guiteau'b case. ni �self, that he had committed the crime charged under a delusion, an inspiration, an irresistible impulse, this would be to proclaim in universal amnesty to criminals in the past, and an unbounded license for the future, and the courts of justice might as well be closed. �It must be perfectly apparent to you that the existence of such a delusion can be best tested by the language and conduct of the party immediately before and at the time of the act. �And while the aceused party cannot make evidence for himself by his subsequent declarations, on the other hand, he may make evi- dence against himself, and, when those declarations amount to ad- missions against himself, they are evidence to be considered by a jury. �Let me here say a word about the characteristics of this form of delusion. �It is easy to understand that the conceit of being inspired to do an act may be either a sane belief or an insane delusion. A great many Christians believe, not only that events generally are pro- videntially ordered, but that they themselves recoive special pro- vidential guidance and illumination in reference to both their inward thoughts and outward actions, and, in an undefined sense, are in- spired to pursue a certain course of action ; but this is a mere sane belief, whether well or ill founded. On the other hand, if you were satisfied that a man eincerely, though insanely, believed that, like Saul of Tarsus, on his way to Damascus, he had been smitten to the earth, had seen a great light shining around him, had heard a voice from heaven, warning and commanding him, and that thenceforth, in reversai of his whole previous moral bent and mental convictions, he had acted upon this supposed revelation, you would have before you a case of imaginary inspiration amounting to an insane de- lusion. �The question for you to consider is, whether the case of the de- fendant presents anything analogous to this. �The theory of the government is that the defendant commited the homicide in the full possession of his faeulties, and from perfectly sane motives ; that he did the act from revenge, or perhaps from a morbid desire for notoriety; that he caleulated deliberately upon being proteeted by those who were politically benefited by the death of the president, and upon some ulterior benefit to himself; that he made no pretense to inspiration at the time of the assassination, nor until he discovered that his expectations of help from the so-called 7.10,no.2— 12 ��� �
