Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1889-08-26
A Great Question of Sovereignty.


No constitutional question of more far
reaching Importance has come before the
scourts for years than that raised by the
Clash of Federal and state authority in
the eases of Justice Field and Deputy
Marshal Maggie. 1t goes to the very
foundation of our form of government,
involving on the one hand national
sovereignty and on the other state rights
in a vast domain of criminal law.
1t is a fundamental principle of state
sovereignty that the state has exclusive
Jurisdiction over all crimes committed
within its borders, except those COM
mitted on the property or against the
laws of the United states. Murder, ex-
cent when committed on Federal ground,
has always been recognized as q crime
against the state and the person charged
with the crime answerable to the law of
the state.
This sovereignty Is guaranteed to every
member of the union by the Federal con-
stitution. It's domain cannot be evaded,
even by Federal authority without either
violating or amending the constitution.
Had the parties to the Terry tragedy
been private citizens the jurisdiction Of
the California courts would be
unouestioned. Had the tragedy been
enacted in the Federal co uTt house at
Los Angeles or San Francisco the juris-
diction of the United States would be
unouestioned But the alleged crime
was not committed on Federal ground,
and two of the parties were not private
citizens, but Federal officers.
On this right Of state soyereigaitT,
California now insists. IG claims that
whether the parties to it be Federal OIL
GERS or private citizens a homicide COM
mitted on the soil OF the state is COM
mitted within the criminal domain of the
state, and is within the jurisdiction Of its
courts.
The United States asserts that Justice
Field and Deputy Marshal Nagle were
Federal officers charged with the duty of
administering Federal law; that though
not in q Federal building or on Federal
land when the assault was made they
were in the active discharge of their
official duties; that the blow deal Justice
Field was a blow against national au-
thority, an interference with the ad-
ministration Of national law; that the
| fatal shot of Nagle was fired by a Federal
| officer, in obedience to Federal orders
and in defense of Federal authority.
1t is on this ground that the United
| States claims jurisdiction.
The claim, if it can be successfully
maintained at all must be maintained on
| the broad principles of national sover-
! eighty. The constitution Of the United
| States is the supreme law Of the land
! Federal laws made in pursuance thereof
are supreme. To this constitution and
these laws every state, every officer,
! every citizen must bow. They are en-
! forced by Federal officers. Their en-
| forcement is Federal government. To
! assail an officer in and for the discharge
of his duty is to assail the government
! To defend him is to defend the govern
ment.
There is no question that an attempt to
take the life of q Federal judge while
holding court or the killing then and
| there of a citizen in defense of the
Judge s life falls within the criminal jul
risdiction of the United States. Doe:
this principle extend to a Federal judge
outside the courthouse-to any place
where he is to he considered i'll active
| judicial service? That question must be
! answered in the affirmative to sustain the
jurisdiction claimed by the United States
! in the Field and Nagle cases.
If that doctrine be affirmed what limi
is there TO its broad sweep? The prin-
ciple is not restricted TO Federal justice:
| and mars halls 1t must extend to al
officers of the United States, from thu
president down-executive, Legislative
and judicial Wherever such officer
may be in the actual discharge of hi
| duty he must be regarded as covered b!
the official panopy of the nation, and TIT
spot on which he stands deemed Fedora
soil Any crime committed or wron:
done by or against him in his offcia
capacity must fall within the jurisdiction
of the United States. He must be undo
the broad egis of the nation when limo
cent and subject only to its penaltie
when guilty.
It is question whether the broa'
principle would not extend to all govern
ment employes--to every clerk in tn
custom house, to every letter carrier.
The issue can be settled only by tn
supreme court of the United States, t
which it is destined to go. On the de
cision of that tribunal will depen