Case: IN RE NEAGLE, Petitioner
Abbreviation: In re Neagle
Decision Date: 1890-04-14
Docket Number: No. 1472
Citation: 135 U.S. 1
Volume: 135
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: IN RE NEAGLE, Petitioner.
Judges: Mr. Justice Field did not sit at the hearing of this, casé, and took no part in its decision.
Pages: 1–99

Head Matter:
IN RE NEAGLE, Petitioner.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 1472.
Argued March 4, 5, 1890.
Decided April 14, 1890.
An appeal from the decision of a Circuit Court of the United States in a habeas corpus case, under Rev. Stat. § 764, .as amended by the act of March 3, 1885, 23 Stat. 437, c. 353, brings up the whole case, both law and facts, and imposes upon this court the duty of reexamining it, upon the full record as it was heard in the inferior court.
A person who is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of a law of the United States, or of an order, process or decree of a court, or judge thereof, or is in custody in violation of the Constitution, or a law:or treaty of the United.States, may, under the provisions of Rev. Scat. § 753, be brought before any court of the United States, or justice or judge thereof, by. writ of habeas corpus, for the purpose of an inquiry .into the cause of his detention; and the court or justice or judge is required by § 761 to proceed in a summary way to determine the facts of the case, by hearing the testimony and arguments, and thereupon to dispose of the party as law. and justice require.
By virtue of Rev. Stat. §§ 606, 610, the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are allotted among the nine circuits, to each one of which a judge is assigned; and the latter section makes it the duty of each judge to attend the Circuit Court in each district of the circuit to which he is allotted, and thereby imposes upon him the necessity of travelling from his residence to the Circuit Court which he is to attend, and from each place in that circuit where the court is held to the other places where it is held. Held, that, while a judge is thus .travelling to or from those places, he is-as much in discharge of his duty as when listening to and deciding cases in open- court, and is as much entitled to protection in the one case as in the other. '
While there is no express statute authorizing the appointment of a deputy marshal^ or any other officer to attend a judge of the Supreme Court When travelling in his circuit, and to protect him against assaults or other injury, the general obligation imposed upon the President of the United States by the Constitution to see that the laws be faithfully executed, and the means placed in his hands, both by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, to enable him to do this, impose upon the Executive department the duty of protecting a justice or judge of any of the courts of the United States, when there is just reason to believe ■ that he will be in personal danger while executing the duties of his office.
An assault upon a judge-of a court of the United States, while in discharge Of his official duties, is a breach of the peace of the United States, as ' distinguished' from th¿ peace of the State in which the assault takes place.
Under the provisions of Rev. Stat. § 788, it is the duty of marshals and their deputies in each State to exercise, in keeping the peace of the United States, the powers given to the sheriffs of the State for keeping • the peace of the State; and a deputy marshal of the United States, specially charged with the duty of protecting and guarding a judge of a court of the United States, has imposed upon him the duty of doing whatever may be necessary for that purpose, even to the taking of ' human life.
United States officers and other persons,- held in custody by state authorities for doing acts which they were authorized or required to do by the Constitution -and laws of the United States, are entitled to be released , from such imprisonment; and the writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for that purpose.
David Neagle, a deputy marshal of the United States for the District ot California, was brought by writ of habeas corpus before the Circuit ' Court of that District, upon the allegation that he was held in imprisonment by the sheriff of San Joaquin County, California, on a charge of the murder of David S. Terry. He alleged that the killing of Terry by him was done in pursuance of his duty as such deputy marshal in defending the life- of Mr. Justice Field, while in discharge of his duties ' as Circuit Judge of the ninth circuit. On the trial of this' .writ in the Circuit Court it entered an order discharging the prisoner, finding that he was in custody for an act done in pursuance of a law of the United States, and was imprisoned in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States. The case being brought up to the Supreme Court by appeal, this court, on examining the- voluminous testimony, arrived at the conviction that there was a settled purpose on the part of Terry and his wife, amounting to a conspiracy, to murder Mr. Justice Field, on his official visit to California in the summer of 1889; that this arose from animosity against Mm on account of judicial decisions made in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California in a suit or suits to. which they were parties; that the purpose which they had of doing Mr. Justice Field an injury became so well and so publicly known, that a correspondence ensued between the marshal and the District Attorney of that District and the Attorney General of the United States, the result of which was that Neagle was appointed a deputy marshal for the express purpose of guarding Mr. Justice Field against an attack by Terry and his wife which might result in his death; that such an attack did take place; that Neagle, being there for the said purpose of affording protection, had just reason to believe that the attack would .result in the death of Mr. Justice Field unless he interfered; and that he did justifiably interfere by shooting Terry while in the act'of' assaulting Mr. Justice Field, whom lie had already struck two or throe times. Held,
(1) That Neagle was justified in defending Mr. Justice Field in this manner;
(2) That in so doing he acted in discharge of his duty as an officer of ' the United States;
(3) That having so acted, in that capacity, he could not be guilty of murder under the laws of California, nor held to answer to its courts for an act for which he had the authority of the laws of the United States;
(4) That the judgment of the Circuit Court, discharging him from the custody of the sheriff of San Joaquin County, must therefore be affirmed.
Mr. Justice Miller, on behalf of the court, stated the case as follows:
This was an appeal by Cunningham, sheriff of the county of San Joaquin, in the State of California, from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, discharging David Neagle from the custody of said sheriff, who held him a prisoner on a charge of murder.
On the 16th day of August, 1889, there was presented to-Judge Sawyer, the Circuit Judge of the United States for the Ninth Circuit, embracing the Northern District of California, a petition signed David Neagle, deputy United States marshal, by A. L. Farrish on his behalf. This petition represented that the said Farrisb was a deputy marshal duly appointed for the Northern District of California by J. C. Franks, who was the marshal of that district. It further alleged that David Neagle was, at the time of the occurrences recited in the petition and at the time of filing it, a duly appointed and acting deputy United States marshal for the same district. It then proceeded to state that said Neagle was imprisoned, confined and restrained of his liberty in the county jail in San Joaquin County, in the State of California, by Thomas Cunningham, sheriff of said county, upon a charge of murder, under a warrant of arrest, a copy of which was annexed to the petition. The warrant was as follows:
“ In the Justice’s Court of Stockton Township..
“ State of California, County of San Joaquin, } ss:
“ The People of the State of California to any sheriff, constable, marshal, or policeman of said State or of the county of San Joaquin:
“Information on oath having been this day laid before me by Sarah A. Terry that the crime of murder, a felony, has been committed within said county of San Joaquin on the 14th day of August, a.d. 1889, in this, that one David S. Terry, a human being then and there being, was wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and with malice aforethought shot, killed and murdered, and accusing Stephen J. Field and David Neagle thereof: You are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest the above-named Stephen J. Field. and David Neagle and bring them before me, at my office, in the city of Stockton, or, in case of my absence or inability to act, before the nearest and most . accessible magistrate in the counter:
“ Dated at Stockton this 14th day of August, a.d. 1889.
“HiY. J. Swain,
“ Justice of the Peace.
“ The defendant, David Neagle, having been brought before me on this warrant, is committed for examination to the sheriff of San Joaquin County, California.
“ Dated August 15,. 1889. H. Y. J. Swain, ■
“ Justice of the Peace.”
The petition then recited the circumstances of. a rencontre between said "Neagle and David S. Terry, in which the latter was instantly killed by two.shots from a revolver in the hands of the former. ' The circumstances of this encounter and of what led to it will be considered with more particularity here-, after. The main allegation of this petition was that Neagle, as United States deputy marshal, acting under the orders of Marshal Franks, and in pursuance of • instructions from the Attorney General of the United States, had, in consequence of an anticipated attempt at violence on the part of Terry against the Honorable Stephen J. Field, a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, been in attendance upon said justice, and was sitting by his side at a breakfast table when a murderous assault was made by Terry on Judge Field, and in defence of'the life of the judge the homicide was committed for which Neagle was held by Cunningham. The allegation was very distinct that Justice Field was engaged in the discharge of his duties as circuit justice of the United States for that circuit, having held court at Los Angeles, one of the places at which the court is by law held, and, having left that court, was on his way to San Francisco for the purpose of holding, the Circuit Court at that place. The allegation was also very full that Neagle was directed by Marshal Franks to accompany, him for the purpose of - protecting him, and that, these orders of Franks were given in anticipation of the assault which actually occurred. It was also stated, in more general .terms, that Marshal Neagle, in killing Terry under the circumstances, was in the discharge of his duty as an' officer of the United. States, and was not, therefore, guilty of a murder, and that .his imprisonment under the warrant held by Sheriff Cunningham was in violation of the laws and Constitution of the United States, and that he was in custody for an act done in pursuance of the laws of - the United States. This petition being sworn to .by Farrish, and presented to Judge Sawyer, he •made the following order :
“ Let a writ of habeas corpus issue in pursuance of the prayer of the within petition, returnable before the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of California.
“ Sawyer, Cvr&ait Judge.”
The writ was accordingly issued and delivered to Cunningham, who made the following return :
“County of San Joaquin, State of' California.
“ Sheriff’s Office.
“ To the honorable Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California :
“ I hereby certify and return that before the coming to me of the atinexed writ of- habeas corpus the said David Neagle was committed to my custody, and is detained by me by virtue of a warrant issued out of the justice’s court of Stockton township, State of California, county of San Joaquin, and by the endorsement made upon said warrant. Copy of said warrant and endorsement is annexed hereto and made a part of this return. ■ Nevertheless, I have the body of the said David Neagle before the honorable court, as I am in the said writ commanded.
“ August 17, 1889. Thos. Cunningham,
“ Sheriff San Joaquin County, California.”
Various pleadings and amended pleadings were mace wnict do not tend, much to the elucidation of the matter before us. Cunningham filed a demurrer to the petition for the .writ of habeas corpus and Neagle filed a traverse to the return of- the sheriff, which was accompanied by exhibits, the substance of which will be hereafter considered when the case comes to -be examined upon its facts.
The hearing in the Circuit Court was had before Circuit Judge Sawyer and District Judge Sabin. The sheriff, Cunningham, was represented by G. A. Johnson, Attorney General of the State of California, and other counsel. Á large body of testimony, documentary and otherwise, was submitted to the court,'on which, after á full consideration of the subject, the court made the following order:
“ In the Matter of David Neagle, on habeas corpus.
“ In the above-entitled matter, the court having heard the testimony introduced on behalf of the petitioner, none having been offered for the respondent, and -also the arguments of the counsel for petitioner and respondent, and it appearing to the court that the allegations of the petitioner in his amended answer or traverse to the return of the sheriff of San Joaquin County, respondent herein, are true, and that the prisoner is-in custody for an act done in pursuance of a law of the United -States, and in custody in violation of the Constitution and law’s of the United States, it is therefore ordered that petitioner be, and he is hereby, discharged from' custody.”
From that order an appeal was-allowed which brought the case to this court, accompanied by .a voluminous record of all the matters which were before the epurt on the hearing.
Mr. Z. Montgomery, for appellant,
argued mainly on the facts, maintaining that they showed that Terry had no purpose of seriously injuring Mr. Justice Field, and that therefore the killing was without excuse. He also presented-in his brief the following questions of law:
Section 753 of the Devised Statutes provides “ That the writ (of habeas corpus).shall not extend to a prisoner in jail . . . unless he is in custody for an act done or committed in pursuance of a law of the United States; or of an order, process, or decree of a court thereof, or in custody in violation of the Constitution, or of a law or treaty of the United States.” If, in killing Terry, Neaglewas acting “in pursuance of a law of the United States,” and if it appears -that he was in custody in violation of the Constitution or a law of the United States, construing ithe word “law” as-the law-making power intended it should be. construed, then. the, writ of hateas corpus was properly issued; otherwise not. What, then, is the meaning of the word “ law ” as used in said section ?
The Circuit Court, in rendering the decision now under review, by way of defining, the word “.law/’ used this language: “It will be observed that the language of the provision of section-753 is an act done . ' . .. in pursuance of a law of the United States, not in pursuance.of a statute of the United States.”
The court seems to have assumed that there is such a thing as “ a common law ” of the United States. But this court has said there is no such thing. “ It' is clear that there can be no common law of the United States.- The federal government is composed of twenty-four sovereign and independent states; each of which may have its local usages, customs and common law. There is no principle which pervades the Union and has the authority of law, that is not embodied in the Constitution or laws of the Union. The common law could be made a part of pur federal system only by legislative adoption.” • Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 658.
In the case of Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257, a case strongly relied upon by' the Circuit Court as a sustaining authority for its decision, in this case, the. Supreme Court, in determining what'is meant by‘the words “ laws of the United States,” as employed in'the second section of the third article of.the Federal Constitution, said: “Cases arising under the laws of the United States are such as grow out of the legislation of Congress, whether they constitute the right, or privilege or claim or protection, or defence of the party, in whole or in part, by whom they are asserted,” p. 264.
- This, it will be observed, is a judicial construction by our highest court placed upon the words “laws of the United States,” ás used in that very article of the Federal Constitution, which was intended to fix a limit beyond which Congress' itself could not go in conferring jurisdiction upon a United' States court. So that if we construe the words, “ law of the United States,” found in section 753 of the Revised Statutes, as including other laws than those enacted by Congress, we' give to them a meaning which,, in the light of the decision just quoted, would render them unconstitutional. In all the cases cited as authority by the Circuit Court, where an act of an officer of the United States was held \,6 have been “done or committed in pursuance of a law of the United States,” the * law ” relied upon as authorizing such act was a statute. . .
In order to grasp the true spirit and intention of section 753, in authorizing federal courts to release, on habeas corpus, persons “in custody for acts done or omitted in. pursuance of a law of the United States,” etc., it may be well to recur to the. evil intended to be remedied by the act as originally passed in 1833, and afterwards incorporated in section .753. In Ex parte Jenkins, 2 Wall. Jr. 521, a case cited by the Circuit Court in' deciding this case,'Mr. Justice Grier, referring to the act -in question, said: “This act was,passed when a certain State of this Union had threatened to nullify acts'of Congress and to .treat those as criminals who should attempt to execute them, and,, it was intended as a remedy '¿gainst such state legislation.” p; 529.
A careful examination of the cases cited wherein the federal courts have discharged on habeas corpus persons held in custody’’ “ for acts - done or omitted in pursuance of a law of the United States,” will show not only that the acts só done or-omitted were in pursuance of a plain statutory law of the United States, but that such statutory law had béen repudiated and sought to be nullified either by state legislation, or by state judicial tribunals without the aid of such state legislation. In other words, they'were cases wherein persons had been arrested and imprisoned because of acts done or omitted in obedience to statutory laws of the United States, which statutory laws certain state tribunals had refused to recognize as laws. If it be contended that the slaying of.Terry by Neagle was, in. fact, an act of justifiable homicide, done pursuant to a law of the United States, and Neagle’s arrest and. imprisonment even to await trial- for said homicide con'stituted' an illegal restraint of his liberty, which made it the duty of the federal court to release him on habeas corpus, as provided by § 753, I answer that such a contention is .refuted, not only by the authorities cited, but by the express language of this court in Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241, 247.
'So, likewise, if the California statute which defines the crime of. murder, the crime with which Neagle stands charged, was repugnant .to the Constitution or laws of the United States, or if the facts which under the laws of California constitute murder, would under the laws of the United States be justifi-able homicide, then it might be truthfully said that the State’s “prosecution against Neagle had nothing upon which to rest, and the entire proceeding against him is a nullity.”
But it is not pretended that there is any repugnance between the state law defining the crime with which Neagle is charged, and the Constitution or statutes of the United States. Hence I repeat there is no legal pretext for the interposition of a federal court in order to prevent his conviction and punishment for an act “ done in pursuance of a law of the United States.”
Thus it seems clear that, even if Neagle in the killing of Terry,- had in fact been acting in pursuance of-, a law of the United States, still, unless there was something in the laws of California as construed by her courts that would make such a homicide punishable, he could not be lawfully released under § 753 merely because he was being held in. custody’ to await his trial in a state court in'order to have it determined judicially whether the homicide had, or had not, been committed -in pursuance of a law of .the United States.
While we concede that, under the laws of California, Neagle or anybody else would .have had a right to protect Mr. Justice Field against a felonious assault, even by taking the life of the assailant, if necessary, we deny that the marshal had any authority under the statutes of the United States to send-him on such a mission, or that the fact that he was a deputy mar shal conferred any special power upon him. Such a power, if it exists, must be found in § 787 or § 788 of the Revised Statutes. Section 787 makes it “ the duty of the marshal of each district to attend the .District and Circuit Courts when sitting therein, and to execute ” precepts. This does not authorize the marshal to attend the judges of the court, wherever they may.go : and such seems to have been the interpretation put upon the act by the District Attorney, when-he wrote.to the Attorney General on the 7th of May: “And -while due caution has always been taken by the marshal, when either Judge or Mrs. Terry is about the building in-which the courts are held, he has not felt it within his authority to guard either Judge Sawyer or Justice Field against harm when away from the appraisers’ building.”
In this construction of the law it seems to me that the marshal was clearly right. But he now seeks, and his deputy, Neagle, seeks, and the decision under review seeks to justify the marshal, in sending a body guard .to attend Mr. Justice Field when away from the court, and away from the appraisers’ building, by reason and under authority of instructions from the United States Attorney General: My first answer to this plea is,- that neither the Attorney General, nor the President acting through the Attorney General, was empowered by law to give to Marshal Franks any such authority as would justify him in sending Deputy Marshal Neagle for any' such purpose. And my second answer is, that there is nothing in the record to show that either the Attorney General, or the President through the Attorney General, ever gave or attempted to give to Marshal Franks any order, 'direction or instruction, which even purports to authorize the sending of a deputy marshal on any such errand as that-referred to.
If the President has any such power as he is claimed to have exercised in this -instance, where does he get it ? If the President has power, within the jurisdiction of the several States, to -keep a body guard for every instrument of the federal government, he has power to place a marshal in the house of every American citizen in order to shield him from harm at the hands of his fellow:C'itizens. And, if it has come to- this,- what use, would' I ask, have we for state governments ?
Mr.- Attorney - General for the appellee.
Neagle’s right to a writ, of habeas corpus is an' inheritance 'from the common law, guaranteed by the Constitution, Art. 1. cl 2, § 9.
Under section 751 of- the Revised Statutes, authorizing the Circuit Court to issue writs of habeas corpus, the petitioner-being restrained of -his liberty, as he claims, .in violation of the Constitution' and laws of the United States, was entitled to demand, upon filing a proper petition, that a writ issue as • a writ, of right, and that the court determine whether he was thus unlawfully restrained of his liberty. Section 753 does not-attempt to limit the right of the court to issue the writ in any case covered by the Constitution; that is, in any case arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. It does, by a process of exclusion and definition, make more clear some of the cases. to which the federal jurisdiction extends.
The question, then, is whether the imprisonment, from which the petitioner sought to be relieved by. this writ, was an imprisonment arising under the Constitution of the United States, and the laws made in pursuance '■ thereof; for any question arising under valid laws arises under the Constitution. A prisoner in custody for an act done or omitted, in -pursuance of a law of- the United States, or of an order, process, or decree of the court or judge thereof, is in custody in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
But whether the right to the writ rests on the Constitution or statute, or both, the question is whether the petitioner, Neagle, arrested by the officer of the State of California for taking the life of David S. Terry, in defence of the life of Mr. Justice Field, was in custody in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States. I shall not stop to argue the question whether Neagle acted in good faith and- with sufficient reason for supposing the life of Justice Field was in danger. I ana content to leave that question upon the statement of fhcts, and the conclusion on the facts as set forth in the opinion of the Circuit Court.
I. It was the duty of the Executive Department of the United States to guard and protect, at any hazard, the life of Mr. Justice Field in the discharge of his duty : (1) Because such protection is essential to the existence of the government; (2) Because it is enjoined upon the President, as the executive, he being required “ to take care that the laws be faithfully executed ; ” (3) The marshal was merely the hand of the executive, and unless protected by the marshal the courts and judges have no protection.
The reason why I say it is the duty of the Executive Department to protect the judicial, and why I say it has the authority so to do, is because the power of self-preservation is essential to the very .existence of the government.
In the thirtieth number of the Federalist, written by Hamilton, I find this: “ A government ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplishment of the objects committed to its care, and the complete execution of the trusts for which it is responsible, free’ from every control but a regard to the public good and the sense of the people.”
In the fifty-eighth number of the same work, written- by the same author, [these numbers are,'taken from Dawson’s edition,] I.find this, speaking of the power given in the Constitution .to the general government to regulató the election of senators and representatives: “ Its propriety rests upon the evidence of this plajn proposition, that every government ought to contain in itself the means of its -own preservation.”
Not.less.forcibly, by another distinguished gentleman,"who honors us this morning by his presence, as a listener, is the same principle stated. Mr. Bayard, late Secretary-of State, soon after this difficulty- occurred,' wrote as follows: “ The robust and essential principle must be recognized and proclaimed, that the inherent powers of every government which' is sufficient to authorize and enforce the judgments of. its courts are equally and at all times and in. all places sufficient to protect the individual judge who. fearlessly and conscientiously in the discharged! his duty pronounces judgment.”
This court has more than once announced the same doctrine. See Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 384, 387, 388 ; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 363; Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371; Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651.
Argument certainly cannot be necessary to show the duty of the Executive Department of the government of the United States' to protect the courts arid judges in the discharge of their duties;-'.Indeed; it is-hardly supposed that this will be questioned. The President, as the’ head of the Executive Department, is under the constitutional obligation “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” To the end that he may in.every contingency discharge this duty, he is made Commander-in-Chief .of the army arid navy, and of the militia of the several States when called into active service.'
No one questions the-right or duty of the President to fur-' nish guards for the mail or an escort for a paymaster carrying government treasure wherever danger is appreherided. Are the persons of the United States judges, travelling from place •to place in the performance of their duties less sacred ? less entitled to government protection than mail-bags or packages of mónéy ? Nor is the protection of the person more properly a matter of local concern than the protection of property. The person of. a United States officer, in'the discharge of his duty, is. always clothed with the United States sovereignty, arid in that sovereignty should be his protection.
■ The Constitution provides that before the President enters-upon the execution of his office he shall, take am .oath.: “ I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the bqst of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Standing, on the 4th of March, 1861, upon the steps of this Capitol, confronted by the mightiest rebellion the world ever’ saw, President Lincoln said to his dissatisfied countrymen: “You have no oath .registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect and defend it.”
He evidently supposed that this oath, embodied in the Constitution, was of some significance; and that being required to take this oath he was invested with some power adequate to the obligation. He understood that to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution meant to preservé, protect and defend the government; and that it was his rignt and his duty, independently or in the absence of acts of Congress, to use all the power placed at his disposal for the protection and preservation of the government. I observe that neither one of the arguments filed on behalf of the appellant refers to this clause of the Constitution at’ all. Has it, therefore,mo significance ? Does it not by necessary implication invest the President with self-executing powers; that is, powers independent of statute ? Is it true that after the inauguration of President Washington and before Congress had passed any laws the President had no authority, so far as he had the means, to protect the property' of the United States? It is certain that he was without any such authority if the arguments-for the appellant, that he can act only in pursuance of specific acts of Congress, are sound.
We insist that, by the Constitution of the United States, a government was created possessed of all the powers necessary to existence as an independent nation; that these powers were distributed in three great constitutional departments, and that each of these departments is, by that Constitution, invested with all of those governmental powers, naturally belonging to such department, which have not been expressly withheld by the terms of the Constitution. In other words, that Congress is invested not only with, expressed but with implied legislative powers; that the judiciary is invested not only with ex-' pressed powers granted in the Constitution as its share of the government, but with all the judicial powers which have not been’expressly withheld from it; and that the President, in like manner, by the very fact that he is made the chief executive'of the nation, and is charged to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution, and to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, is invested with necessary and implied executive powers which neither of the other branches of the government can either take away or abridge; that many of these powers, pertaining to each branch of the government, áre self-executing, and in no way dependent, except as to the ways and means, upon legislation. .
If it be said that in the Constitution or statutes no specific direction to the President, the Attorney General, or the marshal can.be found to protect the judges from assault or assassination, the answer is plain. This argument is an assumption that the doctrine of necessary and implied powers, which has been so often sustained in support of statutes, is confined to the legislative branch of the government, and that the executive has no powers except those expressly granted in the Constitution. On the contrary, when, by the Constitution, the President is invested with the executive power of the nation, and when that instrument enjoins upon him that he shall “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” it confers upon him all power reasonably incident to the exercise of the executive function, and necessary to the vindication and enforcement of the laws, which has not been withheld from him by the Constitution ; and the power so granted in the. Constitution Congress neither has nor has claimed to have, the right to abrogate. See Ex parte Siebold, ubi sup., at pp. 395, 396 ; and Ex parte Yarbrough, ubi sup.
. It must not be forgotten that, if the courts and judges can-, not be protected by the executive through marshals, they cannot be. protected at all. They are powerless to protect themselves; The executive is armed, not only with the power of the marshals and the civil posse, but with all the military and naval forces of the government. Congress holds the purse, and, is in condition not only to assert and defend its own rights, but to coerce the just consideration of its wishes at all times and on all subjects; while the judiciary is strong only in the respect and reverence of the people.
II. It was the duty of the judiciary, having been thus protected by the Executive Department, to sit in judgment upon, and to vindicate the officer of the Executive Department, if innocent, in the discharge of his duty : (1) because such authority in the federal judiciary is essential in principle to the existence of the nation; (2) such authority is amply sustained by decisions of this court.
Such authority in the federal judiciary is essential in principle to the existence of the nation. It rests on the axiom already cited that every government must have within itself the resources for its own protection and preservation. It is argued that this homicide may be a crime against the State, and therefore the question should be adjudicated by a state tribunal. But this is a begging of the whole question. If Neagle simply did his duty as an officer of the United States he could not have done a wrong to the State of California; for- an act cannot, at the same time, be a duty to the general government and a crime against the State. The fallacy of this argument'lies in tiie assumption that here, are two coordinate sovereignties, and that the citizen owes equal allegiance to both. .On the contrary, as has been decided in this court, as often as the question has ever arisen, in all matters within the sphere of the general government, that government and the obligations it imposes are supreme, and where' "any supposed right or claim of a State contravenes such obligation, it must yield. Cohens v. Virginia, ubi sup., at page 385 ; Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 517, 518.
The assumption of the right in the state court to try a federal officer for an act done in the discharge of his official duty implies the precedent right to arrest and the subsequent right to convict and punish such officer, and each involves consequences utterly inconsistent with the dignity and security of an independent government. The right to arrest the mar .hal for this act after its performance implies the right to for-aid and prevent its performance. Such a right is inconsistent with -the dignity. and supremacy of the /general government. I do not claim that because a man is a federal officer he is not subject to arrest and trial in the state courts. I only claim that, for his official acts as such federal officer, he cannot be called in question in the state courts. In short, that the functions and agencies of the federal government cannot be interrupted or interfered with by state authority. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 431; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449 ; Collector v. May, 11 Wall. 113.
Section 643 of the Revised Statutes, providing for the issuance of writs of habeas corpus cum causa, and the removal from state to federal courts of prosecutions instituted against revenue officers and officers acting under registration laws, and providing for the trial of such cases in the federal Gourts, is a clear assertion of this power; and this law has been upheld in this court. Tennessee v. Mavis, 100 U. S. 257. The same assertion of' authority is found, in the Enrolment Act, 13 Stat. 8, c. 13, § 12; United States v. Gleason, 1 Wool. C. C. 75 ; United States v. Gleason, 1 Wool. C. C. 128.
III.. The right of a state court to hear and determine whether a federal officer has properly discharged his duty, according to the federal law, must stand or fall upon its own merit, and in no way depends upon the question whether the federal government has provided the formalities for a jury trial of that question. The jurisdiction of the state court in the premises, like the title of a plaintiff in ejectment, must stand or fall by itself.
Nor is there such force in the objection that the case is disposed of before a 'single judge, without a jury trial, as might at first be supposed. Nothing is more common than for cases of homicide to be disposed of simply by preliminary examination before a justice of the peace, or United States commissioner, or an examination before a coroner’s jury, or upon an ex parte examination before a grand jury. The truth is, the guaranty of the right of- trial by jury is for the benefit of the accused, not of the government. ' Moreover, the law makes no- distinction between trials for homicide and other felonies and misdemeanors, as to the right of a jury trial.. ‘ If the jurisdiction of the federal court to hear and discharge a prisoner is to be denied in. every case in which, according to the. course of the common law, a jury trial would follow an indictment in a state court, then the authority of the federal courts to protect their' officers against prosecution for fidelity to duty in a state court uArald be practically destroyed; for a jury trial is guaranteed in every criminal prosecution. JBut, however this may be, it is sufficient that it is the law that, either in the first or last instance, upon habeas corpus, or upon appeal or error, the federal courts have-the right, and it is their bounden duty, to sit in judgment upon the official conduct of a federal officer.
IV. The only remaining question is ‘whether the Circuit Court for the Northern District of California had. the right to discharge the petitioner upon habeas corpus in the first instance, or whether the matter should have been allowed to proceed in the state court, subject to the right of this court to revievir the action of the state court -upon a writ of error.
. “ When the petitioner- -s m custody by state authority for an act done or omitted to be done, in pursuance of a law. of the United States, or of an'order, process, or decree of a court or judge thereof, . . . . . in such and like cases of urgency involving the authority and operation Of the general government, or the obligatiops of this country tó, or its relations with,' foreign nations, tfWcourts of the United States have frequently interposed by writs of habeas corpus and discharged prisoners who were held in custody under state authority.” Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241, 251. See, also, Wildenhus’s Case, 120 U. S. 1; Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U. S. 238; Ex parte Bridges, 2 Woods, 428; Ex parte McCardle, 6 Wall. 318, 325; Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257.
Numerous cases. involving the right of the United States courts to discharge by habeas corpus persons from the custody of the officers of the state courts, on a charge of murder, háve been decided at .uircuit, all' supporting the jurisdiction of the United States courts in the premises. Ex parte Jenkins, 2 Wall. Jr. 521, decided by Mr. Justice Grier; Ex parte Robin son, 6 McLean, 355, decided by Mr. Justice McLean; Roberta v. The Jailor of Fayette County, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 265; In re Ramsey, 2 Flipp. 451; In re Neill, 8 Blatchford, 156, 167; In re Farrand, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 149 ; Electoral College of South Carolina, 1 Hughes, 571; In re Hurst, 2 Flipp. 510, are all cases involving the same principle and decided in the same, way; but as these cases are all cited- and discussed in the opinion of the Circuit Court in this case, I merely refer to them.
V. The writ of habeas corpus in this case was a writ of right. The petitioner being in custody, by reason of an act done in the discharge of his duty to the federal government, had the absolute right to its protection and to be heard and discharged at once. The case, within the decisions of this court, was a case of “ urgency,” and the Circuit Court had no discretion in the premises.
Mr.- Joseph H. Choate (with whom was Mr. James C. Carter on the brief) for appellee.
I. There is no merit or force in any of the technical points raised by the Bill of Exceptions.
II. The true function and office of the writ of habeas corpus provided by the several statutes, amendatory of section 14 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, and now embodied in section 753 :of the Be vised Statutes, is not confined to what it was at common law, but necessarily devolves the power upon the federal court or judge, in inquiring into the cause of restraint of liberty, .to hear and determine the facts and the law which constitute the petitioner’s case of justification, by federal authority, of the act done, or of a violation, by his continued custody, of the federal Constitution, law or treaty, or of privilege, etc., by fc|ie law of nations, and to discharge the petitioner from custody, if such is made out, and to remand him if not.
The 14th section of the Judiciary Act, 1 Stat. 82, limited the power of federal judges to grant the writ, in the case of prisoners ip jail, to cases where they were “ in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States, or are com mitted to trial before some court of tbe same, or are necessary to be brought into court to- testify.”
How far, under that statute,'the federal courts could , go behind the return, considering that it gave them the power to grant the writ for the express “ purpose of an inquiry into the cause of restraint of liberty,” probably never was, and need not now be determined;
' Certainly, as the English law then stood, that is, the .common law and the Habeas Corpus Act of Charles II., the judges and courts in England confined themselves very closely to what appeared upon the face of the return, where it had been legal and-regular, and the process had been issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. But the writ of habeas corpus seems always to have had a more extended use in the United States than in England, and inquiries under it have been more varied and far-reaching here than in that country. Church on Habeas Corpus, § 221, p. 272.
The act of March 2,1833, 4 Stat. 632, c. 57, besides providing, by its third' section, -for the removal at any time before trial, from the state court into the Circuit Court, of any suit or prosecution for any act done under the revenue laws of the United States, or for any right, authority or title set up or claimed by such officer under any such law, by its seventh section conferred upon federal judges, in addition to the authority already conferred by law, power to grant writs'of habeas corpus in all cases of a prisoner or prisoners in jail or confinement, “ where he or they shall be committed_or confined on, or by any authority or law, for any act done, or omitted to be done,. in pursuance of a law of the United States, or any order, process or decree of any judge or court thereof.”
This act, like that of 1789, contained no provisions regulating the practice and procedure after the return; but, in view of the national crisis which led to the passage of the act, it can hardly be doubted that the intent of Congress, by this seventh section, was to enable the federal judge, if, upon the proofs, he found the fact to be that the petitioner was in custody for an act done in pursuance of a law of the United States, to discharge him; and, to ascertain that fact, he must Of necessity resort to any evidence that might be offered material to determine it.
The act of August 29, 1842, however, with the debates that preceded- its passage, and the emergency out of which it arose, sheds the clearest light upon the function and the purpose of the habeas corpus provisions, as they were finally carried into yhe revision.
At the time of the passage of that act the executive and judiciary of the State of New York,- in the case of McLeod, charged with murder in the state court, had successfully refused and resisted the intervention of the federal government, attempted upon the ground that, by the law of nations, the act of McLeod, which was charged to have resulted in the homicide, was an act done under the authority of the British' nation, and therefore did not subject him individually to trial and punishment therefor by the municipal law of the State where the- homicide was committed; and that, as the Constitution of the United States committed the whole subject of foreign intercourse to the, federal government, the British subject, so charged with crime, ought, upon the demand of the federal government, tó be released from the custody of the state corurt.
But, as the statutes stood, the federal judges- had no power to issue a writ of habeas corpus in such a case; and it was to give- them that power, and to provide in what cases they should exercise it, that the act of 1842, 5 Stat. 539, c. 257, entitled “An Act to provide further remedied justice in the courts of the United States,” was passed.
Here clearly was an unmistakable assertion' of the supremacy of the judicial power of the national" government over the States and state courts, to the full extent of withdrawing from’ the state court the prisoner charged with alleged crime, and there awaiting trial' by jury, and providing for the summary trial by the federal- judge without a jury, on proofs to be taken before him, of the one federal question raised -in the 'Cause, with full power and discretion in the federal judge to discharge him, if he made out his claim of foreign .sovereign authority, arid prohibiting the States from ever again trying or touching him for that alleged offence. It is to be noted, too, that the question must, in the nature of the case, be determined by the federal judge, not upon a mere inspection of any statute, order or commission, but necessarily upon a complete exploration of all the facts, just as they would in natural course have been laid before the jury in the state court, if the case had there proceeded. To this' extent, and for the-determination of this single question, it was the clear intent of Congress to override and supersede the jurisdiction of the state court.
An examination of the debates in the Senate which preceded this enactment will demonstrate this position.
The next piece of legislation was the act of February 5, 1867, 14 Stat. 385, c. 28, which again enlarged the power of the federal judges to issue writs of habeas corpus, so as to include all cases of restraint of liberty in violation of the Constitution or of a law or treaty of the United States; and here again the procedure is regulated so as to secure a full and final trial upon evidence, before the federal judge without a jury, of the one single federal question arising in the case as the ground for discharge from custody, and enabling and requiring the federal judge to explore all the facts bearing on that one question as fully as a jury would have done, if it had been left to proceed in the state court. Upon the return of the writ, a day is to be set for “ the hearing of the cáuse.” The petitioner may deny any material facts set forth in the’ return, and may allege any facts to show that the detention is in contravention of the Constitution or laws of the United States. The pleadings on either side may be amended so that • the material facts may be ascertained- — -add it is provided that the “ said court or judge shall proceed in a summary way to determine the facts of the case by hearing testimony and' the arguménts of the parties interested, and if it shall appear that the prisoner is deprived of his or her liberty in contravention of the Constitution or laws of the United States he or she shall forthwith be discharged and set at liberty.” p. 386. The act concludes with the same provision, staying all proceedings on the same charge, pending proceedings on appeal, and after final judgment of discharge, as was contained in the act of 1842.
. Upon the face of this act, certainly, it is impossible to put any other construction than that the one ■ federal question is withdrawn from the state court for final decision by the circuit judge without a jury, and that the prisoner must be discharged, if that question be decided in his favor, and that, too, whether there is any provision already made by Congress for trying him or not. It was clearly intended to preclude all further trial, if, and only if, the federal question ivas decided in his favor, except that the decision of the circuit judge was to be reviewed in this court.
Meantime came the case of Ex parte Jenkins, 2 Wall. Jr. 521, 526, and the Fugitive Slave Law Cases.
In this condition of the statutes and the decisions, the revision of the statute was made in 1874, Rev. Stat. c. 13, §§ 751-766, “Habeas Corpus.”
It cannot be doubted that the effect of the revision is, and was intended to be, to make the procedure and the power and duty of the judge issuing the writ uniform and the same in all the cases covered by the several successive acts, and now embodied in § 753; to withdraw the federal question, on which the petitioner claims justification and exemption, away from the state court for full and final determination by the federal judge without a jury ; and to discharge him from the custody of the state court, when he establishes, by proof to the satisfaction of the federal judge, that he is entitled to his discharge, but if he fails to make out such right, then to remand him to the state court’s custody.
No other meaning than this can be imputed to the words in § 761: “and thereupon to dispose of the party as law and justice may require” in view of the explicit duty to discharge contained in the Acts of 1842 and 1867, which were being condensed and revised, and of the obvious intent to subject all cases alike to the same regulation.
Under this statutory scheme of habeas corpus, it is wholly immaterial whether there is any provision by federal criminal law-conferring jurisdiction upon any court over the prisoner when discharged. Congress has by this very act made what it deemed to be suitable provision for the case by substituting for a trial by jury, under federal authority, of the one question of justification, a trial by a judge without-a jury, and by the Supreme Court on appeal. If he makes out such justification before that tribunal, the necessary theory of the act is that he is to be deemed innocent; that he has committed no crime; that he has only done what the. supreme law of the country has required him to do. If, however, he fails to make out his alleged justification under federal authority, then-he is remanded for trial on the charge made in the state court.,
It is certainly too late at this day to question or discuss the power of Congress to provide, by means of this scheme of habeas corpus procedure for the removal from the state court into the federal court, for examination and determination, of this single question of federal authority, or of custody in violation of the federal Constitution and laws, when it arises in any case, civil or criminal, in a state court.
This exercise of power under the Constitution is far within that which was conceded to Congress by this court in Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257.
In truth the alarm which is suggested at the idea of its being entrusted to a federal court, consisting of two judges, to try, subject to a review in this court, the question of federal authority and consequent immunity, as being a possible mode of escape for a party possibly guilty of murder, without any trial, is based upon no foundation.
The single question is to be fully tried, not upon affidavits, but upon testimony — not ex parte, but after a full hearing of both sides. And the power entrusted to the federal court over this one question is not so great as the same power over the whole case, which is entrusted to the ordinary committing magistrate, or to the judge on the trial, on the motion to quash, or on a motion in arrest of judgment after verdict. It is, in legal apprehension, the same power which is given to this courc, upon the single federal question, on Avrit of error.
No case appears to have arisen under section 7 of this act for tAventy years after its passage. When the execution of the obnoxious Fugitive Slave law exposed the marshals to violent opposition and attack in the discharge of the duties imposed upon them by Congress, and to arrest, indictment and trial in the state courts on charges of assault or murder, for acts necessarily done by them in the performance of such duties, they immediately appealed to the federal courts for the protection afforded by this section seven, and the Circuit. Courts have uniformly used it for the efficient protection and relief of all federal officers so charged and in custody, and this, as we submit, with the implied assent of Congress and the express approval of this court. The result of this line of decisions is so cogent, in support of the action of the court below in this case, as to command careful attention here. See Ex parte Jenkins, 2 Wall. Jr. 521 (1853); Ex parte Robinson, 6 McLean, 355 ; Ex parte Robinson, 4 Am. Law Reg. 617 ; In re McDonald, 9 Am. Law Reg. 661; United States ex rel. Roberts v. Jailor of Fayette County, 2 Abbott (U. S.) 265.
In this state of the adjudications under the seventh section of the Act of 1833, Congress revised the en :re series of statutes in regard to habeas corpus in the manner already pointed out. It must be deemed to have known and. approved the settled construction which the federal courts, for more than twenty years, had given to the Act of 1833; and when it incorporated in section 753 the cases covered by that act with the cases covered by the Judiciary Act and the Acts of 1842 and 1867, and enjoined upon the Circuit Courts, in all the cases alike, the duty to make a full and exhaustive inquiry into the facts, and to' hear the cause and render final judgment of discharge, if law and justice so required, it must be deemed to have intended to sanction and confirm the exercise of the jurisdiction which the federal courts, under the more limited scope of the Act of 1833, had habitually asserted. McDonald v. Hovey, 110 U. S. 629; Duramus v. Harrison, 26 Alabama, 326; Sedgwick on Construction of Stat. (2d ed.) 229, note, and cases cited.
After the revision, other cases occurred, where the Circuit Courts released upon habeas corpus parties held in custody by the state courts for alleged crimes against the State. Ex parte Bridges, 2 Woods, 428; Ramsey v. The Jailor, 2 Flipp. 457; In re Brosnahan, 18 Fed. Rep. 62. These must have been the cases to which this court referred in Ex parte Royall, 171 U. S. 241, 251, when it said that in “ cases of urgency involving the authority and operations of the general government, or the obligations of this country to, or its relations with, foreign nations, the courts of the United States have frequently interposed by writs of habeas corpus and discharged prisoners who were held in custody under state authority.”
III.’ The personal protection of Mr. Justice Field by Near-' gle was a duty imposed upon him by authority of the United States, and the homicide necessarily committed by him in rendering that protection effectual was “ an act done by him in pursuance of a law of the United States,” in the sense of the statute; and his detention therefor by the state court on a charge of murder was “ in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States ” in the sense of the statute.
It is not pretended that there is any single specific statute making it his duty to furnish this protection. The authority arose directly and necessarily out of the Constitution and positive congressional enactments. Whatever is necessarily implied is as much a part of the Constitution and statutes as if it were actually expressed therein.
The corporate government established by the Constitution is a nation, absolutely sovereign over every foot of soil and over every person within the national territory and within the sphere of action assigned to it. Within that sphere, its Constitution and laws are the supreme law of the land, and its proper instrumentalities of government can be subjected to no. restraint, and can be held to no accountability by any other power whatsoever.
It has, necessarily, the inherent power of protecting itself and its agents in the exercise of all its constitutional powers, and of executing its own laws by its own tribunals, without any interruption from a State or any state authorities.
The government of the United States and the government of a State are distinct and independent of each other, within their respective spheres of action, although existing and exer-,cising their powers within the same-territorial limits.
Neither government can intrude' within the jurisdiction of the other, or authorize any interference therein, by its judicial officers, with the action of the other. But whenever any conflict arises between the enactments of the two sovereignties, or in the enforcement of their asserted authorities, those of the national government have supremacy, until the validity of the different enactments and authorities is determined by the tribunals of the United States.
In such case, the surrender to a state court of the right to determine the existence of its sovereignty is the surrender of sovereignty itself. Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304 (1816); McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819); Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 (1821); Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506 (1858); Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371 (1879); Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257 (1879).
Such absolute and perfect protection being thus guaranteed to them by the Constitution, this at least must necessarily follow : that if, when attacked in the discharge of their duties, they protect themselves, or are protected by others, whose aid in the emergency they require, such protection is not merely self-defence authorized by the law of nature or the common law, but is an act clearly authorized by, and done in pursuance of, the Constitution, which enjoins them to- proceed against all obstacles in the discharge of their duties.
But for the letter of the law, as it is so stoutly insisted that we must have “a law” to authorize the protection of the judge: Article III., Section 1,-of the Constitution, declares that “the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may.from time to time.ordain’and establish;” and the second section proceeds to define the 'cases to which this judicial power shall extend, and as Jay, C. J., says, in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 475, this shows the precise sense and latitude in which the words “ to establish justice,”, as used in the preamble, are to be understood.
To- carry into practical operation the provisions of the Cohstitution, “ to • establish justice,” and bring it home to the people. Congress has divided the United States into judicial districts, Rev. Stat. § 530; two of which are in the State of California, Rev. Stat. § 531; Act of August 5, 1886, 24 Stat. 308, c. 928. Circuit Courts are required by law to be held in these, districts, Rev. Stat. § 609 ; and Mr. Justice Field was required by law to be present at them at least once in two years, Rev. Stat. § 610. In obedience to these laws, he was, at the time and place of the attack, travelling from one California circuit,, where he had been holding court, to the other, where he ivas about to hold it. He was, therefore, at the time and place of the attack, in the direct and immediate diseha/rge of his official duties, — just as much so as if'he had l)een sitting in court in San Francisco.
Nothing can be clearer than that, if Mr. Justice Field himself had taken the life of Terry necessarily in- the defence of his own, in the maintenance and protection of his right and duty to proceed upon his circuit and administer justice at San Francisco, the Constitution and the laws already cited imposing that duty upon him would have brought his case, beyond all question, within section 753 of the Revised Statutes. Neagle’s act does so on the same principle and for the same reasons.
IY. But to Neagle’s right and duty, as a bystander and citizen, to protect Mr. Justice Field, is to be added his official authority and duty conferred and imposed upon him by acts of Congress as a United States deputy marshal, attending the Justice on his circuit, within the district of which he was marshal. Thus, acting under federal authority and in pursuance of the statutes under which.he was appointed, his act in protection-of the Justice was clearly within the category of section 753 of the Revised Statutes, “ done in pursuance of a law of the United States.”
Conceding that marshals must look to the acts of Congress for their powers, these are ample to cover the above proposition. See Rev. Stat. §§ 787, 788. The latter section confers upon them the powers given to sheriffs and deputy sheriffs by state laws. The California code conferred upon sheriffs and their- deputies the usual powers to preserve the peace, suppress riots, etc. The Supreme Court of the State has also held that where the code is silent the common law governs. One of .the common-law duties of a sheriff and his deputies was to accompany the judges on circuit and to protect them by an armed, force. 1 Macaulay’s History, 223 ; Dalton’s Office of Sheriffs, London, 1698, c. 98.
These statutes certainly constituted Neagle a peace officer, to keep the peace of the United States when it was broken by the attack on Mr. Justice Field. That, under such circumstances or similar ones, there is such a thing as “ the peace of the United States,”' and that the marshal and his deputies are the proper arm of the federal government to maintain it. seems to have been definitely settled by this court in Siebold’s. Case, ui supra,
Y. But, if more be needed to demonstrate that Neagle, in protecting Mr. Justice Field, was discharging a duty imposed upon him by federal authority, or, in other words, was acting in pursuance of a law of the United States, it is to be found in the order of the Attorney General, which is conclusively presumed to have been the order of the President, commanding the performance of that duty.
W.e live under a government of laws and not of men, and can claim no authority or power for' the President, or for any executive department, not conferred by law. What we assert is, that it is not only within the lawful power, but is the plain duty of the President, when informed that the due and regular administration of justice, on one of the federal circuits, is about to be interfered with by a threatened attack on the federal judge, assigned by law to administer it, and actually ‘engaged in that service, to provide, by adequate means, for his protection. Little v. Barreme, 2 Cranch, 170 ; McElrath v. United States, 102 U. S. 426; Runkle v. United States, 122 U. S. 43, 557; United States v. Macdaniel, 7 Pet. 1, 14; Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497 ; 6 Opinions Attys. Gen. 341, 342, 346 ; 1 Opinions Attys. Gen. 475 ; Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall. 92, 108; United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co., 125 U. S. 273, 279, 284; Wells v. Nickles, 104 U. S. 444.
YI. The court below did not err in holding that Neagle used no more force than was necessary in protecting Mr. Justice ,Field, and that he was therefore entitled to his discharge from custody “ for an act done under a law of the United States.”
YU. The clearly ascertained fact of the case, that the petitioner was in custody of a state court for an act done in pursuance of a law of the United States, and that he was still an officer of the United States, under obligation to proceed day by day with the discharge of liis official duties, shows clearly that he was “ in custody in violation of the Constitution of the United States,” as provided by the other clause of section 753 of the Revised Statutes, and equally entitled to his immediate discharge on that ground, in the discretion of the Circuit Court, just as much as Mr. Justice Field himself was entitled to be.
Mr. G. A. Johnson, Attorney General of the State of California, for appellant.
Section 754- of the Revised Statutes says that application for the writ of habeas corpus shall be made by complaint in writing, signed by the person for whose relief it is intended, and that the facts set forth in the complaint shall be verified by the oath of the pérson making the application. The application for this writ was not signed by the relator, nor sworn to by him. The petitioner is A. L. Farrish, and not David Neagle, and the petition is sworn to by Farrish.
The amended traverse to the return was filed after the evidence was heard, and should have been stricken out. The testimony and proofs should have been stricken out, being introduced before the completion of the issues, but motions for these purposes were denied.
Respondent below then filed a demurrer to the amended traverse, but the court decided the whole case without first passing on the demurrer.
So much for the technical objections. As to the main question, we concede in the outset that in accordance with § 753, Rev. Stat. the writ of habeas corpus may extend to a prisoner in jail, if he is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursu anee of a law of the United States, or of an order, process or decree of a; court or judge thereof, or is in custody in violation of the Constitution or of a la\v or treaty of the United States. But what we maintain is that the word “law,” as mentioned in Section 753, means, statutory, law and its necessary incidents.
We propose now to-call the court’s attention to the authorities cited by Judges Sawyer and Sabin, in their opinion in the court below, discharging the relator, and will endeavor to see whether they sustain their conclusion. The great question involved is as to the proper boundary lines between national and state jurisdiction. The judges say: “We simply determine whether it (the homicide) was an act performed in pursuance of a law of the United States. Nor do we act in this matter because we have the slightest doubt as to the authority of the state courts, and their ability and disposition to, ultimately, do exact justice to the prisoner. . We have not the slightest doubt' or apprehension.on that particular, but there is a principle involved.”
In the foregoing we agree with them entirely, and we are all desirous that the principle shall be definitely and permanently settled.
, The first case cited is Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241, 249. This cáse illustrates how careful federal courts are, in exercising a discretionary power, to interfere with process issued under state laws; that it is not only a matter of comity, but “ it is a principle of right and of law, and, therefore, of necessity ” ; and it is a duty to conciliate rather than alienate and dissever the federal and state tribunals, “so that they may cooperate as harmonious members ” of one judicial system.
This machinery of a federal government and of state governments’ is at once delicate and complex, and consists of balances and adjustments for all time to come, so that there may be no friction; like the harmony of our solar system, where each planet fnoves in its own orbit, without any impingement by the greater orbit which lightens all.
Ex parte Royall has no application to the case at bar, for in that case there was a constitutional question involved, whether or not the constitutional provision against impairing the obligation of a contract was violated by the act of the General Assembly of Virginia; while the opinion of Judges Sawyer and Sabin does not claim that the statute of California against murder is unconstitutional, or that such a statute does not properly appertain to the police power of the State; so the case of Ex parte Royall and the case at bar are not parallel. Nor does the opinion claim, as we understand it, that any specific provision of the constitution of the United States has been infringed by the arrest and detention of the relator.
The next case cited is Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 392. This case, and the other cases where indictments had been found, involved the question of the constitutionality of. certain sections of Title 26 of the Revised Statutes, entitled “ The Elective Franchise,” to wit: Sections 2011, 2012, 2016, 2017, 2021, 2022; and also §§ 5515, and 5522, under the title “ Crimes.” These sections relate to elections of members of the House of Bepresentatives, and were an assertion on the part of Congress of a power to pass laws for regulating and superintending said elections. The question involved was the constitutional power of Congress to make such regulations, and this court sustained such power. In that case there was an act of Congress against obstructing the supervisors of elections and the marshals, and giving them power to keep the peace. In the case at bar there is no act of Congress, as we contend, nor, if we understand the opinion of the court below, is it contended that there is an act of Congress giving jurisdiction to the federal court of this case of alleged murder.
The next case cited by Judge Sawyer is that of Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257. But that case and this are'entirely different. That case was removed from the state court into thé federal court because of an express act of Congress bearing on the subject (Section 643, Rev. Stat.). The case was transferred to the Circuit Court under the provisions of the foregoing act. A motion was made in the Circuit Court by the Attorney General to remand the case to the state court, on the ground that the federal court had no jurisdiction,
The case went up to the Supreme Court on a certificate of division of opinion between the judges, and yet even in such a case as that, where there was an express act of Congress, two of the judges dissented, Mr. Justice Clifford and Mr. Justice Field.
The majority in their opinion say: “ A case consists of the right of one party as-well as the other, and may truly be said to arise under the Constitution or a law or a treaty of the United States whenever its correct decision depends upon the const'', uction of either. Cases arising under the laws of the United States are such as grow out of the legislation of Congress, whether they constitute the right or privilege, or claim, or protection, or defence of the party, in whole or in part, by whom they are asserted.” p. 264. Here there is no statute of the-United States which, expressly or by necessary implication gave any authority for the relator to commit the homicide in question, so that his act could become a matter of federal cognizance.
The next case cited by the judges in their opinion is that of Ex parte Jenkins et al., 2 Wall. Jr. 521. That case can have no significance here on this inquiry. That was a case, where, as is said, Jenkins and other deputy United States marshals were arrested on the warrant of a justice of the peace in Pennsylvania, for shooting and wounding a negro, who resisted an arrest attempted by them under a warrant issued by the United States Court for a fugitive slave, in which case the justice of the United States Circuit Court took jurisdiction, and discharged them on a writ of habeas corpus. Put in this case there was a law of the United States, to wit: the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, and a writ had been issued to the marshal by a United States judge under that law; hence, Mr. Justice Grier well says: “ In conclusion, as we find that the prisoners are officers of the United States, in confinement for acts done in pursuance of a law of the United States, and under a process from a judge of the same, . . . therefore, the order of the court is, that the prisoner be discharged.”
The next case referred to in the opinion we are reviewing is Ex parte Robinson, 6 McLean, 355. A petition and affi davit of Hiram H. Robinson, marshal of the United States, stated that he was imprisoned under the order of the Honorable Judge Parker, one of the judges of the court of common pleas for the county of Hamilton, for the performance of his duty as marshal, under process signed by a commissioner of the United States, and prayed for a writ of habeas corpus. He was discharged by Judge McLean, because what he did was authorized by the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
The next case cited in the opinion of Judges Sawyer and Sabin is United States ex rel. Roberts v. Jailor of Fayette County, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 265, 279. This is a case where a deputy marshal was assisted, by Roberts in endeavoring to serve process upon one Call, who was charged with crimes under the internal revenue laws, and who was killed by Roberts. Says the judge : “ I disclaim all right and power to discharge the relator on any such ground' as that the proof shows he acted in self-defence. A jury would probably acquit him on such ground, independent of the process under which he acted, but I have nothing to do with such an inquiry. It belongs only to the state court. I have only to inquire whether what he did was done in pursuance of a law and process of the United States, and so justified, not excused, by that law and process.”
The next case cited in the opinion of the lower court is In re Ramsey, 2 Flippin, 451. The prisoner, while in the discharge of his- duty as deputy United States marshal, killed one Joseph Lightfoot. For that he was arrested and held by the state officers. The officer had in his possession a warrant for the arrest of Lightfoot at the time of the homicide; Light-foot had declared that, he would not submit to an arrest; bad reason to know that the officer came there to arrest him, amd had a warrant; and his conduct was such as to imperil the life of the officer. Judge Ballard discharged the marshal.
The next case cited is In re Neill, 8 Blatchford, 167, which involved certain statutes, whereby the power of discharging from service in the army of the United States minors under the age of eighteen years, is taken away from the courts, and vis confided wholly to the Secretary of "War. The petitioner, General Neill, refused to produce the body of an enlisted sol-' dier before a state judge, and was discharged by Mr. Justice Blatchfprd, on the basis of these statutes and the statutes in relation to the writ of habeas corpus..
The next ease cited is In re Farrand, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 140, where a commander in the army of the United States made return to a writ of habeas corpus issued by a state court, showing that he held the petitioner as a recruit in the army, and pursuant to laws of the United States regulating enlistments. The state court directed the recruit to be discharged. The officer refused to discharge him, and was committed for contempt. Judge Ballard, on habeas corpus, discharged him.
The next case cited is Electoral College of South Carolina, 1 Hughes, 571. The conclusion of Judge Bond’s opinion will sufficiently explain the case. He says: “ That the state board of canvassers were clothed, .under the law, with discretionary powers, which required them to discriminate the votes ; to determine and certify the candidates elected after scrutiny, and that they were a part of the executive- department of the government, and were in nowise subject to the control, as to what they should do after they had commenced to perform that duty, of the judicial department, and that as this was a general election, at which members of Congress were to be elected, and electors of President and Yice-President of the United States to be chosen, they were acting in official capacity ; or in other words, im, pursuance of a lano of the United States; and, therefore, if any one disturbs them in the exercise of their functions, they are entitled to the protection of the courts of the United States.”
. Thus it will be seen that in all these cases cited by Judges Sawyer and Sabin some provision of the Constitution of the United States was violated, or some statute of the United States, or some order or process of a judge or court of the. United States, and for this reason the petitioner was discharged from arrest.
In fact, that court is confronted with a formidable array of authorities and opinions in opposition to its view. United States v. Guiteau, 1 Mackey, 498, 538 ; Ex parte Crouch, 112 U. S. 179; the dissenting opinions of Mr. Justice Clifford and Mr. Justice Field in Tennessee v. Davis, ubi sufra; in Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 349; and Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 336; although, we admit, as claimed, that the necessary incidents and implications of the statutes of Congress are as much a part of the law as their express provisions; for the Constitution itself confers on Congress the authority to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the powers expressly granted. (Art. 1, sec. 8, Clause 18.)
There, is here no act of Congress, as in the act incorporating the United States Bank, Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 865 ; no act of Congress, as in the case of Tennessee v. Davis, to wit: Section 643, Revised Statutes; no process issued by a United States commissioner commanding the arrest of some one charged with certain crimes under the internal revenue laws, as in the case of United States ex rel. Roberts v. Jailor of Fayette County, and in the case of Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 507; no showing, that the-party seeking his enlargement was duly mustered into the military service of the United States, and was detained by its officer as such .soldier, as in Tarble’s Case, 13 Wall. 397; and no. process from a Circuit Court or judge, as in the case of Ex parte Jenkins et al.
W e respectfully submit, therefore, whether or riot the law as laid down by the lower court is not a new departure from, established precedents and well adjudicated cases. Any other position would seem to be alarming in its character, and obliterative of the terminal bounds between federal and state jurisdiction. It would recognize a vast body-of officers, and constantly increasing, as owing no allegiance except to the federal courts, and possessed of special privileges and immu-' nities not conferred by any act of Congress!
We need not particularize, as such a holding, would include the whole service of the-. United States, — Mint, Post Office, Customs, Land Department, Sub-Treasury, Internal Revenue.
Even if it be conceded that Congress has the right to legislate on this subject, and make such a case as the one at bar a case arising under the laws of the United States, it is sufficient to say that Congress has not done so, and there is no other repository of federal legislative power than the Congress; The general government itself is but a government of limited powers, though supreme within those limits. -The great residuum of our liberties exists in the Sta tes and the people thereof; they consist in inherent powers and. are self-derived, not the outcome of a concession which they have made in the grant tp the United States.
'Our position is fully covered by .the case of Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 659, where the court says:»“It is very true that while Congress at an early day passed criminal laws-to punish piracy with' death, and f©r punishing all ordinary offences against person and property committed within the District of Columbia, and in forts, arsenals, and other places ■within the exclusive jurisdiction -of- the United States, it was 'slow to pass laws protecting officers of the government from, personal injuries inflicted while in, discharge of their official duties within the States. This was not for want of power, but because no occasion had arisen wh%ch required such legislation, the remedies in the state courts for versoned violence having proved sufficient. - .
“ Perhaps the earliest attempts of Congress to protect government officers, while in the exercise of their duty in a hostile, community, grew out of the nullification ordinance of South Carolina, and is found in the act further to provide for the collection.of duties on imports. . . When, early in the late civil war, the enforcement of the acts of Congress for obtaining soldiers by draft brought the officers engaged in it-into hostile neighborhoods, it was found necessary to pass laws for their protection. Accordingly,. in 1863, an act was .passed making it a criminal offence to assault or obstruct any officer' while engaged in making the draft or in any service in relation thereto.” 12 Stat. 731. See also Ex parte Merryman, Taney’s Dec. 216 ; Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet. 527, 611; Tracy v. Swartwout, 10 Pet. 80, 91; Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 216, 331.
.- It is claimed also by the court below that there is a common law which may be appealed to in this case, which contention we have answered by saying that he is-conf routed with statutes on the subject matter. But is there any common law for the U nited States as applicable to this case ? • Of course, common law terms are to receive a common law signification, such as murder or any other offence at common law, where it is not otherwise defined by act of Congress, or such as habeas corpus, or trial by jury.
In the case of State of Pennsylvania v. The Wheeling, etc., Bridge Company et al., 13 How. 518, 563, the court says: “It is said that there is no common law of the Union on which the procedure can be founded; that the common law of Virginia is subject to its legislative action, and that the bridge, having been constructed under its authority, it can in no sense be considered a nuisance: that whatever shall be done within the limits of a State is subject to its laws, written or unwritten, unless it be a violation of the Constitution, or of some act of Congress. It is admitted that the federal courts have no jurisdiction of common law offences, and that there is no abstract pervading principle of the common law of the Union under which we can take jurisdiction.” See also Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 658; Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, 75, 93.
We cannot- close our argument in this case without bringing up the subject of the police power, which is an inherent power with the States, which they cannot surrender or abdicate, and which cannot be taken away, although Congress may establish police regulations also; but their operation must be confined to the subjects over which it is given control by the Constitution of the United States. The whole domain of the criminal law comes under this power; and the common law maxim, “ Sic utere tuo ut non alienum Icedas,” seems to express in á few words its extensive application. Whatever concerns the public order, the public morals, the public health, the públic security and safety, and the right of any and every person to enjoy these immunities, comes .under the general police power of the State. The offences which Congress has the right to define and punish are only offences against the authority of the United States. It cannot assume any supervision of the police regulations of the States. All this is elementary learning.
■There is a police regulation of the State of California defining the crime of murder and affixing the punishment, when compiitted within the territory of the State.
This is a matter of mere internal regulation, which can be best looked after and provided for in local districts, and to make it an exclusively national question or a concurrent one with the States would lead to constant attrition, inharmony, conflicts, and embroilments between the States and the national government,' which it was the express design of the Constitution to prevent.
The Constitution was formed to make a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and promote the general welfare. Hence, the judicial power of the United States is confined to cases arising under the Constitution of the United States, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, and to. some special cases and controversies'which have no bearing on the pending question.
As to the extent of the police powers, we cite Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 657; Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27.
Mr. Samuel Shellabarger and Mr. Jeremiah M. Wilson, for appellant, subnaitted on their brief.
The docket title of this case is Thomas Cunningham, Sheriff of the County of San Joaquin, California, Appellant, v. David Neaule.”
The Governor of California, on learning that a warrant had been issued for the arrest of Mr. Justice Field, promptly wrote to the Attorney General of the State, urging “ the propriety of at once instructing the District Attorney of San Joaquin County to dismiss the unwarranted proceeding against him,” as his arrest “ would be a burning disgrace to the State unless -disavowed.” The Attorney General as promptly responded by advising the District Attorney that there was “no evidence to implicate Justice Field, in said shooting,” and that “ public justice demands that the charge against him be dismissed; ” which was accordingly done.
In the editions of the federalist prior to 18(53, those two papers are respectively numbered 31 and 59. In that year Mr. Dawson’s edition appeared, as' the result of a collation of the first edition with the original articles in the newspapers. In his edition the title was changed from “ federalist” to “ fcederalist; ” the name of one of .the writers, (Mr. Jay,) was changed from “Jay” to “Jáy;” and the numbering of the papers after No. 28 was so altered thát No. 31 of- all previous editions became No. 30, and No. 59 became No. 58. Tlie expediency of changing a numeration accepted by Hamilton, Jay and Madison, and adopted by the latter in-the Hallowell editions, may be questioned.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Miller,
after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
If it be true, as stated in the order of the court discharging the prisoner, that he was held " in custody for an act done in pursuance of a law of the United States, and in custody in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States," there does not seem to be any doubt that, under the statute on that subject, he was properly discharged by the Circuit Court.
Section 753 o' the Revised .Statutes reads as follows:
"The writ of habeas corpus shall in no case extend to a prisoner in jail, unless where he is in custody under or by color of the authority of the^ United States; or is committed for trial before some court thereof; or is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of a law of the United States, or of an order, process, or decree of a court or judge- thereof; or is in custody in violation of the Constitution or of a law or treaty of the United States; or, being a subject or citizen of a foreign State, and domiciled therein, is in custody for an act done or omitted under any alleged right, title, authority, privilege, protection, or exemption claimed under the commission, or order, or sanction of any foreign State, or under color thereof, the validity and effect whereof depend upon the law of nations ; or unless it is necessary to bring the prisoner into court to testify."-
And section 761 declares that when by the writ of habeas corpus the petitioner is brought up for a hearing the " court or justice or judge shall proceed in a summary way to determine the facts of the case, by hearing the testimony and arguments, and thereupon to dispose of the party as law and justice require." This of course means that if he is held in custody in violation of the Constitution or a law of the United States, or' for an act done or omitted in pursuance of a law of the United States, he must be discharged.
By the law, as it existed at the time of .the enactment of the Be vised Statutes,- an appéal could be taken to the Circuit Court from any court of justice or judge inferior to the Circuit Court in a certain class of habeas corpus cases. ' But there was no appeal to the Supreme Court in any case except where the prisoner was the subject or citizen of a foreign- State, and was committed or confined under tbe authority or law of the United States or of any State, on account of any act done' or omitted to be done under the commission or authority of a foreign State, the validity of which depended upon the law of nations. But afterwards, by the act. of Congress of March 3, 1885, 23 Stat. 437, this was extended by amendment as follows:
" That section seven hundred and sixty-four of the Revised Statutes be amended so that the same shall read as follows: ' From' the final decision of such Circuit Court an appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court in the cases described in the preceding section.' "
The preceding section here referred to is section 763, and is the one on which the prisoner relies for his discharge from custody in this case.
It will be observed that in both the provisions of the Revised Statutes and of this latter act of Congress the mode of review, whether by the Circuit Court of the judgment of an inferior court or justice or judge, or by this court of the judgment of a Circuit Court, the word "appeal," and not "writ of error," is used, and as Congress has always used these words with a clear understanding of what is meant by them, namely, that by a writ of error only questions of law are brought up for review, as in actions at common law, while by an appeal, except when specially provided otherwise, the entire case qn both law and facts is to be reconsidered, there seems to - be little doubt that, so far as it is essential to a proper decision of this case, the appeal requires us to. examine into the evidence brought to sustain or defeat the right of the petitioner to his discharge.
The history of the incidents which led to the tragic event of the killing of Terry by the prisoner Neagle had its origin in a suit brought by William Sharon of Nevada, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California, against Sarah Althea ITill, alleged to be a citizen of California, for the purpose of obtaining a decree adjudging a certain instrument in writing, possessed and exhibited by her, purporting to be a declaration of marriage between them, under the code of California, to be a forgery, and to have it set aside and annulled. This suit, which was commenced October 3, 1883, was finally heard before Judge Sawyer, the Circuit Judge for that cii'cuit, and Judge Deady, United States District Judge for Oregon, who had been duly appointed to assist in holding the Circuit Court for the District of California. The hearing was on September 29, 1885, and on the 15th of January, 1886, a decree was rendered granting the prayer of the bill. In that decree it Avas declared that the instrument purporting to be a declaration of marriage, set out and described in the bill of complaint, " Avas not signed or executed at any time by William Sharon, the complainant; that it is not genuine; that it is false, counterfeited, fabricated, forged, and fraudulent, and, as such, is utterly null and void. And it is further ordered and decreed that tlue respondent, Sarah Althea Hill, deliver up and deposit with the clerk of the court said instrument, to be endorsed ' cancelled,' and that the clerk write across it ' cancelled ' and sign his name and affix his seal thereto."
The rendition of this decree was accompanied by two opinions, the principal one being written by Judge Heady and a concurring one by. Judge Sawyer. They were very full in their statement of the fraud and forgery practised by Miss Hill, and stated that it was also accompanied by perjury. And inasmuch as Mr. Sharon had died between the hearing of the argument of the case on the 29th of September, 1885, and the time of rendering this decision, January 15, 1886, an order was made setting forth that fact, and declaring that the decree was entered as of the date of the hearing, nunc fro tuno.
Nothing was done under this decree. The defendant, Sarah Althea Hill, did not deliver up the instrument to the clerk to be cancelled, but she continued to insist upon its use in the state court. Under these circumstances, Frederick W. Sharon,, as the executor of the will of his father, "William Sharon, filed in the Circuit Court for the Northérn District of California, on March 12, 1888, a bill of revivor, stating the circumstances of the decree, the death of his father, and that the decree-had not been performed; alleging also the intermarriage of Miss Hill with David S. Terry, of the city of Stockton in" California, and making the said Terry and wife parties to this bill of' revivor. The defendants both demurred and answered, resisting .the prayer of the plaintiff, and denying that the petitioner was entitled to any relief.
This case was argued in the Circuit Court before Field, Circuit Justice, Sawyer, Circuit Judge, and Sabin, District Judge. While, the matter was held under advisement, Judge Sawyer, on returning from Los Angeles, in the Southern District of California, where he had' been holding court, found himself on the train as it left Fresno, Which is understood to. have been the residence of Terry .and wife, in a car in which he npticed that Mr. and Mrs. Terry .were in a section behind him, on the same side. On this trip from Fresno to San Francisco, Mrs. Terry grossly insulted Judge Sawyer, and .had, her husband change seats so as to sit directly in front of the Judge, while she passed him with insolent remarks, and .pulled his hair with a vicious jerk, and then, in an excited manner, taking her seat by her husband's side, said: "I will give him a taste of what he will get by and by. Let him render this decision if he dares," —the decision being the one already mentioned, then under advisement. Terry then made some remark about too many witnesses being in the car, adding that " The best thing to. do with him would be to take, him , out. into the bay and drown him." These incidents were witnessed by two gentlemen who knew all the parties, and whose testimony is found in the record before us.
This was-August 14, 1888. On the 3d of September, the court' rendered its decision granting the prayer of the bill of revivor in the name of Frederick W. Sharon and against Sarah Althea Terry and her husband, David S. Terry. The opinion was delivered by Mr. Justice Field, and during its delivery a scene of great violence occurred in the court-room. It appears that shortly before the court opened on that day, both the defendants in the case came into the court-room, and took seats within the bar at the table next the clerk's desk, and almost immediately in front of the judges. Besides Mr. Justice Field there were present on the bench Judge Sawyer, and Judge Sabin of the District Court of -the United States for the District of Nevada. The defendants had denied the jurisdiction of the court originally to render the decree sought to be revived, and the opinion of-, the court necessarily discussed this question without reaching the merits of the controversy. When allusion was. made to this question Mrs. Terry rose from her seat, and addressing the .justice who was delivering tí-3 opinion, asked in an excited manner whether he was going to order her to give up the marriage contract to be cancelled. Mr. Justice Field.said: "Be seated, madam." She repeated he question, and was again told to be seated. She then said, in a very-excited and violent manner, that Justice Field had been bought, and wanted to know the price he had sold himself for; that he had'got Newland's money for it, and everybody knew that he had.got it, or words to that effect. Mr. Justice, Field then directed the marshal to remove her from the courtroom. She asserted that she would not go from the room, and that no onfe could take her from it.
Marshal Franks proceeded to carry out the order of the court by attempting to compel her to leave, when Terry* her: husband, rose from his seat under great excitement, exclaiming that no man living should touch his wife, and struck the marshal a blow in his face, so violent as to knock out a.'tooth - He .then unbuttoned his coat, thrust his hand under his jest, apparently for the purpose of drawing a bowie-knife, when he was seized by persons present and forced down on hi_s back. In the meantime Mrs. Terry was removed from the courtroom by the marshal, and Terry was showed to rise and was accompanied by officers to the door leading to the marshal's office. As he was about leaving the room,- or immediately' after being out of it, he succeeded in drawing a bowie-knife,' when his arms were seized by a deputy marshal and others present to prevent him from using it, and they were able to wrench it from him only after a severe struggle. The most • prominent person engaged in wresting the knife from Terry was Neagle, the prisoner now in'court. '
For this conduct both Terry ánd his wife were sentenced by. the court to. .imprisonment for contempt, Mrs. Terry for one' month and Terry for six months, and these sentences were .immediately carried into effect. Both the judgment of the court on. the petition for the revival of the decree in the case of Sharon against Hill and the judgment of the Circuit Court imprisoning .Terry and wife for contempt have been brought to this court for review, and in both cases the judgments have been affirmed. The report of the cases may be found in Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289, and Terry v. Sharon, 131 U. S. 40.
Terry and Mrs. Terry were separately indicted by the grand jury of the Circuit Court of the United States during the same term for their part in these transactions, and the cases were pending in said court at the time of Terry's death. It also appears that Mrs. Terry, during her part of this altercation in the court-room, was making efforts to open a small satchel which she had with her, but through her excitement she failed. This satchel, which was taken from her, was, found to have in it a revolving pistol.
From that time until his death the denunciations by Terry and his wife of Mr. Justice Field were \open,\ frequent, and of the most vindictive and malevolent character. While being transported from San Francisco to Alameda, where they were imprisoned, Mrs. Terry repeated a number of times that she wouldvkill both Judge Field and Judge Sawyer. Terry, who was-present, said nothing to restrain her, but added that he was not through with Judge Field yet; and, while in jail at Alameda, Terry said that after he got out of jail he would horsewhip Judge Field; and that he did not believe he would ever return to California, but this earth was not large enough to keep him from finding Judge Field and horsewhipping him; and,- in reply to a remark that this would be a dangerous thing to do, and that Judge Field would resent it, he said: "If Judge Field resents it I will kill him." And while, in jail Mrs. Terry exhibited to a witness Terry's knife, at which he laughed, and said, "Yes, I always carry that," and made a remark about judges and marshals, that " they were all. a lot of- cowardly curs," and he would (" see, some of. them in their graves yet." Mrs. Terry also said that she expected. to kill Judge Field some day.
Perhaps the clearest expression of Terry's feelings and intentions in the matter was in a conversation with Mr: Thomas T. Williams, editor of one of the daily newspapers of. California. This interview was brought about by a message from Terry requesting Williams to. call and see him. In speaking of the occurrences in the court, he said that Justice Field had put a lie in the record about him, and when he met Field he would have to take that back, " and if he did not take it back and apologize for having lied about him, he would slap his face, or pull his.nose." "I said to him," said the witness, " f Judge Terry, would not that be a dangerous thing to do'( Justice Field is not a man who would permit any one to put a deadly insult upon him like that.' He said, ' Oh, Field won't fight.' I said, 'Well, Judge, I have found nearly all men will fight; nearly every man will fight.when there is occasion for it, and Judge Field has had a character in this State of having the courage of his convictions, and being a brave man.' At the conclusion of that branch of the conversation, I said to him, 'Well, Judge Field is not your physical equal, and if any trouble should occur he would be very likely to use a weapon.' He said, 'Well, that's as good a thing as I want to get.' The whole impression conveyed to me by this conversation was, that he felt he had some cause of , grievance against Judge Field; that he hoped they might meet, that he might have an opportunity to force a quarrel upon him, and he would get him into a fight." Mr. Williams says that after the.return of Justice Field to California in the spring or summer of 1889, he had other conversations Avith Terry, in Avhich the same vindictive feelings of hatred Avere manifested and expressed by him.
It is useless to go over the testimony on this subject more particularly. It is sufficient to say that the evidence is abundant that both Terry and Avife contemplatedL some attack upon Judge Field during his official visit to California in the summer of 1889, which they intended should result in his death. Many of these matters Avere published in the newspapers, and the .press of California was filled Avith the conjectures of a probable attack by Terry on Justice Field, as soon as it became known that he was going to attend the Circuit Court in that year.
So much impressed Avere the friends of Judge Field, and of public justice, both in California arid in Washington, with the fear that he Avould fall a sacrifice to the resentment of Terry and his wife, that application was made to the Attorney General of the United States suggesting the propriety of his furnishing some protection to the judge while in California. This resulted in a correspondence between the Attorney General of the United States, the District Attorney, and the marshal- of the Northern District of California on that subject. This correspondence is here set out:
, " Department of Justice,
" Washington, April 27th, 1889.
" John C. Franks, United States Marshal, San Francisco, Cal.
". Sir : The proceedings which have heretofore been had in connection with the case of Mr. and Mrs. Terry in your United States' Circuit Court have become matter of public notoriety, and I deem it my duty to call your attention to the propriety of exercising unusual caution, in case further proceedings shall be had in that case, for the protection of his Honor Justice Field or whoever may be called upon to hear and determine .the • matterj Of course, I do not know what may be the feelings or purpose of Mr. and Mrs. Terry in the premises, but many things which have happened indicate that violence on their part is not impossible. It is due to the dignity and independence of the court and the character of its judge that no effort on the part of the government shall be spared to make .them feel entirely safe and free from anxiety in the discharge of their high duties.
" You will understand, of course, that this letter is not for the public, but to put you upon your guard. It will be proper for you to show it to the district attorney, if deemed best.
"Tours truly, W. H. H. Miller. ,
"Attorney General."
" United States Marshal's Office,
"Northern District' of California,
"San Francisco, May 6, 1889.
" Hon. W. H. H. Miller, Attorney General, Washington, D. C.
" Sir: Yours of the 27th ultimo, at hand.
" When the Hon. Judge Lorenzo Sawyer, our Circuit Judge, returned from Los Angeles-(some time before the celebrated court scene) and informed me of the disgraceful action of Mrs. Terry towards him on the cars, while her husband sat in front smilingly approving it, I resolved to watch the Terrys (and so notified my deputies) whenever, they should enter the courtroom, and be ready to suppress the very first indignity offered, by. either of them to the judges.' After, this, at the time of their ejectment from the court-room, when I held Judge Terry and his wife as prisoners in my private office and heard his threats against Justice Field, I was more fully determined than ever to throw around the Justice and Judge Sawyer every safeguard I could.
"I have given the matter careful consideration, with the determination to fully protect the federal judges at this time,trusting that the department will reimburse me for any reasonable expenditure.
" I have always, whenever there is- any likelihood of either Judge or Mrs. Terry appearing in court, had a forcé of deputies with myself on hand to watch their every-action. You can rest assured that when Justice Field arrives, he, as well as all the federal judges, will be protected from insults, and where an order is made it will be executed without fear as to consequences. I shall follow your instructions and act - with more than usual caution. I have already consulted with the United States attorney, J. T. Carey, Esq., as to the advisability of making application to you, at the time the Terrys are tried upon criminal charges, for me to select two or more detectives to assist in the case, and also assist me'in protecting Justice Field while in my district. I wish the judges to feel secure, and for this purpose will see to it that their every wish is promptly obeyed. I notice your remarks in • regard to the publicity of your letter, and will obey your request. I shall only be too happy to receive any suggestions from you at any time.-
" The opinion among the better class of citizens here is very bitter against the Terrys, though, of course, they have theii friends, and, unfortunatély, among that class it is necessary to watch.-
"Your most obedient servant, J. C. Franks,
" U. 8. Marshal Northern Mist, of Cal."
" San Francisco, Cal., May 7, 1889.
"Hon. W. H. H. Miller,
"U. S. Attorney General, Washington, D. C..
"Dear Sir: Marshal Franks exhibited to me yoitr letter bearing date the 27th ult., addressed to him upon the subject >f using due caution by way of protecting Justice Field and the federal judges here in the discharge of their duties in. matters in' which the Terrys are interested. I noted your suggestion with a great degree of pleasure, not because our marshal is at all disposed to leave anything undone within his authority or power to do, 'but because it encouraged him to know and feel that the Head of our Department was in full sympathy with the efforts being made to protect the judges and vindicate the dignity-of our courts.
" I write merely to suggest that there is just reason, in the light of. the past and the threats made by Judge and Mrs. Terry against Justice Field and Judge Sawyer, to apprehend personal violence at any moment and at any place, as well in court as out of court, and that while due caution has always been taken by the marshal when either Judge or Mrs. Terry is about the building in which the courts are held, he has not felt it within his authority to guard either Judge Sawyer or Justice Field against harm when away from the appraisers' building.
"Discretion dictates, however, that a protection,should be thrown about them at other times and places, when proceedings are being had before them in which the Terrys are interested, and I verily believe, -in view of the direful threats made against Justice Field, that he will be in great danger at all times while here.
" Mr. Franks is a prudent, cool, and courageous officer, who will not abuse any authority granted him. I would therefore suggest that he be authorized in his discretion to retain one.ór more deputies, at such times as he may deem necessary, for the purposes suggested. That publicity may not be given to the matter, it is important that the deputies whom he may select be not known as such, and that efficient service may be assured for the purposes indicated, it seems to me that' they .should be strangers to the Terrys.
" The Terrys are unable to appreciate that an officer should perform his official duty when that duty in any way requires his'efforts to be directed against them. The marshal, his deputies, and myself suffer daily indignities and insults from Mrs. Terry, in court and out of court, committed in the presence of her husband and without interference-upon his part. I do not purpose being deterred from any duty, nor do I purpose being intimidated in the least degree from doing my whole duty in the premises, but I shall feel doubly assured in being able to do so knowing that our marshal has your kind wishes and encouragoxnent in doing everything needed to protect the officers of the court in the discharge of their duties.
" This, of course, is not intended for the public files of your office, nor will it be on file in my office. Prudence dictates great caution on the part of the officials who may be called upon to have anything to do in the premises,' and I deem it to be of the greatest importance that the suggestions back and forth be confidential.
" I shall write you further upon the subject of these cases in a few days.
"I have the honor to be, your most obedient servant,
" John T. Oarky,
" TJ. S. Attorney?'
"Department of Justice,
"Washington, D. C., May 27, 1889.
" J. C. Franks, Esq., United States Marshal, San Francisco, Cal.
" Sir : Referring to former correspondence of the depart-' ment relating to a possible disorder in the session of the approaching term of court, owing to the small number of bailiffs under your control to preserve order, you are directed to employ certain special deputies at a per diem of five dollars.. ¡iayable out of the appropriation for fees and expenses of marshals, to be submitted to the court as a separate account from your other accounts against the government for approval, under section SJ6, Revised Statutes, as an extraordinary expense, that the same may be forwarded to this Department in order to secure executive action and approval.
" Yery respectfully, W. If. II. Miller, -
" Attorney General?'
. The result of this correspondence was that Marshal Franks appointed Mr. Neagle a deputy marshal for the Northern District of California, and gave him special instructions to. attend upon Judge Field both in court and while going from one court to another, and protect him from any assault that might be attempted upon him by Terry and wife. Accordingly, when Judge Field went from San Francisco, to Los Angeles to. hold the Circuit Court of the United States at that place, Mr. Neagle accompanied him, remained with him for the few days that he was engaged in the business of that court, and returned with him to San Francisco.
It appears from the uncohtradicted evidence, in the!case that while the sleeping-car, in which were Justice'Field and Mr. Neagle, stopped a moment in the early morning at Fresno, Terry apd wife got on the train; The fact that they were on the train became known to Neagle, and he. held a conversation with the, conductor as to what peace officers could be found at Lathrop, where the train stopped for breakfast, and the conductor was requested to telegraph to the proper Officers of that place to have, a constable or some peace officer on the ground when the train should arrive,'anticipating that there might-be violence attempted by Terry upon. Judge Field. It is sufficient, to say that this resulted iii no available aid to assist in keeping the peace. When the train arrived, Neagle informed Judge Field of the presence of Terry on the train, and advised him to. remain and take his breakfast in the car. This the Judge refused-to do, and he and Neagle got out of the car arid went into the dining-room, and took seats Reside each other iti the place assigned them-bv the person in charge, of- the breakfast-room, and very shortly after this Terry and wife' came into the room; and Mrs. Terry, recognizing Judge Field, turned and left jn great haste, while Terry passed beyond where Judge Field and Neagle were and took his seat at another table. It was-afterwards ascertained that Mrs. Terry went to the car, and took from it a,, satchel in which was a revolver. Before she returned to the eating-room, Terry arose, from his seat, and, passing, around-the table in such a way as brought him behind Judge Field,' who did not see him or notice him, came up where he was sitting with his feet under the table; and struck him a blow on the side of his face, which was repeated on the other side.. He also had his arm drawn back and his fist doubled up, apparently to strike'a third blow, when Neagle, who had been observing him all this time, arose from" his seat with his revolver in his hand, and in a'very loud'voice shouted out: " Stop ! stop! I am an officer! " Upon this Terry turned his attention to Neagle, and, as Neagle testifies, seemed to recognize him, and immediately turned his hand to thrust it in his bosom, as Neagle felt sure, with the purpose of drawing a bowie-knife. At this instant Neagle fired two shots from his revolver into the body of Terry, who immediately sank down and died in a few minutes.
Mrs. Terry entered the room with the satchel, in her hand just after Terry sank to the' floor. She rushed up to' the place where he was, threw herself upon his body, made loud \exclamations and moans, and commenced inviting the spectators to avenge her wrong upon Field and Neagle. She appeared to be carried away by passion, and in a very earnest manner charged that Field and Neagle had murdered her husband intentionally, and shortly afterwards she appealed to the persons present to examine the. body of Terry'to see that he had no weapons. This she did once or twice. The satchel which she had, being taken from her, was found to 'contain a revolver.
These are the material circumstances produced in evidence before the Circuit Court on the hearing of this habeas corpus case.. It is but a short sketch of a history which is given in over five hundred- pages in the record, but we think'it is sufficient. to enable us to apply the law of the case to the question before us. "Without a more minute discussion of this testimony, it produces upon us the conviction of a settled purpose on the part of Terry and his wife, amounting'to a conspiracy, to murder Justice Field. And we are quite sure that if Neagle had been merely a brother or a friend of Judge Field, travelling with him, and aware of all the previous relations of Terry to the Judge, — as he was, — of his bitter animosity, his declared purpose to have revenge even to the point.. of killing him, he would have been justified in what he did in defence of Mr. Justice Field's life, and possibly of his own.
But such a justification would be a proper subject for consideration on a trial of the case for murder in the courts of the State of California, and there exists no authority in the courts of the United States to discharge the prisoner'while held in custody by the State authorities for this offence, unless there be found in aid of the defence of the prisoner some element of power and authority asserted under the government1 of the United States.
This element is said to be found in the facts that Mr. Justice Field, when attacked, was in the immediate discharge of his duty as judge of the Circuit Courts of the United States within California;Shat the assault upon him grew out of the animosity of Terry and wife, arising out of the previous discharge of his duty as circuit justice in the case for which they were committed for contempt of court; and'" that the deputy marshal of the United States, who killed Terry in defence of Field's life, was charged with a duty under the law of the United States to protect Field from the violence which Terry was inflicting, and which was Intended • to lead to.Field's death.
To the inquiry whether this proposition is sustained by law and the facts which we have recited, we now address ourselves.
Mr. Justice Field was a member of the Supreme Court of the United States, and had been a member of that court for over a quarter of a century, during which he had become venerable for Ins age and for his long and valuable service in that court. The business of the Supreme Court has become so exacting that for many years past the justices of it have been compelled to remain for the larger part of the year in Washington City, from whatever part of the country they may have been appointed. The term for each year, including the necessary travel and preparations to attend at its beginning, has generally lasted from eight to nine months.
But the justices of this court have imposed upon them other duties, the most important of which arise out of the fact that they are ¡also judges of the Circuit Courts of the United States. Of these circuits there are nine, to each one of which a justice of the Supreme Court is' allotted, under section 606 of the Eevised Statutes, the provision of which is as follows:
"The-chief justice and associate justices of the Supreme Court shall be allotted among the circuits by an order of the court, and a new allotment shall be made whenever it becomes necessary or convenient by reason of the alteration of any circuit, or of' the new appointment of a chief justice or associate justice, or otherwise."
Section 610 declares that it "shall be the duty of the-chief justice, and of each justice of the Supreme Court, to attend.at least one term of the.Circuit Court, in each district of the circuit to which he. is. allotted during every period of two years."
Although this enactment does not require in terms that the justices shall go to their circuits more than once in two years, .the effect of it is to compel most of them to do this, because-there are so many districts in many of the circuits that it -is impossible for the circuit justice to reach them all in one year, and the result of this is that he goes to some of them in one_ year, and to others in the next year, thus requiring an attendance in the circuit every year,
The justices of the Supreme Court have been members of the Circuit Courts of the United States ever since the organization of the government, and their attendance on the circuit.' and appearance, at the., places where the courts are held has-always been thought to be a matter of importance. In order to enable him to perform this duty, Mr. Justice Field had to travel each year from Washington City, near the Atlantic coast, to San Francisco, on the Pacific coast. In doing this lie was as much in the discharge of a duty imposed upon him by law as he was while sitting in court and trying causes. There are many duties which the judge performs outside of the court-room where he sits to pronounce judgment or to pre- " side over a trial. The statutes of the United States, and the established practice of the courts, require that the judge .perform a very large share of his judicial labors at what is called " chambers." This chamber work is as important, as - necessary, as much a discharge of his official duty as that perfor-med in the court-house. Important cases are often argued before the judge at auy place convenient to the parties concerned, and a decision of the judge is arrived at' by investigations made-in his own room, wherever he may be, and it is idle to say that this is not as much the performance of judicial duty as the filing of the judgment with the clerk, and the announcement of the result in open court.
So it is impossible for a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, who is compelled by the obligations of duty to be so much in Washington City, to discharge his duties of attendance on the Circuit Courts as prescribed by section 610, without travelling in the usual and most convenient modes of doing it to the place where the court is to be held. This duty is as much an obligation imposed by the law as if it had said in words "the justices of the .Supreme Court shall go from Washington City to the place where their terms are held every year."
Justice Field had not only left Washington and travelled the three thousand miles or more which were necessary to reach his circuit, but he had entered upon the duties of that circuit, had held the court at San Francisco for some time; and, taking a short leave of that court, had gone down to Los Angeles, another place where a court was to be held, and sat as a judge there for several days, b earing cases and rendering decisions. It was in the necessary act of returning from Los Angeles to San Francisco, by the usual mode of travel between the two places, where his court was still in session, and where he was required to be, that he was assaulted by Terry in the manner which we have already described.
The occurrence which we are called uponjo consider was of so extraordinary a character that it is not to be expected that many cases can be found to cite as authority upon the subject.
In the case of United States v. The Schooner Little Charles, 1 Brock. 380, 382, a question arose before Chief Justice Marshall, holding the Circuit Court of the United States for Virginia, as to the validity of an order made by the District Judge at his chambers, and not in court. The act of, Congress authorized stated terms of the District Court, and gave the judge power to hold special courts at his discretion, either at the. place appointed by the law or sueh other place in the district as the nature of the business and his discretion should direct. He says: "It does not seem to be a violent construction of such an act to consider the judge as constituting a court .whenever he proceeds on judicial business; " and cites the practice of the courts in support of that view of the subject.
In the case of United States v. Gleason, 1 Wool. C. C. 128, 132, the prisoner was indicted for the murder of two enrolling officers who were charged with the duty of arresting deserters, or those who had been" drafted into the service and had failed to attend. These, men, it was said, had visited the-region of country where they were murdered, ánd,' having failed of accomplishing their purpose of arresting the deserters,- were on their return to their home when they were killed,' and the court was asked to instruct the jury- that under these circumstances they were not engaged in the duty of arresting the deserters .named. " It is claimed by the couhoel for the defendant," says the report, "that if the parties killed had been so engaged, and had come to that neighborhood with the purpose of arresting the supposed deserters, but at the moment .of the assault had abandoned the purpose. of making the arrests at that time, and were returning to headquarters at Gfrinnell, with a view to making other arrangements for arrest at another time, they were not so engaged as to bring the case within the law." But the court held that this was not a sound construction of the statute, and " that if the parties killed had come into that neighborhood with intent to arrest the deserters named, and had been employed by the proper officer for that service, and were, in the proper prosecution of that purpose, returning to Grinnell with a view to making other arrangements to discharge. this duty, they were still engaged in arresting the deserters, within the meaning of the statute. It is not necessary," said the court, " that the party killed should be engaged in the immediate act of arrest, but it is sufficient if he be employed in and about that business when assaulted. The purpose of the law is to protect the-life of the person so employed,, and this protection continues so long as he is engaged in a service necessary and proper' to that employment."
We have no doubt that Mr. Justice Field when attacked by Terry was engaged in the discharge of his duties as Circuit Justice of the Ninth Circuit, and was entitled to all the protection under those circumstances which the law could give him.
It is urged, however, that there exists no statute authorizing any such protection as that which Neagle was instructed to give Judge Field in the present case, and indeed no protection whatever against a vindictive or malicious assault growing out of the. faithful discharge of his official duties; and that the language of section 153 of the Revised Statutes, that the party seeking the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus must in this connection show that he is "in custody for an act done'or omitted in pursuance of a law of the United States," makes it necessary that upon this occasion it should be shown that the act for which Neagle is imprisoned was done by virtue of an act of Congress. It is not supposed that any special act of Congress exists which authorizes the marshals or deputy marshals of the United States in express terms to accompany the judges of the Supreme Court through their circuits, and act as a body-guard to them, to defend them against malicious assaults against their persons. But we are of opinion that this view of' the statute is an unwarranted restriction of the meaning of a law designed to extend in a liberal manner the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus to persons imprisoned for the performance of their duty. And we are satisfied that if it was the duty of Neagle, under the circumstances, a duty which could only arise under the laws of the United States, to defend Mr. Justice Field from a murderous attack upon him, he brings himself within the meaning of the section we have recited. This view of the subject is confirmed by the alternative provision, that he must be .in custody "for an act done or omitted in pursuance of a law of the United States or of an order, process, or decree of a court or judge thereof, or is in custody, in violation of the Constitution or of a law or treaty of the United States."
In the view we take of the Constitution of the United States, any obligation fairly and properly inferrible from that instrument, or any duty of the marshal to be derived from the general scope of his duties under the laws of the United States, is "a law" within the meaning of this phrase. It would be a great reproach to the system of government of the United States, declared to be within its sphere sovereign and' supreme, if there is tp be found within the domain of its powers no means of protecting the.judges, in the conscientious. and faithful discharge- of their duties, from the malice and hatred of those upon whom their judgments may operate unfavorably.
It has in modern times become apparent that the physical-health of . the' community is more efficiently promoted' by hygienic and preventive- means, than by the skill which is applied to the -cure of disease after it has become fully developed. So also the law, which is intended to prevent crime, in its general spread among the community, by regulations, police organization, and otherwise, which are adapted for the' protection of the lives and property of citizens, for the dispersion' of- mobs, for the arrest of thieves and assassins, for the watch which is kept over the community, as well as over this class of people, is more efficient than punishment of crimes after they have been committed. . .
If a person in the situation of Judge Field could have no other guarantee of his personal safety, while engaged in the conscientious discharge of a disagreeable duty, than the fact that if he was murdered his murderer would be subject to the laws of a State and by those laws could be punished, the security would be very insufficient. The plan wffich Terry and wife had in mind of insulting him and assaulting huh-and drawing him into a defensive physical contest, in the course of which they would slay him, shows the little value of such remedies. Ve do not believe that the government of the-United States is thus inefficient, o • that its Constitution and laws have left the high officers of the government so defence^ less and unprotected.
The views expressed by this court through Mr. Justice Bradley, in Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 394, are very -per tinent to this suhject, and express our views with great force. That was a case of a writ of habeas corpus, where Siebold had been indicted' in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, for an offence committed against .the election laws, during an election at which members of Congress and officers of the State of Maryland wrere elected. He was convicted, and sentenced to fine and imprisonment, and filed his petition in this court for a writ of habeas corpus, to be relieved on the ground that the court which had convicted him was without jurisdiction. The foundation of this allegation was that the Congress of the United States had no right to prescribe laws for the conduct of the election in question, or for enforcing the laws of the State of Maryland by the courts of the United States. In the course of the discussion of the relative powers of the. federal and state courts on this subject, it is said :
"Somewhat akin to the argument which has been considered is the objection that the deputy marshals authorized ' by the act of Congress to be,created and to attend the elections are authorized to keep the peace; and that this is a duty which belongs to the state authorities alone. It is argued that the preservation of peace and good order in society is not'within the powers confided to the government of the United States, but belongs exclusively to the States. Here again we are met-with the theory that the government of the United States does not reskupon the-soil and territory of the country. We think that this theory is founded on an entire misconception of the nature and powers of that government. We hold it to be an incontrovertible principle, that the government of the United States may, by means of physi-' cal force, exercised through its official agents, execute on every foot of American soil the powers and functions that belong to it. This .necessarily involves the' power to command obedience to its laws, and hence the pbwer to keep the peace to that extent. . This power to enforce .its laws and to execute its functions in all places does not derogate from the power of the State ,to execute its laws at the same time and in the same places. The one does not exclude the other, except where both cannot be executed at the same time. In that case' the words of the Constitution itself show which is to yield., ' This Constitution, and all' laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof, . . . shall be the supreme law of the land.' . . . • Without the concurrent sovereignty referred to, the national government would be nothing but an advisory government. Its executive power would be absolutely nullified. Why do we have marshals at all, if they cannot physically lay their hands on persons and things in the performance of their proper duties? What functions-can they perform, if they cannot use force ? In executing the processes of, the courts, must they call on the nearest constable for protection ? must they rely on him to use the requisite compulsion, and to keep the-peace,-whilst, they are soliciting and entreating the parties and bystanders to allow the law to take its course ? This is the necessary. consequence of the positions that are assumed. If we indulge in such impracticable views as these, and keep on refining and rerefining, we shall drive the national government out of the United States, and relegate it to the District of Columbia, or perhaps to some foreign soil. We shall bring it back to a condition of greater helplessness than that of the old confederation. . It must execute its powers, or it is no government! ,It must execute them on the land as well as On the sea, on things as well as on persons: And, to do this, it must necessarily have power to command obedience, preserve order, and keep the peace; and no person or power in this land has the right to resist or question its authority, so long as it keeps within the bounds of its jurisdiction."
At the same term of the court, in the case of Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257, 262, where the same questions in regard, to the relative powers of the federal and state courts were concerned, in regard to criminal offences, the court expressed its views through Mr. Justice Strong, quoting from .the case of Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 363, the following language: "The general government must céase to exist whenever .it loses the power of protecting itself in the exercise of its con stitutional powers; " and then proceeding: " It can act only through its officers and agents, and they must act within the States. If, when thus acting, and within the scope of their authority, those officers can be arrested and brought to trial in a state court, .for an alleged offence against the law of the State, yet warranted by the federal authority they possess, and if the general government is powerless to interfere at once for their protection — if their protection must be left to the action of the state court — the operations of the general government may at any time be arrested at the will of one of its members. The legislation of a State may be únfriendly. It may'affix penalties to acts done under the immediate direction of the national government, and in obedience to its laws. It may deny the authority conferred bjr those laws. The state court may administer not only the laws of the State, but equally federal law, in such a manner as to paralyze the operations of the government. And even if,' after trial and final judgment in the state court, the case can be brought into the United States court for review, the officer is withdrawn from the discharge of his duty during the pendency of the prosecution, and the exercise of acknowledged federal power arrested. We do not think such an element of weakness is to be found in the Constitution. The United States is a government with authority extending over the whole territory of the Union, acting upon the States and the people of the States. While it is limited in the number of its powers, so far as its sovereignty extends it is supremo. No state government can éxclude it from the exercise of any authority conferred upon it by the Constitution; obstruct its authorized officers against its will; or withhold from it, for a moment, the cognizance of .any subject which that instrument has committed to it."
To cite all the cases in which this principle of the supremacy of the government of the United States, in the exercise of all the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution, is maintained, would be an endless task. We have selected these as being the most forcible expressions of the views of the court, having a direct reference to the nature of the case before us.
Where, then, are we to look for the protectiofi which we have shown Judge Field was entitled to when engaged in the discharge of his official duties? Not to the courts of the United States; because, as has been more than once said in this court, in the division of the powers of government between the three great departments, executive, legislative and judicial, the judicial is the weakest for the purposes of self-protection and for the enforcement of the powers which it exercises. The ministerial officers through whom its commands must be executed are marshals of the United States, and belong emphatically to the executive department of the government. They are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. They are removable from office at his pleasure. They are subjected by act of Congress to the supervision and control of the Department of Justice, 'in the hands of one of the cabinet officers of the President, and their compensation is provided by acts of Congress. The same may be said of the district attorneys of the United States, who prosecute and defend the claims of the government in the courts.
The legislative branch of the government can only protect the judicial officers by the enactment of laws for that purpose, and the argument we are now combating assumes' that 'no such law has been passed by Congress.
If we turn to the executive department of the government, we find a very different condition of affairs. The Constitution, section 3, Article 2, declares that the 'President " shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed," and' he is provided with the means of fulfilling this obligation by his authority to commission all the officers of the United States, and, by ancj with the advice and consent of the' Senate, to appoint the most important of them and to fill vacancies. His is declared to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. The duties which are thus imposed upon •him he is further enabled to perform by the recognition in the Constitution, and the creation by acts of Congress, of executive departments, which have varied in number from four or' five to seven or eight, the heads of which are familiarly called, cabinet ministers. These aid him in the performance of the great duties of his office, and represent him-in a thousand acts to which it can hardly be supposed' his personal attention, is called, and thus he is enabled to fulfil the duty of. his great department, expressed in the phrase that " he shall -take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
Is this duty limited to the enforcement of acts of Congress or of treaties of the Cnited States according to their empress terms, or does it include the rights, duties and obligations growing out of the Constitution itself, our international relations, and all the protection implied by the nature of the government under the Constitution ?
One of the most remarkable episodes in the history of óur .foreign relations, and which has become an attractive historical incident, is the case of Martin Koszta, a native of Hungary, who, though not fully a naturalized citizen of the United States, had in due form of law made his declaration of • intention to become a citizen. While in Smyrna he was seized by command of the Austrian consul general at that place, and carried on board the Hussar, an Austrian vessel' where he was held-in close confinement. Captain Ingraham, .in command of the American sloop of war St. Louis, arriving in port at that critical period, and ascertaining that Koszta had with him his naturalization papers, demanded his surrender to him, and was compelled to train his guns upon the Austrian vessel before his demands were complied with. It was, however, tt> prevent bloodshed, agreed that Koszta should be placed in the hands of the French consul subject to the result of diplomatic negotiations between Austria and the United States. The celebrated correspondence between Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, and Chevalier Hülsemann, the Austrian minister at Washington, which arose out of this affair and resulted in the release and restoration to liberty of Koszta, attracted a great deal of public attention, and the position assumed by Mr. Marcy met the approval of the country and of Congress, who votéd a gold medal to Captain Ingraham for his conduct in the. affair. Upon what act of Congress then existing can any one lay his finger in support of the action of our government in this matter ?
So, if the President or the Postmaster General is advised that the mails of the United States, possibly carrying treasure, are liable to be robbed and the mail carriers assaulted and murdered in any particular region of country, who can doubt the authority of the President or of one of the executive departments under-him to make an order for the protection of the mail and of the persons and lives of its carriers, by doing exactly what was done in the case of Mr. Justice Field, namely, providing a sufficient guard, whether it be by soldiers of the army or by marshals of the United States, with a fto'sse oomitatus properly armed and equipped, to secure the safe performance of the duty of carrying the mail wherever it may be intended to go ?
The United States is the owner of millions of acres of valuable public land, and has been the owner of much more which it has sold. Some of these lands owe a large part of their value to the forests which grow upon them. These forests are liable to depredations by people living in the neighborhood, known as timber thieves, who make a living by cutting and selling such timber, and who are trespassers. But until quite recently, even if there be one now, there was no statute authorizing any preventive measures for the protection of this valuable public property. Has the President no authority to place guards upon the public territory to protect its timber ? No authority to seize the timber when cut and found upon the 'ground? Has he ho power to take any measures to protect this vast domain? Fortunately we find this question answered by this court in the case of Wells v. Nickles, 104 U. S. 444. That was a case in which a class of men appointed by local land officers,, under instructions from the Secretary of the Interior, having found a large quantity of- this timber cut down from the forests of the United States and lying where it was cut, seized it. The question of the title to this property coming in controversy between Wells and Nickles, it became essential to inquire into the authority of these timber agents of the government thus to seize • the timber cut by trespassers on its lands. The court said : " The effort we have made to ascertain and fix-the authority of these timber agents by any positive provision of law has been unsuccessful.". But the court, notwithstanding there was no special statute for' it, held that the Department of the Interior, acting under the idea of protecting from depredation timber on the lands of the government, had gradually come to assert the right to seize what is cut and taken away from them wherever it can be traced, and in aid of this the registers and receivers of .the Land Office had, by instructions from the Secretary of the Interior, been constituted agents of the United States for these purposes, with power to appoint special agents under themselves. And the court upheld the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to make these rules and regulations for the protection of. the public lands.
One of the cases in this court in which this question was presented in the most imposing form is that of United States v. San Jacinto Tin Company, 125 U. S. 273, 279, 280. In that case, a suit was brought in the name of the United States, by order of the Attorney General, to set aside a patent which had been issued for a large body of valuable land, on the ground that it was obtained from the government by fraud and deceit practised upon its officers. A preliminary question was raised by counsel for defendant, which, was earnestly insisted upon, as to the right of the Attorney General or any other officer of the government to institute such a suit in the absence of any act of Congress authorizing it. It was conceded that there was no express authority given to the Attorney General to institute that particular, suit or any suit of that class. The question was one of very great interest, and was very ably argued both in the court below and in this court. The response of this court to that suggestion conceded that in the acts-of Congress establishing the Department of Justice and defining the duties of the Attorney General there was no such express authority, and it was said that there was also no express authority to him to bring suits against debtors of the government upon bonds, or to begin criminal prosecutions, or to institute criminal proceedings in any of the cases in which the United States was plaintiff, yet he was invested with the general superintendence of all such, suits. It was further said: "If the United States, in any particular case, has a just cause, for calling upon the judiciary of the country, in any of its courts, for relief by setting aside or annulling any of its contracts, its obligations, or its most solemn instruments, the question of the appeal to the judicial tribunals of the country must primarily be decided by the Attorney General of the United States. That such a power should exist someAvhere, and that the United States should not be more helpless in relieving itself of frauds, impostures, and deceptions, than the private individual, is hardly open to argument. . . . There must, then, be an officer or officers of the government to determine Avhen the United States shall sue, to decide for Avhat it shall sue, and to be responsible that such suits shall be brought in appropriate cases. The attorneys of the United States in every judicial district are officers of this character, and they are by statute under the immediate supervision and control of the Attorney General. How, then, can it be argued that if the United States has been deceived, entrapped, or defrauded, into the making, under the forms of law, of an instrument which injuriously affects its rights of property, or other rights, it cannot bring a suit to avoid the effect of such instrument, thus fraudulently obtained, Avithoút a. special act of Congress in each case, or Avithout some special authority applicable to this class of cases?" The same question was raised in the earlier case of United States v. Hughes, 11 How. 552, and decided the same Avay.
We cannot doubt the power of the President to take measures for the protection of a judge of one of the courts of the United States, who, Avhile in the discharge of the duties of his office, is threatened Avith a personal attack Avhich may probably result in his death, and Ave think it clear that where this protection is to be afforded through the civil power, the Department of Justice is the proper one to set in motion the necessary means of protection. The correspondence already recited in this opinion betAveen the marshal of the Northern District of California, and the Attorney General, and the district attorney of the United States for that district, although prescribing no Arery specific mode of affording this protection by tbe Attorney General, is sufficient, we think, to warrant the marshal in taking the steps which he did take, in making the provisions which he did make, for the. protection and defence of Mr. Justice Field.
But there is positive law investing the marshals and their deputies with powers which not only justify what Marshal Neagle did in this matter, but which imposed it upon him as a duty. In chapter fourteen of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which is devoted to the appointment and duties of the district attorneys, marshals, and clerks of the courts of the United States, section 788 declares:
"The marshals and their deputies shall have, in each State, the same powers, in executing the laws of the United States, as the sheriffs and their deputies in such State may have, by law, in executing the laws thereof."
If, therefore, a sheriff of the State of California was authorized to do in regard to the laws of California what Neagle did, that is, if he was authorized to keep the peace, to protect a judge from assault and murder, then Neagle was authorized .to do the same thing in reference to the laws of the United States.
Section 4176 of the Political Code of California reads as follows:
" The sheriff must:
"First. Preserve the peace.
" Second. Arrest and. take before the nearest magistrate for examination all persons who attempt to commit or have committed a public offence.
" Third. Prevent and suppress all affrays, breaches of the peace, riots and insurrections, which may come to his knowledge....."
And the Penal Code of California declares (section 197) that homicide is justifiable w'hen committed by any person " when resisting any attempt to murder any person or to commit a felony or -to do some great' bodily injury upon any person; " or " when committed in defence of habitation, property or person .gainst one who manifestly intends or endeavors by violence or surprise to commit a felony."
That there is a peace of the United Statesthat a man assaulting a judge of the United States while' in the discharge of his duties violates that peace; that in such case the marshal of the United States stands in.the same relation, to the peace of the. United States which the sheriff tíf the county-does to the peace of the State of California; aré questions too clear to need argument'to prove them. That it would be the duty of a sheriff, if one had been present at this' assault by Terry upon Judge Field, to prevent this breach of the peace,, to prevent this assault, to prevent the murder which was contemplated by it, cannot be doubted. And if, in performing this duty, it became necessary for the protection of Judge Fiéld, or of himself, to kill Terry, in a case where, like this, it was evidently a question of the choice of who should be killed, the assailant and violator of the law and disturber of. the peace, or the .unoffending man who was in his power, there can be no question of the authority of the sheriff to have killed Terry. So the marshal of the United States, charged with the duty of protecting and guarding-the judge of the United States eourt against this special assault upon his person and his life, being present at the critical moment-, when prompt action was necessary, found it to be his duty, a duty which he' had no liberty to refuse to' perform, to take the steps which resulted in Terry's death. This duty was imposed on him by the section of the Revised Statutes which we have recited, in. connection with the powers conferred by the State of California upon its peace- officers, which become,-by this statute, in proper' cases, transferred as duties to the marshals of the. United States.
But all these questions being conceded, it is urged against the. relief sought by this writ of habeas corpus, that the question of the guilt of the prisoner of the crime of murder is a question to be determined by the laws of California, and to be decided by its- courts, and that there exists no power in the government of the United States' to take away the prisoner from the custody of the proper authorities of the State of California and carry him before a judge of the court of the' United States, and release him without á trial by jury accord ing to the laws of the State of California. That the statute of the United States authorizes and directs such a proceeding and such a judgment in a case where the offence charged against the prisoner consists in an act done in pursuance of a law of the United States and by virtue of its authority, and where the imprisonment of the party is in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, is clear by its •express language.
The enactments now found in the Revised Statutes of the United States on the subject of the writ of habeas corpus are the result of a long course of legislation forced upon Congress by the attempt of the States of the Union to exercise the power of imprisonment over officers and other persons asserting rights under the federal government or foreign govern.ments, which the States' denied. The original act of Congress on the subject of the writ of habeas corpus, by its 14th section, authorized the judges and the courts of the United States, in the case of prisoners in jstil or in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States, or committed for trial before some court of the same, or when necessary to be brought into court to testify, to issue the writ, and the judge or court before whom they were brought was directed to make inquiry into the cause of commitment. 1 Stat. 81, c. 20, § 14. This did not present the question, or, at least, it gave rise to no question whibh came before the courts, as- to releasing by this writ parties held in custody under the laws of the States. But when, during the controversy growing out of the nullifi- . cation laws of South Carolina, officers of the United States were arrested and imprisoned for the performance of their duties in collecting the revenue of the United States in that State, and held by the state authorities, it became necessary for the Congress of the United States to take some action for their relief. Accordingly the act of Congress of March 2, 1833, 4 Stat. 634, c. 57, § 7, among other remedies for such condition.of affairs, provided, by its 7th section, that the federal judges should'grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases of a prisoner in jail or confinement, where he should be committed or confined on or by any authority or law, for any act done, or omitted to be done, in pursuance of a law of the, United States, or any order, process or decree of any judge o'r< court thereof.
The next extension of the circumstances on which a writ of habeas corpus might issue by the federal judges arose out'of the celebrated McLeod Case, in which McLeod, charged with murder, in a state court of New York, had pleaded that he was a British subject, and that what he had done was under and by the authority of his government, and should be a matter of international adjustment, and that he was not subject to be tried by a court of New York under the laws of that State. The federal government acknowledged .the force of this reasoning, and undertook to obtain from the government of the State of New York the release of the prisoner, but failed. lie was, however, tried and acquitted, and afterwards released by the State of New York. This led to an extension of the powers of the federal judges under the writ of habeas corpus, by the act of August 29, 1842, 5 Stat. 539, c. 257, entitled " An act to provide further remedial justice in the courts of the United States." It conferred upon them the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus in all cases where the prisoner claimed that the act for which he was held in custody was done under the sanction of any foreign power, and where the validity and effect of this plea depended upon the law of nations. In advocating the bill, which afterwards became- a law, on this subject, Senator Berrien, who introduced it into the Senate, observed: " The object was to allow, a foreigner, prosecuted in one of the States of the Union for an offence committed in that State, but which he pleads has been committed under authority of his own sovereign or the authority . of the law of nations, to be brought up on that issue before the only competent judicial power to decide upon matters involved in foreign relations or the law of nations. The plea must show that it has reference to the laws or treaties of the United States or' the law of nations, and showing this, the writ of habeas corpus is awarded to try that issue. If it shall appear that the accused has a bar on the plea alleged, it is right and proper that he should not be delayed in prison -awaiting the proceedings of the state jurisdiction on the preliminary issue of his plea at bar. If satisfied of the existence in fact and •validity in law of the bar, the federal jurisdiction will have the power of administering prompt relief." No more forcible statement of the principle on which the law of the case now before us stands can be made.
The next extension of the powers of the court under the writ of habeas corpus was the act of February 5, 1867, .14 Stat. 385, c. 28, and this contains the broad ground of the présent Revised Statutes, under which the relief is sought in the case before us, and includes all cases of restraint of liberty in violation of the Constitution or a law or treaty of the United States, and declares that "the said court or judge shall proceed in a summary way to determine the facts of the case-, by hearing testimony and the arguments of the parties interested, and if it shall appear that the petitioner is deprived of his or her liberty in contravention of the Constitution or laws of the United States, he or she shall forthwith be discharged and set at liberty."
It would seem as if the argument might close here. If the duty of the United States to protect its officers from violence, even to death, in discharge of the duties, which its laws impose upon them, be established, and Congress has made tbé writ of habeas corpus one of the means by which this protection is made. efficient, and if the facts of this case show that the prisoner was acting both under the authority of law, and the directions of his superior officers of the Department of Justice, we can see no reason why this writ should not be made to serve its purpose in the present case.
We have already cited such decisions of this court as are most important and directly in point, and there is a series of cases decided by the Circuit .and District Courts to the same purport. Several of these arose out of proceedings under the fugitive slave law, in which the marshal of the United States, while engaged in apprehending the fugitive slave with a view to returning him to his master in another State, was arrested by the.authorities of the State. In many of these cases they made application to the judges of the United States for relief by the writ of habeas corpus, which give rise to several-very interesting decisions on this subject.
In Ex parte Jenkins, 2 Wall. Jr. 521, 529, the marshal, who had been engaged, while executing a warrant, in arresting a fugitive, in a bloody encounter, was himself arrested under a warrant of a justice of the-peace for assault with intent to kill, which makes the case very analogous to the one now .under consideration. He presented to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern -District of Pennsylvania a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was heard before Mr. Justice Grier, who held that under the act of 1833, already referred to, the marshal was entitled to his discharge, because what he had done was in pursuance of and by the au-' thority conferred upon him by the act of Congress concerning the rendition of fugitive slaves. He said: "The authority conferred on the judges of the United States by this act of. Congress gives them all the power that any other court could exercise under the writ of habeas corpus, or gives them none at all. If under such a writ they may not discharge their officer when imprisoned £ by any authority ' for an act done in pursuance of a law of the United States, it would be impossible to discover for what useful purpose the act was passed." ' It. " was passed when a certain State of this Union had.threat: ened to nullify acts of Congress, and to treat those as criminals who should attempt to execute them; and it was intended, as a remedy against such state legislation."
This same matter was up again when the fugitive slave,' Thomas, had the marshal arrested in a civil suit for an alleged assault and battery. He was carried before Judge Kane' on another writ of habeas corpus and again released. 2 Wall. Jr. 531. A third time the marshal, being indicted, was arrested on a bench warrant issued by the state court, and again brought before the Circuit Court of the United States by a writ of habeas corpus and discharged. Some remarks of Judge Kane on this occasion are very pertinent to the objection's raised in'the present case. He said, 2 Wall. Jr. 543: "It has been urged that my order, if it shall withdraw the relators from the prosecution pending against them [in .the state court], will in effect prevent their trial by jury at all, since there is no act of Congress under which.they can be indicted for an abuse of process. It will not be an anomaly, however, if the action of this court shall interfere with the trial of these prisoners by a jury. Our constitutions' secure that mode of trial as a right to the accused; but they nowhere recognize it as a right of the government, either state or federal, still less of an individual prosecutor. The. action of a jury is overruled constantly by the granting of new trials after Conviction. It is arrested by the entering of nolle proseguís, while the case is at bar. It is made ineffectual at any time by the discharge on habeas corpus. . . . And there is no harm in this. No one imagines that because a man is accused he must therefore, of course, be tried. Public prosecutions are not devised for the purpose of indemnifying the wrongs of individuals, still less of retaliating upon them."
Many other decisions by the Circuit and. District Courts, to the same purport, are to be found, among them the following: Ex parte Robinson, 6 McLean, 355; 4 Amer. Law Register, 617; Roberts v. Jailor of. Fayette Co., 2 Abbott (U. S.) 265; In re Ramsey, 2 Flippin, 451; In re Neill, 8 Blatchford, 156; Ex parte Bridges, 2 Woods, 428; Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241.
Similar language was used by Mr. Choate in the Senate of. the United States upon the passage of the act of 1842. He said: " If you have the power- to interpose after judgment, you have the power to do so before. If you can reverse a judgment, you can anticipate its rendition. If, within the Constitution, your judicial power extends to.these cases or these controversies, whether you take hold of the case or controversy at one stage or another, is totally immaterial. The single question submitted to the national tribunal, the question whether, under the statute adopting the law of nations, the prisoner is entitled to the exemption or immunity he claims, may as well be extracted from the entire case, and presented and decided in those tribunals before any judgment in the state court, as for it to be revised afterwards on a writ of error. Either way, they pass on no other question. Either way, they do not adffv lister the criminal law of a State. In the one case as much as in the other, and no more, do they interfere with state judicial power."
The same answer is given, in the present case. To the object tion made in argument, that the prisoner is discharged by this writ from the power of the state court to try him for the whole offence, the reply is, that if the prisoner is held in the. state court to answer for an act which he was authorized' to do by the law of the United States, which it was his duty to do as marshal of the United States, and if in .doing that act he did no more than, what was necessary and proper for him to do, he cannot be guilty of a crime under the law of the State of California. When these things are shown, it is established that he is innocent of any crime against the laws of the State, or of any other authority whatever. There is no occasion for any further trial in the state court, or in any court. The Circuit Court of the United States was as competent to ascertain these facts as any other tribunal, and it was not at all necessary that a jury should be impanelled to render a verdict on them. It is the exercise of a power common under all. systems of criminal jurisprudence. There must always be a preliminary examination by a committing magistrate, or some similar authority, as to whether there is an offence to be submitted to a jury, and if this is submitted in the first instance to a grand jury, that is still not the right of trial by jury which is insisted on in the present argument.
We have thus given, in this case, a most attentive consideration to all tne questions of law and fact which we have thought to be properly involved in it. We have felt it to be our duty to examine into the facts with a completeness justified by the importance of the case, as well as from the duty imposed upon us by the statute, which we think requires of us to place ourselves, as far as possible, in the place of the Circuit Court and to examine the testimony and the arguments in it, arid to' dispose of the party as law and justice require.
The result at which we have arrived upon this examination is, that in the protection of the person and the life of Mr. Justice Field while in the discharge of his official duties, Neagle was authorized to resist the attack of Terry upon him; that Neagle was correct in the belief that without prompt action on his part the assault of Terry upon the judge would have ended in the'death of the latter; that such being his.well-founded belief, he was justified in taking the life of Terry, as the only means of preventing the death of the man who was intended to be his victim; that, in taking the life of Terry, under the circumstances, he was acting under the authority of the law of the United States, and was justified In so doing; and that he is not liable to answer in the courts of California on account of his part in that transaction.
We therefore affirm the judgment of the Circuit Cou/rt authorizing his discharge from the custody of the sheriff ' of 8cm Joaquin Country.