The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-04-15
luthorizing Ncs.gle's discharge from the GUS

authorizing Nesgle's discharge from the GUS
tody of the sheriff.
Justice Lamar on behalf of himself and the
cnlef justice delivered an elaborate and vigor-
GUS dissent. The ground on which they dissent
is that in considering the habeas corpus act
wholly 1nadmissible construction is placed ON
the word law as used in that statue, and o
wholly inadmissible application is made of the
clause in custody in violation Of the constitu-
ton of the United States"
1t is Indispensable to observe carefully the
distinction between individual men and the same
persons III official capacities. We agree in as
Stunning the facts in the case to be as shown
by the record, that the personal protection
OF Judge Field as a private citizen, even to the
death OF Terry, was not only right but was also
The duty OF Neagle and of any other bystander
And we maintain that for the exercise of that
right or duty he is answerable to the courts of
Californian and to them alone. But we deny
that Neagie had any duty imposed upon him by
the laws OF the United States growing out of
the official character OF Judge Field. In short
we think tnele was nothing whatever in the
fact of the official character in the transaction
and therefore we think tne United States
courts have in the present state of our legisla-
ton no jurisdiction whatever in the premises
There was 10 authority for the release of
Neagle,
In conclusion the dissenting opinion was: :'If
the act of Terry had resulted in the death of
Justice Field, would his murder have been a
crime against the United States? Would the
government of the United States have been
competent in the present condition of the
STATUTES, W prosecute us own tribunals q
murderer of its own supreme court Justice or
even to inquire into the heinous offense through
its own tribunals? II yes, then the Staying of
Terry by the appellee in the necessary proven
ton of such an act was authorized by the law of
the United States, and he should be discharged,
and that independent of any official character
the situation being the same in the case of any
citizen. But if no, how stands the matter then?
The killing of Terry was not by the states au-
thority; his relief or vindication could only
be that of the state, and the slayer should be
remanded TO her courts to be tried. The ques.
ton then recurS, would it have been
a crime against the United States?
There can be but one answer. Murder is not
an offense against the United States, except
when committed at places where the national
government has exclusive jurisdiction. 1t is
well settled that such crime must be defined
by ststute and no such statute has been
pointed out. The United States government
being thus powerless to try and punish man
charged with murder, we are not prepared to
affirm that it is omnipotent to discharge from
trial and give immunityf from all liability to any
trial. anywhere, unless an express statute OF
Congress is produced commanding such dis
charge. We are less reluctant to come to this
conclusion because we cannot permit ourselves
to doubt that If the appellee had been indicted
and gone to trial before a jury of his own coun-
try, God and his country would have given him
q good deliVerance.n