Imágenes de páginas

Terry, under the circumstances, he was acting under the authority of the law of the United States, and was justified in so doing; and that he is not liable to answer in the courts of California on account of his part in that transaction.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court authorizing his discharge from the custody of the sheriff of San Joaquin County.

Note. There were many facts and circumstances in connection with the case of In Re Neagle which possess great interest because of the persons involved therein, and yet are of such character as would not be contained in a law report. Mr. Justice Field and David Terry both arrived in California during the days_of_the_gold fever. They both practiced law and both entered into politics. David Terry was elected Justice of the Supreme Court of California in 1855 and resigned on September 12, 1859. Stephen J. Field was elected a Justice of the same court and became Chief Justice upon Judge Terry's resignation. The two men were associates, therefore, upon the bench during two years. Judge Terry resigned from the bench to enter the Confederate Army during the Civil War, and after the war was ended he returned to the practice of law in California. Judge Field in the meantime had been appointed by President Lincoln as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Judge Terry and his wife were interested as defendants in a bitter litigation in the United States Circuit Court in California in the years 1883 to 1888. On September 3, 1888, an opinion unfavorable to Terry and his wife was rendered by Justice Field. At its conclusion Mrs. Terry arose in the court room and cried aloud that Justice Field had been bought, and wanted to know the price he had sold himself for. Justice Field directed the marshal to remove her from the court room. Thereupon Terry attacked the marshal, and drew a bowie-knife upon him. For this conduct Terry and his wife were sentenced to imprisonment for contempt of court. From that time until his death the denunciations by Terry and his wife of Mr. Justice Field were open, frequent, and of the most vindictive and malevolent character. While being transported from San Francisco to Alameda, where they were imprisoned, Mrs. Terry repeated a number of times that she would kill Judge Field. So much impressed were the friends of Judge Field, and of public justice, both in California and in Washington, with the fear that he would fall a sacrifice to the resentment of Terry and his wife, that application was made to the Attorney-General of the United States suggesting the propriety of his furnishing some protection to the Judge while in California. This resulted in a correspondence between the Attorney-General of the United States, the District Attorney, and the marshal of the Northern District of California on that subject, the result of which was that Mr. Neagle was appointed a deputy marshal for the Northern District of California, and given special instructions to attend upon Judge Field both in court and while going from one court to another, and protect him from any assault that might be attempted upon him by Terry and wife. Accordingly, when Judge Field went from San Francisco to Los Angeles to hold the Circuit Court of the United States at that place, Mr. Neagle accompanied him, remained with him for the few days that he was engaged in the business of that court, and entered the train to return with him to San Francisco. While the sleeping car, in which were Justice Field and Mr. Neagle, stopped a moment in the early morning at Fresno, Terry and wife got on the train. The fact that they were on the train became known to Neagle, and he held a conversation with the conductor as to what peace officers could be found at Lathrop, where the train stopped for breakfast, and the conductor was requested to telegraph to the proper officers of that place to have a constable or some peace officer on the ground when the train should arrive, anticipating that there might be violence af

tempted by Terry upon Judge Field. This resulted in no available aid to assist in keeping the peace.

When the train arrived, Neagle informed Judge Field of the presence of Terry on the train, and advised him to remain and take his breakfast in the car. This the Judge refused to do, and he and Neagle got out of the car and went into the dining room, and took seats beside each other in the place assigned them by the person in charge of the breakfast room. The occurrences followed hereupon were testified to by Judge Field as follows: "A few minutes afterwards Judge Terry and his wife came in. When Mrs. Terry saw me, which she did directly she got diagonally opposite me, she wheeled around suddenly, and went out in great haste. I afterwards understood, as you heard here, that she went for her satchel. Judge Terry walked past, opposite to me, and took his seat at the second table below. The only remark I made to Mr. Neagle was: "There is Judge Terry and his wife.' He remarked: 'I see him.' Not another word was said. I commenced eating my breakfast. It seems, however, that he came round back of me-I did not see him-and he struck me a violent blow in the face, followed instantaneously by another blow. Coming so immediately together, the two blows seemed like one assault. I heard 'Stop! stop!' cried by Neagle. Of course, I was for a moment dazed by the blows. I turned my head round, and I saw that great form of Terry's, with his arm raised, and his fists clenched to strike me. I felt that a terrific blow was coming, and his arm was descending in a curved way, as though to strike the side of my temple, when I heard Neagle cry out, 'Stop! stop! I am an officer.' Instantly two shots followed. I can only explain the second shot from the fact that he did not fall instantly. I did not get up from my seat, although it is proper for me to say that a friend of mine thinks that I did; but I did not. I looked around, and saw Terry on the floor. I looked at him, and saw that peculiar movement of the eyes that indicates the presence of death. Of course, it was a great shock to me. It is impossible for any one to see a man in the full vigor of life, with all those faculties that constitute life, instantly extinguished, without being affected; and I was. I looked at him for a moment, then rose from my seat, went around, and looked at him again, and passed on." Neagle was arrested immediately, as was also Justice Field, though the latter was soon released, by the authorities of the State of California. The result of Neagle's effort to obtain his release resulted in the now famous case.


158 U. S., 564. 1894.

In May of 1894, there arose a dispute between the Pullman Palace Car Company and its employees which resulted in a strike of the employees of the company. The officers of the railway union tried to force a settlement of differences by creating a boycott against the cars of the company, and had prevented certain railroads running out of Chicago from operating their trains and were combining to extend such boycott by causing strikes among employees of all railroads hauling Pullman cars. A bill of complaint was filed on July 2, 1894, by the United States in the Circuit Court of the United States in Illinois against Eugene Debs and others who were the officers and leaders of the labor organizations of the employees. The complaint was that twenty-two railroads were engaged in interstate commerce into and out of the City of Chicago; that each of the roads was under contract to carry the mails and

were post roads of the government; that they were required also to carry the troops and military forces of the United States. An injunction was issued by the court restraining the defendants and all persons conspiring with them from interfering hindering or obstructing the business of the railroads as interstate carriers and carriers of mail. This injunction was duly served upon the defendants. Subsequently, on July 17, 1894, an attachment for contempt of court was issued against the officers of the railway union and others because of their disobedience to the said order of the court, and after a hearing they were sentenced to imprisonment. Having been committed to jail, they applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus in order to test the legality of their confinement.

MR. JUSTICE BREWER delivered the opinion of the court:

Under the power vested in Congress to establish postoffices and post roads, Congress has, by a mass of legislation, established the great postoffice system of the country, with all its details of organization, its machinery for the transaction of business, defining what shall be carried and what not, and the prices of carriage, and also prescribing penalties for all offenses against it. Obviously these powers given to the national government over interstate commerce, and in respect to the transportation of the mails were not dormant and unused. Congress had taken hold of these two matters, and by various and specific acts had assumed and exercised the powers given to it, and was in full discharge of its duty to regulate interstate commerce and carry the mails. As, under the Constitution, power over interstate commerce and the transportation of the mails is vested in the national government, and Congress by virtue of such grant has assumed actual and direct control, it follows that the national government may prevent any unlawful and forcible interference therewith. * * * Have the vast interests of the nation in interstate commerce, and in the transportation of the mails, no other protection than lies in the possible punishment of those who interfere with it? * * * The entire strength of the nation may be used to enforce in any part of the land the full and free exercise of all national powers and the security of all rights entrusted by the Constitution to its care. The strong arm of the national government may be put forth to brush away all obstructions to the freedom of interstate commerce or the transportation of the mails. If the emergency arises, the army of the nation, and all its militia are at the service of the nation to compel obedience to its laws. * * So, in the case before us, the right to use force does not exclude the right of appeal to the courts for a judicial determination and for the exercise of all their powers of prevention. Summing up our conclusion, we hold that the government of the United States is one having jurisdiction over every foot of soil within its territory, and acting directly upon each

* * *


that to it is committed power over interstate commerce and the transmission of the mail; * * that in the exercise of those powers it is competent for the nation to remove all obstructions upon highways, natural or artificial, to the passage of interstate commerce or the carrying of the mail; that while it may be competent for the government (through the executive branch and in the use of the entire executive power of the nation) to forcibly remove all such obstructions, it is equally within its competency to appeal to the civil courts for an inquiry and determination as to the existence and character of any alleged obstructions, and if such are found to exist, or threaten to occur, to invoke the powers of those courts to remove or restrain such obstructions.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

Section 4.



4 WALLACE, 333. 1866.

The petitioner, A. H. Garland,* was an attorney and a citizen of Arkansas. In May, 1861, Arkansas purported to withdraw from the Union and attach itself to the Confederate States. The petitioner followed the State and was one of its representatives in the Congress of the Confederacy. In July, 1865, he received from the President of the United States a full pardon for all offenses committed by his participation, direct or implied, in the rebellion. On July 2, 1862, Congress passed an act prescribing an oath to be taken by every person elected or appointed to any office of honor or profit in the United States. On January 24, 1865, Congress, by a supplementary act, extended its provisions to attorneys of the courts of the United States. One of the sentences in the prescribed oath was, "that he has not voluntarily given aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility to the United States." Garland produced his pardon and petitioned the Supreme Court for leave to practice as an attorney before the


MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the court:

The statute is directed against parties who have offended in any of the particulars embraced by these clauses. And its object is to *The petitioner, A. H. Garland, was afterwards Attorney-General of the United States in the Cabinet of President Cleveland.

exclude them from the profession of the law, or at least from its practice in the courts of the United States. As the oath prescribed cannot be taken by these parties, the act, as against them, operates as a legislative decree of perpetual exclusion. And exclusion from any of the professions or any of the ordinary avocations of life for past conduct can be regarded in no other light than as punishment for such conduct. The exaction of the oath is the mode provided for ascertaining the parties upon whom the act is intended to operate, and instead of lessening, increases its objectionable character. All enactments of this kind partake of the nature of bills of pains and penalties, and are subject to the constitutional inhibition against the passage of bills of attainder, under which general designation they are included.

In the exclusion which the statute adjudges, it imposes a punishment for some of the acts specified which were not punishable at the time they were committed; and for other of the acts it adds a new punishment to that before prescribed, and it is thus brought within the further inhibition of the Constitution against the passage of an ex post facto law.


The profession of an attorney and counsellor is not like an office created by an act of Congress, which depends for its continuance, its powers, and its emoluments upon the will of its creator, and the possession of which may be burdened with any conditions not prohibited by the Constitution. Attorneys and counsellors are not officers of the United States; they are not elected or appointed in the manner prescribed by the Constitution for the election and appointment of such officers. They are officers of the court, admitted as such by its order, upon evidence of their possessing sufficient legal learning and fair private character. It has been the general practice in this country to obtain this evidence by an examination of the parties. In this court the fact of the admission of such officers in the highest court of the States to which they respectively belong, for three years preceding their application, is regarded as sufficient evidence of the possessioin of the requisite legal learning, and the statement of counsel moving their admission sufficient evidence that their private and professional character is fair. The order of admission is the judgment of the court that the parties possess the requisite qualifications as attorneys and counsellors, and are entitled to appear as such and conduct causes therein. From its entry the parties become officers of the court, and are responsible to it for professional misconduct. They hold their office during good behavior, and can only be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by the judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard has been afforded. The attorney and counsellor being, by the solemn judicial act of the court, clothed with his office, does not hold it as a matter of grace and favor. The right which it confers upon him to appear for suitors, and to argue causes, is something more than a mere


* *

« AnteriorContinuar »