Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1889-10-11

~ (aliecrria Case.


had under consideration the csse Of the
United states marshal who slew Judge
Terry for slapping in the face Justice
Field, Of the United States supreme
court, has reported to the court that the
prisoner has been taken out Of their
hauds BY writ from the United States
court, which court has set him free.
The grand jury Of the state IL dis
charged from consideration Of the guilt
Of . prisoner who has, as they declare,
murdered q citizen Of California, within
the state, by the order Of the United
States court Of the district. whose
judges, resolving themselves into jury,
decided that the prisoner had committed
no crime, and set him free.
The opinion Of the federal judge, Saw
yer, declares that the Staying Of Terry
was no ofiense, because II was done by
the United States marshal In the dis
charge of his duty. II holds that he was
praiseworthy in killing Terry, who was
in the act Of assailing federal judge
because of judicial decision rendered
BY him, such assault being not only
upon the person Of the Judge but upon
the judiciary and the national authority
which he represents. Being guilty Of
no offense, but on the other hand having
done good deed, it became the duty of
the United States court which consid-
ered his case to discharge him, any
opinion of the state court and grand
jury to the contrary, notwithstanding.
Judge Sawyer comedies that the
United States court cannot try the man
before jury and punish him II guilty.
II be h to be tried il must he by the state
court. And the notable result of this re-
markable perception Of the law in this
case is that the United States court dis
charges prisoner who is declared by a
state grand jury TO have committed
murder, because the United States court
differs with this opinion, and thinks the
accused not only guiltless but praise
worthy; while conceding that IL there
is any such doubt in the matter as
would subject him to trial for possible
offense, the state court, whose grand jury
says he Is guilty, alone can try him.
II this rs not pretty kettle of law
commend us to one that IL more astound-
ing, In country where trial by jury is
the law Of the land, and where
stase h not a province, but one of
the United States. II the supreme
court Of the United Stntes con-
hrms this law Of Justice Fields asso-
ciats judges in the California circuit, we
will surely stand In need of legislation to
prevent any knave on the federal bench
from working his sweet pleasure upon
the people with his miniOns, whom the
wave Of his hand absolves from the
state Jurisdiction.
The question involved here is not as to
the guilt or Innocence of the marshal
who shot Terry who was assaulting
Field. II IL as to who shall decide upon
his guilt or innocence and whether the
decision shall be taken out of the hands
Of the state courts by the simple fiat OF
the United States court, which has nc
Jurisdiction to try him, but claims the
power to release him II II deems him in.
nocent.
But there are, In the circumstances
the gravest reason to doubt whether the
act Of this marshal was not a crime
nd very little foundation seemingl,
for the lopinion that II was praise
worthy. Most persons may agree with
the federal court I'm its belief that the
judge should be protected and that II 1.
praigeworthy in u United States mar.
shall, or any unofficial citizen, to protect
him, as he would himself. But certain
~ he has no further authority, aud will
no more be held guiltless In using undue
violence in protecting federal Judge
than though defending his own person
The person of the federal Judge may bt
holy, but 1t Is not so holy that
the man who smites its cheek ma,
be shot down, under the law, as though
he WAS dog. In this case the United
States marshal, detailed to protect
Justice Field, was required by tn,
law TO have urgent need for tn,
use Of his pistol in protecting tn,
life Of his charge, conceding that h,
wss his charge. A face slapping is no,
recognized by the law rs such need
Terry had no pistol, and though tn,
MARSHAL may possibly have suppose,
that he had, his error was his fault
aud there surely was enough lcl
In the case to have called for the adjudI
cation of jury, iIkhe case of an ordiu
ary prisoner; and II will not do to pei
NIT the United States judges to ban
together in their own exaltation To de
clare themselves and their minions 10 b
above the state law.