Guiteau's Trial

In the District Criminal Court, Mr. Corkhill applied to the Court to íix a day for hearing argumenta for a new trial in the caae of Guiteau. The argument is to be heard next Friday. Mr. Scoville has issued a card to the American people, in whicli he says: In the circumstauces, I don't feel called upon, as a matter of public interest alone, to give an additional two months' time to the motion for a new trial for Guiteau before the court en banc. If my fellow-citizens, few or many, think the interests of justice the cause oí humanity or the honor ol the country require this contest to bc prolonged, and that no elïort be spared f o secure a verdict and judgment aftei passion shftll have subsided in the public mind, let them manifest it by providing means, and competent counsel will be secured at once. I ask n thing for myself up to this time, but cannot give niy own services hereafter without compensation. At least $2,000 are needed. Should a suflicient amount not be raised the money will be ref unded on request. Address, until February 4, George Scoville, Washington. D. Mr. Corl-lüll, being asked as to the cost of the trial, said: "JTothing reliable has been published on the subject. There is no specifled sum Mr. Davidge and Mr. Portrr. For they were employed on an agreement that they should be paid such suin as would be considered proper by the government. They ought to be well paid. Mr. Porter has spent $3,000 of Jus own money in this case. He has had his Secretary here all the time." "Will the trial cost $50,000 outside of their counsel ?" "JNo, not near that. "How much are you paid?" "I am paid nothing but the District Attorney's regular allotment of $6,000, to be collected out of the fees during the year." 'What have you to say about the length of the trial?" '0ur trial has been no longer than similar causes elsewhere. John Surratt's trial lasted the same time - two months. Mis. Wharton's trial for Doisoninc at ïndiannnnlis. uirm vms ago, lasted iive weeks. The Beecher trial, in Brooklyn, oceupied six months. There was no way to dispense with trial of the sanity of Ihe prisoner by the jury, andthat consumed more than half the time. As to the comments of the English courts on these proceedings, they are simply based upon the differ. ence between the power of the judge in England and the power of the jury, representing the people, here. An English judge can do things that would have an American judge impeached. What they cali the disgrace of American law simply means the precaution taken in this country to secure the lif e and freedom of possibly innocent men." MOTION FOK A NEW TETAL. OnFriday the district court at Washington had a sitting to hear argument for a new trial in Guiteau's case. The prisoner at flrst took his seat in the doek, but was, on his request, permitted afterward to sit with his counsel. As soon as hé got to the table he took from his coat pocket a roll of manuscript, and addressing the court with the air of principal counsel, said he wished to correct a few errors that had crept into the case. He was, nowev er, stopped by the court, both Corkhilland Scoville objecting to the prisoner making remarks. Scoville has asked for f urther time to consider the motion, iatimating that he might have help another week from some prominent member of the bar. Scoville then sireu 10 mase a new motion reiative to additional grounds that he had discovered f or asking for a new trial. These grounds, he stated, were unauthorized conversations wlth the jury by outside parties and, second, subsequent admissions oí an expert that he thought Guiteau was insane but did not dare to say so for fear it would in jure Mm in his business and in public estimation. Scoville read the affidavit sworn and subscribed to by himself setting forth in detail the grounds stated. Col. Corkhill then read the affldaits of each member of the jury, in which they most positively denied ever having seen or read a copy of the Critic, or any other paper during the time they served as jutors upon the trial of Guiteau. Following these was read the aftidavit of Norman "VViard to the effect that he had known Snyder for fifteen years, and to his knowledge said Snyder is a thief, forger and blackmailer, aDd that he (Wiard) would not believe him under oath. Col. Corkhill also read the affidavits of Jehn L. Sargent, formerly a detective in Washington, and Detective McElfresh, who arrested Snyder several years since on a charge of grand lareeny; also, the aflidavit of George C. Curtiss, bailiff in charge of the room from which Snyder alleges to have taken the copy of the Critic with the jurors' names upon it. Afliant did not purchase a Critic during the trial or have one in his room ; the only persons who attracied the suspicions of the bailiffs or jury were F. IT. Snyder, Mr. Scoville and J. II. Hayden. Corkhill in conclusión submitted that the affldavits he had read amply sustained his allegation of forgery and fraud, and therefore he would refrain from adding any argument. Debate, for and against the motions, was continued by Seoville and Davidge until the hour of adjournment, and Judge Cox reserved his decisión for the morrow.