Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/211

 GUITEAIl'n OASE. 199 �the defence was imanity, ana of insanity a man's demeanor on trial is one of the most important ingredieiits of proof. Had Guiteau been sent to liis ceil, and had the trial been pushed on in his absence, the jury might have hesitated to find a verdict of conviction, and even had there been a conviction there would have been a general feeling of discomfort, if not of disapproval. The case, in fact, would have gone on without either defendant or defendant's counsel, for the latter, under the circumstances, would readily have raised the opportunity thus given them of affordiug their client the only substantial aid in their power. A former noted trial in a federal court would have advised them how greut this aid might have been. On the second trial of John Pries, in the circuit court of Philadelphia lu 1800, Judge Chase, then presiding in that court, undertook at the opeiiing of the case, before hearing argument from counsel, to declare that the court had determined to rule certain points as the law of treason in such a way as to reduce the questions of law left open for discussion on the trial. There was nothing in this very different from the practice that exists of a judge charging a grand jury on points of law about to arise on a trial before a petit jury ; and as amatter of fact the points of law Judge Chase laid down were the conclusions adopted by the court on a former trial of the same defendant, on which a new trial had been granted on gi-ounds whioh left the rulings of the court untouched. It was, however, indiscreet in Judge Chase to say, at the outset of the second trial, "These points we con- sider settled." He should have said, "We will hear argument on these points if desired." But he took the former course, and Mr^ A. J. Dallas and Mr. Lewis, Fries' counsel, lawyers of great eminence, seized with alacrity the only way they had of saving their client by withdrawing from the case. Judge Chase saw at once his blunder, and implored them to corne back, and offered to review the whole question. Baok, however, they would not corne, and they advised Pries to decline to aceept other counsel, which he cheerfully did. He was convicted, almost in spite of Judge Chase's efforts ; for that able and generous, but irapetuous jndge, whateverhad been his former feelings, had now no desire to obtain the conviction of a man without counsel. Such a verdict, however, could not stand. Pries was pardoned by Mr. Adams, and Judge Chase was impeached by the house of representatives for this and other irregularities, and barely escaped conviction. It was well that he was not convicted, for his error was, after all, an error of judgment; and it was well that Pries was pardoned, since his execution under the circumstances, if not unjust, would have been unwise. And, although, had Guiteau been put ont of the court-room, and a conviction ensued, his counsel having withdrawn, it is not likely that a pardon would have been granted, yet there would be a gen- erai feeling that his case had not been f ully heard. The trial would have been looked back upon with sadness and disquiet. It cannot be so looked back upon now. �In the second place, aside from the technical question just discnssed, there can be now no question that giving Guiteau full liberty in the court-room greatly conduced not only to the promptness and early unanimity of the action of the jury, but to the universal approval with wiiich that verdict bas been met. I confess that when the prosecution opened I had much doubt whether » conviction could be secured; and I believe that the general sentiment then ��� �