The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1890-03-05
Views of the Acknowledgement as to How the
Government Can Enforce It's Laws and
Afford Protection to Its Citizens.
Leakiugs from Executive Sessions Still
Worrying the August Senators.
Chickamauga and Chattanooga Military Park
Postmaster Paul Denies Making Illegal
4ppointments-Views on Sugar Duty.
DEPUTY NEAGLE's CASE.
The Question Of Jurisdiction Argued Before
the United States Supreme Court.

the United States Supreme Court.
WASHINGTON, March 4.-The Supreme
Court chamber was filed throughout the
four hours of the session of the court to-
day with an audience which listened at
tentively to the arguments of counsel in
the Neagle case, arising out of the shooting
of David Terry, in Lathrop, Cal, last sum-
mer, when he was in the act of committing
an assault upon Justice Field, of tie SUI
preme Court. All the Justices were pres
emit except Justice Field. Seated within
tho bar were ex-Secretary Bayard, ex-Post-
master-general Dickinson, Senators Hoar.
Evarts md Gray, and other w~ell-known
men. The argument was opened by Mr..
Zach Montgomery in behalf of the appellant.
Sheriff Cunningham, from whose jurisdic-
ton Neagle was discharged on a writ of
habeas corpus issued by the United States
Court. The writ of habeas corpus ordering
the discharge of NeaCle was based on the
ground that he was an officer of the United
States, q deputy marshal engaged in the
performance of his duty of protecting a
Justice of the United States Supreme
Court, and that he could not therefore be
imprisoned by the State authorities.
Mr.. Montgomery, in beginning his argu-
ment, said tn at it was the contention of the
State authorities that the sole question be-
fore the court was a jurisdictional one and,
therefore, that all question of Neagle's
guilt or innocence was Irrelevant. If he
were absolutely certain that the court
agreed with him on this point he would
pass the circumstances connected with the
affair by without comment, but as the lower
court had made this a part of the record.
he would review the leading points in this
evidence. The chief feature of this review
was Mr.. Montgomery,s charge that 1T was
not the purpose, by Neagle's appointment,
to have him use his official authority to
prevent a breach of the peace, but to have
him resent forcibly any affront put upon
Justice Field. Taking mp the legal ques-
ton at Issue, Mr.. Montgomery maintained
that unless there were specific statutory
authority for the instruction given Neagle
to accompany Justice Field, there
was no authority for his release
by the United States Circuit Court. He
maintained this upon the authority of Sec
ton 753, Revised Statutes, that the writ of
habeas corpus shall not extend to q pris-
oner unless in custody for an act done in
pursuance of a law of the United States.
As it is not asserted that Neagle acted upon
United States. and as there was no law ex-
tending protection outside the precincts OF
the court building, he declared that the
deputy marshal should be remand ed to the
custody of the State of California. If it
were true that his act was a iustitiable
homicide, necessary for the protection of
Justice Field, then there need be no fear
that the State would not acquit him. But
it was for the State to decide on this point.
Attorney-general Miller, who followed in
behalf of the United States, said that he
would base his argument upon two propo-
sitions. First. that it is the duty Of the
executive department to protect the
ond. that under the CONSTITUTION. the
Judiciary being in allegiance TO the
executive, it is the duty of the Ju-
dietary 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 inherent right
of the government to enact and enforce
laws gives 1t power to protect its servants
in their execution. The Attorney-general
argued his case upon this line. The propo-
sition advanced on the part of the State
was a heresy as old. as the government,
which had been refuted times without
upon the battlefield. 1t was this same ar
gument that the executive bad no power
except such as was specifically granted by
the legislative department., that had been
used before the civil war to deny the power
of the government to coerce the seeding
States.
Justice Bradley interrupted the Attorney
general, in the course of his remarks. with
the question: with what force shall the
of which you speak, supposing that the
marshal had not sufficient force for the pur-
posef'
The Attorney-general-With the posse in
the first instance. and if that were not suf-
ficient, with the army and navy.
Justice Bradley-Then he has the right to
the ed of all citizens of the United States
in maintaining the law and in protecting
the institutions of government
Mr.. Joseph Choate, of New York, who
followed the Attorney-general as one of the
cousel for the government, opened his argu-
rnent with the statement that ever since
the beginning of the government the people
of the United States had rested in the con-
viction that they constituted a nation;
that within its limits the government was
sovereign and supreme; and that it had
within itself all the powers and facilities
to fulfill its own functions and accomplish
its own purposes. In doing this the gov
eminent was not subject to hindrance or
interference by any power whatever. The
government had the power. as it had the
duty, to secure the performance of the gov
ernmental operations and to protect its
servants and agents in doing the duties in
trusted to them. For the first time in a
hundred years the people were now met
with the startling contention that @ justice
of the highest court of the land was not
entitled to the protection of the govern
ment in going from one place to another on
his circuit. Mr.. Choate had not concluded
his argument when the court adjourned.