Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-09-20
The Terry-Nagle Case.

We are not surprised that the press Of
the country should feel restless under
Judge SAwYKR's decision in the TERRY-
NAoLB case. There is much in that case.
AS the New York Herald of Wednesday well
saws, "a sovereignty question of far-reach-
ing importance is involved" We Quote
the Herald:
Judge Sawyer lays down the broad prin-
ciple that wherever a Fedeial Judge may
be. IL in the discharge of his official duty
he is under the protection and within the
jurisdiction Of the United States. He may
perform an official act in his own house or
on a railroad train. He may hold court on
the public highway. Where fedeTal
Judge is in active service he Is within the
jurisdiction of the United states. II he
then commits or attempts murder he ls an
swerable to its tribunals alone. If as
saulted the assailant is amenable only 70
it's law. The Judge may travel with
body-guard, and whatever may be done
for his protection is no concern OF the state
THAT is a substantial inroad into what
has always been regarded as the domain OF
State sovereignty. But what limit is there
TO the invasion? Where is the line to be
drawn between a judge In his offclai ca
pacity and judge in his status as citi-
zen? =.
1T is held that Justice Field was on Off
cial duty when sitting in the railway eat
ing-house at LathrOp. because he was then
on his way from the courthouse at Los An
gelos to the courthouse in San Francisco.
But how is il when Justice Field Is Oh his
way from Washington TO California or from
California to Washington? How Is 1t when
Chief-Justice Fuller travels between wash
ington and Chicago, or when any Federal
Judge goes from the bench TO restaurant
for lunch at noon or to his home at night :!
Moreover. is the principle to be limited
10 Judges? 1t would seem to apply with
equal force TO all Federal ofhcers-leglsla-
tive and executive as well as judicial. Is
not its scope still broaderY Does II not
extend TO all persons in the Federal ser
vice-custom-hOuse clerks, letteI-carriers,
&C.? If so, all Federal officers and en-
ployes are within Federal jurisdiction
whenever and wherever they are TO be con-
sidered on duty, and the State has nothing
TO do with any hOmicidal violence COM
mitted then by or against them.
THAT is a sweeping consequence, an ap-
parent readjustment of the relations OF
national and State sovereignty in the do
main of criminal law. But does it not fol-
low from the principle laid down by the
Federal circuit judges in San franctsco?,
THE release of Nagle will be universally
approved. Inc nation Will hpllauu tuO
sentiment expressed from the bench by
Judge Sawyer that the deputy marshal
would have failed in his duty had he acted
with less prOmptness or effect. But there
is far less unanimity on the greater ques-
ton of sovereignty involved. On that
there will be much discussion and differ
ence of opinion
Yes, a letter-carrier is in the service of
the United States just as truly as Fede-
raj Judge. Would Attorney-General Mil
LEB authorize United States marshal to
carry arms to shoot down anybody who
might make an assault upon letter-car-
rier?
Again NAGLE was in prison on the charge
that he had violated a State law; and
certainly State law had been violated
even if Federal law had also been vio-
lated. Has Federal court power to de-
eide question of that sort, thus ousting
the jurisdiction of the State courts?
If we were on jury empanelled to try
NAGLE. we should feel bound to acquit him
under the circumstances; but still lit i
all muddle."