Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-09-17
NAGLR DISCHARGED.
Judge Sawyer Decides That the Fed
eTal C0ult Has Jurisdiction.
THE KILLING rnLLY JUSTIFIED.
Interesting Exposition of the Law
Relative to the Power of U.
S. Marshals.
SPECIAL DISPATCHES TO THE EKooRD-uS1osl

SAN Francisco September 16th.-Judge
| Sawyer, of the United States Circuit Court
| this morning rendered his decision in the
habeas corpus case of David Nagle A
| large number of attorneys and spectators
were present among the latter being sew
| eral ladies, who occupied seats in the Jury
| box.
The attorneys of record in the case were
John T. Carey, United States ATTORNEY,
Richard S. Mesick, Samuel NJ Wilson, w.
F. Herrin, W. L. Dudley, H. c. McPike
G. L Ackerman, ]. c. Campbell, for the
petitioner; G. A. Johnson, Attorney Gen
eral State of California, ]. P. Langhorne,
| Avery C. White, District Attorney San
joaquin county, Cal, for respondent.
! The reading of the opinion occupied
upward of an hour. A synopsis is as fol-
| lows:
| The petitioner has sued out a writ of habeas
| corpus, Ieturnable before this Court, alleging
/ that. be is unlawfully deprived of his liberty
| by a Justice of the Peace of San Joaquin county,
| in this State, charging him with "a felonious
| homicide, whilst the act there characterized
was lawful act, performed in discharge of his
dntieS as an officer of the United States and the
| first question presented is whether this Court
has jurisdiction to inquire into the truth of that
4 allegation.
ssAs to the question of jurisdiction, Section ISL
| r. S, provides that "The Supreme Court and
| the Circuit and District Courts shall have power
to issue writs of habeas corpus and Section
| 1872 further provides that THE several Justices
| and Judges of the sad Courts, within their re-
| spective jurisdictions, shall have the power to
issue writs OF habeas corpus, for the purpose of
an inquiry into the cause o restraint OF liberty
| There is no limit TO the jurisdiction of these
| Courts and Judges to inquire into the restraint
OF liberty OF any person, in these provisions
| But Section 753 prescribes some limitations
among which is that the writ shall not extend
/ TO prisoner in Jail, unless he is
| in custody for an act done or committed in pur-
suance of law OF the United states or OF au
| order, or decree of CouIt thereof or in custody
| in violation of the Constitution or of a law or
treaty OF the United States, and this legislation
\ in the language of the Chief Justice, in Nc
| Ardie case, Wal, 325-26 in commenting upon
the same provision in prior act, ''is of the most
| comprehensive character. 1t brings within the
habeas corpus jurisdiction of every Court and of
every Judge, every possible case of priva ion OF
| liberty, contrary TO the National Constitution
| treaties or laws. Is is impossible to widen this
| jurisdiction And again in EX Parte Royal,
| III U. s., 239, the Supreme Court says: "As the
| judicial power of the Nation extends TO All
| cases arising under the Constitution the laws
and treaties of the United States the privilege
| of the writs of habeas corpus cannot be slis
| pended unless when in cases of rebellion or in
| vasion, the pubic safety may require it;
| and as Congress has power TO pass al Claws
| necessary and proper to carry into execution
| the powers vested by the Constitution in the
| Government OF the United States, or in any
| department or officer thereof no doubt can eX
| ist as TO the power of Congress thus to enlarge
| the jurisdiction of the Co3Tts OF the Union and
| of their Justices and Judges That the peti
| toner is held under the authority OF a State
| cannot affect the question of the power or juris-
diction OF the Circuit Court to inquire into the
/ cause of his commitment, and to discharge him
if he be restrained of his liberty in violation of
| the Constitution. The Grand Jurors who found
| the Indictment, the Court into which il was re-
| turned, and by whose order he was arrested
and the officer who holds him in custody are
| all, equally with citizens, under a duty, from
| the discharge of which the state could not re-
| lea them, to respect and obey the supreme
| law OF the land, anything in the Constitution
| and laws of any State to the contrary notwith-
standing. and that equal power does not be.
| long to the Courts and Judges of the several
States; that they cannot under any authority
conferred by the States, discharge frJ I'M custody
persons held by authority of the Courts of the
| united states, or OF Commissioners of such
| Courts, or by officers of the General Government
| acting under its Jaws, results from the supren
| acy OF the Constitution and laws of the United
| States. (Ableman VS.. Booth, q How, 500: Tar
ble,s case. l3 Wal, 397 Robb vs. Connolly, III
| q. s.. GA
eve are, therefore, of opinion that the q ircuit
| Court has jurisdiction upon writ of habeas cor
| pus to inquire into the cause of appellants com.
mitment, and TO discharge him if he be held in
| custody in violation of the Constitution"
In the exercise of this jurisdiction there is no
| conflict between the authority of the State and
of the United States. The State in such cases is
| subordinate and the National Government par-
! amount. 1.-THE Constitution and laws of the
| United ates are the supreme law of the land,
| and to these every citizen of every State ewes
obedience, whether in his individual or official
capacity. (Siebold's case, 100 U s.. 1872; see also
| Tennessee VS.. Davis, 1C0 U. s., 257-5S P.)
This Court, then, has jurisdiction TO inquire
upon this writ into the cause of the imprison-
! ment of the petitioner, and if, upon such in.
quiry, he is found to be "in custody for an act
] done or omitted in pursuance of law of the
United States" then he is in custody in viola
| ton of the Constitution and laws of the United
States and he is entitled to be discharged, no
matter from whom or under what authority
the process under which he is held may have
issued-the Constitution and laws of the United
States made in pursuance thereof being the su-
preme law of the land.
1t is, there ore, only necessary to inquire and
ascertain whether the petitioner is in custody
tor an act done iu pursuance of a law o! the
United States in order to dispose of the case.
After reciting at length the character of
the homicide the Court says
There are numerous cases reported in the
books where parties arrested for offenses under
the State laws for acts performed in the dis
charge OF du.tes imposed by the laws of the
United States have been discharged from i'm
prisonment on habeas corpus by the United
States Courts, in consonauce with these princi
pies now so authoritatively established by the
supreme Court OF the United States in the eases
cited and othe S in the same line.
Ihus, 10 eX parte jenkins and others, Deputy
United States Marsh3ls who wer, arrested on
the warrant OF Justice of the Peace in Pennsyi-
vania, for shooting and wounding negro who
resisted sn arrest attempted under warrant is
sued by the United states Courts for a fugitive
slave, Mr.. Justice Greer of the United States
Supreme Court, took jurisdiction and DISCHARGED
the petitioners, under the Act of 1885, since
carried into the Revised Statutes, as part of Sec
ton 95S, under which this case arises After
their discharge they were arrested again. in u
suit by negro for trespsSs, upon a warrant is
sued by Judge of the Supreme Court of Penn
sylvania, and again discharged on habeas
corpus by the United states Circuit Court. After
this they were indicted for the shooting and
wounding of the negro by the Grand Jury of
LuzeIne county, and a third time released on
habeas corpus.
In ex parte Robinson, Mr.. Justice Mclean
held that, "a writ of habeas corpus may issue
TO relieve an officer of the Federal Government
who has been imprisoned for the performance
of his duty" Is Mel can, 355) In the course
of the decision, the learned Justice observes
1T is general principle of law, to which l
know of no exception, that the laws of eve Y
Government shall be construed by itself: and
such construction is acted upon by the judiciary
of a other countries By the Federal Consti-
tuition the judicial power of the United States
is declared to be vested in one Supreme Court
and in such inferior Courts as the Congress
may from time to time order and establish
Under this provision, the judiciary of the Union
gives the construction of the laws which is OBJ
ligatory upon the State tribunals. The Con-
stitution again declares, the Constitution and
in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or
which shall be made under the authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme law of the
land, and the Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, anything in the Constitution
or laws of any State to the contrary norwith-
Standing" I'D. 361.) Thus, it is the exclu-
sive preroSative of the National Courts to
finally determine whether an act reformed by
one of the officers of the United States and
especially an officer of the Court ITSELF is dome
3 in pursuance of law of the United
States" or whether when under arrest for acts
performed 10 connection with his Office he is
lin custody in violation of the Constitution or
of a law OF the United States' (2Abb., S65)
The only remaining questions TO determine
are:
l. Was the homicide. now in question, COM
mitied by petitioner while acting in the dis
charge of a duty imposed upon him by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, with
in the mending of Section 75S of the Revised
Statutes?
2. Was the homicide necessary, or was it rea
sonably apparent to the mind of the petitioner.
at the time and under the circumstances then
existing, that the killing was necessary in order
to full and complete discharge of such duty?
After lorg review of the duties of Mar.
shals, and of constitutional provisions, the
decision concludes as follows:
After mature consideration we have reached
the conclusion that the homicide in question
was committed by petitioner while acting in the
discharge OF duty imposed upon him by the
Constitution and laws of the United States,
within the meaning of the provisions of Section
75S of the Revised Statutes
fral lt- Vnaiy, 10.