The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1890-03-05
RIGHTS OF A STATE.
The Case of Marshal Maggie Before the
supreme Court,

supreme Court.
NV AsnIN0roN, March l.-1he supreme
court chamber WINS filed to-day with an
audience which listened attcniiyely 90 the
arguments in the Maggie case, arising out OF
the shooting of David Terry, last summer,
whrn in the act of committing an assault
upon Judge Field. of the supreme court.
MI the justices were present except Justice
Field. The argument was opened by Mont
gomery. in behalf Of the appellant Sheriff
Cunningham. from whose jurisdiction Ma
gle was discharged on writ OF habeas cor
pus issued 10y the United States court, on
the ground that he WAS an officer of the
United States. deputy marshal, engaged
IN the performance of his duty Of protect
ing justice OF the United States supreme
court. aud could not be inprison-
ed by the state authorities. Mont
gomerv snid IL was the contention Of
the state authorities that the sole question
before the court was q iurisdictional one,
and therefore all questions OF Nagles =
guilt or innocence were irrelevant, He re
viewed the leading points IN the evidence.
The chief feature OF the review was Mont
g0luery charge that II WAS not the pur-
pose of Nagel's appointment io give him.
United States official. authority to pre-
vent a breach of the peaCu. but to have hlm
resist furcibly any afront put upon
Justice Field. Montgomery maintained
that unless there was specific statutory au-
thoriiy for the instruction given Maggie 10
accompany Justice Field, there was 40 au-
thoriiy for his release by the luiied States
circuit court. He maintained this upon
stsl.. g .asa
utes. that a writ of habens corpus should
not extend 60 person unless in custody for
an act done in pursuance Of the law of the
United States. II il were true that the act
was justitahle homicide, necessary for the
protection Of Justice Field, then there need
not be- fear that The state
would not acqui him; but this
was for the state 10 decide.
Attorney General Miller. who followed in
behalf of the United States, s,id he would
base his argument on the propositions that
II is but an act of the executive department
10 protect the judiciary of the government
and that under the constitution the Iudici-
airy, being in abeyauce 10 the executive, it is
the duty of the judiciary department tn sit
in judgment upon the acts of its officials in
peri rming their duties in accordance with
the constitution. He quoted from
the words of Secretary Bayard,
that the inherent right OF the
government 20 net and enforce the laws
gives II the 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 nearly as old ns the government. which
had been refuted times without number in
the courts, IN congress and upon battle
fields. That WIS tile same argument TINT
the executive had no power except such as
was specifically granted by the Legislative
department; II had been used before the
civil war Ia DENY the power of the govern
ment 10 coerce the seeding states.
Justice Bradley interrupted the attorney
general in the course of his remarks with
the question, with what force shall the
president execute this power Of protection
Of which you spenky Snpposnr he mar
shal had not sufficient furce for be pur-
pose
Attorney Gcneral-With q osse Ia first
instance, and il that was not sufficient,
with the army and nnyy.
Justice Bradley-'rhen he has the right
20 aid all citizens Of the United States IN
maintaining the laws and protecting the in-
stituiions OF the government.
Joseph Cho1tc. 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 government the
people Of the United States hnd rested in
the conviction that they constituted the
nation; that within It's limits the govern
ment WAS sovereign and supreme, and that
IT had within itse nll powers and facilities
10 fulfil its own functions and accomplish
its own purposes, In doing this the gov
erument was not subject 10 hindrnnee or
Interference hy any power whatever.
The government had the power. as il
had the duty. 10 secure the performance
of government operations and protect
its servants and agents in doing the dnties
entrusted 10 them. For the first time in Il
hundred wears the people were now met
with the startling contention that the JUS
tice of the highest court of the land WAS not
entitled TO the protection Of the govern
ment in going from one place 10 another on
his circuit. Choate had not concluded his
argument when the court adjourned.