Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/193

 OUITEAU'S OASB. 181 �In his testimony he disclaims all responsibility, while he still speaks of the idea of removing the j)resident as an impression whieh arose in his own mind first. He says that in his reflections about it he debated with himself whether it came from the Deity or the devii ; prayed that Godwould prevent it if it was not His will; and finally made up his mind, from a consideration of the political situation, that it was inspired by Him. �On all this the question for you is, whether, on the one hand, the idea of killing the president first presented itself to the defendant in the shape of a command or inspiration of the Deity, in the manner in which insane delusions of that kind arise, of which you have heard much in the testimony; or, on the other hand, it was a conception of hic own, followed out to a resolution to act ; and if he thought at all about inspiration, it was simply a speculation or theory, or theoret- ical conclusion of his own mind, drawn from the expediency or neces- sity of the act, that his previously-conceiTed ideas were inspired. �If the latter is a correct representation of his state of mind it would show nothing more than one of the same vagaries of reasoning that I have already characterized as furnishing no excuse for crime. �Unqueptionably a man may be insanely convinced that he is inspired by the Almighty to do an act, to a degree that will destroy his respon- sibility for the act. �But, on the other hand, he cannot escape responsibility by baptiz- ing his own spontaneous conceptions and reflections and deliberate resolves with the name of inspiration. �On the direct question whether the prisoner knew that he was doing wrong at the time of the killing, the only direct testimony is his own, to the contrary effect. �One or two ciruumstances may be suggested as throwing some light on the question. �The declaration that, right or wrong, he took the responsibility, made shortly afterwards, may afford some indication whether the ques- tion of wrong had suggested itself. And his testimony that he was horrified when the idea of assassination first occurred to him, and he tried to put it away, is still more pertinent. �His statement, testified to by Dr. Gray, that he was thinking of the defence of inspiration while the assassination was beingplanned, tends to show a knowledge of the legal consequences of the killing. His present i^tatement, that no punishment would be too quick or severe for him if he killed the president other wise than as agent of the Deity, ��� �