Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1890-04-17
HE did NOT MURDER TERRY
Decision of the {. S. Supreme Court
in Favor of Nagle.
Was Discharging His Duty When he
Shot Terry.
The Court Upheld Him in His Hasty
Act.

WASHINGTON, April 1.-The United
States supreme court in an opinion by
Justice Miller today affirmed the Judgment
of the California circuit court in the case
of Cunningham, sheriff, plaintiff in error.
VS.. David Nagle. This case grows out of
the shooting of Judge Terry, at Lathrop,
CAL, last August, by Nagle IN order to
protect Justice Field, whom Terry had
assaulted.
After reviewing all the facts bearing
upon the homicide, the opinion says that
they produced upon the court the convic-
ton e of settled purpose on the part of
Terry and wife, amounting to conspiracy
to murder Field.
Justice Miller takes up the proposition
advanced by Nagle's counsel, that Justice
Field, when attacked, was In the immedi
ate discharge of his duty as a Judge, and
the laws of the United States, to protect
Field from violence. The law requiring
justices of the supreme court to &C on
travelling to perform this duty Justice
Field was as much in the discharge of
the duty imposed upon him by law as
while sitting in the court trying cases"
''The court does not suppose that any spe-
clal act of congress exists which in express
terms authorizes marshals or deputy mar
shals to act as a body guard to justices
while on their circuits, but In its view of
the constitution any obligation fairly and
properly inferable from that instrument
or any duty of a marshal to be derived
from the general scope of his duties comes
within the provisions of the habeas corpus
act directing the release of persons who
are in custody for an act done sin pursu-
ance of the laws of the United States
! 1t would, says the opinion, be a great
reproach to the system of government of
the United States, if there is to be found
within the domain of its powers no
means of protecting judges in the dis
charge of their duties from the malice and
hatred of those upon whom its Judgment
may operate unfavorably. If a person in
the situation of Justice Field have no other
guardian Of his personal safety while en-
gagged in the conscientious discharge of
disagreeable duty than the fact that if he
was murdered his murderers would be
subject to the laws of the state, and by
those laws could be punished, the security
would be very insufficient We do not
believe the government of the United
States is thus inefficient and that the con-
stitution and laws have left high officers
of the government so defenceless and I'M
protected. It is in the executive
department that the court finds power of
protection to exist and in the language of
the constitution directing that the president
''shall take care that the laws be faithful
ly executed and providing him with the
means to fulfill this obligation by his
authority to commission all principal Of
fcers of the United States Is this duty,
asks the court, limited to endorsements of
the acts of congress and treaties, Or does
it include the right, duties and OBLIGATIONS
growing out of the constitution and in
ternal relations?
The court answers the question by call
ing attention to the fact that there is no
law in the United States authorizing the
government to interfere for the protection
of naturalized citizen of the United
States, who, on visiting his native place,
is arrested and made do military service,
sete, an Austrian, where the government
without specific power from congress de-
manded and obtained his release. Regu.
lations of the land office appointing timber
agents and providing for their payment
have been held valid by tbs supreme court
although there was no positive provision
for their payment; and the power of the
attorney general sustained by the supreme
court, to constitute suits to set aside pat
ents obtained by fraud, though there is no
statute on the subject, are cited in support
of this doctrine. Continuing the court says
1t can not doubt the power Of the presi-
dent to take measures for the protection
of a United States Judge, who, while in
the discharge of his duties, is threatened
with violene; and that in the department
of justice it is proper to set in motion the
means necessary for the protection and de-
Tense Of such person, and that Maggie had
the proper authority for the step he took.
There IS, says the opinion, a peace of the
United States, and United States mar
shall in such case. and stands In the same
relation which the county sheriff does
In maintaining peace In the country. 1t
being his duty to guard the Judge, and
being present at the critical moment when
prompt action was necessary it was his
duty duty which he had no liberty to
refuse to perform to take steps which re-
suited in Terry's death
| The court next takes up for contention
that question that the guilt of the prison
er of the crime of murder is a question to
be determined by the courts of California
and 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 the act is done in pursuance
of the laws of the United States; and such
has been shown to be the case here. There
is no occasion, then, for any further trial
in the state courts, and the United States
circuit court was as competent as any 9TH
er tribunal to ascertain whether the act
was performed in pursuance of the law of
the United States, and if it had gone to
trial before a jury of his own countrymen.
God and his country would have given him
good deliverance.
JERRY'S AMBITION.
Mr.. Rusk Desires Seat in the Senate In