Los Angeles daily herald., 1890-03-05
THE NEAULE CASE
Called up in the Supreme
Court.
A NICE QUESTION INVOLVED.
Zach Montgomery Argues for the
Appellant-Miller and ChOate
Respond.
THE NEAULE CASE
NICE QUESTION INVOLVED

Associated Press Dispatches to the HERALI
WASHINGTON, March 4.-The Suprem,
Court chamber was filed today with al
audience which listened attentiVely tt
the arguments in the Neagle case, aris
ing out of the shooting of David s.
Terry, last summer, when in the act ol
committing an assault upon Judge
Field, of the Supreme Court. AL the
Justices were present, except Justice
Field. The argument was opened by
Zach Montgomery in behalf of the ap-
pellant, Sheriff Cunningham, from
whose jurisdiction Neagle was discharged
on writ of habeas corpus issued by
the United States Court on the ground
that he was an officer of the Uiiled
States-a deputy marshal engaged in
the performance Of this duty of proect.
ing Justice of the United States Su-
preme Court, and could not be i'm
prisoned by the State authorities.
Montgomery said it was the contention
of the State authorities that the sole
question before the Court was a iurisdic.
tional one, and therefore all questions of
Neagle's guilt or innocence were irrele-
want. He reviewed the leading points
in the evidence. The chief feature of
the review was Montgomery's charge
that it was not the purpose of Neagle's
appointment to have him use his 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
was 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 Section 553, Revised Stat.
utes, that writ of habeas corpus should
not extend to a prisoner unless in Gus.
tody for an act done in pursuance of the
law of the United States. If it were true
that the act was justifiable homicide,
necessary for the protection of Justice
Field, then there need not be fear that
the State would not acquit him. But it
was for the State to decide on this point.
Attorney-&eneral Miller, who followed
on behalf Of the United States, said he
would base his argument on two propo.
sitions g First-That it is the duty of the
Executive Department to protect the
judiciary of the Government. Second
That under the constitution, the judiciary
being in allegiance to the Executive, it is
the duty of the Judiciary Department to
sit in judgment upon the acts OF it's off.
cials in performing their duties in ac-
cordance with the constitution.
He quoted from the words of Secretary
Bayard that the inherent right of the
Government to enact and enforce laws
gives it the power to protect its servants
in their execution. The Attorney Gen.
eral argued his case upon this line. The
proposition advanced on the part of the
State was, he said, as old as the Govern
ment, and one which had been refutad
times without number in the courts, in
Congress and upon battlefelds. 1t was
this same argument that the Executive
had no power except such as was specif.
ically granted by the Legislative Depart.
ment that had been used before the civil
war to deny the power of the Govern
ment to coerce the seeding States.
Justice Bradley interrupted the At
torney. General in the course of his re.
marks with the question: "With what
force shall the President execute this
power of protection of which you speak.
supposing the marshal had not sufficient
force for the purpose ?"
The Attorney. General-With a posse
in the first instance, and if that was not
sufficient, with the army and navy.
Justice Bradley-Then he has the right
to ask the aid of all the citizens of the
United States in maintaining the laws
and protecting the institutions of the
Government.
Joseph Choate, of New York, who fol-
lowed Attorney General Miller as one of
the counsel for the Government, opened
his 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
constituted the nation, that within it's
limits the Government was sovereign
and supreme, and that it had within
itself all the powers and facilities to
fulfil it's own functions and accomplish
it's own purposes. In doing this the Gov
ernment was not subject to hindrance
or interference by any power what
ever. The Government has the power.
as it had the duty, to secure the perform
ance of governmental operations and
protect its servants and agents in doing
the duties intrusted to them. For the
first time in 100 years the public were
now met with the startling contention
that Justice of the highest court of the
land was not entitled to the protection of
the Government in going from one place
to another on his circuit.
Choste had not concluded his argu-
ment when the court adiourned