As the

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. 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 seck 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. II. 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. 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 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.

On the same day Secretary Blaine and Señor 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 unsuccessfu! 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 lating to the application were put in evidence. an appointment to office. Several letters reIn 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

on the 2d of December, and was followed by evidence intended to show the political situation prior to July 20, 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 fie 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 bane 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

there was no indication of the kind of delusion or irresistible impulse which could denote genuine insanity. He was followed by several lay witnesses, who testified to various transactions and experiences showing the depraved character of the accused. Dr. Noble, of the Washington jail, testified to the prisoner's conduct in jail, and believed him to be perfectly sane. General Reynolds, of Chicago, gave an account of an interview with the prisoner on the 14th of July, at which the latter expressed his astonishment that his act was denounced by prominent "stalwart " Republicans from whom he had expected protection. An attempt was made to show that the idea of inspiration originated after the prisoner found that there was no hope that he would be shielded by the faction who, in his view, had benefited by his act. Among the witnesses was a Mrs. Dunmire, who had been married to the defendant, and had obtained a divorce in 1874, on the ground of adultery. She had no reason to believe him insane. The expert testimony as to what constituted insanity was then resumed, the judge ruling, in response to an objection by the defense, that there was no reason, while one witness was testifying, for excluding the others from the court-room. Dr. Francis D. Loring, of Washington, and Dr. Allan McLane Hamilton, of New York, were examined on the 16th of December. The proceedings were interrupted from that date until the 21st on account of the death of the wife of a juror, who was permitted to go home for three days under an injunction to himself and his associates to hold no communication with other persons in regard to the trial. In this interval a cast of the prisoner's head was made by Mr. Theodore A. Mills, assisted by his father, Clark Mills, which it was the intention of the defense to introduce as evidence. The measurement of the head, according to a statement of Mr. Mills, was 231 inches in circumference, "self-esteem 63, firmness 6." The development of the left side was said to be normal, while the right was almost flat.

Dr. Hamilton's testimony was continued on the 21st of December; and Dr. Worcester, who had been originally summoned for the defense, was called by the prosecution. The facts assumed by that side, as established by evidence, were summed up in the following hypothetical question addressed to the witness:

First hypothesis: Assume a man forty years of age, in good health, who has always enjoyed good health, and who had never been seriously ill during the whole of his life, but that for some time previous to his birth his mother was an invalid; that one paternal uncle was an inmate of an insane asylum and died there, the alleged cause of the insanity being disappointed affection and mortification after fighting a sham duel; that another uncle was of dissipated and dissolute habits, and two first-cousins were of unsound mind; that he was brought up under the care of his father, who was a man of earnest religious belief, and who enjoyed a high character for honesty, integrity, uprightness, candor, and excellent business qualifications, and who was, from time to time, for many VOL. XXI.-25 A

years, elected to public positions of trust and responsibility, and who was, at the time of his death and for business manager of a national bank. Suppose a son twelve years preceding, the cashier and virtually the at the age of nineteen years, while pursuing studies at a school preparatory to entering a State university, abandoning his studies at the solicitation of his father, and entering into and becoming a member of the Oneida Community; suppose him to continue a member of that Community, conforming himself to the regulations and practices of the community for a period of five years, at one time leaving the Community for a period of some months to visit New York and Community and remaining the additional period of one other places, and then voluntarily returning to the year, at the end of which time, becoining dissatisfied with the labor there assigned him, he finally withdrew from the Community by the advice and with the pecuniary aid of a brother-in-law. Assume that after reflection on the subject in the Community he went to New York city, contemplating the establishment of a daily journal to be called "The Theocrat," and to be devoted to the dissemination of the peculiar religious belief of that Community, but abandoned the project without commencing its publication, for the want of pecuniary assistance and encouragement. Assume that he studied law, was admitted to the bar, and practiced his profession in Chicago and New York, was married, and divorced by his own procurement; that growing interested in religious matters he devoted himself to the preparation of lectures upon theological subjects, which he delivered in various parts of the country; that during the period of time when he was thus engaged he visited the home of a sister; that while there his sister said he raised an axe that the family physician summoned by her, after an as though he would strike her, which he denied, and examination in which he could find neither illusion, hallucination, delusions, nor disturbance of the intellectual or perceptional force, said he was insane "because of exaltation of the emotions and explosions of he was the subject of an intense pseudo-religious feelemotional feeling, also excessive egotism," and that ing, and advised that he be taken to an insane asylum, which advice was not followed, and he was not then or at any subsequent time confined in a lunatic asylum, and that this statement was without any evidence except that of the sister and the physician here stated. Assume that after this he again traveled about the country, delivering his lectures and selling printed copies of the same, but that the views contained in these lectures not meeting the concurrence pecuniary success and abandoned that enterprise. Asof his audience and popular favor, he did not derive sume that during a presidential political campaign he associated himself with the National Republican Committee and prepared a speech which was delivered but once, the reason assigned by him being that he that the members of the National Committee thought was not sufficiently prominent to attract the attention necessary in that campaign. Assume that at the close of the campaign he asked General Garfield by letter for the position of Minister to Austria. Assume that, after the inauguration of President Garfield, this man came to the city of Washington, D. C., and again made application for the Austrian mission, but learning that another person had been appointed to this place withdrew his application for it and applied for the position of Consul to Paris, for which place he pressed his application with great persistence, but not more than is usual with many persons asking for similar positions; that he earnestly and persistently followed up his application for this place by verbal and written requests, having no special claims for the position except his own idea of the value of his services to the party in the presidential campaign, and having no recommendation signed by any prominent politician for the place, his only recommendation being that of one Charles H. Reed, of Chicago, who had signed his application for that office. Assume that he

was told by Secretary Blaine, some time about the middle of May, in decided terms never to speak to him again about the Paris consulship as long as he lived; that persisting in his application he said to Mr. Blaine, "I will see the President, and ask him to remove Mr. Walker," the then incumbent, and that he understood Mr. Blaine to reply, "Well, if Sewell will indorse your application I have no objection to you having the place"; and that he inferred from this answer that if President Garfield would remove Mr. Walker, Mr. Blaine would not object to giving him the position; that he then applied to President Garfield to give him the Paris consulship, and made appeals to prominent politicians in Washington to aid him in this enterprise, and believed that they intended themselves to help him to forward his application; that he finally thought he would have the matter about the Paris consulship settled one way or the other, and addressed a note to the President in which he said, among other things, "Can I have the Paris consulship?" that he was informed, as he had been before repeatedly, that "the President could not see him to-day." Assume that four days after his alleged conception of the idea of removing the President he wrote to the President; that he dwelt upon this subject for two weeks, and at the end of this time, on or about June 6, 1881, he inquired of a dealer in guns and pistols for the largest caliber, strongest force, and most accurate pistol made; that two days thereafter he returned and purchased that pistol, having in the mean time borrowed money to pay for it; that after purchasing the pistol he inquired as to where he might practice with it; was informed that he could practice with it outside the city limits, and went outside the limits on three occasions, firing ten shots each time and hit the mark; that he followed the President from time to time for the purpose of shooting him once to a church, which he examined for the purpose of shooting the President through a window, once to a depot, but the sight of a sick wife clinging to the President's arm prevented him from shooting him then, and once followed him to the house of a friend, and while the President was in the house concealed himself in an alley where he examined his pistol, intending to shoot him when he came out; but when he did come out he was accompanied by his friend, and they walked arm in arm closely together, so that he could not shoot him then; that finally, on the 2d day of July, 1881, he arose in the morning, took his pistol and took a walk in the park, then took breakfast, went to a depot, where he was informed by the newspapers, and had ascertained, the President would be at about the hour of nine o'clock in the morning, and that going there before this hour he waited for the President, and before his arrival_left a bundle of papers at the news-stand addressed to Byron Andrews and his co-correspondents of newspapers; that he went into a water-closet, took out his pistol and examined it; that he went outside the depot, had his boots blacked and inquired for a hackman whose services he had engaged two weeks previous, but, he not being there, he engaged another hackman, agreeing with him for a stipulated price, conditioned that he should drive rapidly in the direction of the Congressional Cemetery, which was near the jail; that he saw the President arrive at the depot in a carriage with a friend, which he recognized as the carriage of the friend and not the carriage of the President; that he saw him in earnest conversation with his friends and waited until the President alighted from the carriage and walked into the depot a few feet; then, approaching the President from behind in a manner which did not attract the President's attention, when within a few feet of the President aimed the pistol at the hollow of his back and fired upon him twice, intending to kill him, and inflicting a mortal wound. Assume that after the shooting he made an effort to reach the carriage he had previously engaged, with a view to get to the jail as rapidly as possible, and thereby avoid the appre

hended fury of the populace; that he was intercepted by an officer while endeavoring to reach his carriage; that he had written a letter to General Sherman, which was in his hand when intercepted by the officer, and which, he said, he was anxious to reach the general at once, and which was found to contain a demand for troops to protect him from mob violence, which he greatly feared. Assume that some time in the month of June, 1881, he wrote a letter in which he uses this language: "I have just shot the President; his death was a political necessity, because he proved a traitor to the men who made him, and thereby imperiled the life of the republic"; that in another letter, dated June 20, 1881, he used the following language: "The President's nomination was an act of God, his election was an act of God, his removal is an act of God"; that in a document addressed "To the American People," and dated as early as June 16, 1881, he used this language: "I conceived the idea of removing the President four weeks ago. I conceived the idea myself and kept it to myself"; that in the same document he says, "In the President's madness he has wrecked the once grand old Republican party, and for this he dies." And again: "This is not murder; it is a political necessity." Assume that he now claims that on several occasions during his life he has claimed to be inspired-once in connection with his entering the Oneida Community; once preceding his attempt to establish "The Theocrat"; once in connection with the writing of his lectures and his book, "The Truth," and that subsequent to the attempt to procure office, and some time after the shooting of the President, while in confinement in jail and awaiting trial, he said that he was inspired by the Deity to do that act, and said that the idea came to him one night about the 18th of May, which was about five days after the interview with Secretary Blaine about the Paris consulship, in which he was told by Secretary Blaine never to speak to him about the Paris consulship again, and after again visiting the White House and being refused admission, that he struggled against the idea, but that he finally worked himself up to it and nerved himself to do the shooting. Assume that for years previous to the shooting he procured a precarious living, often leaving his board-bills unpaid, borrowing money and going from place to place on the railroads, evading, when he could, the payment of the usual railroad fare; that on two or three occasions he was arrested for not paying his board-bills, and that he was once arrested and placed in the Tombs in New York city, and was once confined in jail in the city of Chicago for retaining money collected by him which did not belong to him. Assume that under oath, as a witness in his own behalf on trial for murder, he said he felt remorse so far as his personal feelings were concerned, and regretted the necessity for the act, but said he claimed that his duty to the Lord and to the American people overcame his personal feelings and personal regrets as to the act.

Second hypothesis: Suppose that in addition to the foregoing it is shown that this man went from place to place leaving unpaid board-bills behind him; that he borrowed money on false representations, using the names of prominent men as references without their knowledge or consent to secure the money that he abandoned his practice of the profession of law, as he said it did not pay, and went to lecturing on theological subjects in imitation of prominent evangelists who, he said, had made money; that while he was professing religion and a church-member he was guilty of deception and lasciviousness; that in the character of a Christian gentleman he traveled through the country borrowing money and contracting indebtedness for his personal support, which he seldom if ever paid, though profuse in promises, evasions, and misrepresentations; that he published a book called "Truth," a large part of which was stolen from a book published many years before, called "The Berean"; that he represented and sold this book