“There is nothing in his petition which would justify any remission of the imprisonment.  The law imputes an attempt to accomplish the natural result of one’s acts, and when these acts are of a criminal nature it will not accept, against such implication, the denial of the transgressor.  No one would be safe if the denial of a wrongful or criminal act would suffice to release the violator of the law from the punishment due his offenses.”

On September 17, 1888, after the announcement of the opinion of the court by Mr. Justice Field denying the petition of D.S.  Terry for a revocation of the order committing him for contempt, Mr. Terry made public a correspondence between himself and Judge Solomon Heydenfeldt, which explains itself, and is as follows: 

    “MY DEAR TERRY: 

“The papers which our friend Stanley sends you will explain what we are trying to do.  I wish to see Field to-morrow and sound his disposition, and if it seems advisable I will present our petition.  But in order to be effective, and perhaps successful, I wish to feel assured and be able to give the assurance that failure to agree will not be followed by any attempt on your part to break the peace either by action or demonstration.  I know that you would never compromise me in any such manner, but it will give me the power to make an emphatic assertion to that effect and that ought to help.

    “Please answer promptly. 
    “S.  HEYDENFELDT.”

The reply of Judge Terry is as follows: 

    “DEAR HEYDENFELDT: 

“Your letter was handed me last evening.  I do not expect a favorable result from any application to the Circuit Court, and I have very reluctantly consented that an application be made to Judge Field, who will probably wish to pay me for my refusal to aid his presidential aspirations four years ago.  I had a conversation with Garber on Saturday last in which I told him if I was released I would seek no personal satisfaction for what had passed.  You may say as emphatically as you wish that I do not contemplate breaking the peace, and that, so far from seeking, I will avoid meeting any of the parties concerned.  I will not promise that I will refrain from denouncing the decision or its authors.  I believe that the decision was purchased and paid for with coin from the Sharon estate, and I would stay here for ten years before I would say that I did not so believe.  If the judges of the Circuit Court would do what is right they would revoke the order imprisoning my wife.  She certainly was in contempt of court, but that great provocation was given by going outside the record to smirch her character ought to be taken into consideration in mitigation of the sentence.  Field, when a legislator, thought that no court should be allowed to punish for contempt by imprisonment for a longer period than five days.  My wife has already been in prison double that time for words spoken under very great provocation.  No matter what the result, I propose to stay here until my wife is dismissed.

    “Yours truly,
    “D.S.  TERRY.”