable or necessary "to take any action in this matter at the present time, unless we shall be notified that the prosecution and indictment of the offense in this county are required to prevent a failure of justice, which does not now appear probable, according to the statement made by the proper legal authority of the city of Washington."

The case had by this time been already brought before the Grand Jury of the District of Columbia on the evidence of Surgeon-General Barnes, who testified in relation to the wound; George W. Adams and Officer Kearney, who witnessed the shooting; and Dr. D. S. Lamb, who conducted the autopsy of the President's body. The presentment of the jury was made on the 4th of October, the indictment was found in due form a few days later, and on the 14th of October the prisoner was arraigned in court to plead to the indictment. In the mean time he had caused to be printed in one of the public journals a statement of facts and an explanation of his motives. In this he gave a long account of his career, his participation in the political canvass of 1880, and his efforts to obtain an appointment at the hands of the new Administration. He said:

My conception of the idea of removing the President was this: Mr. Conkling resigned on Monday, May 16,

He then proceeded to give a detailed account of his preparation for the crime and of its execution, claiming that he was under a divine pressure which he could not resist. In regard to the legal aspect of the case and his defense, he said:

I shot the President without malice or murderous

In

intent. I deny any legal liability in this case. order to constitute the crime of murder two elements ice-malice in law or malice in fact. The law presumes must co-exist. First, an actual homicide; second, malmalice from the fact of the homicide; the degree of malice depends upon the condition of the man's mind at the time of the homicide. If two men quarrel and one shoots the other in heat or passion, the law says that is manslaughter. The remoteness of the shooting of the malice. The further you go from the concepfrom the moment of its conception fastens the degree tion to the shooting the greater the malice, because the law says that in shooting a man a few hours or a few days after the conception the mind has a chance in fact depends upon the circumstances attending the to cool, and therefore the act is deliberate. Malice homicide. Malice in law is liquidated in this case by the facts and circumstances, as set forth in these pages, attending the removal of the President. I had none but the best of feelings, personally, toward the PresiGeneral Garfield. dent. I always thought of him and spoke of him as

On his

At the request of the accused, his brotherin-law, George M. Scoville, of Chicago, took charge of his defense. Attempts to secure the aid of prominent lawyers, including R. T. Merrick, of Washington; Emory A. Storrs, of Chicago; and B. F. Butler, of Massachusetts, were unsuccessful, though Mr. Merrick expressed his willingness to argue the question of jurisdiction, if it were made an issue in the case. arraignment the prisoner pleaded “Not guilty,” and desired to make a statement, but the privilege was denied, as not appropriate at that time. In arguing for a delay of the trial, Mr. Scoville stated that the defense would consist of two points: First, the insanity of the defendant; and, second, that the wound was not necessarily mortal, and was not the cause of death. The time of trial was fixed for November 7th, and it was intimated that there might be a preliminary consideration of the question of jurisdiction. This was not had, however, as the plea of "Not guilty" waived for the time the objection on this point. Subsequently Judge Cox, of the Criminal Court, assigned Mr. Leigh Robinson to be associate counsel for the defense; and Mr. Walter D. Davidge, of Washington, and John K. Porter, of New York, were employed to assist in the prosecution. A motion for the postponement of the trial to November 21st resulted in its being set down peremptorily for the 14th of that month. In the mean time an order was obtained from the

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 harmony appeared between the counsel for the defense. Mr. Robinson applied for a postpone ment, on the ground that he was not fully prepared, and was endeavoring to obtain additional legal aid. Mr. Scoville objected to his proceedings, declaring that he had not been consulted in the matter; and the prisoner violently demanded 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 Republican 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 disqualifications 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 character of an impartial juror. This is an error. As the Supreme Court says: "In these days of newspaper enterprise 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 vicinity, 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 respect to its merits." If the prevalent idea I have mentioned were correct, it would follow that the most illiterate and uninformed people in 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 conditional opinions, dependent upon the truth of the reports, and not so fixed as to prevent one from giving a fair and impartial hearing to the accused, and rendering a verdict according to the evidence, do not disqualify. On the other hand, fixed and decided opinions 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 excused, 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, merchant; Thomas H. Langley, grocer; Michael Sheehan, grocer; Samuel F. Hobbs, plasterer; George W. Gates, machinist; Ralph Wormley (colored), laborer; W. H. Brawner, commission

merchant; Thomas Heinlein, iron-worker; Joseph Prather, commission-merchant.

On the day on which the jury was completed the prisoner, who claimed to be acting as counsel in his own defense, succeeded in having an appeal for aid "to the legal profession of America" published, in spite of the objection of Mr. Scoville.

The case for the prosecution was opened by District-Attorney Corkhill, on the 17th of November. He detailed to the jury the facts relating 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 motives and purposes, as bearing on the legal aspects 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 in general the law presumes a man to intend 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 malice aforethought, did kill and murder James A. Garfield. But crime is never natural. The man who attempts to violate the laws of God and society goes counter to the ordinary course of human action. 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 everyday transactions of life. No criminal ever violated the laws who did not leave the traces of his crime distinct 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.

He

On the same day Secretary Blaine and Senior Simon Comacho, Minister from Venezuela, were examined as witnesses of the act of shooting. Mr. Blaine 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-witnesses 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 relating 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 support 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

ment. The doctors who first examined the wound and attended the President throughout his illness gave their testimony, and Dr. Bliss was closely cross-examined in regard to the mode of treatment. The joint of the vertebral column which was perforated by the bullet was exhibited in court, and the character of the wound was fully explained, as well as the details of its treatment by the physicians. The part of the cross-examination intended to show maltreatment was strenuously objected to by the prosecution, and by agreement the doctors' record was submitted to the counsel for the defense. Dr. Bliss's last answer on the witness-stand was that the wound itself was necessarily mortal. On the 18th of November there was a somewhat exciting episode in an attempt to shoot the prisoner while on his way from the court to the jail in a van. A man on horseback followed the vehicle for some distance, and then riding rapidly past fired a pistol into it. The bullet grazed the prisoner's wrist, but did no serious injury. The assailant escaped at the time, but a man named William Jones was subsequently arrested, indicted for the assault, and released on bail.

The second week of the trial opened on the 21st, with a completion of the medical testimony in regard to the injuries of the deceased, and this concluded the presentation of the case on behalf of the prosecution. The same day Mr. Robinson withdrew from the case, in consequence of discord between himself and the other counsel, and the opening for the defense was begun. An opportunity was first given the prisoner to speak in his own behalf, but he merely made a few remarks, saying that he thought the true way for him was to interject statements as the case proceeds." Mr. Scoville's address, which was begun November 21st, and occupied the whole of the next day and part of that which followed, was devoted to setting forth the defense of insanity, on which alone he relied. He gave an account of the Guiteau family, with a view of showing an hereditary taint, and detailed the career of the prisoner, his early training, peculiar religious views, experience as a member of the Oneida Community, efforts as a practicing lawyer and a lecturer on theological subjects, his projects for establishing newspapers, and his extravagant political aspirations. He claimed that all this tended to show insanity, and would be duly proved. On the 23d of November testimony for the defense began. The proceedings were constantly interrupted by the prisoner, who contradicted the witnesses and criticised the course of counsel. Intimations of gagging and of removal from the court-room failed to repress him. On the second day of the examination of witnesses for the defense he read a statement in which he said:

I propose to have all the facts bearing on this case to go to the court and the jury, and to do this I have been forced to interrupt counsel and witnesses who

were mistaken as to supposed facts. I meant no disAny fact in my courtesy to them or to any one. Deity or myself, is of vital importance in this case, career bearing on the question who fired that shot, the and I propose that it go to the jury. Hence my personal, political, and theological record may be developed. I am glad that your Honor and the opposing counsel are disposed to give an historical review of my life, and I ask the press and the public to do likewise. All I want is absolute justice, and I shall not permit any crooked work. I have no idea my counsel want crooked work. They are often mistaken in supposed facts, and I shall have to correct them. Last spring certain newspapers in New York and Washington were bitterly denouncing the President for breaking up the Republican party by improper appointments. I would like those newspapers to reprint those editorials now, and see how they would look and sound. In attempting to remove the President, I only did what the papers said ought to be done. Since July 2d they have been deifying the President, and denouncing me for doing the very thing they said ought to be done. I want the newspapers and the doctors, who actually killed the President, to share with me the odium of his death. I never would have shot him of my own volition, notwithstanding those newspapers, if I had not been commissioned by the Deity

to do the deed. But this fact does not relieve the newspapers from the supposed disgrace of the President's removal. If he had been properly treated, he would have been alive to-day. It has been published that I am in fear of death. It is false. I have always been a religious man and an active worker for God. Some people think that I am a murderer, but the Lord does not, for he inspired the act, as in the case of Abraham and a score of other cases in the Bible.

Several days were occupied with testimony relating to the family and personal history of the accused, which was intended to sustain the theory of an hereditary tendency to insanity and the progressive development of mental aberration in the prisoner himself. He was placed on the witness-stand to testify in his own behalf on the 29th of November, and examined for four days. Before he began his testimony, several of his letters to different members of his family were read and put in evidence. The prisoner, in response to questions of his counsel, gave a detailed account of his own recollection of incidents in his past life, his early training, religious views, experience as a member of the Oneida Community, which he was induced to join by his father, and his subsequent efforts as a lecturer, a lawyer, and a politician. He also gave an account of his conception of the idea of removing the President in order to heal the breach in the Republican party and save the nation from peril, claiming to have acted under inspiration and divine "pressure." He was subjected to a severe cross-examination, under which he was sometimes rather violent in his language and gesticulations, but generally very skillful in adhering to his theory of the crime, and in meeting the advances of the questioning counsel. The purpose of the prosecution was to show that his "conception," as he called it, followed closely upon his final disappointment in his quest for office, and was accompanied by indications of a desire for revenge; also that a desire for notoriety entered into his motives. The testimony of the accused was concluded

on the 2d of December, and was followed by evidence intended to show the political situa tion prior to July 2d, which was assumed to have been an exciting cause upon the mind of the prisoner to impel him to his act of that date.

The fourth week of the trial opened on the 5th of December, with the introduction of expert testimony on the part of the defense to prove insanity. The following hypothetical question, based on the facts which the defense assumed as having been developed by the previous testimony, was propounded to the witnesses by Mr. Scoville:

Assuming it to be a fact that there was a strong hereditary taint of insanity in the blood of the prisoner at the bar; also, that at about the age of thirtyfive years his own mind was so much deranged that he was a fit subject to be sent to an insane asylum; also, that at different times after that date during the next succeeding five years he manifested such decided symptoms of insanity, without simulation, that many different persons conversing with him, and observing his conduct, believed him to be insane; also, that in or about the month of June, 1881, at or about the expiration of said term of five years, he became demented by the idea that he was inspired of God to remove by death the President of the United States; also, that he acted on what he believed to be such inspiration, and on what he believed to be in accordance with the divine will in the preparation for and in the accomplishment of such a purpose; also, that he committed the act of shooting the President under what he believed to be a divine command, which he was not at liberty to disobey, and which belief made out a conviction which controlled his conscience and overpowered his will as to that act, so that he could not resist the mental pressure upon him; also, that immediately after the shooting he appeared calm and as if relieved by the performance of a great duty; also, that there was no other adequate motive for the act than the conviction that he was executing the divine will for the good of his country-assuming all of these propositions to be true, state whether, in your opinion, the prisoner was sane or insane at the time of shooting President Garfield?

The first of the expert witnesses, Dr. James G. Kiernan, of Chicago, replied to this question, that, assuming these propositions to be true, he had no doubt of the prisoner's insanity. On cross-examination the witness expressed a belief in the existence of moral insanity, and stated the opinion that about one person in five in the community was more or less insane. Dr. Charles II. Nichols, of the Bloomingdale Asylum, New York, and Dr. Charles F. Folsom, of Boston, also testified that, assuming the statements in the hypothetical question to be true, the person described would, in their opinion, be insane. Dr. Samuel Worcester, of Salem, Massachusetts, insisting on an explanation of the question, was set aside as a witness for the defense. Dr. W. W. Golding, of Washington; Dr. James H. McBride, of Milwaukee; and Dr. Walter Channing, of Brookline, Massachusetts, also testified that, assuming the propositions of the question to be all true, they should regard the prisoner as insane. Dr. Theodore W. Fisher, of Boston, replied, "I should dislike very much to be confined to that statement of facts, but if I am obliged to

answer that question I should say he was insane." This concluded the medical testimony for the defense, and was followed by the reading of passages from a book written by the prisoner and entitled "Truth," and by the evidence of two or three public men who had been acquainted with the political doings of the accused. The prisoner himself petulantly criticised the theory and conduct of his counsel, and desired to have President Arthur, General Grant, ex-Senator Conkling, and other prominent public men summoned, as well as the editors of several leading newspapers. At the opening of the court on December 7th, he made the following statement:

May it please your Honor, the American people do not desire that this case shall be tried again, and I do not desire it. I say, with the utmost respect to this court and jury and my counsel, Mr. Scoville, that I am not satisfied with the political situation as developed in this case. That is the gist of the alleged offense. The President of the United States would never have been shot if it had not been for the political situation as it existed last May and June, and I say I have a right, as a matter of law, appearing as my own counsel, to ask your Honor that General Grant, Senators Conkling and Platt, and President Arthur and those kind of men, who were so down upon Garfield that they would not speak to him on the street, and would not go to the White House-I have a right to show that-I have a right to show my personal relations to those gentlemen; that I was on friendly terms with them; that I was cordially received, well dressed, and well fed at the Fifth Avenue Hotel by the National Committee. I want to show my supposed personal relations to those men. I do not want to take exception to your Honor's ruling, but I shall be obliged to do so. I have no doubt that the court in banc will give me a new trial.

The same day the rebutting testimony of the prosecution was begun, with the understanding that Dr. Spitzka, of New York, who had been summoned for the defense as an expert and had not yet appeared, might be examined at a later stage of the proceedings. Three days were occupied with evidence in rebuttal of that which was intended to show insanity in the Guiteau family, and in support of the theory that the prisoner was simply depraved and wicked, having been addicted to cheating, hypocrisy, and vice, and possessed with an inordinate vanity and desire for notoriety.

On the opening of the fifth week, December 12th, Dr. Spitzka appeared and was examined for the defense. He testified that he had made a personal examination of the prisoner, and believed him to be insane, "a moral imbecile, or rather a moral monstrosity." He was subjected to a severe cross-examination, intended to discredit his authority as an expert. On the 13th the prosecution began the introduction of expert testimony in rebuttal of that of the defense. The first witness of this class was Dr. Fordyce Barker, of New York, who testified that there was no such thing as hereditary insanity, though there might be a transmitted liability to become insane, and that in his opinion what was termed moral insanity was nothing but wickedness. The general purport of his testimony was that in Guiteau's case