The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-04-15
THE NEAGLE CASE.
The United States Supreme Court
Renders a Decision
THAT THE SLAYER OF TERRY
Was Properly Taken from Sheriff Cunning
hams Custody by the Circuit Court
Fuller and Lamar Dissent.

Neagle habeas corpus case from California was
decided by the United States supreme court to-
day, the judgment of the circuit court being
affirmed. This finally disposes of all proceed
lngs against Neagle for shooting Judge Terry
IN the railway station at Lathrop, Gala, on the
14th of last August, to prevent him from taking
the life Of Justice Field. The opinion was de-
liyered by Justice Miller.
After the shooting Neagle was arrested at
Stockton by state officers, but released on
habeaS corpus, based on the ground that Neagle
who was acting under instructions, merely per-
formed his duty as an officer of the United
states. LII was on an appeal from this order
that the case was brought before the United
States supreme court. After a review of the
facts leading up to the assault, including the
imprisonment of Terry for contempt in knock
ing the marshal down IN open court, and then
pursuing him with drawn bowie knife and
| after reclting, also, the numerous threats made
by Terry against Justice Field, Justice Miller
says:
1T is useless to go over the testimony on this
subject more particularly than this 1t is suffi-
Gent 10 say that the evidence is abundant that
both Terry and his wife contemplated some
attack upon Judge Field during his visit TO
California In the summer of 1889. which they
intended should result in his death. Many of
these matters were published in the ncwepa-
pers, and the press OF California was filed
filled with conjectures of q probable attack by
Terry on Justice Field as soon as it became
known he was going to attend the circuit court
of that year,
The opinion then recites the correspondence
between the attorney and the United
States marshal in California, directing the lat
ter to exercise unusual caution for the protec-
ton of Justice Field against the violence of the
Terrys. This correspondence resulted in
NeaSle'S appointment as deputy marshal with
special instructions to attend Justice Field both
Ill court and while travelling between courts
and 10 protect him from violence. After re-
viewing all the facts bearing upon the homicide
the opinion says "they produce upon the court
the conviction of settled purpose on the part
OF Terry and his wife, amounting to conspiracy
TO murder Field. and we are quite sure that if
Neagle had been merely brother or friend of
Judge Field, travelling with him and aware of
all the previous relations of Terry to the Judge,
as Che was of his bitter luminosity, his declared
purpose to have revenge, even 10 the point of
killing, he would have been justified in what he
did In defense of Fields life, and possibly OF his
own.
But such justification would be proper sub
lect for consideration on the trial of the case
Tor murder II the courts of the state of Cali
fornla, and there exists no authority in the
courts of the United States to discharge
prisoner while held in custody by the state
authorities for this ofense, unless there be
found in aid of the defense of the prisoner some
element OF power and authority asserted under
the government of the United States
Judge Miller then takes up the proposition
advanced by Neagles counsel that Justice Field
when attacSed was in the immediate discharge
OF his duty as judge, and that Neagle was
charged with he duty, under the laws of the
United States, 10 protect Field from violence.
The law requiring justices to go on the cir
cults is quoted. Justice Field when attacked
mad actually entered upon the duties of his cir
cult AMI was in tire necessary act of returning
from Los. Angeles to San Francisco, where he
was required by law to be, when he was as
Saulted. We have no doubt Justice Field when
attacked by Terry, was engaged in the discharge
OF ms duties as circuit justice and was entitled
to all the protection under those circumstances
which the law could give him. The court does
not suppose any special act OF Congress which
in express terms authorizes marshals or deputy
marShalS to act as a body guard to Justices
While on their circuit. but in its view of the con-
situations any fairly and properly inferable
duty from that instrument, or any duty from
the marshal to be derived from the general
scope of his duties, comes within the provision
OF the habeas corpus act, directing the release
OF persons VINO are IN custody for an act done IN
pursuance of the laws OF the United States
1T would says the opinion, .'be a great re-
proach to the judicial system of the United
States, declared to be within its sphere soy
ereign and supreme, if there is to be found
within the domain of its powers no means of
protecting judges in the discharge of their
duties from the malice and hatred of those upon
Whom Its judgment may operate unfavorably if
person i'll the situation of Justice Field could
have no other guardian for his personal safety
while engaged in the conscientious discharge OF
a dsagreeahle duty than the fact that if he muir
dered his murderer he would be subject to the
laws of the state, and by those laws could be
punished his security would be very insufficient
The plan which Terry and his wife had in mind
OF insulting him and aSsaulting him and draw
ing hiIa TO an offensive physical contest in the
course of which they would slay him shows the
little value OF such remedies. We do not believe
TIE government OF the United States is thus
inefficient and that the constitution and laws
have leftthe high officers of the government so
defenseless and unprotected
1t Is IN the executive department that the
court finds this power of protection to exist and
IN the language OF the constitution directing
that the President '-shaH take care that the
laws be faithfully executed and providing him
to ,,1 1,
his authority to commission all the
principal officers of the United States.
rs this duty" asks the court, Limited
to the enforcement of acts of Congress- and
treaties, or does it include the rights, duties
and obligations growing out of the constitution
and international relaJionS!n The court an
SwerS the question to the fact that there is no
law or the United States authorizing the gov
eminent to interfere for the protection of a ma
turalized citizen OF the United States who on
visiting his native place, is arrested and made
to do military service and then cites the case of
Martin kaoZta, an Australian, where the gov
eminent, without any specific authority from
Congress, demanded and obtained his release
The regulations of the land Office the appoint
ing of timber agents and providing for their
payment which has been held valid by the
supreme court, though there is no positive pro
vision of ifw for their payment and the power of
the attorney general, sustained by The
supreme court TO institute suits to set aside
patents obtained by fraud, though there is no
statute on the subject. recited in support of
this doctrine. Continuing, the court says Il
cannot douba the power of the President To
take measures for the protection of q United
States judge, who, while in the discharge OF his
duties, is threatened with violence; and that
the department OF justice Is the proper one to
set in motion the necessary means of protec-
ton, and that Neagle had the proper authority
for the steps he took for the protection and
defense of Justice Field There isl says the
opinion, "a peace Of the United States and the
United States marshal in each case stands in
the same relation to it which Il county sheriff
does in maintaining peace in the county,
1t cannot be doubted it would have been the
duty of the sheriff, had one been present 10
prevent an assault on Justice Field and to pre-
vent the murder contemplated by it, and If il
became necessary to kill Terry. In a case
where, like this. IL WAS evidently question of
choice who should be killed-the assailant and
violalor II the law or an unohending man who
was in his power = there can lie no
question of the authority of the sheriff fo
have kilei Terry. The marshal stands in the
place of the, sheriff. and it being his duty 10
guard the judge and being present at the critical
moment When prompt action was necessary il
was his duty, which he had no liberty to refuse
to perform, 10 take the steps which resulted in
Terry death''
The court next takes up the contention that
the question of the guilt of the prisoner of the
crime of murder is a question to he Do.
termined by the courts of California
and that the United States court
had no power to take lhe prisoner and release
him without trial by jury, according to the laws
OF California. The courts reponse 10 this con
tention is that the express terms of the habeas
corpus act direct such course where an act is
done in pursuance OF the laws of the United
States, and such has been shown to be the case
here. The act Of the prisoner having been com
initted in pursuance OF law of the Uuited
States, he cannot be guilty of crime under
the law of the state of California and when ii is
shown that he is proved innocent of any
crimes against the laws of the state. there is no
occasion then for any further trial in the state
courts and the United States circuit court was
as competent as any other tribunal to ascertain
whether the act was performed in pursuance of
law of The United States and under proper
authority. and ii was not at all necessary to
empanel jury for the purpose
The judgment OF the circuit court is affirmed,