The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-03-05
FIELDS PROTECTOR.
The Case Of Neagle Before the
Supreme Court.
A QUESTION or NIGH IMPORT
TIE Extest 10 which Ghe Gevssnnsnt
LAY Go h Enforcing Its AxsAor-
ity by Its onefais.

preme court chamber was nsled today with
IN audience which listened attenfively TO
arguments in Neagle's case arising out OF
the shooting of David Terry last summer.
when IN the act OF committing an assault
on Judge Field OF the supreme court All
the justices were present except Justice
eIeld.
Argument Was opened BY Montgomery
IN behalf of appellant. Sheriff Cunning
ham, from whose jurisdiction Neagle was
taken on writ of habeas corpus. issued by
the United States court on the ground that
gagged in the performance of his duty of
protecting justice of the United States
supreme court. and he could not be inn
prisoned by state authorities.
Montgomery said it was the contention
OF the state authorities that the sole question
before the court was iurisdictienal one
and therefore all questions of Neagle's guilt
or innocence was irrelevant He reviewed
the leading points in the evidence. The
chief feature OF the review was Monfgom-
ery's charge that il was not the purpose of
Neagle's appointment TO have him use
official authority to prevent breach OF the
peace. but to have him resent forcibly any
affront put upon Justice Field.
Montgomery maintained that unless
there were specific statutory authority for
the instructions given Neagle to accompany
Justice Field. there was no authority for his
release by the United States circuit court.
He based thiSupon the authority OF section
$50, of the revised statutes. that . writAof
habeas corpus should not extend to pris-
oner unless in custody for an oct done in
pursuance Of the law Of the United States.
If it were true that the act Was justifable
homicide, and necessary for the protection
OF Justice Field. then there need not be any
fear that the state would not acquit him,
but this was for the state to decide.
Attorney General Miller. who followed
on behalf OF the United States. said he
would base his argument on two PROPOSE
tions. First. that it y but an act of the
executive department to protect the judi
ciary of the government. Second. that un-
der the constitution 1t Is the duty OF the
judiciary department to sit In Judgment
upon the acts of its officials in performing
their duties in accordance with the con-
stitution. He quoted from the words of
Secretary Bayard that the right Of the gov
ernment to act and enforce laws, gives il
power to protect its servants in their exc
cution. The attorney general argued his
case upon this line.
The proposition, he said, advanced on
the part OF the state, was nearly rs old as
the government, which had been refuted
times without number in courts, in con-
gress and upon battlenelds. That was the
same argument that the executive bad no
power except such as was specifically
granted by the legislative department,
which had been used before the civil war
to deny the power of the government 10
coerce seeding states.
Justice Bradley interrupted the attorney
general in the course Of his remarks with
the question: with what force shall the
president execute this power Of protection
oil which you speak. supposing the marshal
had not sufficient force for the purpose r.
Attorney generai-With posse In the
first instance. and If that were not sufti-
cient, with the army and navy.
Justice Bradley-Then he has the right to
aid all citizens of the United States in
maintaining laws and protecting the insti-
tutions of the government
JOSEPH Choale. of New York, who fol-
lowed Attorney-Genera Miller as one OF
the counsel for the government. opened
his argument with the statement that ever
since the beginning Of the government the
people of the United States had rested in
the conviction that they constituted n
nation; that within its limits the
government was sovereign and supreme,
and that il had within itself ell powers and
facilities to fultill its own functions and
ACCOMPLISH its own purposes. In doing
this the government was not subject TO
hinarance or interference by any power
whatever. The government had the power.
az il had the duty 10 secure the perfor-
nance OF government operation ana pro-
tect its servants and agents in doing duties
intrussed to them. For the FIRST time in q
hundred years. the people we're now met with
the startling contention that justice Of
the highest court in the land was not
entitled to protection In going from one
place 20 another on his circuit.
choate had not concluded his argument
us.ee fhs ea4trr aftsnffruaE