With regard to the murderer of our second assassinated President we had the farce of a long-drawn-out public trial of a man who was evidently not in his right senses. Once more a victim had to be found to satisfy injured public feeling. Guiteau was condemned to death and suffered the death penalty. Any one who reads the proceedings of the trial and who realises the significance of the motive that Guiteau {304} himself gave for his act, will appreciate that the court had to do with an irresponsible doer of a material but not a moral wrong. There were many signs of mental disequilibration in Guiteau's previous career. It is on these eventually that the expert in mental diseases must depend in order to enable him to obtain a proper estimate of the extent of the mental disturbance in any given individual. It may seem that many real criminals can be defended on this same principle of finding an inadequate motive for their crimes. There are, however, certain signs of irrationality not difficult to detect if the previous life of the individual be carefully scrutinised and these must form the ultimate criterion as to criminal responsibility. With regard to the third murderer of a President the case is clear. He was an ignorant, somewhat conceited individual, but he presented none of the signs of true mental disequilibration that can ordinarily be depended on to indicate such a disturbance of the physical basis of mind as impairs responsibility. He was not entirely without a motive, which in the mind of a brooding, conceited individual, might seem to be adequate for the commission of the crime. His sentence of the death penalty was then in accord with the judgment of the best mental experts. How society shall protect itself, and especially its high officials, against such notoriety seekers is hard to say.