That act of Neagle’s was no crime.  It was a deed that any and every American should feel proud of having done.  It was an act that should be applauded over the length and breadth of this great land.  It should not have consigned him for one minute to prison walls.  It should have lifted him high in the esteem of all the American people.  When criminals turn executioners, and judges are the victims, we might as well close our courts and hoist the red flag of anarchy over their silent halls and darkened chambers.

The New York Herald, in its issue of August 19, 1889, said: 

    The sensation of the past week is a lesson in republicanism
    and a eulogium on the majesty of the law.

It was not a personal controversy between Stephen J. Field and David S. Terry.  It was a conflict between law and lawlessness—­between a judicial officer who represented the law and a man who sought to take it into his own hands.  One embodied the peaceful power of the nation, the will of the people; the other defied that power and appealed to the dagger.

Justice Field’s whole course shows a conception of judicial duty that lends grandeur to a republican judiciary.  It is an inspiring example to the citizens and especially to the judges of the country.  He was reminded of the danger of returning to California while Judge Terry and his wife were at large.  His firm answer was that it was his duty to go and his would go.  He was then advised to arm himself for self-defense.  His reply embodies a nobility that should make it historic:  “When it comes to such a pass in this country that judges of the courts find it necessary to go armed it will be time to close the courts themselves.”

This sentiment was not born of any insensibility to danger; Justice Field fully realized the peril himself.  But above all feeling of personal concern arose a lofty sense of the duty imposed upon a justice of the nation’s highest court.  The officer is a representative of the law—­a minister of peace.  He should show by his example that the law is supreme; that all must bow to its authority; that all lawlessness must yield to it.  When judges who represent the law resort to violence even in self-defense, the pistol instead of the court becomes the arbiter of controversies, and the authority of the government gives way to the power of the mob.

Rather than set a precedent that might tend to such a result, that would shake popular confidence in the judiciary, that would lend any encouragement to violence, a judge, as Justice Field evidently felt, may well risk his own life for the welfare of the commonwealth.  He did not even favor the proposition that a marshal be detailed to guard him.

    The course of the venerable Justice is an example to all who
    would have the law respected.  It is also a lesson to all who
    would take the law into their own hands.