*1 CASES ADJUDGED
IN THE SUPREMECOURTOF THEUNITEDSTATES,
AT OCTOBER TERM, 1889. RE NEAGLE,
IN Petitioner.1 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT THE OF UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. OF Argued 4, 5, No. 1472. March 1890. Decided April 14,1890. appeal An from decision of a Circuit Court of the United States in a case, 764, corpus habeas under Rev. Stat. .as amended the act of § 1885, 437, 3, 353, brings up case, March 23 c. Stat. the whole both law facts, upon imposes duty it, and reexamining upon court the full as it was heard in record the inferior court. person custody
A who for an pursuance is act done or omitted in of a States, order, process court, law of the United or of an or of a decree thereof, judge Constitution, or custody or is in in violation of the or a treaty United.States, law:or of the may, provisions of Rev. under the 753, brought Scat. justice before § or court United thereof, judge by. inquiry purpose writ an corpus, for the habeas .into the cause detention; justice judge of his is re- court or and the quired by proceed 761 way summary § in a to determine facts case, by thereupon hearing testimony arguments, to dis- pose of party justice require. law. By 606, Supreme justices virtue of Rev. Court Stat. §§ circuits, each one of among States are the nine allotted assigned; which a judge it the is section makes and the latter judge each the circuit to attend the Circuit in each district of Court allotted, necessity imposes thereby which he him the Cunningham, of this docket title case is Thomas Sheriff of County Joaquin, California, Appellant, v. San David Neaule.”
VOL. CXXXV —1 TERM,
Syllabus. attend, travelling from to the Circuit his residence Court which he is to place and from each circuit where the court is held to the other Held, that, places judge while a is held. .travelling where thus *2 places, discharge duty or he is-as much in from those of his as when lis- court, open- tening deciding in to and cases and is as much entitled to ' protection in the one case as in the other. express authorizing appointment no statute While there is the a deputy of any judge Supreme a officer to attend of or other the Court marshal^ circuit, protect travelling against and to him his assaults or When other imposed upon general obligation injury, the the President of the by faithfully see that the Constitution to the laws be United States cuted, exe- hands, placed by the means in his both the Constitution and States, this, impose upon him the the United to enable to do laws of the department duty protecting justice judge the of a Executive or of States, just of of the there is the courts United when reason to believe n personal danger executing that he be in while will the duties of his office. States, upon judge-of An a a court of the United assault discharge while in duties, peace States, a Of his official breach of the of the United ' th¿ peace distinguished' from of the State in which the assault takes place. provisions duty it Under the of Rev. Stat. is the of marshals § a nd exercise, deputies keeping peace their State to each the States, powers given the United the sheriffs of the State keeping for (cid:127) State; peace deputy States, the and a spe marshal of the United cially charged duty protecting guarding with the of a of a judge States, imposed upon duty court United has him the doing of may necessary purpose, whatever for that even taking of ' e. human lif persons,- custody by officers other United States held state authori- they required doing ties for acts which were authorized or by to do the States, -and laws of the Constitution United are entitled to be released , imprisonment; corpus from such the writ of appro- habeas the priate remedy purpose. for that deputy Neagle, a marshal of the United David States for the District ot California, by brought corpus was writ of habeas before the Circuit ' District, upon allegation that imprison- of that he was Court held in Joaquin County, California, by sheriff of San charge ment on a of Terry. alleged killing Terry of David He that the the murder S. of deputy pursuance of his him done as such was marshal in de- Field, fending life- of Mr. Justice while in of his duties ' Judge of ninth circuit. as Circuit On trial of this' .writ prisoner, finding that discharging Circuit an order Court entered custody pursuance United was in for an act done in of a law of States, imprisoned and was in violation of the Constitution and laws up Supreme being brought United States. The case Court court, appeal, examining testimony, on the- voluminous arrived RE' IN NEAGLE
Statement of the Case. purpose part Terry a the conviction that there was settled Field, wife, amounting conspiracy, his to a to murder Mr. on his Justice 1889; official to California in the summer from visit that this arose judicial animosity against Mm on account of decisions made in the Cir- cuit Court the United States for Northern District California parties; purpose they in a that the suit suits to. which were which injury doing Mr. an so had Justice Field became well and so known, correspondence publicly ensued between the marshal and Attorney Attorney the District of that District and the General of the appointed dep- Neagle the result of which was that was uty express purpose marshal guarding Mr. Field Justice against Terry death; might an attack and his wife result in place; Neagle, being did such attack take for the said an there purpose protection, affording just had reason to believe that at- interfered; tack .result in the would death Mr. Justice Field unless he justifiably shooting Terry and that he did interfere while in the act'of' Field, assaulting already Justice whom lie had Mr. struck two throe Held, times. (1) Neagle justified defending That Mr. Justice Field in this manner; ' *3 doing (2) That in so he acted in of his as an officer of States; the United acted, (3) having capacity, That so guilty that could not be of California, murder under the laws of nor held answer its an act courts for for which he had the of the laws of States; the United Court, (4) judgment That the discharging of the Circuit him from the Joaquin custody County, of of sheriff must San therefore be affirmed. on behalf of court, stated the case Mr. Justice Miller, follows: was an This sheriff of by appeal Cunningham, county San of the State of California, from a Joaquin, judgment of Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern of California, District David from the discharging Neagle said of who him custody sheriff, held a on a prisoner charge of murder.
On 16th of 1889, there was day to- August, presented the Circuit of the United Judge Sawyer, Judge States for the Ninth the Northern District of California, Circuit, embracing a marshal, David United States petition signed Neagle, deputy A. L. represented Farrish his behalf. This that petition TEEM, OCTOBEE
á Statement of the Case.' a Farrisb was marshal the said deputy duly for the appointed of California J. Franks, District C. who Northern was the It further of district. David marshal alleged Neagle occurrences recited at the time was, petition the time of ait, at duly filing appointed acting deputy It same district. then United States marshal proceeded was confined to state that said and re- Neagle imprisoned, in the strained of San county liberty jail Joaquin California, in the State of Thomas County, Cunningham, said a sheriff of under a murder, war- county, charge rant of a was annexed to the arrest, copy petition. The warrant was as follows:
“ In the Justice’s Court of Stockton Township.. ss: } “ California, State San County Joaquin, of the State California to People sheriff, consta- said ble, marshal, State policeman county of San Joaquin:
“Information on oath been this laid me having day before Sarah A. crime of murder, has been Terry felony, committed within said of San on the 14th county day Joaquin that one David this, S. August, Terry, a.d. human then and there being being, wilfully, unlawfully, and with malice killed and shot, feloniously, aforethought Field and murdered, J. David accusing Stephen Neagle thereof: You are forthwith therefore commanded to arrest the above-named J. Field.1and David Stephen Neagle bring them before me, office, Stockton, or, my city *4 California, learning The Governor of on that had been warrant issued Field, promptly Attorney of for the arrest Mr. Justice wrote to the General “ State, urging propriety instructing of at once the District Attorney Joaquin County proceeding San of the unwarranted dismiss “ him,” against un burning disgrace his arrest State would be a by Attorney promptly responded less -disavowed.” The advis General as ing Attorney implicate the District Justice that “no evidence to there was “ Field, charge public in shooting,” justice said that demands ” against be dismissed; accordingly him done. which was EE NEAGLE. IN 5" Statement of the Case. absence before the nearest and
case of to act, my inability . most accessible magistrate counter: 14th of a.d. 1889. at Stockton this day Dated August, “
“HiY. J. Swain, “ Justice Peace. of “ been David defendant, brought The before Neagle, having for examination to the is committed warrant, me on this California. of San County, sheriff Joaquin n H. Y. J. 15,. Dated August Swain,
“ Justice the Peace.” the circumstances a rencontre then recited The petition of. in which the latter and David S. Terry, said"Neagle between from a two.shots revolver hands killed by was instantly ' of this encounter The circumstances and of the former. here-, be considered more it will led to particularity what of this was that main allegation The petition after. Neagle, marshal, under the orders States acting as United deputy (cid:127) of instructions from the Franks, Marshal pursuance States, had, of the United consequence General Attorney on the at violence Terry part an attempt anticipated J. of the Su- Field, the Honorable justice Stephen against been in attendance of the United Court preme at a breakfast table and was said side sitting justice, made Field, assault was a murderous Terry Judge when the homicide life of the was in defence of'the judge held was The for by Cunningham. committed which Neagle Field was that Justice distinct engaged was very allegation as circuit of his duties justice the discharge court at Los one held circuit, Angeles, for that States having and, held, law left having at which the court places Francisco court, was on his to San purpose way was allegation Circuit Court place. holding, Marshal Franks also directed full that was very Neagle - that, him, him for the accompany, purpose protecting the assault these orders of Franks anticipation were given It also more stated, occurred. general actually *5 OCTOBER, TERM, 1889. Statement of the Case. that Marshal .terms, under the Terry circum- Neagle, killing stances, was of his as an' officer of and States, was not, United. therefore, guilty murder, and under the warrant held .his Sheriff imprisonment Cun- was in violation of the laws Constitution of ningham and that was in he for an act done in custody - of the laws United States. pursuance This petition sworn Farrish, being .by presented Judge Sawyer, (cid:127)made the order : following
“ Let a writ of habeas issuein corpus pursuance prayer of the within returnable before the United petition, States Circuit Court for the Northern District of California. “ Sawyer, Cvr&aitJudge.” writ issued and delivered to accordingly Cunning- ham, who made return : following “County State of' California. Joaquin, of San “ Sheriff’s Office. “ To the honorable Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California : “ I and return that before me hereby certify coming writ atinexed of-habeas the said corpus David Neagle was committed to and is detained me vir- custody, my of a tue warrant issued out of the court of Stockton justice’s California, State of of San township, county Joaquin, the endorsement made said warrant. of said war- Copy rant and endorsement is annexed hereto made a part n I this return. Nevertheless, of the said David body before the honorable I am in writ court, as the said Neagle commanded. “ August Cunningham, Thos. San County, Joaquin California.” Sheriff Various and amended mace were wnict pleadings pleadings tend, do much to the elucidation before us. matter filed demurrer to the for the Cunningham .writ of petition IN RE NEAGLE Argument Appellant'. Montgomery’s
Mr. habeas filed a traverse return of-the corpus Neagle which was the substance of sheriff, exhibits, accompanied by hereafter considered which will be when the case comes to -be *6 its facts. examined upon in the Circuit Court was had before
The Circuit hearing and District Sabin. The sheriff, Cun- Sawyer Judge Judge G. A. was Gen- Johnson, represented Attorney ningham, eral California, of the State of and other Á counsel. large was submitted otherwise, body documentary testimony, full court,'on which, after á of the consideration subject, the court made the order: following
“ In the Matter of David corpus. Neagle, habeas “ the court matter, In the above-entitled heard the having introduced on behalf of the none testimony petitioner, having for the -also of the been offered respondent, arguments it for counsel petitioner respondent, appearing that the in his amended court allegations petitioner answer or traverse to the return of the sheriff San Joaquin herein, are and that is- true, respondent County, prisoner in for an act in done of a law of the custody United pursuance and in in -States, violation of the Constitution custody law’s the United it is therefore ordered that States, peti- tioner and he is be, from' hereby, custody.” discharged
From that order which an was-allowed brought appeal to this of all court, case .a voluminous record accompanied the matters were before the on the hearing. epurt Z. for on the
Mr. mainly Montgomery, appellant, argued had no showed facts, maintaining Terry pur- Field, Mr. Justice and that therefore pose seriously injuring was without his brief excuse. He also killing presented-in of law: following questions “ of the Devised That the writ Section 753 Statutes provides in (of habeas not extend to a . . . corpus).shall jail prisoner unless he is in for in an act done or committed custody pursu ance of a law of United or of an States; order, process, OCTOBER TERM, Montgomery’s Argument Appellant.
Mr. or in thereof, decree of court violation of custody the Con or of a law or of the United States.” stitution, treaty If, “in of a law of Terry, Neaglewas acting killing pursuance and if it -that he States,” was appears custody Constitution or a law of the United States, violation ithe word “law” as-the intended construing law-making power then. construed, the, should writ hateas corpus be. otherwise issued; What, not. then, properly meaning ” as used in the word law said section ? Court, Circuit decision now under rendering the word used review, this lan- by way defining, “.law/’ will be observed that the “It guage: language pro- ' is an act done . . vision of section-753 .. pursuance not in a law of the United statute pursuance.of United States.” The court seems have assumed that there is such a thing *7 ”
“as a common law of the States. But United this court has “ said such It' there is no is clear that there can no thing. common law of United States.- The federal government states; composed twenty-four sovereign independent each of have its local which customs common may usages, no law. There is which the Union and has principle pervades that is not in law, embodied authority Constitution or laws of the The common law could be Union. made a part (cid:127) of pur federal only Wheaton system by legislative adoption.” v. 591, 8 Pet. 658. Peters,
In the case of Tennessee Davis, v. U. S. 257, a case relied Court as Circuit a strongly upon by' sustaining decision, for the. its in case, this Court, Supreme in “ laws what'is meant words of the United by‘the determining States,” as of the third in'the second article section employed of.the Federal Constitution, said: “Cases under arising laws of the out of the United States are as such legisla grow tion or whether constitute they right, privi Congress, or in whole claim lege or defence party, protection, asserted,” or in 264. whom part, by p. - it This, will be is a construction our observed, judicial court the words “laws the United highest placed upon EE IN NEAGLE. 9, Montgomery’s Argument Appellant. Mr. in that ás used article of the Federal Constitu-
States,” very intended fix a limit was to which tion, beyond Congress' in a United' itself could go conferring jurisdiction upon “ if So that we construe the law of words, States court. found section of the Revised as States,” Statutes, United other laws than those enacted we' including Congress, give which,, them a decision meaning light just render them all the would unconstitutional. In cases quoted, act of an as Circuit where an Court, cited authority by \,6 held “done or United States was have been officer law of the States,” committed United pursuance ” * as such act was a statute. law relied . authorizing . the true of section In order intention grasp spirit 753, federal on courts release, authorizing per habeas corpus, “in for acts in. sons done omitted of a custody pursuance be well to recur States,” law of the United etc., may the. to be remedied the act evil intended originally passed and afterwards section In Ex incorporated parte 1833, .753. Wall. Jr. case cited the Circuit Court in' Jenkins, 2 -in case,'Mr. Grier, Justice the act deciding referring act said: “This a certain State of when was,passed question, had threatened to acts'of this Union and to nullify criminals who should to execute those as them, attempt .treat and,,it intended as a such state remedy '¿gainst legislation.” p;
A examination of the cases cited wherein the careful federal held in habeas cus- discharged corpus persons courts - for acts done or omitted in of a law of the tody’’ pursuance will show not that the só States,” acts done or- only omitted were of a law pursuance plain statutory *8 States, but that such had United béen statutory repudi- law ated and to be nullified either state or sought by legislation, state tribunals the aid of such state without judicial legis- words, other lation. In cases wherein had they'were persons been because of acts done arrested or omitted imprisoned laws of States, obedience the United statutory laws certain state tribunals had refused statutory recog- If nize as laws. it be contended that the slaying of.Terry TEEM, OCTOBEE Montgomery’s Argument Appellani.
Mr. for in. an act of was, fact, by Neagle justifiable homicide, done to a law the United States, pursuant Neagle’s arrest even to await trial- for said imprisonment homicide con and. 'stituted' an restraint of which made illegal liberty, it federal court to release him on habeas corpus, I answer that such a contention provided § .refuted, the authorities cited, but only by express of this court in Ex U. language Royall, 117 S. parte 241, 247. if the California statute 'So,likewise, which defines the crime murder, the crime with which Neagle of. stands charged, .to the Constitution or laws of the United repugnant States, or if the facts which under the laws of California constitute would under the murder, laws United States be justifi-- it then homicide, said that the might truthfully able State’s had “prosecution which to against rest, Neagle nothing upon and the entire him is a proceeding nullity.” against
But it is not there is pretended any be- repugnance tween the state law the crime with which defining Neagle and the or Constitution statutes of the United charged, States. Hence I there is repeat legal pretext no interposition of a federal court order to his conviction and prevent pun- ishment for an act done in a law the United pursuance States.” Thus it clear if that, seems even Neagle killing of-, had in fact been a law
Terry,- acting pursuance unless there was still, the laws something of California her as construed courts that would make such a homicide he could not be punishable, released lawfully under because was held in. merely being custody’ § await his trial in a state court in'order to determined whether the had, homicide had been judicially not, commit- ted -in of a law of United States. pursuance .the we
While that, concede under the laws of California, Neagle would else had .have anybody Mr. Justice right protect Field a felonious even against assault, life of by taking the assailant, if we that the marshal had necessary, deny under statutes of the United States to send-him on such a or that mission, the fact that he was a mar- deputy
IN EE NEAGLE. 11 Argument Appellant. Montgomery’s Mr. for shal conferred him. Such a any special power upon power, or if it must be found exists, 787 788 of the Revised § § “it Section makes Statutes. marshal of each district to attend Circuit Courts when .District ” execute to This therein, does au sitting precepts. thorize marshal to attend the wher judges court, ever : and such to seems have been the may.go interpre tation the act the District when-he put upon Attorney, General on the 7th “And May: wrote.to Attorney -while due caution has been taken always marshal, when either or Mrs. is about the in- Judge Terry building which the courts are held, he has not within felt it his author to either or Field ity guard Justice Judge Sawyer against harm when from the away appraisers’ building.”
In this construction of the law it seems to me that marshal was But he now and his seeks, clearly right. deputy, seeks, the decision under to seeks Neagle, justify review marshal, attend Mr. sending body guard Justice .to Field when from the from the away court, away apprais- ers’ reason and under instructions building, authority from the United States General: first answer Attorney My to is,- this neither the nor the plea General, Attorney President acting General, through Attorney empow- ered law to to Marshal Franks such give any would him in Marshal for justify sending Deputy Neagle any' such And second answer is, there is purpose. my nothing in the record to show that either the or General, Attorney the President ever General, through Attorney gave Franks order, Marshal 'direction attempted give any which even instruction, authorize purports sending of a marshal on such errand as that-referred to. deputy any
If the President has such as he is claimed to power have exercised -instance, where does he ? If the get President has within the of the several power, jurisdiction for instrument of the body every -keep guard federal he has a marshal in the government, place house American citizen in order to shield him from of every of his if it And, harm at hands has come fellow:C'itizens. TERM, 1889.' Attorney Appellee. Argument
Mr. . General’s to- this,- what would' I use, ask, we for state govern- ments ? *10 -
Mr.- General for the Attorney appellee. writ, to a of habeas is an' Neagle’s inheritance right corpus the common law, the Art. 1. Constitution, 'from guaranteed by cl 2, §
Under section of-the Statutes, Revised the authorizing 751 Court Circuit to issue writs of the habeas corpus, petitioner- restrained of -his as he claims, violation being liberty, .in the Constitution' laws of the United States, entitled to (cid:127) demand, a writ upon filing issue as a proper petition, writ, of and that the court whether right, determine he was thus restrained of his Section unlawfully liberty. does to limit the of the court to issue the not-attempt right writ in case covered in any Constitution; is, case any . the Constitution or under laws of arising the United States It does, exclusion and process definition, make more clear some of the to which the federal jurisdiction cases. extends. then, whether question, from imprisonment,
which the to be relieved petitioner sought this writ, was by. an under the Constitution of imprisonment arising the United ' n and the laws made for pursuance thereof; any under valid laws arises question under the arising Constitu- tion. A for an act done prisoner custody or omitted, in of a law of- the United -pursuance States, or of an order, or decree of the court or process, thereof, is in judge custody in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
But whether to the writ rests on the right Constitu- tion statute, both, is whether the question petitioner, arrested the officer of the State Neagle, of California for the life of David S. taking defence of the Terry, life of Mr. Justice was in Field, custody violation of the Con- and laws of the stitution United States. I shall not stop whether argue acted in question Neagle faith good and- with sufficient reason for the life of supposing Justice
IN HE NEAGLE. Attorney Appellee. Argument Mr. General’s Field was I ana content to leave that danger. question the statement of and fhcts, conclusion on the facts as set forth in the of the Circuit Court. opinion
I. It was the of the Executive duty Department States hazard, life guard protect, of Mr. Justice Field of his : Because duty (1) such is essential to the existence of protection the government; Because is (2) as the President, executive, enjoined upon to take care that the laws be being required faithfully ”; executed The marshal was (3) hand of the merely executive, unless the marshal the courts and protected by have no judges protection.
The reason I it is the Executive why say Depart- ment to I it has the protect judicial, say why so do, because the is essential self-preservation *11 .existence of the very government. In the thirtieth number the of Federalist, written Ham- by “ find ilton, I A this: to contain itself government ought to full the every power requisite accomplishment committed to its and care, the of objects execution complete for the which it trusts is free’from control responsible, every but the to and the sense of the regard public good people.”
In the of number the same written- work, fifty-eighth are,'taken author, the same numbers Dawson’s1 from [these I.find this, of the the Con- edition,] speaking power given stitution .to the to election government regulató general “ of and senators Its rests representatives: propriety evidence this that plajn proposition, every government to contain in itself means its -own ought preservation.” 18(53, prior papers 1 In the editions of federalist to those two respectively year ap 31 and In numbered Mr. edition Dawson’s peared, original as' the of a result collation the first edition with the newspapers. changed articles In his edition the title from was ” “ “ writers, fcederalist; federalist” (Mr. Jay,) the name of one .the changed “Jay” “Jáy;” papers numbering from and previous after No. 28 was altered 31 of- all became so thát editions No. 30, expediency No. changing 59 Tlie a numera and No. No. 58. became Hamilton, Madison, adopted accepted by Jay tion the latter in- and editions, questioned. may the Hallowell TERM, 1889.. J4. Attorney Appellee. Argument
Mr.
General’s
another
Not.less.forcibly,
distinguished gentleman,"who
honors us this
his
as a
listener, morning
presence,
same
stated. Mr.
late
Bayard,
Secretary-of State,
principle
soon after this
wrote as
occurred,'
follows:
difficulty-
robust
essential
must be
principle
recognized
pro-
claimed,
the inherent
powers
every
which'
government
is sufficient to authorize and enforce the
its
judgments of.
courts are
and at all times and in. all
sufficient
equally
places
the individual
protect
who.
conscien-
judge
fearlessly
tiously
duty
discharged!
pronounces judgment.”
This court has
than
more
once announced
same doctrine.
264,
See
v.
6 Wheat.
384,
Cohens
388
Virginia,
; Martin
v.
1 Wheat.
Hunter,
304, 363; Ex
parte Siebold,
U. S.
v.
371;
Davis,
257;
Tennessee
U. S.
Ex parte Yarbrough,
Argument certainly show necessary the duty of the Executive Department the government United the courts arid States' protect the dis- judges of their duties;-'.Indeed; charge is-hardly supposed this will be The President, as the’ head of questioned. is under Executive the constitutional Department, obligation “to take care that the laws be executed.” faithfully To the end that he may in.every contingency duty, is made .of Commander-in-Chief arid army navy, militia of the several States when called into active service.'
No one of the President questions the-right to fur-' nish mail or for the an for a guards escort paymaster carrying treasure wherever government danger appreherided. Are States persons judges, from travelling place *12 (cid:127)to their duties place less performance sacred ? less entitled to than government protection mail-bags packages ? Nor is the mónéy more protection person properly a matter of concern than the protection local property. The a United officer, States in'the person of his of. clothed with duty, the United always States is. sovereignty, arid in that should be his sovereignty protection. n that provides Constitution the President enters- before shall, of his upon execution office take I do am .oath.: he
IN EE NEAGLE- Attorney Argument Appellee. Mr. General’s for I swear that will execute the office of solemnly faithfully bqst United States and to the President will of my and defend the Constitution of the protect ability preserve, States.” United on the 4th of March, 1861, of this
Standing, steps confronted rebellion the world ever’ Capitol, by mightiest saw, President Lincoln said his dissatisfied countrymen: no oath “You have heaven .registered destroy gov- ernment, while I shall have the most to preserve, solemn one defend it.” protect
He that oath, this embodied in the evidently supposed Constitution, was of some and that re- significance; being to take this oath he was invested with some quired power He understood that to adequate obligation. preserve, and defend the Constitution meant to protect preservé, protect and defend the and that it was his and his government; rignt or in the absence of acts of duty, independently Congress, all use placed disposal protection I that observe neither one preservation government. filed behalf of the refers to arguments appellant clause Constitution at’all. Has it, therefore,mo signifi- it not cance ? Does invest the Presi- necessary implication with is, that dent self-executing powers; powers independent Is it true that of statute ? after the inauguration President and before had laws the Congress Washington passed any had no President so far as he had the means, authority, of the United States? It is certain that property' protect was without such if the arguments-for that he can act acts of appellant, only pursuance specific are sound. Congress, insist that, Constitution
We was created all possessed government powers necessary as an to existence nation; were these independent powers distributed three constitutional and that great departments, each of these is, Constitution, invested departments all of those governmental powers, naturally belonging such not been withheld department, expressly the terms of the Constitution. In other words, *13 TEEM,
16 Appellee. Attorney Argument for General’s Mr. with, but with
is not invested only expressed implied legisla- ex-' the is invested not with tive that only judiciary powers; as its share the Constitution pressed powers granted with all but the have not powers judicial government, from and the withheld it; President, been’expressly is made the fact the chief manner, like execu- very and is nation, tive'of the and protect, charged preserve, care that defend and to take the Constitution, the laws are is invested with executed, and necessary faithfully implied the executive which neither of other the branches of powers either take can abridge; government away many branch of these to each the powers, pertaining government, áre and no as to self-executing, way dependent, except and means, . ways upon legislation.
If be said that the Constitution statutes no specific direction President, General, to the or the mar Attorney shal from found assault or assassi protect judges can.be nation, the answer This is an plain. argument assumption that the doctrine of has necessary implied powers, which been so statutes, often sustained confined support branch that the legislative government, execu tive no those the Cons powers except granted expressly has titution. On the when, Constitution, contrary, President is with nation, invested the executive power and when that instrument him that he shall enjoins upon “take care that the laws be executed,” it confers faithfully him all incident to the exercise of power reasonably function, executive and en vindication necessary laws, forcement of the which has not withheld from him been ; Constitution so power Constitu granted the. tion has neither nor have, has claimed to right Siebold, See Ex ubi at abrogate. parte ; and sup., pp. ubi Yarbrough, parte sup. Ex can-, must not if that, the courts and forgotten
. judges It marshals, not be the executive can- protected through not be. all. them- protected They powerless protect selves; The executive is with armed, only the civil marshals and but all the posse, military EE
IN NEAGLE. Attorney Argument Appellee. Mr. General’s naval forces holds the government. Congress purse, *14 and, to in condition assert and is defend only its own the but to coerce consideration of its just wishes at all rights, while all the is subjects; times and on judiciary strong only the and reverence respect people.
II. It was been thus duty judiciary, having pro- tected the Executive to sit Department, judgment upon, and to vindicate the officer of the if Executive Department, innocent, of his : because such au- discharge duty (1) in the federal thority essential judiciary principle existence of the nation; such sustained (2) authority amply decisions of this court.
Such
in the federal
is essential in
judiciary
princi
to the existence of the nation.
It rests on the axiom
ple
al
cited that
must
within
ready
every
itself
government
resources for its own
and
It is
protection
preservation.
argued
that
this
be
State,
homicide
a
crime
may
against
therefore the
should be
a
tribu
state
question
adjudicated
nal. But this is a
of the whole
If
begging
question.
Neagle
did his
as an officer of the United States he could
simply
duty
not have done
to the
for-
State of
an act
California;
wrong
a
at the
cannot,
time,
same
be a
duty
general govern
ment and a crime
State. The
against
fallacy
argu
here,
ment'lies in tiie
are two coordinate
assumption
and that
the citizen owes
sovereignties,
equal allegiance
both.
has been decided
this court, as
contrary,
.On
often as the
ever
has
in all matters within the
arisen,
question
sphere
and the
general government,
government
and where'
obligations
imposes
supreme,
"anysupposed
or claim of a State
such
contravenes
it must
right
obligation,
Cohensv.
385 ;
ubi
Ab leman v.
yield.
Virginia,
sup.,
page
Booth,
The in the state court to assumption right try federal officer for an act done of his official arrest implies precedent right subsequent to convict and such and each involves right officer, punish with the inconsistent consequences utterly dignity security of an mar- arrest the independent government. right
vol. cxxxv—2 TERM, 1889. Attorney Appellee. Argument General’s
Hr.
its
to for-
this act after
.hal for
implies
right
performance
is inconsistent
its
Such
aid and
right
performance.
prevent
with -the
supremacy
/general government.
dignity.
a man is a federal officer
not claim that because
he is not
I do
and trial in
I
to arrest
the state courts.
claim
only
subject
official acts as such federal
he cannot
officer,
for his
that,
short,
in the state courts.
In
func
called
question
of the federal
cannot be inter
tions and agencies
government
interfered
state
v.
McCulloch
authority.
rupted
Charleston,
4 Wheat.
Weston v.
2 Pet.
431;
Maryland,
v.
Nor is there such force objection a trial, without a jury of before judge, might 'single posed than for is more common cases at first be Nothing supposed. examina- of homicide to be simply disposed preliminary commis- of the or United States tion before a peace, justice an or a or an examination before coroner’s sioner, upon jury, truth is, ex examination a jury. parte grand before trial benefit of of the of- is for the guaranty right by jury ' no- the law makes accused, Moreover, government. - IN RE NEAGLE.' Attorney Argument Appellee. Mr. General’s for for trials between homicide and other felonies and distinction ‘ misdemeanors, as to a If right jury jurisdic- trial.. court to of the federal hear and a is to discharge prisoner tion in denied in. case which, be to every course the. according trial law, the common would an follow in jury indictment then a state court, federal to courts authority pro- tect their' officers for against prosecution fidelity state court uArald be for a trial is practically destroyed; jury criminal JBut,however this guaranteed every prosecution. itbe, sufficient that it is the law either in the first that, may or last instance, habeas or error, or corpus, upon appeal the federal courts have-the and it is their bounden right, duty, to sit of a official conduct federal judgment upon officer. IV. The ‘whether the Circuit only remaining question for the Northern of California had. the Court right District habeas first instance, petitioner upon corpus whether the been or matter should have allowed proceed court, state of this court revievirthe subject right -upon court a writ of error. state action “ When -s m state an custody the petitioner- authority . done or act omitted to of a law. done, pursuance or decree of an'order, a court process, . . . in such like in thereof, cases judge . urgency . Of the volving general govern operation obligatiops or the ment, tó, of this or its with,' relations country nations, tfWcourts of the United States foreign frequently writs of habeas interposed by corpus discharged prisoners who were held state under Ex custody authority.” parte U. S. 241, also, Wildenhus’s Royall, See, Case, 120 *16 S.U. Botiller v. 130 S. 1; 238; U. Ex Dominguez, parte McCardle, Ex Woods, Bridges, 428; 318, 325; 6 Wall. parte 2 .7 v. 100 U. Davis, S. 25 Tennessee Numerous cases. of United States involving right courts habeas from discharge by corpus persons custody of officers of the state on a of háve courts, murder, charge been decided all' .uircuit, supporting jurisdiction United States courts 2 Ex parte premises. Jenkins, Wall. Jr. decided Mr. 521, Justice Ex by Grier; parte Robin- TERM, 1889.
20 Appellee. Argument Mr. Choate’s for 355, 6 decided Mr. Justice son, McLean, McLean; Roberta The 2 Abb. Jailor In re Fayette County, 265; (U. S.) v. 2 re Neill, In 8 451; Blatchford, 156, Ramsey, 167; Flipp. In re 1 149 Farrand, ; Electoral Abb. South (U. S.) Collegeof Carolina, Hurst, In re 2 571; 510, are all Hughes, Flipp. same, cases the same decided involving principle but as these cases are all cited- and discussed in the way; Circuit Court this I case, refer to opinion merely them.
V. The writ of habeas case was a writ of corpus The reason of an act custody, by right. petitioner being done in the of his to the federal discharge government, had the absolute to its and to be heard and right protection at once. within the decisions of this case, discharged “ court, was a case of and the Circuit Court had no urgency,” discretion in the premises.
Mr.- H. whom Choate was Mr. James C. Joseph (with Car- ter on the brief) appellee.
I. There no merit or force in of the technical points the Bill of raised by Exceptions. The true
II. function and office of the writ of habeas corpus the several statutes, 14 of section provided by amendatory Act and now embodied in 1789, section Judiciary vised :of the Be is not confined to what it was at Statutes, com but mon devolves the law, the federal necessarily power upon court or into the cause of restraint of lib judge, inquiring hear and .to determine the facts and the law which con erty, stitute the case of federal petitioner’s justification, authority, act or done, of a his continued violation, by custody, federal law or Constitution, etc., treaty, privilege, fc|ielaw of nations, from cus petitioner if such made remand if not. tody, out, him The 14th section of the limited 1 Stat. Act, Judiciary of federal in the case the writ, judges grant ip under prisoners cases where were in jail, custody color of the the United com- or are *17 RE
IN NEAGLE. 21 Appelleé. Argument Mr. Choate’s for or same, to trial before some court of tbe mitted necessary court to- into to be testify.” brought , that statute,'the under federal courts
How could far, go that it behind them the return, gave considering power “ writ for to an into grant express purpose inquiry the cause of restraint of never was, liberty,” probably determined; need now be ' stood, law then that is, the Certainly, English .com- mon law and the Habeas Act Charles II., the Corpus judges and courts in confined themselves to closely England very what the face of the it return, where had been appeared upon had been issued a court legal and-regular, process by writ But of habeas competent jurisdiction. corpus had a more extended use in seems the United always it than in under States have been more England, inquiries here than in varied Church country. far-reaching 221, on Habeas 272. p. Corpus, § act of March 2,1833, 632, Stat. c. 57, providing, besides trial, third' -for the section, its removal time
by before any from the state court into the Court, Circuit suit or any prose- for cution act done under revenue laws of any the United or for States, or set or title claimed any right, authority up such officer under law, such its any seventh section conferred federal in addition to the upon judges, authority conferred law, writs'of habeas already cor- grant in all cases of a or confinement, or prisoner pus prisoners jail committed_or where he or shall be confined or on, or law, for act any done, done,. any omitted law the United pursuance States, order, or any or decree of court process any thereof.” judge like act, This contained no provisions regulat- after the ing practice return; but, view procedure of the national crisis act, which led to the passage can be doubted that the intent of hardly Congress, by seventh section, was to enable the if, federal judge, he found the fact to be that inwas cus- proofs, petitioner for an act tody done law of the United pursuance fact, must and, ascertain him; TERM, Argument Appellee.
Mr. Choate’s Of resort to evidence that be offered mate- necessity might *18 rial to determine it. act of 29, with the 1842, however, debates that August its and the out of which
preceded- passage, emergency arose, sheds the clearest the function and the of light upon purpose the as were carried into corpus provisions, they finally habeas revision. yhe
At the of that act the time executive and passage of the State of New in the case of York,- judiciary McLeod, with murder in the state had court, charged successfully refused and resisted the intervention of the federal govern ment, the the that, law of nations, attempted upon ground the act of which was McLeod, have resulted in the charged was an act done under homicide, of the British' and did nation, therefore not him to trial subject individually and therefor law of the State punishment municipal where the- homicide was as committed; that, the Con stitution of the United States committed the whole subject the, of intercourse to federal foreign British government, so crime, with the demand of subject, charged ought, upon the federal tó be released from the of government, custody corurt. state
But, stood, as the the federal had statutes no judges- power to issue a writ habeas such a and it case; was to corpus them that and to in what cases give- power, provide they exercise that the act of it, 1842, 5 Stat. 539, c. 257, should “An Act to remedied entitled provide justice further States,” was courts passed. Here was an unmistakable assertion' of the clearly suprem- of the national" over acy judicial power government the States and state to the full extent of courts, withdrawing from’the state court the crime, prisoner charged alleged and there trial' for the sum- by jury, awaiting providing trial the federal- without a mary judge jury, proofs be taken before -in the him, one federal raised question with full 'Cause, discretion the federal power judge him, if he made out his claim .sovereign foreign arid the States authority, from ever prohibiting again trying RE NEAGLE.
IN Appellee. Argument for Hr. Choate’s It be noted, too, offence. is to him for that alleged or touching in the nature of deter- case, must, that the question a mere federal inspection mined judge, a com- commission, but order statute, necessarily upon would facts, natural all just exploration plete if court, laid the state been before course have jury for the- this' extent, there To the case had proceeded. it was the clear intent of this determination question, single to override jurisdiction supersede state court. of the debates Senate which
An examination pre- will demonstrate ceded this enactment position. the act of 5, February
The next legislation piece 385, 28, c. Stat. enlarged again issue writs of habeas so as to the federal corpus, judges *19 in of of the Con cases restraint violation include all liberty a law of the United and States; here stitution or treaty so as to a full is secure and the procedure regulated again before final the federal without a evidence, trial judge federal in the of the one jury, single question arising case the for from and and as custody, enabling ground discharge the federal all facts on the bearing judge explore requiring as a if it that one would have had done, fully jury question in the state been left to court. the return of proceed Upon “ is to be set for of the writ, a the cáuse.” day hearing material facts set forth the’ may deny any petitioner facts to show that return, and the detention may any allege in contravention the Constitution or laws of the is United (cid:127) on either be States. The side amended so that may pleadings facts be the material ascertained-—-add it is may provided court or shall said judge proceed summary way the case to determine facts of and' testimony hearing and interested, if shall arguménts parties appear is her that the his or contra liberty deprived prisoner vention the Constitution laws he or States set at and 386. she shall forthwith liberty.” discharged p. all The act same concludes provision, staying pro on the same pending appeal, ceedings charge, proceedings OCTOBER, TERM, Argument Appellee. Mr. Choate’s for and final after as was contained judgment discharge, act of 1842. . the face act, of this it is Upon certainly, impossible put n other construction than that the one federal question from the
withdrawn state court for final decision and circuit without a that the must be judge jury, prisoner if that that, be decided in his and favor, discharged, question too, whether there made any provision already by Congress him or not. It was intended to all trying clearly preclude further the federal trial, if, if, ivas decided only question that the decision favor, circuit except judge to be reviewed this court.
Meantime came case of Ex Jenkins, Wall. Jr. parte 521, and the 526, Slave Law Cases. Fugitive of the
In condition statutes and the decisions, revision statute was made in 1874, Rev. Stat. c. “Habeas 751-766, Corpus.” §§
It cannot be doubted the effect of the is, revision be, was intended make and the procedure the writ uniform the same in issuing judge the cases covered all the several successive and now acts, to withdraw 753; embodied the federal on which question, § claims petitioner justification from exemption, away court for full and the state final determination the federal ; without and to him from the judge jury custody when he court, state establishes, to the satis- by proof of the federal that he is entitled faction to his judge, discharge, but if fails to make out such then to remand him to right, court’s the state custody.
No other than this can be to in meaning the words imputed “and to of the as 761: law thereupon dispose party jus- § tice view to may require” explicit duty contained the Acts of 1842 and 1867, which were con- being densed and and of the obvious revised, intent to all subject cases alike to the same regulation.
Under this of scheme habeas it is statutory corpus, wholly immaterial whether there is federal any provision by criminal court over jurisdiction any law-conferring upon prisoner RE IN NEAGLE. Appellee. Argument for
Mr. Choate’s has this act made what when Congress by very discharged. suitable for the case it deemed to be provision by substituting under of the one federal trial by authority, for a jury, question a trial without-a justification, jury, judge Court on out such If he makes justification Supreme appeal. act is that he tribunal, before necessary theory no crime; has be deemed that he innocent; is to committed law of the the. country that he has done what supreme only make out him he fails to If, however, to do. has required then-he under federal authority, alleged justification court., for trial on the made the state remanded charge or discuss too late at this It is day question certainly means of this scheme of Congress provide, power for the removal from the state court habeas corpus procedure determination, for court, into the federal examination in viola- or of this federal custody authority, single question when it arises laws, the federal any tion of Constitution criminal, in a state court. civil case, is far under the Constitution within
This exercise power in Tennessee was conceded to this court that which 100 U. Davis, S. 257. v. the idea of its truth the alarm which is In suggested to a federal of two entrusted court, consisting judges, being a review in federal court, try, subject question mode immunity, being possible consequent without murder, for a party possibly guilty escape is based no foundation. trial, upon affidavits, is to be tried, fully upon single question — but full
but not ex after a testimony hearing parte, court over entrusted to the federal both sides. And power is not as the same over so this one power question great which is entrusted to the case, whole ordinary committing motion to on the on the trial, judge magistrate, It a motion arrest of after verdict. or on judgment quash, to this the same is, given apprehension, legal Avritof error. federal courc, upon single question, this act arisen under section of No case appears When the execution after its tAventyyears passage. *21 ,26 TERM, 1889. Appellee. Argument
Mr. Choate’s for Slave obnoxious law exposed marshals to Fugitive violent and attack in the of the duties opposition imposed and them to arrest, indictment and in by Congress, trial upon the state courts on assault or for charges murder, acts done them necessarily such by performance duties, to the federal courts for the appealed immediately pro this section seven, tection afforded and the Courts Circuit. it have used for the efficient uniformly relief of protection and in all federal officers so we charged this, as custody, with the assent of submit, and the implied Congress express The result of this court. this line of decisions is approval of the action so of the court below in this cogent, support as to command careful attention case, here. See Ex parte 2 521 Wall. Jr. Ex Jenkins, 6 Robinson, McLean, (1853); parte 4 Robinson, Law ;355 Ex Am. In;617 re McDon parte Reg. 9 Am. ald, 661; Law United States ex rel. v. Reg. Roberts Jailor Abbott Fayette (U. County, S.) In state under the seventh adjudications section of the Act of en revised the :re series of stat to habeas the manner utes regard corpus already pointed out. It must be deemed have approved known and. settled construction which the federal courts, more than had to the Act of years, given when twenty 1833; in section 753 the cases covered that act with incorporated the cases covered Act and the Acts of 1842 Judiciary 1867, and the Circuit enjoined Courts, all the cases upon alike, the to make a full and exhaustive into the inquiry to' hear the cause and facts, and render final dis judgment if law so it must be justice deemed to charge, required, intended to sanction and confirm the exercise of the courts, federal under the more limited jurisdiction 1833, had of the Act of asserted. habitually McDonald scope v. 629; v. 110 U. S. Duramus Harrison, 26 Alabama, Hovey, on Construction of 326; Stat. (2d 229, note, Sedgwick ed.) cited. and cases revision, occurred,
After the other cases where Circuit Courts released habeas held corpus parties custody courts for crimes the state the State. Ex alleged against parte RE
IN. NEAGLE. Appellee. Argument for Mr. Choate’é *22 2 , Jailor 457; v. The 428; 2 Woods, Ramsey Flipp. Bridges, must have been Fed. 62. These re 18 Brosnahan, In Rep. in Ex 171 to which this referred Royall, the cases parte court “ of it said that in cases involv 251, U. S. when urgency and of government, general authority operations ing relations for with, or its or the of country to, this obligations States have courts of nations, the frequently eign writs of habeas and discharged prisoners by corpus interposed under who held in state were custody authority.” Field Mr. Justice Near-' III.’ The of by personal protection of the United a him authority duty imposed upon by gle him in ren- committed and homicide by necessarily “ done him in an act effectual was by protection dering a sense States,” of law of the United pursuance the state court on and his detention therefor statute; by and in violation of the Constitution of murder was charge ” in of the statute. the United States the sense laws of statute that there is It is single specific any pretended it his to furnish The making protection. and out of the Constitution posi-
arose directly necessarily im- enactments. Whatever necessarily tive congressional as if much and statutes is as of Constitution part plied therein. it were actually expressed established
The Constitution corporate government foot of soil over nation, is a sovereign every absolutely and within the the national territory over within every person it. Within its Con- action sphere, assigned sphere law and its land, are stitution laws supreme can be no. instrumentalities government subjected proper to no other held and can be accountability any restraint, whatsoever. power the inherent itself has,
It necessarily, protecting its constitutional in the exercise all and its powers, agents laws tribunals, its own its own without and of executing from a State state authorities. any any interruption the United States and the government government of each within other, of a State distinct independent exer-,- action, their although respective spheres existing within same-territorial limits. their cising powers TERM, '28 Appellee. Argument Mr. Choate’s Neither can intrude' within the government jurisdiction authorize other, therein, interference its any judicial officers, But action of other. whenever con- flict arises between the enactments the two sovereignties, or in the enforcement of their asserted authorities, those of the national until the government supremacy, validity of the different enactments and authorities is determined by tribunals the United States.
In such case, the surrender to a state court of the
right
determine the existence of its
is the surrender of
sovereignty
itself. Martin v.
Lessee,
Hunter’s
Such absolute and thus perfect being protection guaranteed to them the this at least must Constitution, necessarily : follow that when if, attacked in the their duties, discharge or are aid they themselves, others, whose protect protected by such emergency require, merely protection self-defence authorized the law nature or the common law, but is an act authorized and done in clearly pursuance by, of, the Constitution, which to- them all enjoins against proceed in obstacles of their duties.
But for the letter of the as it is so insisted that law, stoutly we must have “a law” to authorize protection Article III., Section judge: 1,-of Constitution, declares that “the judicial the United States shall be vested power in one Court, and in Supreme such inferior courts as the time to Congress may.from and establish;” time.ordain’and the second section to define the 'cases to which this proceeds judicial shall and extend, as C. J., Chis Jay, says, holm v. 2 Dall. Georgia, this shows and 475, sense precise latitude words “ to establish as used in justice,”, are to be understood. preamble, To- into Coh- carry practical operation provisions of (cid:127) stitution, to establish and it home to the justice,” bring has judicial divided the into United States people. Congress IN EE NEAGLE. 29 Argument Appellee. Mr. Clioate’s districts, Rev. Stat. two of which 530; are in the State of § California, Rev. Stat. Act 24 531; 5, 1886, Stat. August § c. 928. Courts Circuit law to be held in required by these, Stat. and districts, Rev. Mr. Justice Field ; was § law to be at at them least once in required by present two Rev. Stat. 610. In obedience to these laws, was, at years, § the time and one attack, from place Califor- travelling nia circuit,, where he had been court, other, holding where he ivas about to hold it. He was, therefore, the time and attack, direct and place immediate diseha/rge l)een his as so much had duties, just sitting if'he official of in — court San Francisco. can be clearer than that, if Mr. Justice Field himself
Nothing had taken the life in- the defence of his Terry necessarily own, the maintenance and of his protection right duty his circuit and administer at San proceed upon justice and the Francisco, Constitution laws cited already impos- him would have ing case, duty upon brought beyond all within section Revised Statutes. question, Nea- act on the does so same and for the same gle’s principle reasons.
IY. But to as a Neagle’s duty, right bystander citizen, Field, Mr. Justice is to be added his official protect conferred and him acts authority imposed upon as a United States marshal, deputy attending on his within circuit, Justice the district of which he was marshal. under federal Thus, acting pursu- ance of the statutes under his act appointed, which.he *24 the Justice within was the protection-of clearly category “ of the Revised done in Statutes, section 753 of a pursuance law of the United States.” look to marshals must the acts of
Conceding for their these are cover the above powers, ample proposi- tion. See Rev. Stat. The latter confers 787, 788. section §§ them the to sheriffs and sheriffs upon given deputy by powers state California conferred laws. The code sheriffs and upon their- usual deputies powers preserve peace, suppress riots, etc. Court of the held The State has also Supreme
30, TEEM,. OCTOBEE 1889.
(cid:127) Argument .Appellee. for Mr. Choate’s the common law One where the code is silent of .the governs. of a and his was to duties sheriff accom- common-law deputies armed, an on circuit them by protect pany judges ; 1 223 Dalton’s Office of force. Sher- History, Macaulay’s iffs, c. London, 1698, officer, constituted
These statutes certainly Neagle peace the United States when it was broken keep peace by Field. under That, the attack on Mr. Justice such circum- stances or there is such a ones, similar thing peace the United and that the marshal and his States,”' deputies arm federal to maintain proper government it. seems to have been settled this court in Siebold’s. definitely Case,ui supra,
Y. if But, needed to demonstrate that more Neagle, Mr. Justice Field, was protecting duty discharging imposed him was words, other authority, or, federal acting a law the United be found in is to pursuance States, order of which is General, Attorney pre- conclusively sumed to have been the order of the President, commanding of that performance duty. live under a men, laws and not of government
W.e
can claim no
for'
for
President,
executive
not conferred
What we
department,
law.
assert
that it
is,
within the
but is
lawful
only
power,
plain
President, when informed that the due and regu
lar administration of
on one of the federal
justice,
circuits,
is about to be
a threatened attack
interfered
federal
law to administer
judge, assigned by
it,
actually
in that
service,
‘engaged
provide,
means,
by adequate
Little v.
2
protection.
Barreme, Cranch, 170 McElrath v.
;
102 U.
States,
S.
Runkle
426;
v. United
122
S. 43, 557; United States v. Macdaniel,
14;
Pet. 1,
7
U.
v.
14 Pet.
Paulding,
Decatur
6;
Gen.
Opinions Attys.
346 1
341, 342,
;
Cases,
Gen.
Opinions Attys.
475 ; Confiscation
YI. court below did not err in holding Neagle used no more force than Mr. necessary protecting
IN EE NEAGLE.. 31 Appellant. Argument Mr. Johnson’s for he was therefore ,Field, Justice entitled to his dis- “ from for an act done under a law of the charge custody States.” United The ascertained fact of
YU. clearly case, inwas of a state court for an act done in custody petitioner law of the United that he was still States, pursuance an officer of the under obligation proceed with the liis official day by duties, day shows discharge that he in violation clearly of the Constitu- custody States,” tion of the United the other clause provided by Statutes, section the Revised entitled to his equally immediate on that in the discretion of the ground, Circuit as much as Mr. Court, Justice Field himself was just entitled to be.
Mr. A. Johnson, G. General of the State of Cali- Attorney fornia, for appellant.
Section of the Revised 754- Statutes says application writ for the of habeas shall be made corpus by complaint for whose relief it is signed by person intended, writing, forth in and that the facts set shall be verified complaint The making pérson application. oath appli- writ cation for this was not nor relator, sworn signed him. is A. Farrish, The L. and not David petitioner and the is sworn to Farrish. Neagle, petition amended traverse to the return was filed after the evi- heard, dence was and should have been stricken out. The tes- should have stricken been out, intro- timony proofs being duced before but issues, motions for completion were these denied. purposes below then filed a demurrer to the amended
Respondent but court traverse, decided the whole case without first demurrer. on the passing
So much for technical As to the main objections. ques we concede outset that in tion, accordance with 753, § the writ of Rev. Stat. habeas extend corpus may prisoner if for an act done or omitted custody jail, pursu- TERM, 1889. Appellant.. Argument
Mr. Johnson’s *26 order, or an anee of a law or process a; thereof, of court decree violation judge custody or of a la\v or of the United of the Constitution States. treaty “law,” maintain is that the word as we men- But what means, and law its 753, tioned Section statutory, necessary incidents. now the court’s attention
We to-call to the authori- propose and in their Sabin, ties cited Sawyer opinion by Judges will court endeavor to below, relator, see discharging sustain their in- whether conclusion. The great question to the volved as lines between national and boundary proper state The “We determine jurisdiction. judges say: simply it whether was an act (the homicide) performed pursuance of a law of the United States. Nor do we act in this matter have the because we doubt to the slightest their courts, state to, ability disposition ultimately, . do exact We have not the justice prisoner. slightest doubt' or but there ais apprehension.on particular, prin- involved.” ciple
In the we with them foregoing and we are agree entirely, all that the shall be principle definitely desirous perma- settled. nently , first case cited is Ex parte 241, 117 U. Royall, S. This illustrates how careful cáse federal courts are, exercis- to interfere discretionary ing power, issued process laws; under state is not a matter of but only comity, “ it is and of and, principle law, therefore, of neces- right ” and it ais to conciliate rather sity ; than alienate and dissever the federal and state “so tribunals, that they may ” as harmonious members of one cooperate judicial system.
This a federal and of state machinery government gov- at ernments’ is once delicate and consists of complex, balances and for all time to so adjustments come, that there no like the friction; of our may solar harmony system, each where fnoves its own without planet orbit, im- orbit pingement all. greater lightens Ex has no Royall to the parte case at application for bar, in that case there was a constitutional involved, question
IN EE NEAGLE. Appellant. Argument Mr. Johnson’s not the constitutional whether or provision against impairing of a contract was violated the act of the obligation while the General Assembly Virginia; opinion Judges and Sabin does not claim that statute Cali Sawyer murder is or that unconstitutional, fornia such a statute against does the State; properly appertain police power the case of Ex and the so case bar are not Royall parte Nor does the claim, as we understand it, parallel. opinion of the constitution of the United any specific provision has been the arrest States and detention of the infringed by relator.
The next case cited is Ex Siebold, U. S. parte case, 392. This and the other cases where indictments had *27 been involved the of the found, question constitutionality of. certain sections of Title 26 of the Statutes, Revised entitled “ Franchise,” The Elective to wit: Sections 2011, 2012, 2016, and 2021, 2022; also and 2017, “ 5522, under the title §§ These Crimes.” sections relate to elections of members of the House of and were an assertion on the Bepresentatives, a laws for and part Congress power pass regulating said elections. The involved superintending was the question constitutional to make such power Congress regulations, this court and sustained such In that case there was power. an act of Congress of elec against obstructing supervisors tions and the marshals, them giving keep In the case at bar there is no act of peace. as we Congress, if we contend, nor, understand the of the court opinion below, is it contended that there is an act of Congress giving juris federal diction to the court of this case of murder alleged . The next case cited is that of by Judge Sawyer Tennessee v. 100 U. S. But Davis, 257. that case and this are'entirely That case different. was removed from the state court into thé federal court of an because act of express bear on the Rev. ing subject (Section 643, The case was Stat.). transferred to the Circuit Court under the of provisions A act. motion made in the Circuit foregoing Court by General to remand the case to Attorney the state court, on the the federal had ground court no jurisdiction,
vox., oxxxv —3 TERM, 1889. Appellant. Argument
Mr. Johnson’s for went Court on a The case certificate of up Supreme between the even in division such opinion judges, yet where there was an act of that, a case as express Congress, Mr. Justice dissented, two of the Clifford and Mr. judges Justice Field. in their A case consists of the say: majority opinion one as-well other, as the be said party may truly right of under the Constitution law to arise or a or treaty whenever United States its correct decision depends upon const'',uction of either. Cases under the laws of the arising are such United States out of the of Con- grow legislation whether constitute the or or they right claim, gress, privilege, defence in whole or in party, protection, part, by 264. Here whom are asserted.” there is no statute p. which, of the-United States or by expressly necessary impli- the relator to cation for commit homi- any authority gave cide in so his act could become a matter of question, federal cognizance.
The next case cited their is that of judges opinion et 2 Wall. al., Ex Jenkins Jr. That case can have no parte here on this That was a case, where, as is significance inquiry. Jenkins and other United States said, marshals were deputy arrested the warrant of a justice peace Pennsyl- vania, who resisted an shooting wounding negro, arrest under a warrant them issued attempted by slave, United States Court for a which case the fugitive of the United States Circuit Court took justice jurisdiction, them on a writ of habeas *28 Put in this discharged corpus. case there a law States, was wit: the Fugi- tive Slave Law of had 1850, and a writ been issued to the marshal a United States under that by law; hence, Mr. judge “ Justice Grier well In as we find conclusion, that the says: States, are officersof the United prisoners confinement for acts done in of a law of the United pursuance States, under a from . same, . therefore, . process judge the order of the court that the is, prisoner discharged.”
The next case referred to in the we are opinion reviewing is Ex 6 355. A and affi- Robinson, McLean, parte petition
IN RE NEAGLE. 35 Appellant. Argument Mr. for Johnson’s H. marshal of davit of Hiram Robinson, United States, under that he was the order of stated the Honor- imprisoned one of Parker, able the court of common Judge judges Hamilton, for the county pleas performance under as marshal, commissioner of process duty signed by the United for a writ States, of habeas prayed corpus. McLean, He was because he did what discharged by Judge authorized Slave Act of 1850. Fugitive The next case cited in the opinion Judges Sawyer Sabin United States ex rel. Roberts v. Jailor Fayette 2 Abb. This is a case 265, 279. where a County, (U. S.) deputy assisted, marshal was Roberts in to serve endeavoring pro cess one Call, who was crimes under charged internal revenue and who was killed laws, Roberts. Says : I disclaim all judge right power relator on such as that the shows he acted ground' proof A self-defence. would him on such jury probably acquit under which he ground, independent acted, but process I have to do with such an It nothing inquiry. belongs only to the state court. I whether what he only inquire did was done in of a law and of the United pursuance process and so excused, law and justified, process.”
The next case cited of the lower court is In opinion re 451. The Ramsey, while the dis- Flippin, prisoner, of his- United States marshal, killed one charge deputy For that he was arrested and Joseph Lightfoot. held by the state officers. The officer had in his a warrant possession for the arrest of at the time of the Lightfoot homicide; Light- that, foot had declared he would not submit to an arrest; bad reason to know that the officer came there to arrest him, amd had a and his conduct was such as to warrant; imperil life of the officer. Ballard the marshal. Judge discharged
The next case cited is In re Neill, Blatchford, certain statutes, involved whereby discharging from service of the United States minors under army is taken age eighteen from the years, courts, away confided wholly vis "War. Secretary petitioner, General refused Neill, of an enlisted sol-' produce body *29 OCTOBER, TERM, 36 1889. . Appellant. Argument for
Mr. Johnson’s a dier before state was Mr. Justice judge, discharged by on Blatchfprd, of these statutes and basis the statutes in relation to writ of habeas corpus..
The next ease cited is In re Farr 1 and, Abb. (U. S.) a commander in the where of the United States made army to a writ of return habeas issued court, state corpus held that he as a recruit in the showing petitioner army, to laws of the United States enlist pursuant regulating ments. The state court directed the recruit to be discharged. The officer refused to him, and was committed for Ballard, habeas him. contempt. Judge corpus, discharged next cited is case Electoral South Carolina, Collegeof 1 The conclusion of Bond’s will Hughes, Judge opinion the case. He That the sufficiently explain state board says: of canvassers clothed, were .under the law, discretionary them to discriminate the to; votes de powers, required termine and the candidates elected after certify scrutiny, were a of the executive- of the they part department gov in nowise ernment, were as to what subject control, should do after had commenced to they they perform and that as this was duty, judicial department, gen election, eral which members be elected, were to and electors of President and Yice-President of the United chosen, States were official ; or they acting capacity im, in other a lano words, the United pursuance States; and, if one therefore, disturbs them in the exercise of their functions, are entitled to the of the courts protection of the United States.”
. Thus will be seen that in all these cases cited by Judges and Sabin some Sawyer Constitution provision United States was or some violated, statute United States, some order or of a or court of process the. judge and for this reason the petitioner discharged from arrest.
In fact, that court is confronted with a formidable array authorities and to its view. United opinions opposition Crouch, States Guiteau, v. 112 498, 538 Ex; Mackey, parte S.U. 179; of Mr. Justice Clifford opinions dissenting -NEAG-LE.,
IN EE
Appellant.
Argument
(cid:127)Mr. Johnson’s
*30
Field
v. Davis,
Justice
ubi
Ex
Mr.
Tennessee
sufra; in
We need as such a not holding, particularize, Office, Post States, Mint, whole service of the-. — Internal Revenue. Customs, Sub-Treasury, Land Department, Even if it has legis- be conceded that right Congress one at bar a case as the late on and make such subject, it is sufficient case under the laws of the United arising no other there is not done so, has say Congress TERM, Argument Appellant.- Mr. Johnson’s of federal than the repository legislative Congress; itself is but of limited general government government within those limits. -The powers, though supreme resid- great uum our liberties exists in the States and the thereof; people in inherent and. are they consist powers self-derived, of a concession outcome have made in the grant tp the United States. 'Our covered .the case of position fully Ex Yar parte
brough, S. 651, U. where the court says:»“It very true that while at an criminal laws- early day passed death, with' f©r all punish piracy punishing ordinary offences committed within the person against property District of and in Columbia, forts, arsenals, other places *31 n withinthe exclusive the United States, -of- it was jurisdiction to 'slow laws pass protecting government from, officers of in, while their personal injuries inflicted official of within States. This was duties want but power, for no had arisen wh%ch because occasion such required legislation, in the the remedies state courts violence versoned having for - . proved sufficient. the earliest Perhaps attempts Congress protect gov hostile, while in the their officers, ernment exercise of in a out of the nullification South ordinance of community, grew Carolina, and is found in act further to for the col provide lection.of duties on . . When, late imports. early war, civil the enforcement acts of for obtain soldiers draft officers it-into ing by brought engaged hostile it found laws for neighborhoods, necessary pass their an act was protection. 1863, Accordingly,. .passed it a criminal offence assault or obstruct officer' making any while the draft or in service rela engaged making any 12 tion thereto.” Stat. See also Ex 731. parte Merryman, 216 ; Dec. Kendall v. States, Pet. 527, 611; 12 Taney’s 80, v. 10 Swartwout, Pet. Gelstonv. 3 Wheat. Tracy 91; Hoyt, 331. 216, is also court It claimed there is a com- below
.- mon law which be to in this conten- case, which may appealed we answered tion have that he is-confrouted with saying
IN EE NEAGLE. 39 Argument Appellant.' Mr. ^Johnson's for on the statutes matter. But is there common subject law any (cid:127) Uthe nited States as to this case ? Of course, applicable law terms are to receive a common common law signification, other offence law, as murder at common where such it defined act of not otherwise such as is habeas Congress, or trial by jury. corpus, of State v. The Pennsylvania In case etc., Wheeling, How. et 13 al., 518, 563, court “It
Bridge says: Company is no law of the Union on said that there which is common of Vir founded; can that the common law the procedure its that the action, legislative bridge, ginia subject under its no constructed it can in sense been authority, having a nuisance: whatever shall be done within be considered limits a State its written or unwrit laws, is subject Constitution, a violation of the or of some act unless be ten, It is admitted that the federal courts no of Congress. common law and that there no offences, jurisdiction common law of the Union abstract principle pervading can take Wheatonv. which we See also under jurisdiction.” 591, 658; Bollman, Cranch, Pet. Ex Peters, parte our without close in this case We cannot- argument bringing an inherent which is the subject police power, up abdicate, and which cannot surrender or taken establish cannot be may although Congress away, but their must be confined also; regulations operation police which it is control the Constitu over given subjects domain States. The whole criminal tion of the United *32 maxim, law and the common comes under law power; “ in á non alienum seems to Icedas,” utere ut express Sic tuo the concerns Whatever its extensive few words application. the morals, the health, públic the order, public public public and and the right any every person and safety, security comes the immunities, power general police these .under enjoy the which has offences right State. the authority offences and only against define punish of the It cannot assume any supervision the United States. learn States. All this elementary of the regulations police ing. TERM, 1889.
40 Opinion of the Court. n Thereis a of the State police regulation California defin- and crime of murder affixing ing punishment, when the State. within compiitted territory This is a matter of mere internal which regulation, can be after and districts, best looked for in local provided make an national or a exclusively concurrent question one with the States would lead to constant attrition, inharmony, and embroilments between conflicts, the States and the na- tional it was government,' express design Constitution prevent.
The Constitution was formed to make a more union, perfect establish insure domestic justice, tranquillity, promote Hence, welfare. general judicial of the United States is confined cases under the Constitution arising States, laws United States, treaties or which shall made, be under made, their authority, to. cases and some controversies'which have special no bearing question. pending to the extent of the As we cite police powers, Bartemeyer v. 18 Wall. v. Iowa, 129; Kansas, U. S. Mugler 623, 657; 123 v. S. Powell U. 678; Barbier v. Pennsylvania, Connolly, S.U. Mr. Samuel and Mr. Jeremiah M. Shellabarger Wilson, subnaitted on their brief. appellant, Miller, Justice after Mr. the case as stating above, de- livered the the court. opinion true, If it be as stated in the order of the court discharging that he was held in for an act done in prisoner, custody of a law of the United and in
pursuance custody violation of laws United States,” Constitution does not seem to doubt that, there under the statute on he was the Circuit Court. subject, properly discharged by Section 753 o’ Revised reads as follows: .Statutes “The writ of habeas shall no case extend to a corpus unless where he is under or prisoner jail, color custody *33 RE
IN NEAGLE!
Opinion tile of Court. of or the^United is committed for States; the authority of trial is in court or for an act done or thereof; some custody before of a law of the United or of an States, omitted pursuance or of a court decree or or is in order, thereof; judge- process, of violation the Constitution or of or a law custody treaty or of a States; or, the United citizen of being subject foreign is in done or and domiciled an act State, therein, custody under title, omitted authority, any right, privilege, pro- alleged claimed the or tection, commission, under order, or exemption thereof, under State, sanction of or color the or any foreign the law of nations or ; and effect whereof validity depend upon the into court to unless necessary prisoner testify.”- bring the of declares when writ habeas And section 761 “ for a the court corpus petitioner brought up hearing in a to deter- or or shall summary way justice judge proceed facts of the case, mine the testimony argu- hearing as law and ments, justice party thereupon dispose means if he is held in This of course custody require.” or a law of the United or' States, Constitution violation or of a law of the United for an act done omitted pursuance he must discharged. as it at the existed time enactment law, .the By an taken Statutes,- Be could be vised Circuit appéal to the court of or inferior Cir- Court from any justice judge ' in a certain class of habeas But cuit cases. there Court corpus no Court case where any Supreme except appeal State, was the or of a citizen subject prisoner foreign- or confined under tbe law of was committed authority done' State, States or account act any be done under the commission or omitted to of which the law of State, validity depended foreign March 3, afterwards, nations. But act. as amendment follows: was extended 437, 23 Stat. of the Revised hundred and That section seven sixty-four shall read follows: that the same amended so Statutes be ‘ Court an of such appeal may the final decision Circuit From' described in the cases Court be taken Supreme ” section.’ preceding TERM, *34 Opinion of the Court. section is The here referred to section 763, and is preceding on which the for his the one relies from prisoner in this case. custody
It be observedthat in both the of will the Revised provisions and of this latter of the mode Statutes act of review, Congress the Circuit whether Court of an inferior by judgment court or court of the justice by judge, judgment Court, a Circuit the word and not “writ of error,” “appeal,” and is as has used, used these words with a always clear what is meant them, by understanding namely, a writ of error law for only by questions brought up as in actions common while an review, law, ex- by appeal, when the entire case cept specially provided otherwise, qn - both law and facts is to be reconsidered, there seems to be little doubt so far as is that, it essential a decision proper of this us case, examine into the evi- appeal requires to. dence or defeat the sustain of the right brought petitioner to his discharge. led to incidents which history event of tragic had its killing Terry by Neagle prisoner origin suit William Sharon of in the brought by Nevada, Circuit for the
Court United States District of California, ITill, Sarah Althea to be a citizen against alleged California, for the a decree a certain in purpose obtaining adjudging and strument exhibited her, writing, possessed purport to be a declaration between them, ing marriage under California, code of to be a and to have it set aside forgery, and annulled. This was suit, which commenced 3, October 1883, was heard before the Circuit finally Judge Sawyer, Judge cii’cuit, for that and United States Deady, District Judge who had been to assist in Judge Oregon, duly appointed the Circuit for the District of California. The holding Court 29, and on the 15th of Jan hearing September 1886, was rendered uary, decree granting prayer bill. In that decree it Avasdeclared that the instrument pur to be a declaration of out and set described porting marriage, bill Avasnot or executed at complaint, signed time William it Sharon, complainant; NEAGLE.,
IN 'feE Opinion of the Court. that it is false, counterfeited, fabricated,
genuine; forged, null and, such, is and void. And fraudulent, utterly further and decreed that tlue ordered Sarah respondent, with the clerk of Althea deliver the court Hill, deposit up ‘ to be endorsed the clerk instrument, cancelled,’ said ’ ‘ it cancelled and his name affix his seal write across sign thereto.” of this decree was two
The rendition accompanied by opin- one and a ions, being Heady principal by Judge written full one were Judge very by. Sawyer. They concurring of the fraud and Miss their statement forgery practised it was also stated that Hill, accompanied perjury. had as Mr. Sharon died between the And inasmuch hearing *35 of the case on the 29th of the 1885, argument September, this decision, the time of 15, 1886, an and rendering January made and that the fact, order was setting declaring forth that as of the date of the decree was entered nunc hearing, fro tuno. done under this decree. The defendant, Sarah
Nothing the did not deliver instrument to the clerk to Hill, Althea up continued to insist but she use cancelled, its these Frederick W. circumstances, Sharon,, state court. Under father, the will of his "William filed Sharon, as the executor of District of Court for the Northérn on California, the Circuit a bill of the circumstances 1888, revivor, March 12, stating father, the death of his and that the decree-had not decree, also the of Miss Hill been intermarriage performed; alleging of Stockton in" California, David S. with Terry, city bill said wife to this of' and and Terry parties making answered, both demurred and defendants revivor. The resist- and that the the plaintiff, denying petitioner ing prayer .the relief. was entitled in the before Field,
This case was Circuit Court argued District Sabin, Circuit and Justice, Circuit Sawyer, Judge, While, the held advisement, matter was under Judge Judge. Dis- on from Los Sawyer, returning Angeles, Southern court, been found trict of where had' California, he holding Fresno, is understood to. the train as it left Which himself OCTOBER, TERM, 1889- Opinion of the Court. have been the residence in a wife, .and car in which Terry npticed he that Mr. and Mrs. a section behind .were Terry him, on the same side. On this from Fresno to San Fran- trip .had, Mrs. cisco, insulted and her Terry Judge Sawyer, grossly n husband seats so to sit in front of directly change she him and remarks, insolent with Judge, passed while .pulled his hair a vicious in an excited then, manner, jerk, side, her seat her husband’s “I will him said: taking give a taste of Let him render this what get by. will if he decision —the dares,” decision one already being then mentioned, under then advisement. made some Terry remark about too witnesses in the many car, being adding take, that The to. do best with him be to would him thing ,out. into the drown him.” These incidents were wit- bay two who knew all the and whose nessed gentlemen parties, is found in the record before us. testimony This On 3d of was-August September, court' rendered its decision of the bill of granting prayer revivor in the name Frederick W. Sharon and Sarah against Althea and her husband, David S. Terry Terry. opinion Field, was delivered Mr. Justice its delivery during scene violence occurred court-room. It great appears before the court on that both shortly opened day, defendants in the case came into and took seats court-room, within table next the clerk’s desk, bar almost in front of the Besides Mr. immediately Justice Field judges. *36 there were on the bench and present Sawyer, Judge Judge of the Sabin District Court of for -the United States the Dis- trict of Nevada. The defendants had denied the jurisdiction of the court to render the to decree originally sought of-, and revived, the the court discussed opinion necessarily without merits question the reaching controversy. When allusion made to this Mrs. rose question Terry was. from her seat, and the who was addressing .justice delivering asked in an opinion, manner whether was he excited going tí-3 to her order to the contract be cancelled. give up to marriage Mr. Justice “Be seated, madam.” She Field.said: repeated n he and was told to then question, said,- be seated. She again
. IN EE NEAGLE.- . 45 Court;
Opinion oí the and in a violent very-excited manner, that Justice Field had and wanted to been know bought, had he sold price himself that he for; Newland’s had'got it, for and money everybody Justice, that he knew or words it, to that effect. had.got Mr. directed then Field the marshal to remove her from the court- room. She she asserted that would not from the room, and go no onfe could take her it. from Franks
Marshal out the order of the proceeded carry court her when leave, compel her: attempting Terry* husband, rose from under his seat excitement, exclaim- great that no man wife, should touch his and ing living struck face, - a blow in so marshal violent as to out knock a.'tooth jest, He unbuttoned his thrust coat, his hand under his .then for a bowie-knife, when apparently purpose drawing hi_s seized and was forced down by persons present back. meantime Mrs. was removed from the court- Terry In room and was to rise marshal, and was Terry showed to the door officers accompanied by leading marshal’s As office. he was about room,- leaving immediately' after out of he succeeded in it, bowie-knife,' being drawing when his arms were seized marshal and others deputy him from and it, were able to prevent present using (cid:127) it from him after a wrench severe only struggle. most the knife from prominent person wresting engaged Terry ' now in'court. Neagle, prisoner ánd For this both his wife were sentenced conduct Terry by. for the court Mrs. to. for one' .imprisonment Terry contempt, months, month for these sentences were Terry six effect. Both carried into .immediately judgment the revival of for the decree the case court petition on. the Circuit of Sharon Hill and Court judgment against have been and wife brought imprisoning .Terry contempt court both cases the to this for review, judgments be found in of the cases Ex affirmed. The been may report Sharon, U. S. 40. v. U. S. Terry parte Terry, were indicted by and Mrs. separately grand Terry Terry the same of the United States Court during Circuit jury cases were transactions, for their in these term part *37 TERM, 1889. '40 Opinion Court. at the time of death. It also in said Terry’s court pending her of this in altercation that Mrs. during Terry, part appears efforts to a small was satchel court-room, making open but her had with excitement failed. her, which she she through was, was taken from found to her, satchel, This it a revolving pistol. until his death the
From that time denunciations by Terry Mr. Justice Field were and his wife of \open,\frequent, and malevolent character. While the most vindictive being to Alameda, from San Francisco where were they transported a Mrs. number times she Terry repeated imprisoned, both Field and who Judge Sawyer. Judge Terry, wouldvkill restrain but added that her, said he nothing was-present, Field and, was not while yet; through Judge jail that after he out of he said would Alameda, Terry got jail horsewhip did and that he not believe he would Field; Judge but this earth was not ever return to California, large enough him; Field and him from finding Judge horsewhipping keep a that this would be a to remark and,- reply dangerous thing would resent he “If it, and that Field said: do, Judge while, kill And Field I will him.” resents it Judge jail knife, Mrs. to a witness at which exhibited Terry’s Terry that,” I and made a said, “Yes, always carry laughed, “ were marshals, remark about a lot judges all. (“see, curs,” of- and he would some them in their of. cowardly said that she also to kill Mrs. Terry expected. graves yet.” Field some day. Judge the clearest Terry’s
Perhaps expression feelings matter was in a conversation with intentions Mr: T. editor of one of the Williams, Thomas daily of. newspapers This interview about brought by message California. from to. call and In Williams see him. Terry requesting he said court, occurrences that Justice speaking Field had lie about and when he met him, record put “ Field he have to take that and if back, he did not take would back lied about he would him, apologize slap having face, pull “I witness, said said the him,” his.nose.” do'( f would not that be a Judge Terry, dangerous thing
IN EE NEA.GLE.
Opinion' of the Court. is not a man would Justice Field who one to a any permit put ‘ him like said, insult that.’ He Field won’t Oh, deadly upon have all said, I I found men will ‘Well, Judge, fight.’ nearly man will there is occasion for fight.when fight; nearly every had Field has a character in this of it, State Judge having of convictions, his a brave At man.’ courage being of the conclusion that branch of I to conversation, said him, Field is not ‘Well, and if your Judge physical equal, trouble should occur he would be a to use very likely weapon.’ a said, He that’s as I ‘Well, as want to good thing get.’ whole to me was, conversation impression conveyed , that he felt he had some cause of grievance against Judge he that
Field; meet, he an they have hoped might might a force and he him, would opportunity quarrel upon get him into a Mr. Williams that after the.return of fight.” says Justice Field California in the summer he 1889, spring had other conversations Avith in Avhichthe same vindic- Terry, tive hatred Averemanifested and him. feelings expressed by It useless over the on this more go testimony subject It is sufficient to that the evidence abun- particularly. say dant that both and Avife some attack Terry contemplatedL upon Field his visit in official to California Judge sum- during mer of intended should result his death. of these matters Avere in the Many published newspapers, of California was filled Aviththe of a .press conjectures attack as it Field, Justice soon became by Terry probable known that to attend the Circuit Court going year. much Avere Field,
So the friends of and of impressed Judge both in California arid in with the public justice, Washington, fear that he Avouldfall sacrifice to the resentment Terry his was made wife, Gen- application Attorney eral of the United fur- States propriety suggesting This some nishing while California. protection judge resulted General between the Attorney correspondence United and the marshal- States, the District Attorney, This cor- Northern District on that California subject. is here out: set respondence TERM,/. 1889.
48. of the Court. Opinion “, Department Justice, “ 27th, Washington, April Francisco, Cal. Marshal, San States United John C. Franks, been had in heretofore which have “. Sir : The proceedings and Mrs. of Mr. your the case Terry connection matter of become public notoriety, States' Circuit Court attention to call and I deem your propriety my duty further case shall caution, unusual proceedings of exercising his Honor for the Justice case, had in that protection be called to hear and determine or whoever Field may matterj (cid:127) be the feel- I do know what .the Of course, may and Mrs. but of Mr. Terry premises, ings purpose *39 that violence on which have indicate happened many things It due to the their is inde- impossible. dignity part the court and the character its that no judge pendence be to make shall effort government the part spared safe and free from feel entirely anxiety .them duties. of their high “ is not for course, will letter understand, You this but It be to will you upon your guard. proper public, put if to it to the district deemed best. for show attorney, you , W. H. H. Miller. “Tours truly, “Attorney General.” “ Office, Marshal’s States of California, District'
“Northern 6, May Francisco, “San “ General, C. D. Hon. W. H. H. Attorney Washington, Miller, “ at hand. ultimo, Yours 27th Sir: our the Hon. Lorenzo Circuit When Sawyer, Judge Judge, before the from Los time celebrated returned Angeles-(some informed action of Mrs. court me of the scene) disgraceful in front him on the her husband sat cars, towards while Terry so I (and resolved to watch the it, Terrys smilingly approving whenever, the court- notified should enter my deputies) offered, and be to first room, very ready suppress indignity After, at the time this, them to the either of judges.' by. I held court-room, from the when Terry their Judge ejectment IN EE NEAGLE.
Opinion of the Court. and his wife as office and heard prisoners my private Justice I was more Field, threats determined than against fully ever to throw around the Justice and Sawyer every Judge I could. safeguard
“I have the matter with the consideration, careful given determination to at time,- federal fully protect judges that the will reimburse me rea- trusting department any sonable expenditure. “ have I whenever there is- likelihood of either always, any or Mrs. had a forcé of Judge Terry court, appearing depu- ties with on hand to watch their myself You every-action. can rest assured that when arrives, he, Justice Field as well all federal will be from insults, judges, protected where an order is made it will be without fear toas executed - shall I follow instructions and act with your consequences. than more usual caution. I consulted with already United States J. T. as to the attorney, advisabil- Carey, Esq., to at the ity time making application you, Terrys tried criminal for me select de- two more charges, tectives assist assist case, also me'in protecting Field Justice while district. feel I my wish judges and for this secure, will see it that their wish purpose every (cid:127) I notice remarks promptly obeyed. your regard and will letter, I shall publicity your your obey request. too receive from only happy you any suggestions time.- *40 “ The the better here opinion class among citizens very bitter against course, theii Terrys, though, they friends, and, to that class it is unfortunatély, among necessary watch.-
“Your most obedient servant, J. C. Franks, “ Mist, U. 8. Marshal Northern Cal.” “ Cal., May 7, Francisco, San “Hon. W. H. H. Miller, “U. S. General, D. C.. Attorney Washington, Sir: Marshal Franks to me letter exhibited yoitr “Dear date the him bearing 27th addressed to ult., subject VOL. cxxxv — l TERM, 18891
Opinion of the Court. Justice Field and due caution way protecting >f using of their duties in.mat- here the federal judges I noted are interested. in' your sugges- ters which Terrys not because our marshal tion with degree pleasure, great undone within his author- to leave is at all anything disposed it him to know to 'but because do, or encouraged ity in full our that the Head of and Department sympathy feel and vindicate made to efforts with the protect judges being our courts. dignity-of “ that there is reason, I write just merely suggest threats made Mrs. and the of. Judge past light Field and Sawyer, Justice Judge apprehend Terry against as well in moment violence at any place, any personal caution has while due court, court as out of always Mrs. taken the marshal when either been Judge Terry held, in which the he has not is about the courts are building his either felt within Sawyer guard Judge Field harm when from Justice away appraisers’ against building. be dictates,
“Discretion however, protection,should when about them at other times and thrown proceed- places, them in are inter- are had before which the Terrys ings being -in made view of the direful threats believe, and I ested, verily at all that he will be Field, Justice great danger against while here. times “ who cool, officer, Mr. Franks is a courageous prudent, him. I would therefore not abuse will any authority granted retain one- that he be authorized his discretion to suggest times as he deem at such .ór more may necessary, deputies, That not be publicity may given purposes suggested. whom he that the it is matter, may important deputies be and that service such, not known as efficient may select be to me that' it seems indicated, for the assured purposes Terrys. .should strangers that an officer should unable to The appreciate Terrys way when requires his official duty perform marshal, them. dep- to be his’efforts directed against Mrs. and insults from indignities uties, daily myself suffer *41 IN RE NEAGLE.
Opinion of the Court. in court, court and out of committed in the Terry, presence and without her husband do not interference-upon part. I from deterred do nor I being purpose duty, purpose being intimidated the least from whole degree doing my but I shall feel assured in able to doubly premises, being our do so marshal has kind your wishes knowing needed to the offi- encouragoxnent doing everything protect cers of the court their duties. “ is not This, course, intended for the files of your public nor will it on file in office, be Prudence my office. dictates caution the officials who be called part great may to have to do in the I deem upon anything premises,' be that the importance back and greatest suggestions confidential. forth be “ I further shall write you of these cases in subject a few days.
“I have the honor to be, most obedient your servant,
“ John T. Oarky, “ Attorney?’ S.TJ. “Department Justice, D. C., 27, 1889. May “Washington, “ C. J. States San Marshal, Esq., Francisco, Cal. Franks, “ Sir : to former Referring correspondence depart-' ment disorder possible session of relating term of court, small number approaching owing under control to bailiffs order, your preserve are directed you certain at a diem of five employ special deputies per dollars.. out of the for fees and ¡iayable appropriation expenses to be submitted marshals, to the court as a account separate from other accounts your against government approval, SJ6, under section Revised Statutes, as an ex- extraordinary that the same pense, to this may forwarded Department order to secure executive action and approval.
“ - W. If. Yery respectfully, II. Miller, General?’ Attorney TERM, 1889. *42 Court,
Opinion of the that Marshal was Franks of this . result correspondence The marshal for the Northern a Mr. deputy Neagle appointed him and California, instructions special gave District to. in court and while Field both from going attend Judge him from and assault another, court to protect one and wife. by Terry Accordingly, be attempted upon might him Francisco, San to Los Field went from when Angeles Judge of the United States at that Court to. hold the Circuit place, remained with him for the few him, Mr. accompanied Neagle in court, the business and that he was engaged days Francisco. him San returned with to evidence, the uncohtradicted in the!case that It from appears were Justice'Field and Mr. which Nea- while sleeping-car, at Fresno, a moment early morning Terry stopped gle, train; fact that on were the train on the apd got wife held and a known Neagle, became conversation he. officers could be found to what as conductor the, peace and breakfast, train the con- stopped Lathrop, where to the telegraph proper Officers requested ductor was have, or some officer a constable peace the ground place that there train should arrive,'anticipating might-be when sufficient, Field. It is Terry upon. Judge violence attempted by iii no available aid to assist in that this resulted keeping say arrived, the train informed When Neagle Judge peace. on the and train, advised him Terry Field presence take his breakfast the car. and This the to. remain Judge out he and of the car arid went do, Neagle got refused-to and took seats iti each other into the dining-room, Reside them-bv of- the breakfast- person charge, assigned place after this came into wife' room, shortly Terry very turned and Field, Mrs. room; and Terry, recognizing Judge haste, jn while where Terry passed beyond Judge left great and took his It Field and were seat at another table. Neagle car, that Mrs. to the was-afterwards ascertained went Terry Before a,, from it satchel which took was a revolver. arose, seat, she from his returned eating-room, Terry him and, around-the table such as passing, way brought behind did him or who notice came Field,' him, Judge see EE
IN NÉAGLE. rS3 - Opinion of the Court. was where he with his feet under sitting table;
up him a blow on the side his face, struck repeated other on the He also had his arm and his side.. back drawn doubled to strike'a third fist when Nea- blow, up, apparently been him all had this arose from"his time, who observing gle, hand, with his revolver and in seat loud'voice a’very ” ! I am an shouted out: officer! Stop stop! Terry Upon his attention to as and, turned seemed testifies, Neagle, Neagle him, and turned his hand to thrust recognize immediately bosom, it in his felt with the sure, of draw- Neagle purpose bowie-knife. At this instant fired two shots from Neagle ing *43 into revolver of his who sank body Terry, immediately and in down died a few minutes. satchel,
Mrs. entered the room with the in her hand Terry after sank the' floor. She to' the Terry just up rushed upon he was, where threw herself his made loud place body, moans, and and \exclamations commenced inviting spec- her tators Field and She avenge wrong upon Neagle. ap- to be carried in a earnest peared away by passion, very manner that Field and had murdered her charged Neagle husband afterwards she intentionally, shortly appealed to examine of see that present persons the. body Terry'to no he had This she did once or twice. The satchel weapons. she had, which taken from a was found to ’contain being her, revolver.
These are the material circumstances evidence produced Court on before Circuit this of habeas hearing corpus It but a short case.. sketch aof which is history given hundred- over five think'it record, but we suf- pages to enable us to the law of the case to the apply ficient. ques- us. "Without tion before a minute discussion of this more us the testimony, upon conviction a settled produces pur- on the and his pose part Terry wife, a con- amounting'to to murder Justice Field. And we are sure spiracy, quite that if had been a or a brother friend Neagle merely Judge Field, with him, and aware of all the rela- travelling previous — — tions of as he of his bitter ani- Terry Judge, was, his declared to have even to mosity, purpose revenge point.. TERM, 1889.
Opinion of the Court. would him, have been what he did in killing justified defence of Mr. Justice Field’s of his own. life, possibly
But such a would be a for con justification proper subject sideration on trial of the case for murder in the courts of the State of and there exists California, no authority courts of the United States discharge prisoner'while held in the State authorities for offence, custody by unless found in there be aid of the defence of the some ele prisoner ment of asserted under government1 of the United States.
This element is said to be found in Mr. the facts that Jus- Field, tice attacked, when inwas the immediate of the Circuit Courts of the duty United States judge within the assault him California;Shat out grew out of dis- wife, animosity Terry arising previous of his as circuit in the case for charge duty which justice were committed court; and'" contempt marshal of the who killed deputy Terry defence Field’s was life, under the charged law of the United States to Field from the violence protect (cid:127) and which was Intended to lead Terry inflicting, death. to.Field’s
To the whether this is sustained inquiry law proposition and the facts which we have we recited, now address ourselves.
Mr. Field Justice was a member of the Court of Supreme States, and had the United been a member of that court for *44 a over of a had quarter century, during become venerable for Ins and for his and valuable age service long that court. The business of the has Court become Supreme so that for of it have exacting many years past justices been to remain for the compelled larger part year from whatever of the Washington City, part country they have been The term may for each appointed. year, including travel and to attend at its necessary preparations begin- has lasted from ning, generally to nine months. eight But the court this justices them other imposed upon duties, the most of which arise out of the important fact ¡also of the Circuit Courts of the United judges States.
IN EE NEAGLE.
Opinion of the- Court. circuits there are Of these to each nine, one of which a justice Court is' of the under allotted, section 606 of the Supreme Statutes, of which is Eevised as follows: provision “The-chief associate of the justice justices Supreme be allotted Court shall an order of the circuits among and a new allotment shall be court, made whenever it becomes or convenient reason of the alteration of cir- necessary or of' the new of a cuit, chief or associate appointment justice or otherwise.” justice,
Section 610 declares “shall be the of the-chief duty and of each justice, justice Supreme Court, attend.at least one term of Court, the.Circuit each district of the cir- cuit which allotted of two every he.is. during period years.” this enactment does not in terms that the
Although require shall to their circuits more than once in two justices go years, .the effect of it is to most of them to this, do compel because- there are so districts the circuits that it many many -is for the circuit to reach them all in one impossible justice year, result of and the this is that he to some of them in goes one_ and to others in the next thus an year, year, attend- requiring ance in the circuit every year, Court have been justices members of Supreme
the Circuit Courts of the United States ever since the organ- ization and their government, attendance on the circuit.' the., where the courts are appearance, places held has- been a matter of always thought to In importance. order him to enable this Mr. Justice perform Field duty, had to from travel each year near the Washington Atlantic City, to San on the coast, Francisco, Pacific coast. In doing much in lie was as of a the discharge him duty imposed upon law as he was while in court and sitting causes. trying There are duties which the many outside of judge performs " where the court-room he sits to or to pronounce judgment pre- a trial. The side over statutes of the United established the courts, practice require judge .per- form share of labors at very large judicial what is called - “ chambers.” This chamber work is as as neces- important, much his official as that sary, perfor-med *45 TERM, 1889.
Opinion of tie Court. cases are in the court-house. often before Important argued convenient to the at auy concerned, judge place parties a decision of the is arrived at' judge by investigations he made-in his own wherever and it is idle room, be, to may as much the that this is not performance say judicial duty with the as the and the clerk, announce- filing judgment court. ment of the result open
So it is a Court of the impossible justice Supreme who to compelled obligations duty much in be so his duties of Washington City, Courts as attendance on Circuit section prescribed by usual without and most convenient modes of travelling it to the where the court is be held. This place doing is as much an the law as if it said had obligation imposed by in words “the Court shall justices .Supreme from go where their terms are held City Washington place every year.”
Justice Field had not left only travelled Washington the three thousand miles or more which were to reach necessary but had circuit, his entered duties circuit, at had held the court San Francisco for some time; and, court, a short leave had down to Los taking gone another where a court was Angeles, place held, sat b there for several cases and judge days, earing rendering It was in the decisions. act of necessary from Los returning to San Francisco, the usual mode of travel Angeles between the two where his court was still in places, session, where he was that he be, was assaulted required by Terry n manner we have described. already The occurrence which we are called consider uponjo was of so a character that it to be extraordinary expected cases can be found to cite as many authority upon subject. In the case of v. The United States Schooner Little Charles, 380, 382, Brock. arose before Chief question Justice Mar the Circuit Court of shall, the United States for holding as to an order made Virginia, validity District of, and not chambers, in court. The act Judge stated authorized District Court, gave terms judge EE
IN .57 NEEGLE. *46 Opinion of the Court. hold courts at either at discretion, to special the. law or the other in the sueh district place
place appointed the and his nature of business discretion should direct. as the a “It does not seem to be He violent construction says: to consider the as a court an act such judge constituting .when- ” business; and cites the ever he judicial practice proceeds of that view of the the courts support subject. Gleason, case of United States v. 1 Wool. C.
In the C. the was indicted for the murder of two 132, prisoner who with the officers were duty arresting enrolling charged had been" into or those who drafted the service deserters, These, the- said, to attend. was had visited men, had failed ánd,' where were murdered, of country they having region their the desert- failed purpose arresting accomplishing killed,' return to home when were on their their were ers,- they to instruct that under asked the these and the court was jury- not in the were arresting circumstances they engaged “ .named. It is claimed the couhoel for the deserters “that if had killed defendant,” report, parties says that and had come to with been so neighborhood engaged, at the mo- deserters, but supposed arresting purpose abandoned the assault had ment .of purpose. making and were to time, at that arrests returning headquarters a to other for with view Gfrinnell, making arrangements as to were so another time, arrest at engaged bring held But the that this was law.” court the case within “ and that if the statute, construction not a sound into that to killed had come intent neighborhood parties and had been named, the deserters arrest employed by that service, and were, officer prosecu- proper proper to Grinnell with a view tion of returning purpose, were other arrangements duty, they making discharge. within still deserters, meaning engaged arresting said the court, is the statute. It not necessary,” act of in the immediate arrest, killed should be party engaged but about that business it is if sufficient he be employed when the-life of the law is assaulted. protect purpose so so and this continues person employed,, protection OCTOBER, TERM, 1889.
Opinion of the Court. service engaged necessary long proper' that employment.” no doubt
We have that Mr. Justice Field when attacked by of his duties as Circuit Terry engaged Circuit, Justice of the Ninth was entitled to all the pro- under circumstances which tection those the law could give him.
It exists no however, there statute urged, authorizing such as that which was instructed Neagle protection Field in the and indeed no case, give Judge present protection whatever malicious assault vindictive out against growing *47 of faithful the. of his official and that duties; section Revised that Statutes, language party the writ of benefit of habeas must in this seeking corpus is “in connection show that he for an act done'or custody omitted of a law of States,” the United makes it pursuance that this occasion it should be necessary shown upon act was done virtue of an Neagle imprisoned act of It is not act of Congress. supposed any special exists which authorizes the marshals or mar- deputy shals of the States in terms United express accompany Court their circuits, and judges Supreme through act as a them, defend them malicious body-guard against assaults their But we are of against persons. opinion this view of‘ the is an statute unwarranted restriction of of a law to extend in a liberal man- meaning designed ner the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus persons impris- oned for the of their And we are duty. satisfied performance that if was the under the duty Neagle, circumstances, which could under arise the laws only United Mr. Justice Field States, defend from murderous attack within him, he himself of the section upon brings meaning we have recited. This view of the is confirmed subject the alternative that he must be “for provision, custody .in an act done or omitted of a law of the United pursuance or of an order, States decree a court or process, judge or is in thereof, violation of the Constitution or of custody, a law or of the United States.” treaty
IN EE NEAGLE. (cid:127)
Opinion tlie Court. In the view we take of the Constitution of the United States, inferrible from that obligation fairly properly instrument, of the marshal to be derived from any duty of his duties under the laws the United scope general “a law” within the of this States, It meaning phrase. would be a great reproach system government declared to be within its and' sphere sovereign tp within if there is be found the domain of its supreme, no means of powers protecting the.judges, conscientious. and faithful of their from the duties, malice and discharge- may operate hatred of those whom their judgments unfavorably. in modern
It has times become that the apparent physical- . the' health of is more community efficiently promoted' by than the skill which is means, hygienic preventive- to the -cureof disease after it has become devel- applied fully also the which is intended to So law, crime, oped. prevent its spread community, by regulations, general among police which are for the' otherwise, organization, adapted pro- tection of the lives and of citizens, for the property dispersion' of- for the arrest of thieves and mobs, for the watch assassins, which is over the as well as over class community, kept is more efficient than of crimes after people, punishment . have been committed. .
If a in the situation of Field could have no Judge person *48 other of his while personal safety, guarantee engaged of a conscientious than the fact disagreeable duty, if murdered his murderer that he was would be to the subject of a State and those laws could be the laws secur- punished, insufficient. The and would wffich ity very Terry plan n wifehad in mind of him huh-and insulting assaulting him contest, into a defensive in the course of drawing physical which would shows the little him, value such slay do remedies. Ve not believe that of the- government (cid:127) United States is thus o that its Constitution and inefficient, laws have left the officersof the so defence^ high government less and unprotected.
The views this court Mr. Justice expressed by through TERM, 1889.
.60 Opinion of the Court. 371, in Ex 100 U. S. Siebold, Bradley, parte very -per this our views tinent to force. suhject, express great of a writ That was a case of habeas where Siebold had corpus, been indicted' the Circuit Court of the United States the District of for an offence committed Maryland, against an laws, election election which members of during .the and officers the State of wrere elected. Congress Maryland He was and sentenced to fine and convicted, imprisonment, and filed his court for a writ this of habeas petition corpus, to be on the that the court had relieved which con ground victed him was without The foundation of this jurisdiction. that the United had no allegation Congress States to for the laws conduct the election right prescribe ques or for tion, laws State of enforcing Maryland by the courts of the United In the States. course the discus sion of the relative federal and state courts on powers the. said : subject, “Somewhat akin to the which been has con- argument sidered is the that marshals authorized objection deputy ' be,created the act of to and to attend the elec- tions are authorized and that this is a keep peace; alone. state authorities It belongs that order in argued preservation peace good is not'within the confided to the society powers government but States. belongs exclusively Here we are met-with again theory government of the United States does not the-soil reskupon territory We think that this is founded country. on an theory entire of the nature and misconception powers govern- We hold it ment. to be an incontrovertible principle, of the United States means of government may, by physi-' force, cal exercised its official execute on through agents, every foot of American soil the and functions that powers belong it. This .necessarily the' to command obedience power involves to its and hence laws, to that ex- pbwer keep peace tent. . This enforce .its laws to execute its power func- tions in all does not from the places derogate ,to State its execute laws at the same time and in the same
n IN EE 61 NEAGLE.
Opinion the Court. one not exclude where other, does except places. time. In that cannot at the same both be executed case’ itself words of the show Constitution yield., ‘ be made in all' laws which shall This and Constitution, pur law of the suance . . . shall be the thereof, supreme (cid:127). Without concurrent referred land.’ . . sovereignty but an advi to, the national would nothing government would be Its executive absolutely sory government. power if cannot nullified. do we marshals all, have they Why their and hands on physically lay things per persons of their What functions-can formance duties? they proper if cannot use force ? In they processes perform, executing of, must call on the nearest constable courts, they ? must on him to use the com requisite protection they rely and to keep soliciting pulsion, the-peace,-whilst, to allow the law entreating parties bystanders its course? This take necessary. consequence are assumed. If we such indulge imprac positions ticable views as on we these, and keep refining rerefining, drive the national out of the United States, shall government or it to the District of some Columbia, relegate perhaps soil. We shall it back to a condition greater foreign bring than that of the old ... It confederation. helplessness must execute its it is no must exe or powers, government! ,It sea, cute them the as as On the on as well on well things land to do it must And, this, persons: necessarily power order, command obedience, preserve keep peace; and no in this land has the resist power right person so as it within the its authority, keeps question long bounds of its jurisdiction.” At of Tennesseev. court, the same term of the in the case 257, 262, U. S. where the Davis, same questions regard, to the relative of the federal and state courts were powers the court to criminal concerned, offences, expressed regard its from views Mr. Justice .the case through Strong, quoting Martin v. Hunter, following language: Wheat. “The to exist whenever must céase general government .it of its con loses itself in the exercise protecting *50 OCTOBER, TERM, 1889.
Opinion of the Court. ” and then stitutional It can act powers; proceeding: only its officers must act within agents, the through and within thus when the If, acting, States. of their scope brought can be arrested and those officers authority, trial offence in a state an the .for law court, alleged against the warranted the federal State, yet authority they possess, and if the to interfere at general government powerless — for their if their once must be left to protection protection — the action of the state court of the operations general time be arrested at the will of one may any government its members. a State legislation may únfriendly. It acts done under the penalties immediate may'affix direc tion of the national and in obedience its government, laws. It conferred may deny those authority laws. The bjr state court administer not the laws may of the but only State, federal in such a law, manner as to equally paralyze oper ations if,' And even after trial and government. final court, the state the case can be into the judgment brought United States court the officer review, is withdrawn from of his discharge during pendency prosecu exercise of tion, federal arrested. acknowledged We do think such an element of weakness is to be found Constitution. The United States is a government over the whole authority Union, of the extending territory the States and the of the acting upon States. While people it is in the limited number of its so far as its sov powers, extends it is No state ereignty supremo. can government it from éxclude the exercise of conferred it upon the Constitution; obstruct its authorized officers against will; its or withhold from it, for a moment, the cognizance which that instrument has .any subject committed it.” To cite all the cases in which this of the principle supremacy of the United government States, the exercise all conferred the Constitution, is main- powers would anbe endless task. tained, We have selected these as the most forcible being views of the expressions court, a direct reference to the nature of the case having before us. Where, then, we to for the look which we protectiofi
IN RE NEAGLE.
Opinion of the Court. Field shown was entitled to when Judge engaged of his official duties? Not to the courts of States; as has because, been more than once said in court, division of the be- powers government tween the three executive, great departments, legislative is the weakest for the of self- judicial, judicial purposes and for the enforcement of the which it exer- protection powers cises. The ministerial officers whom its commands through must be executed are marshals of the United to the executive belong emphatically department gov- *51 ernment. are President, They appointed by advice and of the Senate. consent are removable from They office at his are act of pleasure. They subjected by Congress and control of the supervision Department Justice, 'in the hands of one the cabinet of the President, officers and is their acts of provided The compensation by Congress. said of the district same be of the may United attorneys who and defend the States, claims of the prosecute govern- ment in the courts. branch of the can legislative government only protect officers the enactment of laws for that judicial by pur- and the we are now assumes'that
pose, argument combating law such has been 'no by passed Congress. turn
If we to the executive of the department government, find we a different condition of affairs. The very Constitu- “ tion, section declares that 2, Article the ’President shall take care that the laws be executed,” and' he faithfully with the means of provided his fulfilling obligation by to commission all the officers of the United States, and, ancj with the advice and consent of the' Senate, most them and to fill vacancies. appoint important His is declared to be commander-in-chief of the army navy duties United States. The which are thus imposed upon (cid:127)him he is further enabled to in the perform by recognition and the creation acts of Constitution, execu- Congress, of tive have varied in number from four or' departments, called, five to heads of which seven or eight, familiarly cabinet aid him in ministers. These performance TERM, 1889.
Opinion Court. him-in office, his a duties thousand great represent acts to which it can attention, hardly personal supposed' enabled fulfil thus he is called, and duty of. his great in the shall he expressed phrase -take care department, that the laws be executed.” faithfully
Is limited to the enforcement of acts of this duty or of treaties Cnited States their according empress terms, or does include the duties rights, obligations out of the our itself, Constitution international rela- growing tions, and all the the nature of the protection implied gov- ernment ? under Constitution
One most remarkable of óur history episodes relations, and an which has become attractive histori- .foreign cal incident, is the Koszta, case Martin a native of Hun- who, citizen of naturalized gary, though fully (cid:127) had in due form of law made his declaration inten- tion to become citizen. inWhile he was seized Smyrna command of the Austrian consul at that general place, carried on board the an Hussar, vessel’where was Austrian held-in close confinement. command Captain Ingraham, .in of the American of war Louis, St. sloop arriving port that critical that Koszta had with period, ascertaining him his naturalization demanded his surrender to him, papers, and was to train his compelled the Austrian vessel guns upon *52 before his demands were with. It was, tt> however, complied bloodshed, Koszta should be prevent in the agreed placed hands of the French consul to the result of subject diplomatic between negotiations Austria and the United States. The celebrated Mr. between correspondence Marcy, Secretary and State, Chevalier Hülsemann, Austrian minister at which arose out of this affair and Washington, resulted in the release to restoration and attracted a Koszta, liberty great deal of attention, assumed Mr. public position by met the of the Marcy and of approval who country Congress, votéd a medal to for his conduct in gold Captain Ingraham the. affair. what act of then can Upon existing any one of the our lay finger action of support government in this ? matter
IN RE NEAGLE.
Opinion of the Court. or the Postmaster the President General is if advised So, States, treasure, of the United mails possibly carrying mail robbed carriers to be assaulted and liable are who can doubt any particular region country, murdered the President or of one of the executive de- the authority to make an order under-him protection partments lives of its carriers, the mail and by persons doing Mr. done in the case of Field, what was Justice exactly whether it be a sufficient soldiers namely, by providing guard, a or marshals of the United of the army fto'sse to armed and secure safe oomitatus equipped, per- properly the mail wherever it formance of the of carrying may to ? intended go millions of of valu is the owner of acres United States of much and has been the more which
able owner land, public lands owe a of their it has sold. Some these large part them. These forests value to forests grow upon are liable depredations by people living neighbor known as timber who make thieves, hood, living by cutting timber, But until such and who trespassers. selling there no even if there be one was statute now, recently, quite for the of this measures protection authorizing any preventive President no Has the valuable authority public property. its ? timber public territory protect
place guards upon cut and found to seize the timber when No authority Has he ho to take measures pro 'ground? we find this tect this vast domain? Fortunately question in the case of Wells v. Nickles, answered this court a case in which class of men U. S. 444. That was appointed under instructions from the officers,, land local Secretary found a of-this timber Interior, large quantity cut having from States and down the forests where lying it cut, seized it. The the title to question property Nickles, between Wells became coming controversy essential of these timber into the authority agents inquire (cid:127) cut thus to seize the timber government trespassers on its court The effort we have lands. The said : made to ascertain and fix-the timber of these agents by any
vol. cxxxv —6 TERM, 1889. Court:,
Opinion of the of law has been unsuccessful.”. positive But provision court, no there was statute for' special notwithstanding it, held that Interior, under Department acting idea of from timber the lands of the protecting depredation assert the had come to government, to seize gradually right what is taken from them wherever it cut can be away traced, and in aid of this the and receivers of .the registers had, Land Office instructions from the of the Secretary Interior, been constituted of the United States for these agents under them- purposes, appoint special agents selves. And court of the Secretary upheld authority of the to make Interior these rules and for the regulations of.the lands. protection public
One the cases this court in which was question in most is that of presented form United States imposing v. San Jacinto Tin S. 273, 279, 280. In U. Company, case, suit was the name United States, brought order of the to set aside a General, Attorney patent had been issued for of valuable on the land, large body that was obtained from the ground fraud government by and deceit A its officers. practised upon preliminary question which, was raised counsel for was earnestly defendant, insisted as to the General or upon, right Attorney any other officer of the such to institute a suit in the government absence of act of it. It was con any Congress authorizing ceded that was no there to the Attor express given General to institute that suit or suit ney any particular, class. The was one of and was interest, question very great both in below the court and in this court. very ably argued of this court to that conceded that in response suggestion the acts-of of Justice Department Congress establishing duties of General there no Attorney was defining such and it was said that there no was also authority, express to him to suits debtors of the express authority bring against or to bonds, criminal begin prosecutions, government upon to institute criminal cases in which proceedings was invested with the United States plaintiff, yet such, It of all suits. was further said: general superintendence *54 IN EE NEAGLE.
Opinion of the Court. cause, in has a States, case, United the any particular just “If the of the of its country, upon judiciary for calling or of its con- relief aside courts, annulling any setting the instruments, its most solemn or its tracts, obligations, tribunals of the the country of judicial appeal question of the General Attorney be must primarily decided exist someAvhere, That a should such States. power United more should not be States helpless and that United than frauds, of itself deceptions, impostures, relieving There . . . is individual, argument. hardly open private to de- of the an officer or officers be then, government must, for Avhat to decide sue, States shall Avhen United termine suits shall be that such to be sue, and it shall responsible of the United cases. The attorneys in appropriate brought of this character, are officers district States every judicial the immediate statute under supervision can it then, How, General. argued of the Attorney control de- deceived, has been States entrapped, that if the United law, of of an instru- under the forms into frauded, making, or other affects its property, ment which injuriously rights avoid the effect of such instru- a suit to it cannot bring rights, Avithoút a. act of obtained, thus fraudulently special ment, Avithout some in each case, special authority The same this class of cases?” question applicable v. 11 How. States Hughes, in the earlier case United raised decided the same 552, and Avay. to take meas doubt the President cannot
We of one of the courts ures for judge protection of the duties of his Avhilein the who, States, United attack Avhich threatened Avitha may prob is office, personal it clear that where this in his and Avethink death, result ably the civil the De to be afforded power, through protection one to set motion of Justice the proper partment means correspondence already protection. necessary marshal of the North in this betAveenthe recited opinion General, and the California, Attorney ern District States for that district, district the United attorney mode of no affording Areryspecific although prescribing TERM, Opinion of the Court. tbe is sufficient, General, we protection Attorney think, warrant marshal which he did take, taking steps protection which he did for the. making provisions make, and defence of Mr. Justice Field.
But there is law the marshals and their positive investing which not what Marshal deputies powers only justify did in this but which matter, him as Neagle imposed In fourteen of the Revised Statutes duty. chapter which is devoted to and duties appointment the district marshals, clerks attorneys, the courts *55 States, the United section 788 declares: “The marshals their shall in have, each State, deputies the in same the laws of the powers, United States, executing as the sheriffs and in by their such State deputies have, may in the laws law, thereof.” executing If, a sheriff of therefore, the State of was author- California do ized to in to the laws of California what regard Neagle that did, is, if was authorized to to the keep protect peace, from a assault and murder, then authorized judge was Neagle .to do the same in reference to the laws of the United thing States.
Section of the Political of Code California reads as follows: “ The sheriff must:
“First. Preserve the peace. “ Second. Arrest take before the nearest and. magistrate examination all who to persons commit or com- attempt mitted a offence. public “ Third. all of Prevent breaches the suppress affrays, riots and which insurrections, come his knowl- to peace, may edge.....” And the Penal of California Code declares (section 197)
homicide is w'hen committed when justifiable by any person to murder or a to commit resisting attempt any person any ” or -to do some felony bodily great' injury upon person; “or in when of defence or habitation, committed property one who ..gainst intends endeavors person manifestly violence a to commit surprise felony.” BE
IN NEAGLE. Opinion of Court. the man as the Statesthat a United is a there That peace States while' a saulting judge United mar such case the violates peace; of his duties relation, same States stands in.the United shal which sheriff tíf States county- United of the. peace California; aré too of the State questions does the peace it That would them. to need clear argument'to prove at been this' assault a if one had sheriff, present duty breach of the this peace,, Field, prevent Terry upon Judge murder which was con assault, this prevent prevent if, And cannot be doubted. it, performing templated for the of Judge this it became duty, necessary protection this, case like it where, to kill a himself, or of Fiéld, Terry, choice of who be killed, was should evidently question and disturber violator law the assailant and of. there man was his or the who power, .unoffending
peace, killed of the sheriff to have no can be question the United So charged marshal Terry. judge
the duty protecting guarding-the eourt assault his States against special person moment-, when critical life, prompt being present which he' was found to be his duty, action necessary, duty no to refuse to' to take the had liberty perform, steps him death. This resulted imposed Terry’s *56 recited, of the Revised Statutes which we have the section in. the the State of Califor connection with conferred powers by statute, in nia its this officers, become,-by peace- of cases, as duties to the marshals transferred the. proper' United States. it
But all these is conceded, against questions being urged relief of the this writ that habeas sought by corpus, ques the. of tion of the of the crime of murder a the guilt prisoner to be the and to be California, determined laws of question by courts, in decided its- no the there exists by power of the United States' to take government the prisoner away n from the of the of State of authorities custody proper California and him before a of court of the' carry judge United him accord- States, release without á trial jury by TERM,
70’ Opinion of Court. to the laws of the State ing of California. That the statute United States authorizes and directs such proceeding and such a in a case where the offence judgment charged consists in an act in done against of a prisoner pursuance law the United States virtue its by authority, where the is in imprisonment violation of the party Constitution laws of clear States, its by United (cid:127)express language.
The enactments now found the Revised Statutes of the on the United States the writ habeas subject corpus the result of a course of forced long legislation upon Congress of the States of the attempt Union exercise the over officers and imprisonment other assert persons under the or federal rights government ing foreign govern which the States’ .ments, denied. The act of original Congress on the of the writ of habeas its subject 14th section, corpus, by authorized the and the courts of the States, United judges the case of under or or color of prisoners jstil custody or committed for trial before some court of the or same, when to be necessary brought into court to to issue the writ, and the or testify, court judge before whom were directed to make brought inquiry into the cause of commitment. Stat. 20, c. 14. This 81, § did or, least, rise present question, to n gave o whibh came before the courts, as-to question releasing by held in writ under the laws of the States. parties custody when, But out of the nullifi- during controversy growing cation laws of South Carolina, . officers of the United States were arrested and for the of their imprisoned performance duties in the revenue of the United States collecting State, and held state it became authorities, necessary for United States to take some for action Congress their relief. 2, the act March Accordingly 634, Stat. c. 57, 7, for such other remedies among § affairs, fed section, its 7th provided, by condition.of eral writs of in all cases habeas judges should'grant corpus commit confinement, where he should be prisoner jail ted or confined on or act law, any authority *57 n
IN BE NEAGLE. Opinion of the Court. the, be in a law
done, or omitted to of of done, pursuance o'r< States, or decree of order, any process judge thereof. court a of extension of the circumstances on writ
The next which out’of issue federal arose habeas corpus might judges McLeod which Case, McLeod, the celebrated charged had New that York, in a state court of murder, pleaded what he done was under and that had was British a subject, be a mat- of and should authority government, was not that he ter of international subject adjustment, that under the laws of to be tried a court of New York force of State. The federal .the acknowledged government to from the this obtain and undertook reasoning, government but New York the release of the State of prisoner, and afterwards lie tried and was, failed. however, acquitted, an This led to extension released the State York. New writ of under the habeas federal judges powers c. en- 539, 5 Stat. 29, 1842, the act corpus, by August “ act further remedial the courts An to justice titled provide them of the United States.” It conferred all cases where issue a writ habeas corpus prisoner for which held in was that the act he was claimed custody and where the done under the sanction any foreign power, the law effect of this plea depended upon validity a In afterwards became- bill, nations. advocating introduced it into Senator who law, Berrien, subject, allow, observed: The Senate, object foreigner, in one of States the Union an offence prosecuted has com- committed that but which he been State, pleads under or the of his own authority mitted sovereign before . law on that issue nations, brought up matters involved decide upon only competent judicial power must show or the of nations. relations law plea foreign the United to the laws treaties of it has reference the writ of this, nations, States or' law showing that issue. If shall habeas is awarded try appear corpus it is has bar on the accused plea alleged, right not be he should proper delayed prison -awaiting *58 TERM, 72' Opinion of the Court. of the state on the proceedings jurisdiction preliminary issue of his at bar. If satisfied of existence in fact and plea of in law the bar, the federal will (cid:127)validity have jurisdiction of relief.” No more forcible prompt administering of statement on which the of the law case now principle us before stands can be made.
The next extension of the of the court under the powers writ of was the act of 5, .14 corpus 1867, habeas February Stat. c. 385, and this contains the 28, broad of the ground Revised under which the relief is Statutes, in présent sought the case us, before and includes all of restraint liberty cases in violation of the Constitution or a law or treaty United States, and declares that “the said court or shall judge ain to determine the proceed facts of the summary way case-, and the inter hearing testimony arguments parties and if it ested, shall that the appear petitioner deprived his or her in contravention of the or laws liberty Constitution United he or she shall forthwith be States, discharged and set at liberty.”
It would seem as if the close here. If the argument might of the United States its officers from protect violence, duties, even to death, which its laws im- them, established, be has made tbé pose writ of one means which habeas this corpus protec- if efficient, tion is the facts of this case show that made. under the was both acting prisoner law, the directions of his officers of the superior Department see no reason Justice, we can this writ should not why made serve its case. present purpose We cited such decisions court as are already most and there is a important directly series of point, cases decided the Circuit Courts District to the same .and Several of these under the purport. arose out of proceedings law, slave fugitive which the marshal of the while a view engaged slave fugitive apprehending him to his arrested returning State, master in another by the.authorities of cases State. In of these many made to the for relief application of the United States judges
IN RE NEAG-LE.
Opinion of the Court.. the writ of rise to give corpus, habeas several-very on this decisions subject.
interesting 2 Wall. 521, Jr. Jenkins, In Ex who marshal, parte while a warrant, had been a engaged, executing arresting was himself encounter, arrested under a bloody fugitive, for warrant of a assault with intent to the-peace justice which makes the case to the one kill, now very analogous He .under consideration. Circuit Court of presented the United States for the Eastern -District of Pennsylvania a writ habeas which was heard before petition corpus, *59 Mr. Justice who held that under act of Grier, referred was to, the marshal entitled to his already discharge, what because he had done was in the au-' pursuance and by conferred him the act of thority by Congress concerning the rendition of slaves. He said: “The fugitive conferred on the this the United States act of. judges by all them the other court could that Congress gives exercise under the writ of habeas them none corpus, gives at all. If under such a writ not their they may discharge ’ £ officer when for an act done imprisoned by any authority of a law of the United it would be pursuance impossi ble to discover for what useful the act was purpose passed.” ' a when certain State of this Union passed It. had.threat: ened to acts of and to nullify treat those as crimi Congress, intended, nals who should to execute and it was them; attempt as a such state remedy against legislation.”
This same matter was when up slave,' again fugitive Thomas, had the marshal arrested a civil suit for an alleged assault He was carried before and battery. Kane' on Judge another writ of habeas 2 released. Wall. Jr. corpus again 531. A third time the marshal, indicted, was arrested being on a bench warrant issued the state court, by again before the Circuit brought Court of the States by writ a of habeas Some remarks of corpus discharged. Kane on this occasion Judge to the objec very pertinent tion's raised in'the 2 said, He Wall. Jr. 543: present case. “It has been order, if it shall withdraw urged my relators from the them prosecution pending against [in .the TERM,
74 Í889. Opinion of the Court. state will their trial effect court], prevent by jury all, since there is no act of under can which.they indicted for an abuse It will be an process. anomaly, if the action of court shall however, interfere with the trial of these Our constitutions' prisoners by secure jury. of trial as a mode but right accused; no- where either state recognize right government, still an federal, less of individual The. action prosecutor. of a is overruled constantly new jury by trials granting after Conviction. It is arrested of nolle entering prose- while the case is at bar. It is made guís, ineffectual at any time habeas . . . And corpus. there is no in this. harm No one a man because imagines accused must therefore, course, be tried. Public prosecu- tions are not devised for the purpose indemnifying still less individuals, them.” wrongs retaliating upon other decisions the Circuit District Many Courts, and. the same are to be them found, purport, among following: Ex McLean, 6 4 Robinson, 355; Amer. Law parte Register, v. 617; Roberts Jailor 2Co., Abbott Fayette (U. S.) 265; of. In re 2 451; In re Ramsey, Neill, Flippin, Blatchford, Ex 156; Woods, Ex parte 428; Bridges, parte Royall, 117 U. S.
Similar was used Mr. Choate in the Senate language of. *60 the United the States of the act of 1842. He upon passage said: If have the to after you interpose power- judgment, have the to do so If before. can you reverse power you a can its rendition. If, within judgment, you anticipate the extends Constitution, your judicial power cases or to.these these whether take hold controversies, you case or con- at one or another, is immaterial. troversy stage totally The submitted to the national the single tribunal, question ques- tion under the whether, statute the law of adopting nations, is entitled to the prisoner exemption he immunity claims, as well be extracted from may the entire case, and decided in those tribunals before presented any judgment in the as to state for it be revised court, afterwards on a writ of error. Either on no other Either way, they pass question.
IN NEAGLE. BE Opinion of the Court. do not adffvlister the criminal law of a State. In they
way, as much as case no do other, one more, state judicial power.” interfere in the answer case. To same present given, object that this the prisoner discharged by made
tion argument, court to him for the of the state try from the writ power if is held that is, the. offence, prisoner whole reply act he was authorized' to for an which to answer state court it which was his to States, law of the United do duty and if act marshal of the United .doing do as than, what was did no more him necessary proper he a crime under the law cannot be to do, guilty these it is estab- shown, When things of California. State crime the laws of the that he is innocent any against lished no whatever. There is occa- other authority State, any in the state or in court. court, trial further sion for any States was as the United Court of competent The Circuit not at all other and was tribunal, these facts as any ascertain a be to render verdict that a should impanelled jury necessary under all. of a common It is the exercise them. There must be a criminal always jurisprudence. systems or some a examination magistrate, by committing preliminary an sub- there is offence as whether authority, similar in the instance and if is submitted first mitted to jury, not the of trial is still right by jury jury, grand inon is insisted argument. which present attentive considera- thus in this a most case, haveWe given, which of law and fact we to all tne thought tion questions have felt it to be our involved it. We to be properly into the facts with a justified by to examine completeness as from the case, as well upon duty imposed importance of us our- we think statute, us requires place far as in the of the Circuit Court selves, place possible, to' and the dis- it, to examine testimony arguments arid as law justice require. party pose have arrived this examination at which we The result and the life of Mr. is, person protection *61 official duties, of his Field while discharge Justice TERM, 1889. Lamar, J., Opinion- Fuller, Dissenting C. J. authorized the attack was to resist of Terry Neagle upon him; that correct in the belief that without was Neagle prompt his the action on the assault would Terry part judge the that such latter; ended the'death of his.well- being founded he was the life of belief, taking justified Terry, the the means of death of the man who was only preventing that, be his the life of victim; taking Terry, intended under the he under the circumstances, acting law of In so was justified doing; and that he is not liable to answer the courts of California on account of his in that transaction. part
We Circuit Cou/rt judgment therefore affirm authorizing custody from sheriff ' 8cm Joaquin Country. Mr. concurred. Mr. Justice Lamar whom Chief (with J ustice Fuller) dissenting.
The Chief J ustice and' to assent unable myself conclusion reached court. majority based, . Our dissent is not on conviction as to the any guilt innocence of the we take view which renders appellee. The. immaterial to question inquiry presented by ap That peal. is, whether shall in inquiry Neagle, appellee, this ex from delivered parte .discharged proceeding any or further court, trial state or federal, wThat inquiry he has been of in the forms the con accused prescribed stitution and laws of State act in question was committed. we issue hold to the an Upon principle nounced this court 'in the case of Ex Crouch, parte U. in which S., 180, Chief Waite, Mr. Justice delivering of the court, said It is opinion : elementary that, learning if a is in the of a prisoner state court custody competent jurisdiction, asserted,' cannot be taken from illegally jurisdiction issued habeas discharged corpus court of ’the United because he is not States, simply guilty.of the offence for which he is held. All which may questions arise in the course orderly him are to proceeding against *62 .
IN BE NEAGLE. 77 Opinion: Lamar, Dissenting J., Fuller, C. J. court to the. whose determined by jurisdiction has been is no other court and authorized to interfere to
subjected, pre of Here to a it. right prisoner vent discharge depends of his defence to the information sufficiency alone under Whether his he is held. defence is which sufficient not is or. court tries him If, for the determine. in this deter are committed, errors can mination, be corrected they only in an form of for that The appropriate proceeding purpose.^ of a writ of is office habeas to correct such neither corpus errors, nor to from take the court which prisoner away him for if trial, fear, for he remains, holds be com they may to this effect in our mitted. Authorities own reports 3 Watkins, Pet. Ex 202; numerous. Ex 18 Lange, paret parte 92 Parks, 18, Ex U. S. Ex 163, 166; 23; Wall. Sie parte parte 371, 374; 100 U. S. Ex 100 U. S. bold, parte Virginia, 339, 104 U. S. Ex Rowland, 604, 612; Curtis, 343 ; Ex parte parte, 110 S. U. 653.” 371, 375; 106 U. S. Exporte Yarbrough, advanced in behalf of the of Many propositions, appellee force we do not We do impressive urged challenge. instance, for the soundness the elaborate dis not question, and function of the writ cussion office history its under and virtue of section-753 operation habeas-corpus, by or the use in Statutes, Revised -its propriety for which it manner for has been used, purposes is under case where the arrest a State for an prisoner law done “in of a of the United States.” act Nor pursuance contend to such use do we arises any objection that. on that based cases where no
writ, fact, merely provi trial sion is made the federal law for the and conviction of do we the accused. Nor the general question propositions, that the federal established Constitution is government soil, over foot of over absolutely sovereign every every the national within the within ao-' personj territory, sphere constitution, within it; and that its tion sphere assigned land,' and laws are the law the its in supreme proper no can be restraint, strumentalities government subjected to no can be held whatever. Nor, accountability again, .and ini-. do we whatever dispute proposition necessarily OCTOBER, TERM, 1889. Opinion: Lamar; Fuller, Dissenting C. J. J.\ in the Constitution and laws of the United States is as plied (cid:127) if it much of them as were All part actually expressed. these we questions pretermit. n The court, ourselves, their recognition by including not in the least elucidate the case; soundness does lie outside of true on which we controversy. ground and which in and itself seems to be dissent, fatal to the this; case of the That section appellee, treating the Revised Statutes as an act of for this particular *63 of the writ a use inadmissible construction is wholly placed the word as in that “law,” statute, inad- used wholly “ is made of missible the clause in in vio- application custody lation the Constitution ... of the United States.”
It will not be to consider these two necessary propositions are called .for into this case as one. separately, .they practically ' The section referred to is as follows: “The Writ of habeas shall in no case extend corpus to a where, unless in he is or .prisoner jail, custody under color of the of the United or is authority States, committed for trial before some or is in thereof; for an act court custody done or omitted in of a law of the United or pursuance States, of an order, or decree of a court or thereof; process, judge oris in in violation o£ the Constitution or of custody a la w States,” United etc. treaty ' It not is contended behalf of the that the writ appellee of habeas could be it used, here is, with- corpus case, any out of a statute. In Ex Bollman, 4 parte Cranch, Marshall 75, 94, Justice said: The to award Chief Avrit[qf habSas of the courts of corpus] by the United any States .must written law.” given by
It contended that there is statute other than any those now found Statutes of the United States. Revised Nor is contended that those statutes there is author- any the- use here made of ity Avritother than what is em- braced in the clauses above The issue, as stated quoted. above, thus narrowed to the force to be attributed proper those clauses. It is stated as the vital position case, it is not appellee’s
IN EE NEAGLE. Opinion: Lamar, J., Fuller,
Dissenting C.1J. which, act-of exists supposed any special author izes the marshals or marshals of the deputy States -in terms to express accompany judges Court Supreme 'to, their circuits and act as a through body guard them defend them malicious assaults their against against persons; the view taken of the ..in of the United: Constitution States, inferrible any obligation from tháfr properly fairly instrument, to be marshal derived from the United, of his duties under-the laws of general scope ” “is a law within the States, of.this and that' meaning phrase; it would be a great reproach system government the United declared to be within its sphere^sovereign domain, if there was to be found within supreme, its no means of in the conscien powers protecting judges', tious and faithful duties, their from the malice of those hatred whom their judgments might oper ate In it is unfavorably. considering position, indispensa ble to observe distinction between the individual carefully and the man same in his official Neagle, person capacity as marshal of the United and also the States; individual deputy man whose life he and the defended, same in his person official of a Circuit Justice of the United States. capacity *64 of the between practical importance distinction the and liabilities of a in his rights character, and person private the and of the same in his immunity person, official out and in illustrated clearly United capacity,-is pointed States “ v. Wall. in which 482, 486, the Kirby, court Ño offi says: cer or of the United States is employé placed by position, o or the services he is called t above perform, responsibility to the tribunals of the and the legal country, ordinary pro to for his arrest when accused of detention, cesses in felony,, the forms the Constitution and laws.” And by prescribed “ it Indeed, adds: doubted whether it is court be may compe tent for -the of thevUnited Congress exempt employes from arrest on States criminal from the courts, state process when the them are not crimes mala charged merely against mala m arfe se. But whether of that prohibita,:but legislation character be constitutional or no such intention extend not, TERM, J., Fuller, Lamar, Opinion:
Dissenting C. J. unless attributed to should be clearly exemption its manifested language.” of the as case
Now, we facts taking agree, of Mr. Jus that record, protection personal shown the death of even to citizen, as a tice Field, Terry, private but was also duty Neagle .not only right, And maintain that for the exercise other bystander. wq any to the courts of the he answerable that duty right (cid:127) to them alone. But we that deny State of California, as marshal record, he, the facts of this deputy Neagle, on him' had citizen any or as Neagle, duty imposed private out of the official char laws of'the United States growing Justice. We that Field'as Circuit deny any acter Judge transaction, in this throughout hppellee’s accepting where other law than facts, of the any position version occupied other who would have been by any person what occupied other manner, interfered* the same any should have as other between two character, any persons sault same that think there was what room. In we short, nothing that transaction, character whatever in fact of an official ever view of his official duties have been the alleged may appellee’s that the courts we of the' and, therefore, think powe rs our in the no United States have legislation present-state and that the whatever premises, appellee jurisdiction remanded to the the sheriff. should have been custody.of . it however, was his The contention appellee, States as marshal official protect justice; of this which could that for so duty, doing, discharge laws of the United his detention States,” arise under the only courts -the case within section 753 the state brings aforesaid. Statutes, Revised ourselves as as is consist- shall therefore address
We briefly to a considera-' involved, ent with the question' gravity We must, however, tion of the claim. call justice formal, deliberate admission again and. attention that there is statute mak- is not single specific pretended words, in so it, protect Neagle’s-duty justice. ing many *65 jg, that is, assumed authority The whollv. and position n NEAG-LE. IN BE. Opinion: Duller, Damar, X,
Dissenting C. X. did arise and to. necessa- duty protect justice directly out of the Constitution and enact* rily positive congressional ments. General of the has United States Attorney appeared
this case for in behalf of the appellee, government; in order that the which the relies in government grounds of its claim the State of that support against Neaglei California should be on this writ is discharged may fully, appear, proper some of his most in his own give important propositions He maintains that it was the language. judici- executive, been thus ary, having protected by department, to sit in and to the officer the ex- judgment upon vindicate ecutive if innocent,'in the of his department, duty, because such in the federal is essential in judiciary to the existence of the nation.” “¥e insist that, principle the Constitution of the United .a government all to existence as possessed powers necessary created an nation; that these were distributed independent powers .in three constitutional and that each these great departments, is, that invested with all of Constitution, those departments such governmental powers naturally belonging department which have been withheld the terms of the expressly Constitution. In other that is invested' not words, with but with only expressed implied legislative ; powers with, not- invested judiciary only expressed powers in the. Constitution as granted its share the government, ex-, but with all which have not been judicial powers withheld it; President; from pressly like man- the. fact that he ner, very is made chief executive of aqd to. nation, and defend' the charged protect, preserve, Constitution,, and to take care that the are exe- laws faithfully cuted, is invested executive necessary implied powers which neither of the other branches of the can government either take powers these away abridge; many per- .of to each brah'ch of the taining government self-executing, means, and in no as to way dependent, . except ways' .the upon legislation.”
“(The ;enters.; the President that before- provides Constitution
VOL. cxxxv —6 *66 TERM, 1889. 82 Fuller, Lamar, J., Opinion Dissenting r C. J. — of his office he shall an oath I the execution do .take I execute the that will swear office of
solemnly faithfully the best and will to President the United my and the Constitution of the ability preserve, protect defend “ And he asks: Has United States.” this clause no signifi- ? Does cance invest the Pres- hot,'by it. necessary implication, ident with that is, self-executing powers; powers independent of statute?” In to these we have this to We reply propositions, say: “ the within. its powers government,
recognize the Constitution, as defined and by sphere,” interpreted by the which have .well-settled resulted from a principles century of wise and are that these patriotic analysis, supreme; supreme extend to the itself and all of its powers protection agencies, as to the and’ the well its preservation use perpetuation,of fulness and that these ; found not powers may the only conferred authorities the but express Constitution, also in by and But -while that necessary is' all proper implications. it true, is also true the must be exercised, not powers only but the also the by organs, conformity modes, pre the Constitution itself. scribed These federal by great powers, their, existence in all whose and is incon plenitude energy not and are testable, are lawless; autocratic. they organized committed the to the hands of their servants powers, people their and for own .distributed government, among legisla tive, executive, are not (cid:127)extra .judicial departments; in and for, Constitution, and in Constitution, the United States, as a alone, democratic federal great into called and' existence, finds its continued ex republic, In that instrument is fdund istence possible. only this-case, answer general-line .the argument pursued the, but also to specific question propounded by Attorney General the President’s and its respect oath, implications. President The is sworn to and defend “preserve, protect That oath has Constitution.” great significance. sections 3 which follow that the oath (secs. prescribing of Aft. fix duties Pres- 2) prescribe powers ident. But one feature of the very Constitution prominent RE
IN NEA.GLE. Lamar, Duller, J., Opinion:'
Dissenting C. J. and which which he sworn whole preserve, body bound enforce, is'the judiciary closing paragraph 8, sec. Art. which it declared that shall ... to make all laws which shall be neces- into, execution the sary proper- carrying foregoing and all other vested Constitution powers, powers, United States, government department in any officer thereof.” - This clause is that which all contains the impli germ *67 cation of under the Constitution. It'is that which has powers built the the' of United into most States the up and and the august imposing legislative assembly world; which has secured to the vigor practical operations and at the same time tended to government, largely preserve the of its various its co-ordinate equilibrium powers among that And that departments, partitioned by instrument. clause alone, refutes the conclusively Attor assertion General, it “the ney was of the executive duty depart ment of the United States to and at haz guard protect, any life of Mr. Field in the the of ard, Justice. duty, because such is essential to existence of protection "of government.” Waiving essentiality question of, such any protection existence government, manifest is, answer needed and to be protection must not from the but President, given proceed primarily from while it is to the President’s Congress. Again, duty take care that the laws it executed, is not his faithfully to make laws or a law of duty the. United States. The laws he is to see executed are those containéd in the manifestly and Constitution, those enacted whose it is by Congress, make all laws and into execu necessary proper carrying tion the In those tribunals. for the fact, President powers to- have undertaken to make law. of the United States to this would matter have been pertinent to. invade domain of committed the .Constitution power expressly That exclusively -was able Congress. body -perfectly such laws as should deem pass reference expedient such matter; indeed, it has -to such laws in reference passed TERM, '1889. OCTOBER. - Lamar, J., Fuller, Opinion:
Dissenting C..J. States elections, marshals expressly directing to.atr to act as to arrest election, officers, tend with places peace and to and election: without supervisors process, protect and there was not their duties; the discharge slight-, in; out of which to such est necessity imply any legal the President.
For reasons the letters General to these Attorney did what Marshal is. Franks, import granting that the General was to all claimed, Attorney .and granting hao invested. vice, President, intents pro purposes, no if-so were, They whatever.. Néagle special powers and, construed, law, thep, Without authority Neagle — no more and no less. marshal, there simple deputy n To illustrate the large sphere powers self-executing claimed to be the executive, statutes independent vested is made to the cases of the reference- continually recurring interference for the of our President’s protection foreign-born naturalized on a visit to their native citizens and. country; we are as-a instance exercise of such cited, striking the case of‘Martin a- Kozsta, who, power, though fully citizen of -the United had in due form of naturalized made of intention to become a citizen, his declaration law (cid:127) an was seized of Austrian who, whilst Smyrna, order *68 arid on board an Austrian and vessel, who, confined official com-, to afterwards delivered up Captain Ingraham, being an American war with a de- vessel, manding compliance a mand, force, backed demonstration of that by. part in the hands of French consul officer, was subject: placed arid Austrian between the .American govérn- to.negotiations in the- famous between the merits, correspondence .resulting Mr. and .the State, of- Chevalier American. Marcy, Secretary and the the Austrian Hiilsemann, government, representing — freedom.. ¥e are asked: Kozsta to Upon- restoration act then can this what statute of express existing Congress of the ? . government justified ¥e that action of the answer, justi-i government such United; of the fied it to the relations because pertained foreign ex-; is' the States, the federal which respect .government
(cid:127) (cid:127) NEAGLE; BE IN. ‘-'85 Lamar, Opinion: J., Fuller, Dissenting C. J.
¡elusive and embodiment of the entire: sover representative of the in its united nation, character; eignty foreign and in our ¡nations, intercourse with- states state them, and even the internal 'federal .governments, adjustment . n power, with its of checks and balances, áre complex system and the -unknown, those nations are only authority permitted (cid:127)to deal with is the of the nation as a unit. authority cónelu-, That authority Constitution vests expressly — in the the President and Senate sively — treaty-making presi one “He simple comprehensive grant: [the shall have the advice and consent power, by dent] n of the make Senate, treaties, two-thirds of the' provided concur.” This broad senators makes enumera grant present tion of All other particular powers unnecessary. delegations in reference to the international relations of this powers enumerated and country carefully specifically assigned, one their In one, there designated departments. reply, action', what law such'' fore, question, expressly justifies answei', we law, which Constitution, organic expressly all matters our pertaining diplomatic negotiations, commits to the treaty-making power. (cid:127) cases Other are referred to in illustration of the same point; but the one it is that the- alleged presents principle most form is that of v. United States San Jacinto imposing Tin 125 U. S. In that Co., case a suit was in 'the brought name of the United order Attorney General, to set aside a which had been issued for a patent large body on the it land, had been from ground obtained thé fraud and deceit government by officers. practised upon its it There are, true, some expressions delivered opinion in that case which seem to admit that there is no act specific expressly General -to authorizing Attorney suit for the annulment of bring fraud patent procured by! from the but close government; examination doctrine of the court shows no farther than the assertion goes arises General Attorney by impli *69 cation, and out of law the directly immediately, express1 . The the clause of the Constitution Congress. opinion quotes TEEM, 1889. OCTOBEE Lamar, J., Duller, Opinion:
Dissenting C. J. which declares the shall to all judicial power extend shall cases to which the United States be and party, says is a that this where it It means, mainly, plaintiff. then party refers the directs the Congress expressly statute District United-States suits behalf of the Attorneys bring and that the thus them suits are to government; brought by be under and the immediate control of the superintendence General. The utmost extent to which the court Attorney is, that whilst is no there goes express admitting authority General to institute such suit, Attorney yet is and involved directly necessarily express provisions of the statute him with the entire control and vesting superin- and and tendence such control suits, of. provision in their conduct them. District Attorneys conclusive is the answer which the Constitution Equally makes the assertion that Constitution .the judiciary invested, only powers granted express Constitution its share but with all the government, withheld, which have not been judicial from powers expressly it. It be the clause which found declares may shall have . .(cid:127). to constitute tribunals Congress inferior ” and in that which Court; it Supreme declares shall all make laws for into necessary -execution proper carrying of those tribunals. The correlation between those powers is manifest and unmistakable. clauses If can and terms of must, make all very Constitution, laws .the into execution all the carrying de- proper powers if it can partment create the Circuit government, its Court, them, and expand powers, abolish the court abridge will, it be that that court, how can at the shall least, derived from the any implied powers Constitution inde- of the statutes % And transaction, pendent yet, must that Mr. Field Justice remembered claimed to be only that .court. representative do Not views seem to us only to be the- foregoing logi- cal and unavoidable results studies original independent but Constitution, are also sustained and enforced series by. long judicial assertions. recognitions
IN EE NEAGLE: Lamar, Opinion: J., duller, Dissenting C. 3. v. 2
In States Justice Fisher, Cranch, Chiéf 358, 396, the Marshall, the said court, delivering opinion “ In would above relied be clause clause on:. it construing would, endless if the incorrect, difficulties, produce opinion should be maintained' that which was no law was authorized not to to effect indispensably power. necessary give specified Where various for that be systems might adopted purpose, with be said each, to it was might necessary, respect because the end be other means. obtained might by must the choice of and must to means, be possess empowered use means which are in fact conducive to the' exercise any the Constitution.”- granted
In McGulloch v. 421, 4 Wheat. Chief 316, 420, Maryland, Justice Marshall, for the delivered .one of those court, opinions (cid:127) which are the chief ornaments among American jurispru dence. It is devoted to an exhaustive the largely analysis constitutional clause in other question. Among things, “: The result of consider the careful attentive says most ation bestowed that if it is, this clause does not enlarge, it cannot be to construed restrain Congress, powers to to best exercise its impair right legislature judg ment in the selection of measures execution the carry into constitutional of If no other motive powers government. for its insertion can be sufficient is found one suggested, a the desire to remove all doubts respecting the-right legislate on that vast mass of incidental which must be involved powers if that instrument Constitution, be not a bau splendid admit, ble. We as all must of the' admit, powers are limited, and its government limits are not to tran be we scended. But think the sound of the Consti construction must allow to the national that discretion, legislature tution to the means it confers are respect powers to be into carried which will execution, enable that body duties perform the manner -most high it, assigned beneficial people.” In United States v. Justice Reese, 214, 217, Chief U. S. “
Waite, said: delivering court, the.opinion Eights’and immunities created Constitution of dependent Upon the TERM, 1889.
.88 Lamar, J., Fuller, Opinion: Dissenting C: J. can United States be The form protected by Congress. such, manner be protection may Congress, discretion, exercise of its shall legislative legitimate pro-
vide. These be varied to meet the necessities may par- ticular to be right protected.” In v. West S. 303, U. the court Virginia, Strauder or an whether created the Con-
say: right immunity, A stitution even without it, only guaranteed by express Or delegation power, may by Congress.” protected *71 ' “ in his work on Constitutional Limitations,” collates Cooley, from .the numerous of this cited court, adjudications by-him, the “So far as that instrument following principles: [the to the national it apportions powers judiciary, Constitution] the most understood, part, simply authorizing must the to for the exercise of Congress pass necessary legislation n those the courts, federal and not as its of powers directly, own them with that The force, Constitu- vesting authority. natiQnal does of its own not, force, tion to courts give jurisdic- tion of several cases which an enumerates, but act of essential, is to first, courts, create afterwards to Congress them. The are apportion jurisdiction among exceptions those few cases of which the confers Constitution of jurisdic- tion name. And Court upon Supreme although of the United States administer the common law in courts not from do cases, common many authority derive ' to take of and offences cognizance law punish against Offences are nation defined and government.. against acts of In a note their punishment prescribed Congress.” : Demurrer to an indictment for a libel this paragraph says ‘ the President and The upon Congress. By only court: which this case whether the Circuit is, Courts quéstfón presents exercise a common law can .criminal cases. jurisdiction (cid:127). -. . The men shows general acquiescence, legal favor prevalence opinion negative proposi- tion. The course which leads tó this conclusion reasoning obvious, admits but illustration. little is'simple, made concessions powers' general up government several whatever States; (cid:127)'from. expressly given i/he IN BE BEAGLE. '89 Lamar, J., Fuller, Opinion: Dissenting C. J. . . . It is not nec the latter reserve.
the former expressly whether any general government, essary inquire on its courts what extent, conferring possesses power it is in cases similar enough the-present; jurisdiction act, not been conferred has legislative such jurisdiction to those courts as their result if it does not consequence see United Hudson, Cranch, 32; States v. 7. creation.’ United ‘ no clear there can be 115. It is 1 Wheat. v. States Coolidge, The federal of the United States. common law government independent twenty-four sovereign composed customs and com have its local each of which may usages, the Union, There is no mon law. pervades principle in the that is not embodied Con of law, and has law could- be The common or laws of Union. stitution our federal made a system only by legislative adop part ” Pet, v. 8 Peters, ; Wheaton McLean, J., tion.’ Per other authorities. many citing the. 267, Davis, 257, v. U. S. In Tennessee referring “ It the court said: act of judiciary [the Constitution] courts all the the federal did not to confer judi- attempt Additional cial vested grants government. more made. has authorized time been
from time to *72 etc. has and more as occasion required,” fully, if therefore, that the Constitution It would seem plain, as utterances, and if these means judicial extending anything, a of do over a years, embracing variety period they eighty mean that the to mean of interests, they power pro- anything, to effectuate the the laws vide and gov- necessary prescribe and its of United States and official ernmental powers in is officers vested Congress. tnat this case in the assertion of is
The Neagle gravamgn States. He of the United in law slew Terry pursuance of'a must a who to have committed claims- homicide authority law, of then If he claims the show the authority authority. it to be a law ? Somehbw how came law, ? if a what law And Is it a law because had an and somewhere it must origin. issued frbm. of the existence of private special these,words So almost- in. one of executive departments? TERM, J., Opinion: Lamar, Fuller, Dissenting C. J. it of a law because some consti-
it'is claimed this case. Is in the of of tutional investiture sovereignty persons judges wherever with them who that % they may sovereignty carry go to create Because some inherent judiciary power others a rule or law conduct outside of which legislation, n shall extend to the death ? this So, also, case, penalty it' verbis, totidem We dissent from claimed. both these claims. can There be no such law from either those sources. The claimed must be to right .traced legislation Congress; it cannot else exist. it
If be said that has the to make such Congress laws, power in the absence of statutes from that source other yet depart it ments act in the or if be said ; may premises pos of that session does not power by government negative the existence similar in other powers departments these government; response not powers plainly but are concurrent, be made in the can. exclusive, language, Mr. Justice v. Story, 16 Pet. Prigg Pennsylvania, 539, 617. slave law of : Speaking If fugitive says have a constitutional regulate particular , do it in a subject, they actually regulate manner, given a certain form, ... in such a case jhe legislation (cid:127) what it does Congress, prescribe, indicates manifestly it not does intend that there shall be farther legis lation act matter. Its silence subject as what it does not do is as of what its expressive intention is, as direct made it.” provisions it
If be said that that case had reference the interference of a State with whilst congressional in-the powers, case -at no bar- such is involved, answer is that the question differ- the. ence is favorable and adverse theory opinion. if can same; principle that principle applied, was, to the denial to applied a state' legislature powers over previously enjoyed matters originally appertain- to it, a multo will it ing of two the exclusion' apply fortiori coordinate departments the same from powers government never *73 possessed. “ As stated, before if the pursu- was done killing Terry
n IN RE NEAGLE. Lamar, J., Opinion: Duller,
Dissenting C. J. that law had anee of a law of United States,” somewhere under two an There only origin. general government are. sources of law. The common law never existed possible federal our The system. power by. legislative possessed must the United States be either exercised found, Con as fundamental or stitution some law, by. body person whom it was It has' Constitution. delegated by already does., out that been the Constitution not itself create pointed such law that contended and that it could not for; any been created executive or action or status judicial n is made the clause i Art. manifest, I, sec. 8, only by cited and commented but also Art. on, I, sec. already 1, and the two of Art. paragraphs YI. “ Art. I, Sec. All herein provides legislative power in a shall be vested of the United granted Congress shall consist of a Senate and House'of Representatives.” The second of Art. YI the laws of paragraph provides States the United which shall be made thereof, pursuance treaties and all or which shall be made, under made, be the- law of States, shall authority supreme what Now, the land.” that constitutes the laws, supreme much is of which so said case? How how distinctly, and how answers! The Constitution Consti- fully plainly itself, tution and the laws made treaties, pursuance Made ? the Constitution. whom By Congress, manifestly. two clauses The already quoted give power legislation has in the most terms. It alone to make any sweeping power a law not enacted law. to be Con- Anything purporting “in of” not be would any provision pursuance gress- Constitution. for the source of this asserted
Thus we driven look made under to some law legislation legislation — its constitutional under either its authority, properly éxpress and there is it is immaterial none which; authority, implied " (cid:127) of either class. traced here the self- through sought the federal from implied preservative judiciary of the execu- Constitution; then'through obligation *74 TERM, 1889. &2 Lamar, J., Duller, Opinion: Dissenting C. J. from Constitution, to implied judges,
tive protect in either case, there no such for is implication whereas reason that Constitution but all-sufficient itself simple committed, is to functions those Congress. the'whole did its own direct not, then Constitution Since pro but committed it to the hands visions, matter, regulate iii full it is powers premises; only by Congress of some enactment can Congress appellee law. “in that-he is in violation of the show Constitution.” custody As the two remarked, are, as to this previously propositions one. case, statute under essentially again Turning writ sued find that out, is we clause relied on is the. “ the writ that- which makes where the applicable person an act done omitted in of a custody law of pursuance arises, United States.” The then What sort of question law ? What ? Is it not expression import plain does^the it means what the same all just expression through Con % stitution imports ' If that instrument, which is the fountain of. the federal be be found that in it consulted, will and the
power, amend- ments thereto the word either its law, form singular or its ' is used times. Of laws, forty-two these plural, instances of that use sixteen are where the word is used in reference to the States, of the law of jurisprudence nations, “ are where terms of they' merely description as courts —such law,” leases law and etc. Of equity,” the other use, instances its and which all have reference to that' body of rules which constitute the jurisprudence distinctly there are three cases only which it is not word is used manifest equivalent “statutes,” “ ” enactments and it is clear in Congress; those three instances the word used also as equivalent “statutes.” The following examples: “ Congress time, may, ..any ly law, make or alter such regulations, election regard of Senators [in and Repre- Art. sec. I, sentatives].” “ bill . . . shall, Every before it become a law, pre- nn etc.- sec. sented,” Art.-1, 1. (cid:127) IN EE ÑEAGLE. . Opinion: J., J,
Dissenting Lamar, Duller,- O. shall ... “Congress establish . . uniform, laws on the subject etc. bankruptcies,” Art. I, sec. 8. shall have ...
“Congress .power make all laws which shall be etc. necessary Art. proper,” I, sec! 8. bill of attainder or ex “No law shall post be passed.” facto
Art. sec. I, make no shall law an establishment respecting *75 1st Amendment. religion.” It would be it is tedious, to set them all unnecessary, “
forth. all have the same They of statutes,” meaning manifest and in those three three, instances the except words do not mean other than statutes. We think it anything that plain “a law of the United as used expression, States,” in sec- tion of the Revised mean Statutes, 753 what the similar just — means all the Constitution, expression through that is a statute United States. Tennessee v. 100 Davis, U. S.
Of the decisions of this court cited as to sustain the authority order Ex 100 Siebold, U. discharging appellee, parte S. 371, Davis, and Tennesseev. are relied on as supra, most having direct on the case. We do not consider bearing Siebold Exparte as adverse to the which we maintain. In being proposition case existence of statutes which the contro express arose was The sole was as to the versy undisputed. question constitutional certain laws competency pass in the most which, express, words, explicit, imperative States, marshals and marshals of the United required deputy to attend for the election of members of places Congress,\to make arrests,, and keep peace polls, protect in officers of their duties at .those supervising' The court elections. decided that the enactments of Congress in were constitutional. The question power Congress pass these laws thus no as assertion to the being settled, of' powers the marshals and marshals execute them in the deputy States can be found in that able which do not follow opinion as a failWe to see logical consequence. anywhere decision intimation of such that, independently legislation, TERM, 1889. Lamar, J., Puller, Opinion:
Dissenting C. J. of their could, officerstherein named virtue office, exercised the same obedience instructions of powers an the exercise of its executive im- department, from the Constitution. plied
In v. the case was removed a Tennessee from state Davis, court to Court of the United under the the Circuit ex the Revised of section Statutes. The press provisions for which the was com homicide, petitioner prosecuted, mitted him while as revenue duties, officer, executing laws, revenue pursuance express requirements and in defence of his own life, unlawful upon party offering resistance. So far from counter to the we running position are we think the maintain, there laid seeking principle on the we down, are now accord point discussing, of the court, Mr. Justice position. The.language through who delivered its follows: Cases aris opinion, Strong, under the laws of the United States such as ing grow out of the whether constitute the legislation they of Congress, or claim or defence of the right, privilege, protection, whole or whom are asserted. party, part, by Story Constitution, sec. 6 Wheat. 1647; 379.” Whilst it is true in both of those cases as- opinions *76 sert in the and most the strongest impressive language suprem- of the of the United acy States government exercise of the conferred it the w'e powers Constitution, upon regard them also as a of vindication as the de- Congress law-making the of partment the of the government, depository implied and constructed of the as Mr. or, Chief- powers government; Justice it, Marshall tlie to of expresses legislate upon that vast mass of incidental which must be involved powers in if the that Constitution, instrument be not a bauble. splendid
As the Siebold Case Tennessee v. Davis have been referred to as the in most in important directly point sup of the we do not deem port view, opposite to necessary give an extended examination of the of series cases decided the Circuit and District Courts cited to the same Ex purport. 2 Wall. Jenlcins, Jr. to which attention more parte in combined itself the main especially called, features of most- 'IN RE NEAGLE. Opinion: Lamar, J.,
Dissenting Fuller, C.J. which were others, the under the proceedings of slave fugitive United States in which marshals were arrested law, while exe- under law state officers under cuting process acting of the statutes of the State, the inevitable effect, the authority which,was of avowed the if not the- object, nullify opera- act of tion of the aforesaid Congress. . in The United so Jenkins. States mar
This was Ex parte shal, issued warrant a state arrested on a was magistrate under warrant issued said while he was law of- executing the He was before Circuit Court of the Congress. brought for the Eastern District of on a Pennsylvania, United States. of habeas and was writ corpus, discharged upon ground in been enacted law, slave having fugitive pursuance United States,-was of Constitution paramount in conflict and that the mar it, the law: of Pennsylvania for an’act done of that law shal, custody pursuance being and in execution of under was entitled it, of process Congress, It is manifest that that case was within so discharge. of that fur section 753 Revised Statutes the provision and the same comment be said ther unnecessary; may of the circuit and district courts. other decisions all- of the was in of them In one party custody discharged every act an statute of for an done express either pursuance of a decree, order, the execution process Congress, violation of Constitution or the a conrt, custody States. no outset of raised ¥e at the these remarks we stated ’the discussion history legislation upon question of habeas writ .of subject corpus. it is this connection "Wethink, however, inquire pertinent for at all if the such what necessity legislation w:as as to the self-executing contended sufficiency theory of the executive gov- judicial departments powers and instrumentalities ernment all agencies protect could-not President. is correct. the federal Why government in- the executive the head of *77 1833, department, as Jackson, take care with the duty with power charged vésted ’ defend the and to Consti- be executed faithfully that the laws TERM, 1889. J., duller, Lamar, Opinion: Dissenting C. J. of federal the collection revenues in enforced have
tution, the revenue and have officers Charleston, of protected the port made arrest under the of the against any government preten aid state without the of the act authority, sions 1833? the third habeas act 1842, when corpus Why, passed, States, could not President of the United virtue of the by executive, same of the with self-executing powers together those enforced the interna judicial department, tional of the without such act any obligations government, ? It is a fact in our that when noteworthy history, ever the of the from time to time, have exigencies country, the exercise of executive and for the required judicial power enforcement the United supreme authority.of States for the of its it government protection etc., was agencies, found, instance, to invoke the every necessary interposition national as power 1807, legislature. As early Ex Bollman and Swartwout, Cranch, 75, parte Chief Marshall Justice said: “The to award the writ power [of habeas of the courts of the United corpus] any States, by must be written law. . . The '. given inquiry, therefore, on motion will be, this whether statute compatible the Constitution of the to award power writ of habeas in such case as that Erick corpus, Bollman and Samuel has Swartwout, been to this court.” given
It is claimed that such a law found in section Revised Statutes, which is as follows: “ It be the shall of the marshal of each' duty district to at- tend the district and circuit courts when .therein, sitting all execute, district, lawful throughout directed precepts issued under the him, United States; and he shall have to command all necessary assistance in the execution his duty.”
It is contended that the the' marshal imposed upon district each section is not satisfied a mere formal attendance while on the but judges bench; extends whole term of the courts while in session, and can him fairly to attend requiring construed the judge another, while his from one court to to- way perform *78 EE
IN NEAGLE. 97 Duller, Opinion: Lamar, X, Dissenting C. X no is that the bear It manifest statute will such con- duty. In the not the the struction. the first court; place, judge the the does not nor does tribunal tribunal, embody person the him in his In second the direction follow place, journeys. shall attend the court confers no or that he authority power' of it is that he character; on him any merely requirement at the in shall be in court when order sitting, present, person, dis- tribunal, to receive the lawful commands of the duties him. the elsewhere charge imposed upon as the of was in his assault Great crime Terry upon Mr.. so court, Justice far from its crime the Field, against being'a court, .was not even a and could have received contempt the as such. of' Revised Section 725 adequate punishment in limits to cases of misbehavior the Statutes contempt pres- near obstruct the admin- ence of the thereto as to court, so istration justice.
It is claimed law needed for case can be that the appellee’s found in section of the Revised Statutes.' section That shall in have, as The marshals and their follows: deputies the the laws of each same State, executing powers, as and their such State United the sheriffs deputies the laws thereof.” have, law, may executing It is then the Code of California sheriff argued as a conservator stat- has extensive powers peace, that he has also to that effeot utes being quoted extenso; law and. certain additional common obligations pro- powers on visits attend them their tect personally judges no State; therefore, co that that, statutory Justice Field States for the attendance on Mr.. bv Was- and for scene personal Neagle, Neagle’s presence .and that statute constituted'Neagle peace necessary; This line óf officer to United States. keep peace seems to us untenable. wholly argument to well remark it -way say, By may preliminary on Mr. Justice- so far as the attendance fact simple Neagle’s no concerned, Field, fact his personal presence, He had a otherwise, was needed. authority, right statutory ; if it be- no how or be. matter why, there, th.ere being vok cxxxv —7 TERM, Lamar, Opinion: X,
Dissenting Fuller, C. X an official would came be' duty, necessary just of section as entitled to 753 of much the Re protection he had been an vised if official Statutes discharging use made of there. The. in'the section fallacy going is this : That section outlined, just' argument gives named the same measure officers in the dis powers when of their.duties as those it is sheriffs, charge, possessed by it does not the duties true; but alter It themselves. does not *79 to them the their labors and empower enlarge scope respon , sibilities, but adds to their within that only efficiency scope. itself, the terms the still, statute limited They by very to the execution of the laws United States-and afe not in mediate or way immediate, from the any by adoption, code or the common authorized law, to execute the laws of therefore, California. The statute, leaves the matter just the, Avhere'it found it. If act the .of had resulted in Terry death of Mr. would the Field, Justice murder of him have been a crime the United States? Would the against government of the United with all the States, of which Ave supreme powers have heard so much in discussion, have been competent, in-the condition of its'statutes, to in its present oAvn prosecute of its tribunals the murder own Court or Supreme justice-, even to into the heinous offence its own inquire tri through n If bunals ? then the yes,'; slaying Terry by appellee, of' áuch Avas act, necessary prevention authorized law of the States, United he' should be discharged; that, official character, situation independéntly any being same -of citizen. case But if how any no, stands the then.? The of' was matter killing Terry by authority the United no matter States, .whom and the done; only relied on for State, vindication must be that of the should be the' remanded -to the' state courts to be slayer- tried. The then Would it recurs, have been a crime question the United States? against There can be but one answer. Murder an is not offence States, against except when committed or in some or'har high-seas port bor Ayithout State, the. or in' the jurisdiction District br; inor Columbia, the' where Territories, other places NÉAGLE.
IN EE ^Fuller, J., Lamar, Opinion: C. Dissenting J. lias exclusive It is well jurisdiction.
national government statute, be defined and no must such crime that such settled States The United out. been govern- has pointed statute yet a man to thus punish try charged ment. powerless being affirm that it we are not is murder, prepared omnipo- trial and from from tent give immunity trial where he is accused of an ex- murder, unless liability is such statute Congress produced permitting discharge. press unmindful áre not of the fact that We the foregoing we have not discussed the of this decision remarks bearings them of what autonomy.of divesting .upon their exólusive over once crimes regarded jurisdiction within their own their own laws, committed territory, against a federal an court, order enabling judge in. a State of its' habeas corpus deprive proceeding, own or to order, maintain its public protect security of its own and the lives whenever the citizens, amen- society courts of a federal officer or to its employé ability agent We have not entered to be enforced. sought ques- its here, because, sufficient, and tion, suggestion arising as. involve the extent to which its consideration might legislation *80 direction which could in that lie may constitutionally go, only when determined the recotd directly presented, properly the court of in a case before adjudication. stated as reasons, these we think briefly
For possible, court below should be reversed and the judgment remanded sheriff of San custody prisoner Joaqum and we are the less reluctant to California; County, express we cannot this because ourselves to dóuíbt conclusion, permit n thatthe authorities of the State of California are competéiit and that even if the hhd willing-to..do justice; appellee had to trial been indicted, tffid gone record, him and his would have deliverance. country given good this, Mr. Justice Field did not sit at the casé, hearing and took no its decision. part