New-York tribune., 1890-04-15
THE NAGLE CASE DECIDED.
THE SUPREME COURT ORDERS HIS RELEASE
FROM CUSTODY
THE DEPUTY MARsHAL's ACTION IN SHOOTING
TERRY JUsuFIED-CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER
AND JUSTICE LAMAR DISSENT.

AND JUSTICE LAMAR DISSENT.
Washington. April LITTLE celebrated Nase habeas
corpus case. from California decided by the nted
states supreme Court to-day. the judgment of the
Circuit Court being affirmed. This finally disposcS
OF all proceedings against Naglc for the shooting Of
Judge Terry in railway station at Lalrop. Cal, on
August IA. to prevent him from taking the life OF
Justice Field. The opinion was delivered by Justice
Miller.
After the shooting Nacle arrested at stockton.
by the State officers but was released writ OF
habeas corpus based on the ground that Naglc had
merely performed his duty an officer of the United
states. 1t on appeal for this order that the
brought before the United states supreme
Court Justice Miller says; The evidence Is abundant
that both Terry and wife contemplated some attack
upon Judge Field during his visit to California in the
summer Of 1850. which they intended should result
In his DEATH The opinion then recites the CORE
spondcncc between the Attorney General and the
United states Marshal in California. directing the
latter protect Justice Field against the violence Of
the Terrys. This correspondence resulted In Nage's
appointment deputy marshal with special IN
struc'ions to attend and protect Justice Field.
Justice Miller then takes up the proposition, ad
vanced by Nagles counsel that Justice Field. when
attacked in the immediate discharge Of his duty
Judge. and that Eagle charged with a duty
under the laws Of the United Satc' 10 protect Justice
Field from violence The art says that In travelling
TO perform circuit duty. Justice Field was A. much
in the discharge Of duty imposed upon him by law
lie while sitting in court and trying causes
The court does not suppose that special act OF
Congress exists which in express terms authorizes
marshals deputy marshals TO act body guard
the Justices while their circuits; but in its view
Of the Constitution any obligation inferallc from that
instrument any duty OF the marshal to be- derived
from the general scope of his duties. comes within
the provision Of the habcas corpus act directing th'
release OF persons who in custody for an act
done "in pursuance the laws Of The United states
II person in the situation Of Justice Field could
have other guardian Of his personal safety than
the fact that If he was murdered his murderer
would be subject 10 the laws Of a
state the security would be very insufficient
Where then, asks the court are We to look Tor THO
protection. and the ministerial officers through whom
entitled tol Not in the Judicial Department. be
cause that Is the weakest for the purposes Of self
protection and the ministerial officers through whom
its commands must be executed belong cmphatically
to the Executive Department OF tie Government.
II is in thi, department that the court finds this
power Of protection to exist. l. this duty. asks tine
court limited 10 the enforcement of acts Il Congress
and Of treaties. or docs it include the rights dutlc,
and obligations growing ont OF the Constitution and
Of our international relations The court -ays that il
cannot doubt the power of the President 20 take
measures for the protection Of United states Judge
who Is threatened with violence and that the Depart
mcnt Of Justice + the proper to se; IN motion
the necessary means Of protection. and that Ncaflc
had proper authority for the step, hc took for the
protection and defence Of Justice Field There is
says the opinion. peace Of the United states and
the United states Marshal in such case stands In the
same relation which a county sheriff doe, in main
tanning peace in the county
The court next takes up the contention
that the question of the guilt Of tho
prisoner Of the crime Of murder question IN be de
termined by the courts Of California. and that tho
United states Court had power take the prisoner
and release him without trial by jury. according 70
the laSs OF California. The courts response - thl.
contention Is that the express term. Of tie Habeas
Corpus act directs such where an act J., done
In pursuance OF the laws II the United states and
such has been shown to Dc the here The act u
The prisoner having been committed l1 pursuance Of
law Of the United states he cannot be guilty Of a
crime under the law II The state u California IN
Inclusion The opinion says We may. therefore affirm
the Judgment OF the Circuit Cont authorizing Naxe'.
discharsc from tho custody Of The ,h. 81 san joaquin
Justice iield did not hear the argument Of thi.
cause. and took no part I'm the decision.
Justice Lamar In behalf II himself and the chief
Justice, delivered vigorous dissent t., m. ofu,n ~
ue court. They 4" NOS question the supremacy II
r ledeiH '"'rTnmcni noi the lrol0.' zion iAtt nat
ever D.. necessarily implied lr thc Constitution and
law oi the nIied state. !, - much part II them
- IL II were actual, expressed. Ih, ground on
winch they dissent is that Do ldcfnr tie ilab-as
'9'pls ACT wholly inadml-.lNlo construction is
wholly nhdml.sbir Application D.. made 90 tile clause
IN custody in violation 81 iIc f.flfsl If M.
United state. Their report continues. lnc Court
IN United states ari. hrly filI ni'cr of tlr
nrd states is placed hv hl. olor above r,.. pom.
llty :" Tie legal tribunal, Il tlc ,plifii We a4rrc
that The personal protection oi J.d.e Field a. a
private citizen. oven 10 the death oi Terry va. no;
only The right. but also tac dltf Of Nagr AID u
any other b} etander. and We maintain that flr the
exercise II uai fi-i duty BE- ai.weanb'c T. tho
courts ~ the STAT" ~ California alone Bat Wc deny
thhi Neglr had any duty imposed upon hm hY the
laws ~ the irif"d State. grUwus 'ui oi te oiicil
character Of Judge Field. In short Vc think HAT
there Wa nothing whatever in t't oi an Official
that tho United States courts have in present state
OF onr ichslatiOn. no jurisdiction whatever In The
prcuI.c,"
The court also rendered opinion affirming the
Judgment Of the Rhode Island Circuit Court the
case OF the executor. of Evan Eaudplph appellant,
agt- Qudncck Company - al. Ill. D. a victory
Tor tho company. The court doe rot into the
validity 81 the ~praguc trust de"d. bat HandOp's
claim j. not good In equity. and that therefore, there
j. no reason 70 20 int" the matter Of the tru, deed
Other decisions were:
No @5l-1hc Board of Commissioners OF the County
Of Leavcnwor-l. appellant. agt the Chicago. Rock
Island and Pacific Railway Company q al. Appeal
from the United states Circuit Court for tho Western
District of Missouri. Decision affirmed, with costs
No. l.53--Chares Pascr appellant. act tho
United states Of America. ct al Motion 10 advance
granted
The Chief Jnstice announced the following order:
The call for the docket Will not lc continued after
Friday, May . and Monday. MAY .. after the
nounccmen of opinions and the hearing of motions.
the court Will take recess until Monday. May 10.
which day II will adjourn FOR the term
The day call for tomorrow IS Nos 2Ol and 262 @6f,
2GG and 6o2, 271. 274 20. 277, 27s. go and $50.
|