sibility of common sense and character would have lent
himself in that way to such a service.

The Kansas City _Times_, in its issue at this period, uses the following
language:

NO ONE WILL CENSURE.

_Gratitude for Judge field's Escape the Chief Sentiment._

Deputy Marshal Neagle acted with terrible promptitude in
protecting the venerable member of the Supreme Court with
whose safety he was specially charged, but few will be
inclined to censure him. He had to deal with a man of fierce
temper, whose readiness to use firearms was part of the best
known history of California.

It is a subject for general congratulation that Justice Field
escaped the violence of his assailant. The American nation
would be shocked to learn that a judge of its highest tribunal
could not travel without danger of assault from those whom
he had been compelled to offend by administering the laws.
Justice Field has the respect due his office and that deeper
and more significant reverence produced by his character
and abilities. Since most of the present generation were
old enough to observe public affairs he has been a jurist of
national reputation and a sitting member of the Supreme Court.
In that capacity he has earned the gratitude of his countrymen
by bold and unanswerable defense of sound constitutional
interpretation on more than one occasion. In all the sad
affair the most prominent feeling will be that of gratitude at
his escape.

_The Army and Navy Journal_, in its issue of August 24, 1889, had
the following article under the head of--

MARSHAL NEAGLE'S CRIME.

The public mind appears to be somewhat unsettled upon the
question of the right of Neagle to kill Terry while assaulting
Judge Field. His justification is as clear as is the benefit
of his act to a long-suffering community. Judge Field
was assaulted unexpectedly from behind, while seated at a
dining-table, by a notorious assassin and ruffian, who had
sworn to kill him, and who, according to the testimony of at
least one witness, was armed with a long knife, had sent his
wife for a pistol, and was intending to use it as soon as
obtained. * * *

The rule is that the danger which justifies homicide in
self-defense must be actual and urgent. And was it not so
in this case? No one who reflects upon the features of the