In the opinion of the court, referred to in the foregoing letter as “smirching the character” of Mrs. Terry, there was nothing said reflecting upon her, except what was contained in quotations from the opinion of Judge Sullivan of the State court in the divorce case of Sharon vs.  Hill in her favor.  These quotations commenced at page 58 of the pamphlet copy of Justice Field’s opinion, when less than three pages remained to be read.  It was at page 29 of the pamphlet that Justice Field was reading when Mrs. Terry interrupted him and was removed from the court-room.  After her removal he resumed the reading of the opinion, and only after reading 29 pages, occupying nearly an hour, did he reach the quotations in which Judge Sullivan expressed his own opinion that Mrs. Terry had committed perjury several times in his court.  The reading of them could not possibly have furnished her any provocation for her conduct.  She had then been removed from the court-room more than an hour.  Besides, if they “smirched” her character, why did she submit to them complacently when they were originally uttered from the bench by Judge Sullivan in his opinion rendered in her favor?

Justice Field, in what he was reading that so incensed Mrs. Terry, was simply stating the effect of a decree previously rendered in a case, in the trial of which he had taken no part.  He was stating the law as to the rights established by that decree.  The efforts then made by Terry, and subsequently by his friends and counsel, to make it appear that his assault upon the marshal and defiance of the court were caused by his righteous indignation at assaults made by Judge Field upon his wife’s character were puerile, because based on a falsehood.  The best proof of this is the opinion itself.

Judge Terry next applied to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of habeas corpus.  In that application he declared that on the 12th day of September, 1888, he addressed to the Circuit Court a petition duly verified by his oath, and then stated the petition for release above quoted.  Yet in a communication published in the San Francisco Examiner of October 22d he solemnly declared that this very petition was not filed by any one on his behalf.  After full argument by the Supreme Court the writ was denied, November 12, 1888, by an unanimous court, Justice Field, of course, not sitting in the case.  Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the Court.

CHAPTER X.

PRESIDENT CLEVELAND REFUSES TO PARDON TERRY—­FALSE STATEMENTS OF TERRY REFUTED.

Before the petition for habeas corpus was presented to the Supreme Court of the United States, Judge Terry’s friends made a strenuous effort to secure his pardon from President Cleveland.  The President declined to interfere.  In his efforts in that direction Judge Terry made gross misrepresentations as to Judge Field’s relations with himself, which were fully refuted by Judge Heydenfeldt, the very witness he had invoked.  Judge Heydenfeldt had been an associate of Judge Terry on the State supreme bench.  These representations and their refutation are here given as a necessary element in this narrative.