Los Angeles herald., 1890-04-15

and international relations. Inc court
answers the question by calling atten-
ton to the fact that there is no law OF
the United States authorizing the Gov
ernment to interfere for the protection
of naturalized citizen of the United
States who, on visiting his native place,
is arrested and made to do military SER
vice, and then cites the case of Martin
Kooszta, an Austrian, where the Gov
ernment, without any specific authority
from Congress, demanded and OBJ
tained his release. The regula-
tions of the Land Office in APP
pointing timber agents and pro-
viding for their payment, which have
been held valid by the Supreme Court,
though there is no positive provision OF
law 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, are
cited in support of this doctrine.
Continuing, the court says it cannot
doubt the power of the President to take
measures for the protection of a United
States Judge who, 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 protection, and that
Neagle had proper authority for the
steps he took for the protection and de-
tense of Justice Field. "There is" says
the opinion, "a peace of the United
States, and the United States Marshal
in this case stands in the same relation
which county sheriff does in maintain
ing the peace in a county"
Continuing, the opinion says: "lt
cannot be doubted that it would have
been the duty of sheriff, had one been
present, to prevent an assault upon JUS
tice Field and prevent the murder con-
templated by it, and, if it became neces-
sary, to kill Terry. In a case where, like
this, it was evidently a question of
choice of who should be killed, the as
sailant and violator of the law or the
unoffending man who was in his power,
there can be noquestion of the authority
of the sheriff to have killed Terry. The
marshal stands in the place of the
sheriff, and, it being his duty to guard
the Judge, and being present at the
critical moment when prompt action
was necessary, it was his duty, which he
had no liberty to refuse to perform, to
take the steps which resulted in Terry's
DEATH"
The court next takes up the conten-
ton that the question of the guilt
of the prisoner of the crime Of
murder was question to be determined
by the courts of California, and that the
United States Court had no power to
take the prisoner and release him with
out trial by jury, according to the laws
of California. The courts response to
this contention is that the express terms
of the habeas corpus act directs such
course where an act is done in pursu
ance of the laws of the United States,
and such had been shown to be the case
here. The act of the prisoner having
been committed in pursuance of the
law of the United States, he cannot
be guilty of crime under the law of
the State of California, and when shown
that he is proved innocent of any crime
against the laws of the State, there is no
occasion then for any further trial in the
State courts. The United States Cir
cult Court was as competent as any
other tribunal to ascertain whether the
act was performed in pursuance OF the
law of the United States, and under
proper authority, and it was not at all
necessary to impanel jury for the pur-
pose.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is
affirmed, authorizing Neagle's discharge
from the custody OF the sheriff.
Justice Lamar, on behalf of himself
and the Chief Justice, delivered an elab-
crate and vigorous dissent. The ground
on which they dissent is that in consid-
ering the habeas corpus act, wholly in
admissible construction is placed ON the
word Claw" as used in the statute, and
awholly inadmissible application is made
of the clause, Gin custody, in violation
of the Constitution of the United States"
cit is indispensable to observe care
fully the distinction between individual
men and the same persons in an official
capacity. We agree, assuming these
facts in the case to be as shown by the
record, that the personal protection Of
Judge Field as private citizen, even to
but was also the duty of Neagle and OF
that for the exercise of that right or duty
of California and to them
duty imposed upon him by the
of the official character of Judge Field.
ing whatever in the act of an official
character in the transaction, and there
fore we think the United States courts
have, in the present state Of our legisla-
ton, no jurisdiction whatever in the
premises. There was no authority for
the release of Neagle."
In conclusion the dissenting opinion
states eff the act of Terry had re-
suited in the death of Justice Field,
would the murder have been crime
against the United States? Would the
Government of the United States have
been competent in the present condition
of the statutes to prosecute in it's own
tribunals the murderer of it's own
Supreme Court Justice, or even to in
quire into the heinous offense, through
its own tribunals? If yes, then
the Staying of Terry by the ap-
pellee in the necessity of the pre-
vention of such act was authorized
by the law of the United States,
and he should have been discharged,
and that independent of any official
character, the situation being the same
in the case of any citizen. But if not,
how stands the matter then? The kill
ing of Terry was not by authority OF the
United States, no matter by whom
done. and the only authority relied on