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."

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 J