Show HE GAINS THE DAY The U S Supreme Court Exonr ate Marshal > iagle for Shoot Jur Jnd e Terry FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGES DECISION DE-CISION The Jlinhal Stood in Piece of a Sheriff In This Instance HIS DUTY WAS tOIGUARD THE JUDGE And If Xccessarj to Tale the Step WhIch Itenttrd In Ttrrji Death By telegraph to the 1i ew11 THE XAOLE CAKE Delalon or the Supreme Corl Tee terdayi hce Ttndlr lfd VASHINOTOX April 14 The celebrated Nagle hoboes corpus case i from California wag decided by the United States Supreme Court today Soutllie1L IJ Judgment of the circuit court being afilrmul Tbla Dually dIe potts of all proceedings aRaIn t2 a gle for shooting Judge Terry In the railway elation at LathroP Callfo sila on the 14th of last August to prevent him taking the life of Ju lice Field The opinion was cleliv erie by Justice Miller After the sliootlug > > nzle wan tUS bf Z arrested at Stockton bv the KLil officer but was releacu on a rit of bobcat corput boMJ oo the tround tbat 1gle Who was actln ulider instructions rnercly performed per-formed his duty as an officer of the United States It was on appeal from this order that the case was brought before the United States Supreme Court After a review of tho facto lend log up to the assault including tho Imprisonment of Terry for contemn In knocking the marshal down mf open court and then pursuing him J g ot with a > drawn bowle knife and after reciting al o the numerous Hires made by Terry against Justice Field Justice Miller says It Is ucelesa to go over the test mony on this subject more partlcu tony than this It is sufficient to Bay that the evidence abundant that both Terry and his wife con temnlatcd tomo attack upon Judge yield during bis visit to California In the summer of 1SS9 which they Intended should result in his death Many of there matters were published pub-lished in the newspapers and the press of California was filled wIth conjectures of the probable attack by Terry on Justice Field aa too n u it became known that he was goIng go-Ing to attend the circuit court of that year THE OPINION TKEX RECITES the correspondence between the AUorneyQcueral and the United states marshal in California directIng direct-Ing the latter to exercise ununia cauUon for the protection of Justice FIeld against the violence of th Terry This correspondence rt Zt J 1e fur suited in Sagles appointment ns a deputy marshal with special instructions heJl structions to attend Justice Field r both > In court and while traveling Between court and to protect bin from violence After reviewing all the facts bear Jog upon the homicide thu opinion sayec They produce upon the court be conviction of a settled purpose on the part of Terry and his wife amounting to a conspiracy to mur der Field and we are quIte sure bat if Nagle had been merely a brother or a friend of Judge Field raveling with him and aware of all be previous relations of Terry to he Judge as he was of his bitter animosity his declared purpose to lave revenge even to the point of of killing him he would have been tistlfied In what he did In dcfen of Fields life and pottlbly of lU own Such justification would be a iropersubject for consideration ana an-a trial of the case for murder in the courts of the State of California and there ejtU U no authority in the courts of the United States to dig barge a prUoner while held in custodj by State authorities for this offense unless there be found In aId of the defense of the prisoner some element of power and authority asserted under the government ot the United States JUSTICE JiilXKn then takes up the proposition advanced ad-vanced by Eagles counsel that Jus ice Field when attacked was in bo immediate discharge of his duty as Judge and that Xagle was charged with the duty under the law of the United States to protect Field from violence The law requiring re-quiring Jus ticca to go on circuits is quoted Justice Field when attacked had actually entered upon the duties of his circuit and was in the necessary neces-sary act of returning from Los Angel An-gel < to San Francisco where he was required by law to be when he rasafeaulted We have no doubl that Justice Fieldwhen attacked by Terry was engaged la the discharge ot his duties as a Circuit Justice and was entitled to all tho protection protec-tion under those circumstances which the law could give him The Court does not know of any special act of Congress which In express terms authorizes marshals deputy nu1 haJs to act aa a bodyguard tot to-t while on their circuits but In Its view of the Constitution any duly fairly and properly inferable fran that instrument or any duty of the marshal to be denved from the general scope of his duties cumes within the provision of the habtai corpus act directing the release of persons who are in custody for an act done in pursuance of the laws of the United States alt would says s the opinion boA bo-A GREAT KCTBOACH to the Government of the United Etates declared to be within the sphere sovereign and supreme If there is to be found within the domain do-main of its powers no means of pro ecting judges In the discharge of theIr dutlts from the malice and hatred of those upon whom judg meot may operate unfavorably If a person In the situation of Justice Field could have no root guardian ro-ot his personal safety while engaged In the conscientious discharge of a isagrceable that the fact that he If murdered this murderer would bo subject In the laws of the Slate and by those laws could be punished his securl ty would be very nsuffldent The plan which Terry and his wife had in mind oflni ult log him and assaulting him and rawing him on to an offensive = bysical contest in the course of which they would slay him shows the little value of such remedies We dona believe the govern reotd lJs m cnt of the United Elates la thus efflclentand that the Constitution aDd laws have left the high officers of the government defenseless and nproteclcd It is in the Executive Apartment that the Court Soda the power of protection to exist and In the language of the Constitution reeling that the President shall luecan that the laws shall be faith fully executed and providing him with means to fulfil this obllgatlo by his authority to commlfon ail the principal ofllcers of the United States Is this duty asks tho Court limited to the enforcement of the ACTS OFCONCnzSS and treaties or does it include the rights duties and obligations growIng grow-Ing out of the Constitution and In lernatlnnal relations The Court answers the question by calling at tentlon to the fact that there Is no law of the United Statesaulborlzln thu government to Interfere for the protection of a naturalized cltizc of the Untied States who on visIt Ing his native place 1 arrested and made to do military service and then cites the C or MarIn Icactzta an Austrian where the e government govern-ment without Any specific authorIty from Congrvss demanded and obtained ob-tained his rclrae an The regulations of the land office appointing limber dgenta And providing viding for their payment which kft have teen held Jfmbtth Supreme Su-preme ec though there is I no positIve provision of law for their payment and the power or the Attorney At-torney General sustained by the Supreme Court to institute suite to let aside patents obtained by frau though there is no statute on the sulject are recited in support of this doctrine Continuing the Court siys It cannot doubt the rower of the President to take measures for the protection of a United States Judge who while In the dIscharge rd U of his duties Is I ehi violence and that the Department Dprent Justice f Ihe proper one to set 10 I motion the necessary means of protection tection and that Xaglc had proper authority for the steps ho took f the Field protection and defense of Justice FieldThere There IC nays the opinion a tt DI8 peace officer the United I States and the United States marshal in e case stands in the same rtla maintaining tlon which the county theriffdocs In 1 rCACi IX A COUJTV I cannot L doubt that I I would have been tho duty of a sher 1T bad one been present to prevent the assault on Justice Field and to prevent the murder contemplated lIt > l-It and if It I became necessary to kill Terry In a case where rln this it was evidently a nutation of choice who 6h idn be killed tho assailant as-sailant and violator of the law or the unoffending nun who was in his tower there can be no question or the authority of the sheriff to have killed Terry The marshal stand In the place of n tbcrifJ and itbelag hIs duty to guard the judge and being present at a critical moment when prompt action was ncton wa necessary It was his duty a duty which be had no liberty to refuse to perform to take the steps which resulted InTers in-Ters death The court next takes up tho con tentlon that the guilt of tbeprlsone of the crime of murder f a question to b determined by tho cur of California and the United States court had no power t take the Irls oner nnd release him without trial by a jury according to the laws of California The courts response to this contention Li that the express terms of the haJjtai crpu act direct di-rect ouch a coureo where an act Is done In pursuance of the laws of the United btatca and ouch had been shown too tho cons here THE ACT or THt rBIsoiER haling len committed in purse nucoofalawof the United State ho cannot be guilty of a crime under the laws of the State of Call furnla aud when it Is shown that he in proved innocent any crime against the laws of lhejjtatetbereia occasion then fur any further trial in the State courts and the I United States circuit court war as competent a any other tribunal to ascertain whether the act was performed per-formed in pursuance ofa law of the United States and under a propel authority and 1 was not at all necessary to cmpaucl Jury for the nirpoic rue judgment of Iho circuit court isatllrmed authorizing Xagles llschargefrom Ihu custody of the thcriir Justice Lamar in behalf of him sclfand the Chief Justice delivered elaborate ahd lgorou3dtssebt The ground ou which they dissent S that in considering the habeai conldeJDj aa corpus act a wholly inadmissible construction is placed on the word law as used In l that statute and a wholly inadmissible application I made of the clause iu custody in violation of the Constitution of the United States It is indbpenilble to observe carefully the distinction between ladhldual meu ant tho frame persons per-sons in tbelrofflciol capacities We agree in assuming these facts in the case to be as shown by the record hat tho personal protecliou or Judge Field I as a private citizen I Jt the death of Terry was iiol nly right but was also THE DUTY OK NAOLF and of any other bystander And we maintain that for the exercise of hat right or duty he i answerable to the courts of California and to them alone But we deny thai Xagla had Yla duty Imposed upon hIm by the oWI1Fe States growing out of the official character Judge Field In shoot we think there was nothing whatever what-ever in ra of an official character tn the transaction and therefore we think 1 the United States courtsiiavo In the present state of ourlegisTUlon no jurisdiction whatever in the premIse Therewas noauthorlty for the release of Xacle In conclusion the dissenting pinion war I tho act of Terry had resulted In the death of Justice FIeld would the murder have been a crime against the United Elates Would tbo Government of the Unit States have been competent ID the present condition of the tatutes to prosecute In Its own tribunals the murderer of lls own Supreme Court Justice or even to InquIre Into thehelnous offense trough its own t UIJ I 0 then tho slaying of Terry by the ipellee in the nectosary prevention ot such act was authorized by the law of the United States and ho sold be discharged and that lade pendant of any official character the situation being tho fame In the case of any citizen But if no how lands tho matter then The killing Terry was not by authority nn3 the slayer should be remanded to the courts lo bottled cour tl THE QUESTION THEN BTCCBS ould It have been crime against be United States 1 There can b but one answer Murder I not ant offense against an-t the United Stairs except when committed I at places where thoNallonalGovenimentbas exclusive jurisdiction It is well ted that such crime must be defined de-fined by statute and no such statute h yet len pointed out The Unit States government being thus powerless t try and punish a man charged with murder we are not prepared to afflnn that I is om potent to discharge from trial and give immunity from all liability1 to any trial anywhere unless an e pl statute Congress produced commanding such discharge We a less reluctant to come to this conclusIon because we cannot permIt mlt ourselves to doubt that If the applE had been Inc and gone to trIal before a jury of hIs own country God and his country would have given him deliverance |