, 1890-03-06
TERRY'S DEATH
The Case Before the Su-
preme Court.
STATES RIGHTS AGAIN
It is Solely a Question of
Jurisdiction.
ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNSEL.
The Plea of the Attorney General
and the Contention OF
the State.
ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNSEL

WAsHrSGroS. March 4.-The supreme
court chamber was filled to-day with an
audience which listened attontiyely to
the arguments in the Nagle case, aris-
ing out of the shooting Of David Terry,
when in the act Of committing an as
sault upon Judge Field, Of the supreme
court. All the justices were present, ex-
copt Justice Field.
The argument was pleaded by Mont
gomery in behalf OF the appellant
Sheriff Cunningham, from whose juris-
diction Magic was discharged ON writ
Of habeas corpus served by the United
States court on the ground that he
was All officer of the United States,
a deputy marshal engaged in the per
formancc OF his duty in protecting q
justice of the United States supreme
court, and could not bo imprisoned by
tho state authorities.
Montgomery said it was the conten-
ton OF the state authorities that the sole
question before the court was jnrisdic-
tional one, and therefore all questions Of
Nagle's innocence were irrelevant. He
reviewed the leading points in evidence.
The chief feature of the review was
Montgomery charge that 1t was not
the purpose of Nagle's appointment to
have him use his official authority to
prevent breach Of the peace, but to
have him resent forcibly any aiiront
put upon Justice Field. Montgomery
maintained that unless there were spe-
ciiic statuary authority for the instrIc-
ton given Nagle to accompany Justice
Field, there was no authority for his
tsa1a II d.
court. lie maintained this upon the au-
thority OF section 553, OF she revised
statutes, that writ of habeas corpus
should not extend to prisoner unless
in custody for an act done in pursuance
of law of the United States. If 1t were
true that the act was justifable homi-
eide, necessary for protecting Justice
Field, then there need not be fear that
the state would not acquit him, but this
was Tor the state to decide in this point.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Attorney General Miller, who followed
on behalf of the United States, said he
would base his argument on two propo.
sitions; First, that 1t is but an act OF
an executive department to protect the
judiciary Of the government Second,
that under the constitution, the judici.
afy being in allegiance to executive, IL Is
the duty OF the Judiciary department to
sit in Judgment upon the acts of its of
fcials i'm performing their duties in ac-
cordance with the constitution. lie
quoted from the words Of Secretary Bay
ard that the inherent right
Of the government to enact and
enforce laws gives II power to
protects its servants Ia their execution.
The attorney general urged his case up
Oh this line; the proposition advanced
N "A nj ~ Waa gau
old AS the government which had been
refuted times without number in the
courts, in congress and upon battlefields.
That same argument, that the executive
had no power except such as was speCii-
ically gr anted by The legislative depart.
ment had been used before the civil war
to deny the power OF the government to
coerce a seeding state.
Justice bradley interrupted the attor.
ney general In the course OF his remarks
with the question: with what force
shall the president execute this power of
protection of which You speak, suppos.
ing the marshal had not sufficient force
for the purposeP'
Attorney seneral--with posse in tho
tirst instance, and ifthat Is not sufficient,
with the armv and navy.
Justice bradley-fhen he has q right
to aid all citizens of the United States
in maintaining the laws and protecting
the Institutions Of the governnent.
THE GOVERNMENTS rOwERs.
Joseph Choatc of New York, who fol-
owed Attorney General Miller rs one Of
the counsel for the government opened
the argument with the statement that
ever since the beginning Of the govern.
ment the people of the United States had
rested in the conviction that they con.
stitutod a natiOni within It's limits the
government was sovereign and supreme,
and that IL had within itself all the pow.
ors and faculties to fulfill its own tunc-
tions and accomplish its own purposes.
In doing this. the government was not
subject TO hindrance or interference by
any power whatever. The government
had power, as IL had a duty, to secure
the performance of guaranteed opera
tion and protect its servants and agents
in doing the duties entrusted TO them.
For the first time In 100 years the people
were now met with the startling contcn-
tion that IA justice of the highest court
of the land was not entitled to the pro-
lection OF the government In going from
one place TO another ON his circuit,
Choate had not concluded his argu.
ment when the court adjourned.