THE UNITED STATES 
vs. 
CHARLES J. GTJITHIATJ. 
I ndicted for Murder of James A. Garfield, 
Twentieth President oi the 
United States. 
OPINION OF JOHN P. GRAY, M. D. 
Superintendent of the Utica Insane Asylum, 
OX THE 
Question of the Sanity of the Prisoner. 
WASHINGTON : 
1882. Washington, D. 0., Nov. 12, 1881. 
IIon. George B. Corkuill, 
U. S. District Attorney. 
Dear Sir : In accordance with your request that I 
should furnish you in writing what I communicated ver- 
bally, of my examination, by your direction, of Charles 
J. Guiteau, confined in jail in Washington, under in- 
dictment for the murder of President Garfield, together 
with my opinion of his mental state and the reasons 
therefor, I submit the inclosed. 
I made the examination thorough, bearing in mind the 
great responsibility of the case and your instructions that 
I should take my own time and way, so as to reach a satis- 
factory conclusion, and then give you the result. I also 
kept i?i mind your cautionary declaration that I must 
make the examination so thorough that the Government 
could rest its action on it, whether it would bring him 
to trial or not ; that the Government, after full inquiry, 
had selected me for this duty and responsibility ; that if 
I found him insane, or in a doubtful mental state, he 
would be sent to the insane hospital ; if I found him sane, 
the Government would use all proper means to bring him 
to justice for the crime. 
In view of all this responsibility, I not only took great 
pains in my personal examination, which extended over the 
greater part of two days, but I was careful to take down in 
writing, at the time, in the presence of the prisoner, such 
facts and declarations as were elicited in the examination 
bearing on the question of his mental state ; and these I 
subsequently read to the prisoner. 2 
The accompanying statement, herewith submitted, em- 
braces substantially what I gave you verbally, and read from 
memoranda, mentioned above—the memoranda, or notes, 
I give verbatim. The statement presents also substan- 
tially, the comments and reasons presented to you for the 
opinion expressed—which I here repeat—that the prisoner 
is, in my judgment, a sane man and fully responsible for 
his acts. 
Permit me to add that I have thought over the deliberate 
remark you made on receiving my opinion, that personally 
you would rather I should have found him insane, but 
should now act on the result of my judgment. I have 
gone over the case carefully and thoughtfully, since, and I 
can reach no other opinion than that already given. 
Yours, very respectfully, 
JNO. P. GKAY. 3 
After receiving your instructions of November 7th,1881, 
I went to tlie jail and presented the letter to the officer, 
and asked that Guitcau might he brought to the Warden’s 
office, and said that they might say to Guiteau that 
Dr Gray was there to see and examine him. The jail 
physician came out and asked me if I proposed to give 
the prisoner my name, and let him know who I was be- 
fore examining him. I replied: “Yes; that was my cus- 
tom.” lie said: “I am afraid if yon do so he will take 
the opportunity to play his pranks.” I replied, “I 
have never examined anybody except fairly, openly, and 
in my own character.” Guiteau was brought to to the 
Warden’s office. He asked me if I was from Washington 
city. I said, “ No, from Utica.” lie then said, “ Dr. Gray 
of the Utica Asylum?” I said, “Yes.” lie then said, 
“ Oh! I recognize you now. When I was at the Oneida 
Community, Victor Noyes, the son of Mr. Noyes, was a 
patient at the asylum and after he came hack he told us 
a great deal about it.” 
I conversed with him quite fully in regard to the 
Oneida Community, their social customs and religious 
views and practices, the business carried on while he was 
there, their relations to the outside world, &c., and respect- 
ing his own life there. He talked clearly and intelligent- 
ly and quietly—m manner and speech he was respectful in 
every way. 
I then inquired of his childhood, boyhood and man- 
hood at his home; said he was horn in 1841, his mother 
dying when he was seven years old; detailed his home 
life, his schooling—mostly in a private school; said he had 
been in good health all through his early life, did not 
recall any illness, never had any accidents of account in 
playing; said his father always had an abundance, though 4 
he was not rich, and he had good wholesome food; his 
father held several public offices from time to time and he 
was a clerk in his father’s office after growing up to manhood; 
his father was a strong temperance man and was against the 
use of tobacco, and he as a boy did not smoke nor use liquors. 
His idea always was to get a good common education and 
then go to college and go into the profession of law; his 
father did not favor college or law, but wanted him to go 
to the Oneida Community and settle with them for life; 
said his father finally yielded and let him go to Ann 
Arbor, Michigan, he agreeing to pay his way with some 
money left him by his grandfather. As soon as he en- 
tered school his father began to urge on him the religions 
views of Mr. Noyes of the Community, sent him th e“/Umm” 
and “ Circular” publications of the Community, and wrote 
him long letters, sometimes half dozen sheets on the sub- 
ject; he finally got thoroughly interested and resolved to 
go and did go; said he studied hard there for more than 
a year and was in good health; said his sister, Mrs. Sco- 
viile, and others tried to persuade him not to go. 
I again questioned him as to the Community, and he 
gave an account of his “ antagonism ” with the leaders; 
saiil his life there was a ‘‘crucifixion”'; said he at 
one time while there determined through the aid of out- 
side friends “to show them all up”; that he went to 
Utica to confer with Uistrict Attorney Jenkins, but 
finally abandoned the idea; said the leaders then advised 
him to take a trip to New York and Connecticut, and he 
went with others and spent several weeks and had a good 
time and returned more contented; said after this he did 
some writing and determined to make an editor of him- 
self; he got into difficulty with the leaders and he finally 
went to New York with the intention of getting up a daily 
newspaper advocating the Community ideas and customs; 
this was a failure, lie described his experience and the 
little encouragement from newspaper men and no support 5 
from monied men, and his return. ITc finally got into 
trouble again as lie was in every way put down and kept 
constantly at menial work, lie then, through the aid of 
his brother-in-law, Mr. Scoville, got away clandestinely 
and went to New York and there commenced the study 
of law. lie said he was in good health during all his life 
at the Community and always had sin abundance of good 
food and sleep; said “ these were cardinal virtues there.” 
He detailed his difficulties in New York in the study 
of law ; said he got from the Community, the money he 
put in, most of which he spent while in New York ; that 
after some months he went to Chicago and continued the 
study there with his brother-in-law and Gen’l Reynolds and 
finally was admitted to the bar. Soon afterwards he was 
married in Chicago; and this he said was a mistake as the 
marriage was an unfortunate one, and afterwards he was 
divorced. Then said to questions asked, that he had 
practiced law in New York for four years successfully 
until he got into difficulties and the New York Herald 
attacked him and ruined his reputation. He described 
his lite afterwards in Chicago, and his going about the 
country lecturing I asked him how he managed to keep 
in good health going about as he did. lie replied, “ I 
always stopped at the best places, had good food and 
always managed to secure eight or nine hours of sleep.” 
“Q. You have referred to your marriage as unfortunate; 
what do you mean by that? 
A. Well, it was as to the woman I married. T got her on 
my hands on very slioit notice; not over ten weeks. Then I 
proposed to her at ten o’clock in the morning and we were 
married at six in the evening. There were no agreeable rela- 
tions between us. 1 made up my mind that I would not fasten 
myself through life to such a woman and I determined to get 
rid of her and the whole thing.” 
lie then described her as rather a good-looking woman, 
regular features and pleasant face, bnt not what lie wanted. 
To the question whether she was an ignorant person, he 6 
replied: “Oh, no ; she had a good enough education and 
was a good enough woman, but she did not suit me.” Said 
they separated in August, 1873, and the divorce was got 
in April, 1874 ; that she went to live with her friends in 
Philadelphia after the separation ; that the friends were 
well satisfied for her to get a divorce ; that he got a law- 
yer—a friend of his in New York—to get the matter up. 
The divorce was all arranged and settled quietly, without 
getting into the newspapers. Said in answer to questions, 
that the matter was brought before Judge Pratt of Brook- 
lyn ; that he (the prisoner) went to a house of ill-fame 
and committed adultery, and had the woman make oath 
to the fact, and arranged to have this settle it by his not 
appearing. Said this was the only way he could do, as the 
law in New York only granted divorces for adultery, and 
he was determined to get rid of her. lie said in reply to 
a question that he was married in Chicago in 1809. Down to 
this point there was no evidence of insanity or of ill-health, 
lie manifested egotism and self conceit and asserted his 
own abilities as equal to the leaders of the Community, 
hut that he unfortunately lacked education ; said for this 
he could not forgive his father. 
Coming down to the Presidential campaign, he went 
fully into the subject ; spoke in the most familiar way of 
prominent men, but in giving the detail of what he ac- 
tually did he could show but one speech delivered once to 
some colored people, the rest of the service was keeping 
about the headquarters of the committee, reading newspa- 
pers and talking casually to those he met. Questioned 
closely, I found he knew the prominent men only by seeing 
them and exchanging occasionally a few words, lie had 
never been invited to the house or committee rooms of 
any of them ; said that during this time he did some work 
in the way of soliciting insurance and down to the time of 
coming to Washington on the 5th day of March, 1881. 
All c his shows there was no change in him in any way. 7 
Certainly nothing suggestive of insanity, or of any inter- 
est in politics beyond lo iking out for himself. As soon as 
the election was over he made application for office directly 
to the President. lie told rne he believed in the power of 
personal application above all recommendations, as any 
one could get letters of recommendation. In giving the 
detail of his experience in Washington from the 5th of 
March, there was nothing special down to the 14th of May. 
Before that he made application lo the President and Sec- 
retary of State, for the Paris consulship, talked to some 
of his friends about it and received promises of aid. He 
said he got into “a first-class boarding house,” and min- 
gled with the best people and waited patiently for the 
time when the“ dead-lock” in the Senate would be broken, 
Said that he was told by men in the offices and by polit- 
ical leaders, that he must wait, that nothing could be done 
until the tic was broken and lie acted as men generally 
would. On the 13th of M ly, this state of things changed, 
and on the morning of the 14th, he was at the office of 
the Secretary of State to urge his application. lie was 
received but his application was not listened to ; when he 
pressed it he was informed that there would he no vacancy 
made in the Paris consulship. When he began to urge 
the matter and said that the incumbent, Mr. Walker, had 
no claims on this administration, the Secretary told him the 
President would not remove Walker, and finally told him 
never to speak to him (Blaine) on the subject again as 
long as he lived, lie simply said lie should go to the 
President ; he did go on the morning of May 1G, the day 
of the resignations of the New York Senators, Senators 
Conkling and Platt ; went again the 17th, neither day was 
admitted ; went on the 18th, sent in his card, waited and 
saw others come, send in cards and go in and come out; 
finally he told the person in attendance that he had sent 
in his card and had received no answer; the man went in 
and Guiteau standing near the door, slightly open, heard 8 
the man say “ what shall I say to Mr. Guiteau, who is 
waiting,” and heard the President reply, “ say I cannot see 
Mr. Guiteau to-day,” and he at once left the White House. 
That night the idea of putting the President out of 
the way came into his mind when he was preparing to go to 
bed ; in the morning he thought of it again, lie did not 
again go to the White House. He said nothing to any 
one about this. Said he thought it over; read the papers; 
after awhile concluded to write to the President, and did 
write three letters, none of which were answered. At 
the end of two weeks he resolved to remove him. He 
wrote those letters to get a final answer whether or not 
he would give him the consulship. Admitted if he had 
got a favorable answer he would not have gone further. 
He gave me, in answer to questions, as heretofore, an ac- 
count of thinking then how he would do it and when and 
where. Walking up Pennsylvania avenue his eye fell on 
some pistols in a shop window and he went in and after 
examining them purchased one, and soon after took it. 
Had never shot a gun or pistol. Asked about it and then 
practiced till he was able to hit a stick about four inches 
broad a few steps away. 
Then he wrote to Boston and got a copy of his book to 
revise it for publication and sale; said he knew it would 
have a great sale under the excitement the killing would 
produce. Detailed, under questioning, four preparations 
for the deed. Once at the church where he examined the 
ground and then determined he would doit the next Sun- 
day,but the President was not there. Hearing he was going 
away he prepared to do it at the depot; got everything in 
readiness; had a hack hired to carry him away to the jail 
so that he could give himself up and had all his papers in 
readiness for the public, but he was deterred at the last 
moment by the fact that Mrs. Garfield was with the 
President and was leaning on his arm and looked so weak 
and sick that he could not do it. Then he resolved to 9 
take him on his return; was at the depot, but it was very 
hot and his sons were with him; then he thought of shoot- 
ing him as lie came out of the "White House, and went to 
the park, in front, hut thought there were too many 
people about and abandoned that. Subsequently, while 
in the park he saw the President come out and he follow- 
ed him up the street and saw him go into Mr. Blaine’s 
house and stepped into a side alley near and waited, de- 
termining to shoot him when he came out, hut Mr. 
Blaine was with him and he could not get a good oppor- 
tunity. Finally he heard the President was going to 
Long Branch and he prepared for it, determined to do it, 
and this was on the 2d of July. He practiced with his 
pistol that morning and made all preparations; went to 
the depot beforehand and engaged a carriage for $2.00 to 
take him out to the Congressional cemetery (near the 
jail) from which he could at once go to the jail safely and 
escape the mob. Among other things he got his boots 
blacked at the depot and walked about with the people 
in the depot. Said he had to nerve himself up to it when 
the time came. He put his papers for publication in the 
hands of a newsboy for safe keeping, so directed that they 
would go to the public. 
Had a letter addressed to Gen’l Sherman in his pocket 
to use asking him for protection. He watched from the 
window, and saw a cab drive up, and saw the President 
and Mr. Blaine with him—saw them get out and talk to- 
gether on the sidewalk in a very earnest manner, and 
when they started to come in he took his position inside 
of the entrance door, and when they stepped down the 
aisle he stepped forward and tired. He thought the first 
bullet did not hit him, and fired again, and he saw him 
sinking down, and turned to go out, and was arrested 
lie said he did not, himself, at the time, speak a word. 
Period from March 5 to July 2. 
First, came to Washington for office; claimed office as 10 
a political reward. Whether he overestimated his quali- 
fications, or his political services was quite entirely imma- 
terial. He made no claim for office on the ground of being 
inspired, cither in the inception of the application for office 
or in pressing his appeals or in asking his friends for recom- 
mendations. From the 5th of March to the 14th of May, 
when he saw Mr. Blaine and was rebuffed by him, in his 
application for the Paris consulship, his life was that of a 
hanger-on, hoping in the scramble to get something. 
When Mr. Blaine rebuffed him he said it hurt his feel- 
ings. From th.nl time 1\e never spoke to Mr. Blaine nor w>ote 
to him. He clearly recognized the fact and stated it, that 
Mr. Blaine would do nothing for him, hut was opposed to 
him. lie made no remonstrance, did not assail Mr. 
Blaine, either at the time or subsequently, by speech or 
menace ; on the contrary discreetly kept quiet ; did not 
mention this rebuff to any one of his friends ; kept it to 
himself ; showing what control he had over his feelings 
and emotions. On Monday, May 10, he went to the White 
House, that being the day when the resignation of the 
New York Senators was announced. He did not gain 
admission then or on the next day, Tuesday. On 
Wednesday, the 18th, he gained admission, waited a 
while, sent his card in, and through the partly opened 
door heard the President tell the messenger: “ Say that 
I cannot see Mr. Guiteau to-day.” He did not say a word 
in reply to this to any persons about him; acknowledged 
that he understood this to be practically a refusal; controlled, 
himself thorough///, and that night after thinking the mat- 
ter over “it flashed across his mind that if the President 
was removed things would go better.” I directed my 
attention especially to this point, as this was the inception 
of the crime. He said it was only an impression that 
night. In the morning he thought it over again, and 
k<*pt thinking it over. The more he thought about it the 
firmer his resolution was to do it. During this period ue 11 
admitted that he wavered at times, and at length resolved 
to get a final answer from the President as to the consul- 
ship, and if lie got it, it would deter him from killing 
him; that if he did not, he should do it. He never went 
to the While. House or called upon the President after the 18th 
of Mai/, but said he had addressed him two letters upon 
the subject, to neither of which did he receive any reply. 
After about two weeks thus deliberating and not getting 
a reply to his letters, he made up bis mind to the killing. 
Here there was no inspiration, and no claim of inspiration 
for the inception and development of the deed. In my 
conversation in connection with this point he never alluded 
to the Deity neither did he at this time or covering this 
period allude to the political situation as forming any 
grounds for the inception of the idea of killing the Presi- 
dent. Thus far it seems to be a mere matter of personal 
motive from wounded vanity and disappointment, though 
he afterwards referred to the political situation as a ground 
for removing the President. There is nothing in regard to 
his statements thus far which suggests insanity or any insane 
delusion or delusion of any kind. 
1 went over this portion of his history, physical and men- 
tal, very carefully, asking him questions in various direc- 
tions, and when I said directly to him that the Deity had 
nothing to do with that period; there was no inspiration there; 
he said he had not claimed any for that, but immediately 
seeing his position in the answer, he added that he claimed 
inspiration after he had fully determined on it. In con- 
nection with the inception of the crime—the essential start- 
ing point—he not only did not refer at this interview to the 
political situat ion or to the Deity, but never alluded to pray- 
ing to God or calling upon Him in any way for counsel, 
advice, or guidance. I said to him (and I took all do\tn 
in his presence and read the parts quoted to him): 
“ You say your defense is insanity?” And he replied : 12 
“ Yes, that is my whole defense; insanity, inspiration; and 
the work of the Deity.” 
I then asked him : 
“Upon what grounds, in your mind, did yon put the killing 
of the President? 
A. I considered the removal of the President a political 
necessity. 
Q. How can you show it a political necessity? 
A. If yon will read the papers in May and June you will see 
the political situation. 
Q. But I do not see that this created such a necessity. 
A. If you will read the communications which I prepared 
for the public, and which the District Attorney has kept, you 
will see how I have explained it; and that I there claim that 
I am not responsible for murder. 
Q. What do you sav in regard to the question of insanity? 
A. I do not claim to be insane as a medical man would 
judge—what is ordinarily called insanity—but lfcgal insanity. 
Q. How would you define the kind of insanity you assert as 
a defense? 
A. It is insanity in a legal sense, an irresponsibility, be- 
cause it was an act without malice, and was a political neces- 
sity. I do not think it would be murder without malice, as I 
have shown in the New York Herald of October 6. 
Q. How did you come to think of insanity as a defense ; 
when and where did it occur to you? 
A. I knew from the time I conceived the act if I could es- 
tablish the fact before a jury that I believed the killing was 
an inspired act I could not be held responsible before the law.” 
(He paused a moment and then added): You may add this, 
that the responsibilitj' lies on the Deity, and not on me, and 
that, in law, is insanity. 
Q. How can this appear in evidence as a fact? 
A. I see that, but I think I can answer it. Suppose yon 
take it down : That if the jury accepts this as my belief, and 
if the jury believes as I believe, that the removal of the Presi- 
dent was an inspired act, and therefore not my own act, they 
are bound to acquit me on the ground of insanity. I have 
looked over the field carefully. 
Q. You were two weeks cogitating and thinking this over? 
A. I was two weeks before I made up my mind as to the 
political necessity, and determined to take the first chance at 
him. I came to this slowly. 
Q. You now put in political necessity. 
A. I did not t hink one way or the other just at first as to the 
political necessity. This came out of the contemplation of the 
political situation. 13 
Q. Still I do not see how you could arrive at this as a de- 
fense? 
A. I knew if I could establish that the act was one of in- 
spiration it would be a complete bar.” 
After I read this over to him he said : 
“Put in after inspiration ‘by Deity.’ 
Q. Did you think it out in words in that way? 
A. I don’t know that I thought this especially in words, but 
I knew this was the law. This is fundamental law and the 
idea runs through all. 
Q. I ask you again, can you state just when this idea of the 
defense of insanity first came up in your mind? 
A. I can’t state just when it came up in form, but it was 
latent as a part of my general knowledge on the subject. I 
want you to put in the idea that it was the Deity, for this is 
my only defense.” 
These statements he made deliberately, at times walking 
up and down the room, and I read over each of his statements 
to him as they were taken. At this point I left, saying I 
should return after he had his lunch. On my return I 
did not continue the conversation in the same line which 
I had left. I said : 
“ You said this morning that the theory of the Community 
was that when you entered it was for life. You gave all up. 
How did you get the $1,000 when you left which you put in?” 
A. 1 let them know that I would clean the whole tiling out 
if I did not. I intended to do this, as I told you, and went 
to Utica once to see District Attorney Jenkins, but I after 
wards gave it up. 
Q. Did I understand you were once in the office of General 
Reynolds, of Chicago? 
A. I was; and while there I was admitted to the bar. 
Q. You spoke this morning of the political atmosphere and 
the utterances of the trusted leaders of the party, why should 
3ou refer to these in all this matter when }Tou in no instance 
conferred with them? 
A. Well, you can see that by reading the papers. I saw, 
and everybody did, that there was trouble, and that Garfield 
was a traitor to the party. He was making his appointments 
without consultation with such men as Conkling, Grant, and 
others. Why they used expressions, and so did others, and 
that the papers will show, which were as hard as any I used. 
Q. Admit this, but you were not in their personal confidence? 14 
A. No, but I was all this time drinking in these things from 
newspapers and breathing in the political atmosphere, and in 
this wav 1 conceived the idea of removing the President as a 
political necessity. 
Q. Why do you say necessity? 
A. Well, call it destiny or predestination. I have always 
believed in both. 
Q. Why do you put these two words together? 
A. I believe men have a destiny, and this is a very common 
thing. 
Q. What facts had yon in regard to the President in all 
this, which influenced you in reaching the idea? All you have 
here referred to was mere talk. 
A. No, sir; look at the appointments; the Robertson col- 
lectorship and all during the dead-lock in the Senate. The 
feeling was very bitter. On the Robertson matter it was in- 
tense, and that act split the party. 
Q. I do not think so; but parties have been split before 
this. Do you mean to say this created the political necessity 
for what you call the removal of the President? 
A. I mean the whole thing, going back to the nomination of 
Garfield and the feeling at Chicago, and all that sort of thing, 
and the appointments. 
Q. What had Deity to do with all this, and how do jrou at 
the same time explain how destiny, political necessity, and 
Deity are concerned in such affairs, and all together. 
A. You remember Senator Conkling said that nothing but 
an act of God could prevent Grant’s nomination. 
Q. How did you understand that remark of the Senator? 
A. Well, he believed it was so secure that man could not 
prevent it. 
Q. You mean, I suppose, that General Grant had the votes 
and the greater claims on the party? 
A. Yes; the Senator thought so and others did, and he 
ought to have been nominated ; but let that go. I have said in 
the Herald article, if you will run it over a little more (he had 
brought it in for me to read), that Garfield had done all this 
that I have told you ; you will also see there that I claim it 
was Deity. 
Q. Yes, I see you do, but how does all that help the matter 
of defense by insanity? 
A. I want to show you that if Deity did this it was not my 
act, and this is my defense. 
Q. But you knew what the law was and the punishment for 
its violation? 
A. Yes, I admit that I did, but I claim that it was a pressure 
of the Deity on me. 
Q. You did not doit suddenly, but aftercareful preparation, 15 
and yon have said. I see in the Herald article, that you had to 
work yourself up to it? 
A. That is all true. 
Q. Then you did have to work yourself up to the point o' 
doing the act? 
A. Yes; and I will here sav that the Herald account of all 
this part is literally true. The reporter took it down word for 
word. 
Q. Is the article all true? 
A. No; for he has put things in of his own; the notes 
about me and mv conceit, &c.; I had nothing to do with that. 
Q. You say you at last came to the final and fixed purpose 
to do the act some time after the 16th of May? 
A. Yes; two or three weeks after that. 
Q. You have said that in the meantime the application for 
the Paris consulship was pending and you were waiting for a 
final answer? 
A. Yes, and for all that it is still, for I never got a final 
answer. 
Q. You said if you had got the consulship you would not 
have taken olf the President? 
A. That is so, but you see I have put in the Herald article 
that this would have made no difference. 
Q. I noticed that, but the two statements could not harmon- 
ize; and I see you use the word “deter,” it would have “de- 
terred ” you? 
A. That is true. 
Q. Then it was balanced in your mind at one time that if 
you got the consulship you would not and if 3*011 did not you 
would? 
A. Yes; but that was not after I had fully made up my 
mind, but before I had fully determined. 
Q. Before the final answer; or while waiting for it; or when? 
A. I said that I never got a final answer, and that it was 
still pending. 
Q. This is going too far. You have said that after a certain 
interview with Secretary Blaine. )'ou did not call on him again, 
and did not speak to him afterwards ; why was this? 
A. I knew he was opposed to me and would do nothing for me, 
and I determined to go to the President. 
Q. How about the President in the matter? 
A. About the same tiling, only I did not see him. He sent 
me word that he “could not see Mr. Guiteau to-day.” 
Q. You must have understood this? 
A. Of course I did, and I understood that Geueral Garfield 
was a traitor to the party that made him. 
Q IIow did it come about that you changed your plans so 
frequently about the killing? 16 
A. I was ready but I wanted to make a sure thing of it. 
Q. Let me ask you again about your plans for personal 
safety. You kept that in mind as well as the defense. 
A. I thought it all over, for I gave my mind all up to it for 
a time. 
Q. Whv did you not take chances if it rested with the Deity? 
A. With a mob? I knew what a mob would do. I knew it 
would create the greatest excitement. 
Q. Hut you wrote to General Sherman, you say? 
A. That was to make sure of it, and experience showed I 
was right. I wanted the jail guarded. 
Q. Had you any other idea in writing to him? 
A. No ; he was the man that had the power to do it. 
Q. You have referred to the idea of inspiration a number of 
times as a part of your religious belief, where did you get that? 
A. I got that from my father, who was a firm believer in it, 
and it is a part of the doctrines of the Community as I have 
told you. Noyes and the leaders believed themselves as agents 
to carry out the will of the Deity. You see I was brought up 
to the most orthodox views, even to a special Providence. 
Q. Then all this is nothing new? 
A. No, not exactly. 
Q. Hut I want to come down to the facts of the matter. 
Speculations are all very well in their place, but you must 
know, as I have said before, that insanity does not rest on 
speculations, but is a fact, not a theory. Have you had any 
sickness? 
A. None whatever, only what men have. Since I 
have been in jail I have hail the malaria, and have been sick 
from it, but I have got over it. 
Q. Have you suffered from sleeplessness? 
A. No, I can’t say that I have. 
Q. I notice that in the Herald article you say you went to 
bed rather earlier than usual the night you determined upon 
this act? 
A. Not when I determined upon it. You will see it was 
when I first conceived the idea. I had not determined upon it 
until after two weeks reading the papers and thinking it over, 
Q. I ask you again. The conception of it was after you had 
failed with Secretary Blaine? 
A. I did not speak to Blaine after this. 
Q. Wli3r did you go to bed earlier than usual that night? 
A. I was tired and had nothing to do. 
Q. You said in answer to a question this morning that you 
had not made a formal application for the Paris consulship? 
A. I said I had spoken to Logan and Blaine, and had writ- 
ten the President, and that I thought I had a right to ask for 
it. 
Q. What about the attempt to shoot yon here? 17 
Ho then detailed to me the attempt of the soldier on 
guard who attempted to shoot him through tlie window, 
and got in the relative position he occupied when in 11is 
cell when the attempt was made; showed how he was 
standing near the window looking out and how near the 
bullet came to his head. He also described to me what 
he claimed to he an attempt to kill him by the guard one 
night in the jail. These, he said, were evidences of what 
he called special Providence. I said : “But you demanded 
each time further protection than Providence?” “Yes,” 
he said, “hut Providence generally employs the means 
necessary.” He then asked me if I had seen the law 
journal with the Guitean case in it. I said: “No, what 
journal?” He said, “a journal published in this city;” 
said that Mr. Scoville had brought it out and said it was 
quite a fair article ; that he had asked Mr. Scoville whether 
it was for or against him, and that Mr. Scoville said it 
was partly one way and partly the other, hut rather in his 
favor, and I promised to read it. On my leaving he said : 
“Remember what my defense is.” 
I saw him again the next morning ; I asked him about 
his father ; he said his father had died at Freeport, Illi- 
nois, in 1880, about 70 years of age ; that his father had 
never been a member of the Oneida Community, but was 
in full sympathy with its doctrines for 25 years. Every 
year or two his father made a visit to Mr. Noyes, and kept 
up a constant correspondence with him. lie had never 
heard that his father had anything to do with the Com- 
munity or its views while his own mother lived. She died 
in 1848, and about 1853 his father got interested in the 
Community. The second wife was very much opposed to 
the Community. His father went there once on a short 
visit and she went w ith him. His father afterwards was 
therefor some months; that was in 18G3, and while he 
(the prisoner) was in the Community. The second wife 
was so opposed to his going there that he was not willing 18 
to go, and the Community did not wish him without his 
family. Just at that time his father was out of business ; 
he had just finished a term of office as clerk of the court, 
which he held by election, and subsequent to this he took 
a position as cashier of a hank in Freeport, which he held 
to the time of his death in 1880. Said his father had 
lectured in Freeport on perfectionism, but he never went 
out lecturing. While his father was full of the ideas of 
the Community, he still was a very good and capable man. 
His father had not been a church member fora good many 
years, but when he was there he held a pew in the Presby- 
terian church ; his father lived rather an isolated life in a 
large measure owing to the want ot sympathy of others 
with his religious views. 
*• Q. Ilow did people generally look upon your father? 
A. He was looked upon as a good man. and strictly hones ; 
but a good many considered him insane on the point of the 
Community. 
Q w as he engaged in business all this time? 
A. Oh, yes; and you may put this down as bearing on tin 
heiedity point in this case, and sav that when he talked npo 1 
11 io subject he looked and acted like an insane man and like a 
real lunat ic, for his eyes were as wild and he was as excited as 
one could he, and he would brook no opposition. Hereditary 
insanity will be a. strong point in the case. 
Q. What, about insanity in your family? 
A. An uncle on my father’s side died in an asylum, and one 
cousin, the son of a sister of my father, died in an asylum in 
Illinois, and another cousin, the daughter of another aunt, is 
in an asylum in Michigan. Then, as I say, my father was 
considered insane on the subject of the Oneida Community.” 
I asked him in regard to his mother’s family, but he 
knew of no insane members. From this statement there 
is no ground to infer heredity. In regard to his father, it 
must be remembered that religious views or fanatical 
ideas are not insanity and are not inherited, but the 
result of education and training and inquiry. Insanity in 
cousins is no evidence of heredity. The disease insanity 
cannot in any case be transmitted—only a susceptibility 19 
of the physical organs to take on disease under tlie ordi- 
nary causes of such disease more readily than when the 
parents have not suffered from it; and this is only the 
occasional result, hy no means the rule. This is the whole 
of hereditary insanity, and this can come only in the direct 
line of parentage. 
“ Q. Did lie talk to you about the Community when you 
were a young lad? 
A. Yes; just, before I went to Ann Arbor, and while I was 
at school in 1860; then father urged me to join the Community, 
and wrote long letters to me of five and six pages to effect this. 
Q. When did you go to Ann Arbor? 
A. I went to Ann Arbor in 18.VJ and left in June, 1860, and 
I was then full of the ideas of the Community and Noyes, but 
still I did not want to go when I did, and only went at my 
father’s urgent request. 
Q. What did you do with those letters of your father’s? 
A. I afterwards burned all his letters to get the stuff out 
of my mind. 
Q. How long were you in the Community? 
A. I was there from June, 1860, to November, 1866, but 1 
was out in the New York agency from April, I860, for a few 
months, but went back in November, I860, and stayed a venr 
until November, 1866, and I have never been there since; 
neither have 1 held any correspondence with them.” 
lie then denounced No\’es and Hamilton, and spoke of 
the practices of the leaders and the u social experiences,” 
and what he said they called “The ascending and descend- 
ing social scale.” He described this as putting the young 
men with the old women, and the leaders with the young 
women ; spoke of his dissatisfaction there, and that he 
had threatened often to expose them while he was there ; 
spoke, again, of going at one time to Utica to see District At- 
torney Jenkins, hut finally concluded to drop the whole mat- 
ter. lie said when he went to the community he really be- 
lieved the social doctrines and views ; believed in the 
“ sanctification of the body,” so that what was called 
sensualism was entirely proper; that it was simply a 
gratification of a natural body. He referred to the cir- 
cumstance where he got interested in a young girl there, 20 
and Mr. Noyes interfered, and lie then appealed to Mr. 
Hamilton in liisown behalf ; hut. Mr. Hamilton only assisted 
in breaking the thing up. He claimed that he afterwards 
had repudiated the whole doctrine of the Oneida Com- 
munity ; that it was an inspiration of the devil ; that 
there was no religion in it ; said he had said this be- 
fore leaving the community. When I asked him how 
he could reconcile that with the fact that he went out 
to establish the “ Theocrnt,” and advocate their views, 
he said that was while he still wasa member of the com- 
munity and still believed in it, and wanted to become 
an independent leader, that he then believed that if 
he could get at the head of a newspaper of that 
kind, he would become an influential leader. He said, 
while he was on the matter of the “ T/nocrat” he con- 
sulted persons connected with prominent newspapers in 
New York about getting it up, and, as a general rule, 
they discouraged him in the attempt ; that no one 
really favored it. Upon questioning, he said he had 
very strong sexu d passions, and that he had indulged 
them very freely ; that he had had venereal disease. In- 
quiring, again, about his divorce, I asked him if Judge 
Pratt knew the fraudulent manner in which the divorce 
was obtained. lie answered quickly, “ not by any 
means. It was not any of his business. The ob- 
ject was simply to get a legal divorce. That was all 
he had to do with it.” I asked him how he re- 
conciled that act with his assertions of constant religious 
life. He said he thought it was just about as religious 
an act to get rid of a woman when he did not want to 
live with her, as to remain; that they had no children, 
and that she could find somebody else she would suit bet- 
ter, and added, “ she has done so, and has children, and 
I am glad of it” ; said he cared nothing about her; had 
never taken any interest in her after they had separated 
—nearly a year before the divorce ; said he had been a 21 
member of Mr. Beecher’s church in Brooklyn, and was also a 
church member in New York. I asked him if he had 
disclosed his conduct in regard to the divorce. lie 
said, no; he had kept it out of the newspapers; that 
he did not want to ruin himself for nothing. I asked 
him why he went hack to Chicago, after the divorce 
from his wife, where everybody would certainly know him. 
lie said, that was a matter of no consequence ; that the 
influence of the New York Herald ruined him in New 
York, and even followed him to Chicago ; said the trouble 
with him in Chicago, and everywhere else, was lack of 
money. I asked him what kind of law business he did— 
whether he appeared in courts or what. lie said it was 
mostly in collections—collecting debts. 
I asked him about his services for the six years he had 
been in the Community. He said he had got nothing 
for his services. That his father had really kept him 
there during that time; he would have left himself long 
before. He said he went to New York from there and 
commenced reading law; that was in November, 18UG. 
lie remained there until August, 1867, paid his way with 
the $1,000 he had got out of the Community ; used it up 
at that time; then went to Chicago and stayed a while with 
Mr. Scoville, from August to November, 1807 ; then re- 
turned to New York and continued reading law until 
March, 180$. 
‘•Q. Did your father give you money in all this time or aid 
you? 
A. No. I never had anything from him. Scoville lent me 
some money. 
I see in the law journal which I have read, to which you re- 
ferred. it is claimed your father aided and tried to support you 
during that time? 
A. There is not a word of truth in that. lie never gave me 
anything in the way of aid. 
Q. What did you do for money? 
A. Mr. Scoville loaned me money, and finally I settled with 
him and gave him mv note for $200, 
What did you do next? 22 
A. I went into General Reynold’s office April 1st, 1868, and 
I was there in that office until I was admitted to the bar in 
August. 1868. 
Q. What next? 
A. I practiced law in Chicago till June, 1871. 
Q. How did you get along? 
A. First-rate, and had I remained I should have got into 
a good business. 
Q. Where did you go? 
A, I went to California for a month and saw there were no 
chances there. Then I returned and went to New York and 
opened a law office there and practiced between three and four 
years until the fall of 1874. 
Q. Why did you quit practice then?” 
He tlien detailed the difficulties he had with the New 
York Herald, which he said in the end broke up all his 
business. After this he went back to Chicago and then 
concluded he would try to get into journalism ; said that 
he had no means and after trying this and that and find- 
ing he could get no business men to help him, he conclu- 
ded to go on with the law. 
“Q. In the meantime, then, while you were trying to get 
into journalism you were practising law, were you? 
A. More or less successfully. He added: “That is an im- 
portant point bearing on the question of insanity, because 
there I was doing well. I had a first rate business which I 
left then and went into theology. You see I was restless and 
uneasy, like a woman in child-birth. I had something in me 
and had lo get it out, so I left law business and went lecturing 
but 1 had little reputation and I had but little success. People 
did not want to hear me. 
Q. What did you lecture about? 
A. Oh, I had written my lectures out beforehand. 
Q. Where are those lectures? 
A. Oh, they are the lectures that are contained in this book 
called “Truth.” 
Q. When was all this? 
A. I wrote my first lecture in December, 1876. I delivered 
it in Chicago in January, 1877. 
Q. What was that? 
A. That was on the second coming of Christ. 
Q. Where did you deliver it? 
A. I delivered it in the First Presbyterian Church, Chicago. 
Q. Were you invited to do it? 23 
A. No ; I rented the church for $25. I advertised for about 
tiie same amount and I took in $1.80.” 
He then said : 
“ If you will look, I have gone over this pretty fully in the 
New York Herald." 
Q. When did you deliver the next lecture? 
A. In May, 1877, at Evanston, a suburb of Chicago, in the 
Baptist Church, to quite a good audience. 
Q. What did you receive there? 
A. It was free, and there were three or four hundred there. 
Q. In the meantime what business were you in? 
A. Oh, I was practicing law; doing first-rate. If I hadn’t 
got off on this theology, and I would repeat again that that is 
a point bearing on the question of insanity. 
Q. IIow long did you lecture then, and where? 
A. Well, 1 went out about, but you see I had no reputation 
and had but little success, as I have told you before. 
Q. When did you write your next lecture? 
A. Well, some time afterwards I wrote two more, one was 
on Ilades and the other on the Final Judgment. This last I 
delivered in Bridgeport, Conn., for the first time in February, 
1878. I had quite a fair audience. It was Sunday night. 
Q. Did you make anything on that? 
A. Oh, no; I and the man who arranged it were to divide the 
profits, but I took in so little that he got nothing for the ex- 
penses and took all the receipts. 
Q. Did you give up lecturing then? 
A. Well, I delivered the same lecture in Boston about the 
same time and.with the same result. 
Q. Why did you go to Boston to lecture from Bridgeport? 
A. Well, I thought it was a good time and place. I thought 
I might make out a good reply to Col. Ingersoll’s attack on the 
Bible and his lecture on Hell. 
Q. Did you deliver this lecture again? 
A. Not after this. 
Q. When did you write the next lecture? 
A. Well, I wrote another lecture on St. Paul, in Milwaukee, 
Wis. This I think was in 1878. I delivered that once, and 
tried to deliver it at Madison, but had a very small house. 
Q. Then did you give it up? 
A. No; I went to Davenport, Beloit, Dubuque and other 
places, but I could not command any audiences and I gave the 
whole thing up. 
Q. Did yon ever lecture anywhere else? 
A. Yes; at this time I lectured in a great many places 
around the country, or tried to. 24 
Q. Tint, you gave it up? 
A. Yes; I had no audiences. A man must have a national 
reputation. 
Q. Where are those lectures now? 
A. Well, as I said before, they are printed in my hook “The 
Truth.” That book I worked on for five years. 
Q. Did your book meet with a good sale? 
A. No, very little sale. I sold it myself in the various 
places as I went round the country. 
Q. I saw a copy of one of your lectures in Utica? 
A. Oh, that was only a small lecture. I hadn't much suc- 
cess there. I went through 0 londago county and Oneida 
county. I didn’t push the matter then. I didn’t find much 
encouragement in Utica. 
Q. Whom did you see there? 
A. Well, 1 saw there a .Mr. Blackie and the Rev. Mr. Brown, 
but I didn’t sell my books much there. I was at the rooms of 
the Young Mens’ Christian Association. 
Q. Then, from 1876 to 187'.) you did not accomplish much? 
A. No. I lived rather a precarious sort of life. I was 
always well. Ilad anything I wanted in the way of eating. 
Q. Did you finally abandon theology? 
A. Yes, I finally abandoned theology. It would not pay 
and I could not work up a reputation. 
Q. What were yon next engaged in? 
A. Oh, I kept along in insurance business, and then in 1°80 
I concluded to go into politics. But this part you will find in 
the New York Herald of October 6.” 
I then read to him the question that I had taken down 
the day before as follows : 
“I knew from the time I conceived the net if I could 
establish the fact before a jury that I believed the killing 
was an inspired act, 1 could not be held responsible before 
the law; that the responsibility was on the Deity and not 
on me, and that in law is insanity.” 
I asked him if he had anything to say to that now more 
than he had yesterday. lie said that ho did not like the 
first part, and wished it was out. I told him I took it 
down word for word as he gave it to me, and that I had 
then read it over to him. lie replied : That is so, hut 
now I wish it was struck out.” I said : “It was in answer 
to my question : ‘llow did you come to think of insanity 25 
as a defense; when and where did it occur to yon?’ ” ILe 
replied : “Yes.I remember it; but I would like to modify 
it by saying that I had no particular thought as to the 
effect of my act. The only point i 11 my mind was to 
execute the Deiry’s will.” I read this over to him, and 
he then said : “ I would like to explain that part in regard 
to my first answer, because I don’t like to have it appear 
its though it had been calculated beforehand as a defense; 
as though T had prepared for the deed and then deliberately 
carried it out.” While saying this he got up and walked 
about the room. He then said : “The first part of that 
don’t look well.” I said: “It’s just as you gave it.” 
“Yes, but I don’t like it,” he returned. I then said: “ I 
still fail to see how you can show that as a fact; and 
insanity is not a theory; it is a disease. A fact as muph 
as relates to any disease.” To this he said : “I will put 
in my book in evidence of my belief, and that will come 
in as a fact in the case, as I there claim inspiration.” 
“ Yes,” said I, “but you have already declared that your 
religions ideas, including the inspiration and the Second 
Advent doctrine,you got from your father; you admitted 
to this before and it was the teaching also of the Com- 
munity. IIow is your hook on this subject inspired more 
than any sermon or any other book on religious duty 
or faith?” 
“A. Because I wrote it under inspiration and to save sotds. 
Q. But you said that you were started on it by the Rev. Mr. 
Kittridge, who made some remarks in a sermon on this subject 
and you then determined to study it up and went to a library 
and looked up authorities and then wrote on the Second Ad- 
vent. Now where is the special inspiration in all this? 
A. No one before had ever fixed the date of the second 
coming at Anno Domini ’70. The destruction of Jerusalem. 
Then I have claimed it as a spiritual coming not a physical. 
(J. I fail to see any inspiration in that? 
A. Read my book and especially the revised edition which 
the district attorney took, and you will see how I put it. 
Q. I notice that you say that this book will have a large 
sale? 26 
A. T said there would he a great demand for it after the 
removal of the President and if it had got out then it would 
have had a great sale. 
Q. In the law journal you referred me to it is stated in sub- 
stance. that you, while in the Community, were in the habit of 
representing yourself as some great personage, and that you 
hung up a card or put on labels this: ‘Charles J. Guiteau, 
Premier of England, will deliver a lecture in St. James’ Hall, 
London, England,’ or to this effect: I don’t recall the exact 
words, but this is the substance and mainly the words.” 
lie took my note-book and wrote : “ I pronounce the 
above statement absolutely false.—Charles Guiteau.” I 
then referred to some letters of Mr. Noyes and a letter 
from his father to Mr. Noyes contained in this law journal, 
and the statement that Mr. Noyes had said that Guiteau 
had a genius for mischief. 
A. The animus of John II. Noyes in his letter comes from 
the fact that I left the Community and he was angry. His 
statement that I have a genius for mischief has no foundation 
in an> thing I did. It only arose from my general opposition in 
the Community and my leaving it. Noyes’ idea was. that in 
letting me go lie would lose a bright and shining light, and he 
did not want me out knowing all I knew. Then, he believed 
that anyone who left the Community was a child of the devil. 
Q In that same journal you are represented as being cared 
for and supplied with money by your father in Chicago. 
A. It is not true. He never did anything for me. Who 
says that? 
Q. 'I'lie reporter represents that he got it from General Burn- 
side. 
A. Well, it is not true. That Burnside is in public office in 
this city. 
Q. Were you ever abroad? 
A. No, never. 
Q. in that same journal the reporter represents j'ou as going 
abroad to study socialistic doctrines. 
A. That is not true. 
Q. Did your father deliver lectures in the West and South- 
west; for this journal also states that as a fact? 
A. No, as I have said before, lie only talked in Freeport on 
the Community ideas and perfectionism.” 
As this law journal referred to cases of assassination be- 
side his own, I asked him if he had read anything on 27 
socialism and assassination ; lie said no ; I asked him if he 
had read of Mazzini or Rizzio or Passanante ; lie said he 
had never heard the names of any of them. 1 asked him 
if he had read anything about Oxford, who shot at the 
Queen, or of Bellingham, who killed Lord Percy, or of 
Lawrence, who attempted to kill President Jackson ; he 
said he had read about Lawrence and something of the 
others in law hooks and jurisprudence, but that his remov- 
ing the President was a very different thing from any of 
these acts. Other subjects were discussed and I went over 
some of the matters mentioned in different ways. He 
never failed to recognize the same subject and matter 
quickly however differently at different times I put it, 
and to say “ I answered that before.” 
During this interview he, a number of times when J 
paused between subjects,said : “Remember the inspiration 
and the Deity are my defense.” lie manifested no excite- 
ment at any time in this interview or previous ones; he 
gave the information freely, hut at this last interview 
seemed a little anxious, and pressed the idea that he was 
insane ; said he should not do the same thing over again; 
that he would not do it again for any amount of money. 
My examination was made with a view of getting the 
whole history of his life, from his childhood, as far as lie knew 
about himself, of his deportment and education in boy- 
hood, of his occupation then, of any diseases of childhood 
and boyhood, and thus his complete history; also as far 
as possible to get at his mode of thinking, the motives 
that governed and controlled him in his acts, his disposi- 
tion; and his relations to his family. From all the facts 
detailed by him to me, from my observation of his manner, 
my judgment was that he was not a person of weak will, 
but self-will, with a strong persistent determination in 
the direction he chose. At least, I could discover few 
instances in his history where he had been influenced by 
others. lie maintained his own purpose and determina- 28 
tion in going to Ann Arbor against his father’s remon- 
strances and appeals, llis father said he was not able to 
educate him, and he proposed to use his own patrimony—a 
small amount given him by his grandfather. At Ann 
Arbor, getting interested in the Oneida Community’s 
religious views from reading the letters of his father, he 
manifested the same quality, resisting his sister’s appeals 
and the opinions of others at Ann Arbor. Having deter- 
mined to go, he went. His whole history while at the 
Oneida Community was that of self-will and self-guidance; 
however ill-advised his course was, it was his own. After 
leaving the Community he pursued the study of law under 
constant difficulties and without aid from his father, even 
against his father’s wish, and persisting got some aid from 
his brother-in-law, until he was finally admitted to the bar. 
Here he manifested will, determination, and perseverance. 
In his life thus far there is evidence of self-control and 
capacity of such control. Conjoined with this he had 
over-weening vanity and conceit. 
I was unable in these interviews, taking his whole 
life from his boyhood up, to discover the slightest evi- 
dence of insanity, nothing beyond simple desire for 
notoriety and self-consequence and for an easy way 
of making a living. Up to this time from ques- 
tions, however directed, he never referred or alluded 
to a single act of kindness or unsefishness to anybody or 
any favor done, or visit to a sick friend, or to having in 
an}’ wise aided or assisted any one. lie appeared to he des- 
titute of generosity of sentiment where his own personal 
ends and personal gratification were not concerned. His 
egotism cropped up at every point, and frequently in 
speaking of the time he was in the Oneida Community 
he took pains to say that he considered himself at least 
quite as able as the leaders there; that they opposed him 
and really kept him down; hut egotism is not insanity. 
He claimed that what he needed there to bring him out 29 
was the opportunity of intellectual work, and that if the 
Oneida Community had put him on their paper and to 
writing and studying instead of manual work he would 
have got the necessary eduction and training to become a 
leading writer. I am satisfied he was thoroughly demoral- 
ized by his life in the Oneida Community. Though he 
undoubtedly went there honestly believing in their views 
as a religious faith, he soon sank into sensualism and his 
“ crucifixions ” there were evidently largely of the flesh, 
in not being permitted the unbridled sway of his passions. 
The other point in the “ crucifixions” was that he believed 
he was not appreciated by the leaders ; that he was con- 
stantly put in positions where he was kept down in every 
way, and criticized unjustly when he did attempt any 
literary labor. 
This contention and struggle there showed very conclu- 
sively his determination and power for good or evil in the 
direction of his life. Whatever the religious fanaticism 
which brought him into the Community, it was there de- 
veloped in the midst of sensualism, contentions and self- 
conceit and laid the foundation for the after character of 
religious ranting, hypocrisy and his dishonorable conduct. 
He boasted to me that he neither drank, nor swore, 
nor used tobacco, and cited this as an evidence of 
the religious training of the Oneida Community. I 
consider his divorce and the manner in which it was 
obtained one of the strongest evidences of his utter de- 
moralization—of his utter and wilful disregard of law and 
duty. How he deliberately connived to commit a crime 
against his wife for the purpose of getting rid of his obli- 
gations ; and this goes to show his competency to do an 
act of wickedness deliberately performed. 
Following up Ills whole history given by himself, I see 
nothing but a life of moral degradation, moral obliquity, 
profound selfishness and disregard for the rights of others. 
I see no evidence of insanity, but simply a life swayed by 30 
his own passions. lie voluntarily abandoned himself to 
the gratification of his passions and self-indulgence in 
every way. 
In all his wanderings, lecturing, &c., he looked out for 
good living and did not go to the obscure and out-of-the- 
way places where this could not be had. No religious 
sacrificing or self-denial anywhere and he always sold his 
books at a profit. This case illustrates how a man’s con- 
science may become more and more blunted and his char- 
acter steadily undermined by a life of indulgence and 
selfish and depraved thoughts. 
Passing over other details down to the campaign of 
1880 he certainly manifested no other characteristics than 
he had through life, doing as little as he could in the way 
of labor, lounging about comfortable places where he could 
get room and reading, without cost, for a little flattery 
and talk ; was entirely satisfied with getting up a speech 
and getting it printed, expecting it to be distributed gra- 
tuitously by the National Committee so that he could get 
large advertisement and get his name associated with dis- 
tinguished persons, lie was able there to understand and 
acqnnsce in the reasons of the committee for their not 
assigning him to speak. During that period he did not 
bring forward his theology or even peddle his books. All 
that part of his life he kept in the background. 
Following this pei iod, looking particularly to the question of 
self-control and self-direction he dropped the Austrian mission 
at once when he saw Mr. Blaine was in the Cabinet, be- 
cause it would be given to a Blaine man.” Here he 
reasoned, exercised judgment and self-control, and ac- 
quiesced. 
lie then took up with the Paris consulship. Did not 
demand it as an inspiration or divine right, or because 
“ he was a lawyer, a politician a theologian and wanted 
to save souls.” lie admitted to me that he said 
nothing about religion during all that period to any 31 
of the persons with whom he was seeking for favor 
and office. lie pressed his application on his speech 
and party services. Small men often ask for large places. 
This is not insanity, lie said nothing about inspiration 
when Secretary Blaine rebuffed him ; did not manifest 
anger openly or go to his friends with it ; did not attack Mr. 
Blaine in any way. He controlled himself because it was 
his interest to do so. He had no insane fury after the 
President had also practically ignored him. After the 
President said he could not see him he had no difficulty in 
understanding it and reasoning that that was his last 
opportunity. He made no outburst, emotional or otherwise, 
of any kind, there or to any one. Made no remark at the 
nioim-nt. 
When the idea flashed over his mind of removing 
tlie President it was not followed by an act. It 
was followed by reflection, turning it over and over, 
making new trial for the consulship and writing letters. 
Here was reason, self-control, reflection; no divine mis- 
sion then. The criminal idea came into bis mind at 
night, as it does generally with criminals, when alone 
and thinking over his own disappointments. No impulse 
here to do an act under any pressure: “ If I can get the 
consulship, I will not do it ; if I don’t get the consul- 
ship I will.” This was simply personal motive. From 
the stindp lint of his life, character,social and moral status 
and his overweening vanity it is easy to see how he could 
have contemplated such an act for revenge and self-glori- 
fication; that he did not count well and wisely in the 
matter is only because the criminal is often weak in judg- 
ment. Murders of state liave been committed in all time by 
greater and smaller persons than Guiteau, with the same 
purpose and the same result. This is history. 
I consider it proper to say that no madman, under the 
insane delusion of being divinely inspired, would have 
taken this course. It is probably true that he imbibed 32 
angry sentiments and feelings from reading the news- 
papers and these helped to bolster his own criminal 
thoughts and intent. But they were not the origin of 
the inception of this crime. Alibis personal aspirations 
were blasted ; his vanity was wounded ; then the idea 
came to him of making way with the President whose 
failure to recognize him had accomplished this. It 
came across him first as an impression and was entertain- 
ed. This is the rationale of the development of crime ; 
lodge the impression and entertain it and it will ripen 
into action. It startled him at first hut the more he 
thought it over the more he accustomed his mind to the 
contemplation of the crime the easier it became. lie 
spent two weeks at this; no flash of a divine inspiration, 
but a deliberate contemplation. After failing to get 
any reply or even any notice of his letters to the Presi- 
dent he settled his mind thoroughly in the intention, 
“My mind was thoroughly settled in the intention.” 
The solution of this period of the inception of the 
crime is the j>oint in the case. That this was his own 
work there is no doubt in my mind. There is not the 
first shadow of evidence of insanity—not a shadow of a 
shadow of insanity. The claim of inspiration—the in- 
influence of the political situation—all that came after- 
wards, and was an excuse formed in his mind for the act. 
How to excuse himself to himself, and how to justify 
himself to the world ; his vanity did not allow him 
to think of revenge and oblivion ; what he wanted was 
revenge and notoriety. To my mind this is the whole of 
the crime llis preparing his book for a large circulation 
and sale is evidence of vanity, and the belief that he could 
get oft" from punishment for murder, by taking ad- 
vantage of the political agitation in the Kepublican party, 
and the fact that it would be considered a political crime, 
and, also, his preparations in procuring the weapon, and* 
every detail connected with it; all his conduct ; the 33 
change of purpose from time to time, as to the time 
and place of killing ; his provisions for his personal safety, 
everything, indeed, in detail down to the final act of kill- 
ing, are the deliberate work of a criminal intent. There 
is no phase or characteristic of insanity associated with 
it at any point, and certainly no evidence of impulse or 
pressure or guidance of any will, human or divine, except 
his own. 
His working himself up to it, his waiting for a good 
chance; these are strong evidences of criminality, and 
utterly against any claim of being under an insane 
delusion of a pressure or influence from a Divine 
Power. If insane, as he claims, he would not rec- 
ognize himself as under delusion. The more I con- 
sider the case the more thoroughly satisfied I am of 
the correctness of the opinion I gave you and your asso- 
ciate counsel; that the. man is entirely sane ami fully 
res/ionsihte. I have thought of the question which you 
propounded in the evening after the close of the 
last interview, that is, how “to reconcile this act in all its 
elements of motive, of conception, and development into 
an intent and all its progressive stages to its consumma- 
tion, with the acts of ordinary criminals.” This crime, as 
I look at it, contains in it all the elements, mental and 
moral, which are found in the origination and accomplish- 
ment of crime ordinarily. It originated in the heart of 
this man, and his own contemplation lead him to its com- 
mission and to personal justification of the act afterwards. 
This question requires for its answer only the ordinary 
rationale of crime. The possibility of crime is shown by 
the facts of history. The fact that the laws of all nations 
provide for its punishment is sufficiently conclusive of its 
existence and of man’s responsibility for his acts before the 
civil law. The law takes no cognizance in excuse for crime, 
of pleas of conscience, or religion, or of political or other re- 34 
venge. To account for crime is a problem which has not 
been solved. 
Compared with some murders, this is strong in motive 
and mild in brutality. Take, for instance, the case of a 
man who murders his mistress—tlje case, for illustration, 
of the Italian in New York, who in cold blood murdered 
in a brutal manner his mistress because she rejected him. 
The fact is, we cannot reconcile any crime with humanity, 
except by taking the standpoint of the criminal himself in 
each case. All that medical science has to do in any such 
case is to say whether the deed springs from disease or not. 
If it does not, the man is responsible, however ghastl3r, 
seemingly purposeless or vindictive the act maj* be. 
In concluding this report I desire personally to express 
my thanks for the high confidence reposed by you in my pro- 
fessional judgment, in submitting this important question 
to me for my determination, and especially as you informed 
me it met the concurrence and hearty approval of the 
eminent counsel associated with 3*011 in this trial, the Hon. 
John K. Porter, of New York, my own State, and W. D. 
Davidge, Esq., of Washington City. 
JNO. P. GRAY. 
November 12, 1881.