THE TRIAL OR GUITEAU FOR THE MURDER OF PRESIDENT GARFIELD.

Temuka Leader, Issue 807, 29 December 1881, Page 3

THE TRIAL OR GUITEAU FOR THE MURDER OF PRESIDENT GARFIELD.

The case has been on trial in the Supreme Court of the district of Columbia, at Washington, for several days past. Among the witnesses examined were Secretary Blaine, who was with the sident when he was shot, and Dr Bliss, ] who had surgical charge of the case. The ! chain of evidence is complete. Blaine ! was cross-examined as to the split in the Republican party consequent upon the appointment of Robertson to the collectorship, but nothing material was elicited. Bliss created a Sensation by identifying a portion of the vertebra of the murdered President in Court, it being thought necessary by the prosecution to produce the , injured portion of the backbone. He was cross-examined with a view to establish malpractice, and was still on the stand when the Court rose on Saturday evening last. The defence is to be insanity, and that the President died fnim malpractice. If the statement recently attributed to Dr Boynton, Garfield’s friend, who watched the case closely throughout, be true, malpractice can assuredly be proven. He is alleged to bare declared that the wound had never been thoroughly cleaned until after the first rigor, which was an evidence that pymmia had set in, and from which tire President died. Dr Boynton will doubtless be put upon the stand, unless the trial com,es to an /ibrupt conclu sion by the assassination of Guiteau. An attempt to kill him was made by a man named William Jones, who rode close up to the prison van on its return from the ■Court, on the evening of the 19th, and fired at Guiteau, whe was its sole The bullet grazed bis left wrist, inflicting a slight wound, Guiteau was terribly frightened. Upon arrival at the gaol, he exc tedly exclaimed : “ I have been shot. Notify Major Brock at once. Tell him to arrest the scoundrel at once, and have h'm dealt with as he deserves.” In the Court, early in the day, Guiteau .called attention (o the fact that there were desperate men present, who had threatened his life, but he added ; “1

hnve no fears for my personal safety, the -:hiof of Police having kindly supplied such a body-guard, and I wish to notify to all evilly disposed persons that if they atempt to harm me my body-guard will shoot them down. That is all. When the attempt was really made, and pursuit given, it was found that the officers were not nearly as well mounted as the man who had committed the outrage. He distanced pursuit, and rode into the woods outside the limits of the district. The pursuing officer lay in wait and arrested the man going into the farmyard. He declines to speak beyond remarking that be bad done nothing morally wrong in shooting the ruffian Gnitteau. Jones is another man crazed by the love of notoriety. The assassination of Guiteau while on trial for murder would vindicate no principle of right or justice. It would have a decidedly bad moral effect, weakening authority, and bringing the law and regularly-consti-tuted courts into utter contempt. I would not be surprised, however, if this should be the outcome of the entire business. The impression is gaining ground that the insanity plea will prevail, and the accused is certainly conducting himself at the trial with an intelligent appreciation of the points to be made to support the theory of his counsel, Scoville, his brother-in-law, and Robinson, who has been assigned to him by the Court. Theie is a method in his violence and interruptions which indicates a well-considered course of action. Everything which has transpired upon the trial so far sustains the theory of the crime stated by me in former letters. I need not, therefore, waste space in discussing it further. For the sake of this great country I hope that law and morality will be vindicated. Guiteau declares that he represents the Deity in this case. He issued an appeal te the American bar to volunteer in his defence ; he has also prepared an address in which he justified the shooting of the late President as “an act of God,” to which he was impelled by Divine guidance and pressure. Consequently he holds that he has committed no crime, but rather an exceedingly meritorious act. He had no personal enmity towards James A. Garfield, whom he sincerely loved and respected, but his taking off was necessary to the union of the Republican party and the defeat of the Democracy. Whether it be “ the act of God ” or not I am not in a position to guess, but the results predicated by Guiteau have come to pass. Those conversant with tiie Bible will recall that wonderful scene described as occurring in the High Court of Hea' en, when “a lying spirit” was specially commissioned to go forth and accomplish, through the month of the Jewish prophets, the ruin of their unfortunate king and the slaughter of his people. If that narrative be true, then who is to say that Guiteau’s crime was not what he claims it to have been ? —which reflection suggests a very remarkable case, and the admirers of Bob Ingersoll can digest it at leisure. - “Jacob Terry ” in Araeiican Letter to the Otago Witness.