The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-04-15

Der from four or five to seven or eight, who are
familiarly called Cabinet Minister'S These aid
him In the performance of the great duties of his
ofhce and represent him in a thousand acts to
which II can hardly be supposed his personal at
tentlon Is called. and thus he IS enabled to fulfill
the grand duty of his great department, as ex-
pressed IN the phrase that he shall take care
that the laws be faithfully executed.
A CASE IN POINT.
Is this duty limited to the enforcement OF the
acts OF Congress or OF the treaties OF the United
states, or does IL include the rights, duties and
ODiIgations growing out of the Constitution IL
sell, our International relations and all The pro-
lectlon Implied by the nature of our Government
does the Executive Interfere in foreign States as
ne mas frequently done with efficiency in the case
OF naturallzed citizen OF the United States OF
I9Ielgn oiItn VINO. upon making a visit 10 the
place Oh MS nativity, is arrested and placed in
Tue army as soldier of that country? We know
OF no statute which makes it the duty OF the
ffesldent to interfere in such cases. Ii there is
any law upon the subject 1t Is an International
law aud not statute of the United States.
A PROPER. COURSE.
After illustrating at length the power of
the PRESIDENT in protecting citizens, public
lands and timber of the United States with
out the existence of actual statutes author
lZng him thereto, Justice Miller says:
we cannot doubt the power OF the President to
take measures for the protection OF a Justice of
one 0i the courts OF the United States who, while
IN tne discharge Of the duties OF his Office, is
threatened with personal attack which may prob
aDy result IN his death, and we think it clear
tnab WheIe this protection Is to be afforded
through The civil powers the Department of JUS
lice is the proper TO set IN motion the neces-
saiy means of protection. The correspondence
already reelted IN this opinion between the Mar.
shal OF the District OF California and the Attor-
ney- General and District ATTORNEY OF the United
states Iot lhat district, although prescribing no
very speellc mode OF aifording this protection by
The Attorney-G eneral, Is sufficient, l think TO
warrant the Marshal In taking the steps which
ne ala lake IN making the provisions which he
Utu make Tor the protection and Qefenga of r
Justice Field.
POWER OF MARsHALs.
The Court then cited the law under which
Marshals and their deputies are invested in
each State with the same powers in exc
cutting the laws as the SheriffS and deputies
in such States have in executing the laws
thereof, and cited the law of California to
snow the powers and duties of the Sheriffs
IN that State. He asserted that the Sher-
IFS and Deputy Sheriffs would be called
upon by the peace and dignity of the State
OF California even if there had been no
statute law to act as Neagle did and kill any
person attacking Judge should it be a
question as to who should be killed.
sAwYER's RULING SUSTAINED.
The opinion next dealt with the position
taken on behalf of the appellants that the
question OF the guilt Of a prisoner of the
crime oil murder is question to be deter
mined by the laws OF California and to be
decided by its code, and that there exists
no power in the Government Of the United
States to take prisoner from the custody
OF the proper authorities of the State of
California and carry him before the Judge
of court of the United States and release
him without trial by jury according to
the laws OF the State of California, and
SAID IN response that the Statutes of the
United States authorize and direct such
proceeding and such Judgment in case
where an OffenSe charged against prisoner
a in mn lprNfg. nf 1an
laws OF the United States and by virtue Of
authority and where the imprisonment Of
the party is III violation of the Constitution
and laws of the United States is clear by its
express language.
The Court then reviewed the legislation
oil Congress upon the subject of the writ of
habeas corpus, stating the necessities to
meet which the original act has been en-
larged and extended TO its present form. OF
the present statute the Court says it includes
all the cases of the restraint of liberty in
violation OF the Constitution or the laws or
treaties OF the United States.
NEAGLE's ACTION UPHELD.
After long discussion Of the point above
mentioned and citing extensively authori-
ties as to the right of Circuit or United
States courts to take cases out of State
courts, the opinion closes as follows:
We have thus given to this case the most at
tenllve consideration OF all the questions of law
aud fact which We have thought 10 be properly
involved IN 1t. We have telt II to be our duty to
examine into the facts with the completeness
Justlned by the Importance of the case, as well
as from the duty imposed upon US by the statute,
which we think requires us TO place ourselves as
IA; as possible in the place OF the Circuit Court
aud to examine the testimony and arguments in
1t, and to dispose OF lhe case as law and
Justice require. Tie result at which we
have arrived upon this examination is that in
The protection OF the person and life OF Mr.
Justice Field, While In the discharge of his
ofnciai duties, Neagle was authorized to resist
any attack OF Terry upon that eminent judicial
ofhcer; that be was justified in the belief that
without Instant action on his part the assault OF
Terry upon the Judge would have ended In the
death OF the latter; that such being his we'll
founded belief lie was justified IN taking the life
OF Terry as the only means of preventing the
death OF the man VINO was intended to be his
victim.
NOT LIABLE FOR MURDER.
That In taking the life of Terry under these
circumstances lie was aching under authority of
the United States and was justified IN so doing
and that lie is not liable TO answer for murder 10
The courts OF California on account OF his part in
the transaction. We therefore confirm the iudg.
ment OF the Circuit Court authorizing his dis
charge from the custody Of the Sheriff OF San
Joaquin County.
Justice Miller's reading lasted two hours,
during which time the courtroom was
crowded to tuffocation.