premeditated insult to the venerable Justice
Field, and the retribution he had long defied followed it
quickly. California will have little reason to mourn his loss.

The _Cleveland Leader_, in its issue of August 18th, speaks of the
conduct of Neagle as follows:

THE KILLING OF TERRY.

We have already expressed the opinion in these columns that
the killing of David S. Terry by Deputy Marshal Neagle at
Lathrop, California, Wednesday, was entirely justifiable. In
that opinion it is a pleasure to note that the press of the
country concur almost unanimously. The judgment of eminent
members of the legal profession, as published in our telegraph
columns and elsewhere, support and bear out that view of the
case. The full account of the trouble makes the necessity of
some such action on the part of the deputy marshal clear. The
judgment of the country is that Neagle only did his duty in
defending the person of Justice Field, and in that judgment
the California jury will doubtless concur when the case is
brought before it.

The _Argonaut_, a leading paper of San Francisco, not a political,
but a literary paper, and edited with great ability, in its issue of
August 26, 1889, used the following language:

The course of Judge Field throughout this troublesome business
has been in the highest degree creditable to him. He has
acted with dignity and courage, and his conduct has been
characterized by most excellent taste. His answer, when
requested to go armed against the assault of Terry, is worthy
of preservation. And now that his assailant has been arrested
in his career by death, all honest men who respect the law
will breathe more freely. Judge Terry had gained a most
questionable reputation, not for courage in the right
direction; not for generosity which overlooked or forgave,
or forgot offenses against himself or his interests. He never
conceded the right to any man to hold an opinion in opposition
to his prejudices, or cross the path of his passion with
impunity. He could with vulgar whisper insult the judge who
rendered an opinion adverse to his client, and with profane
language insult the attorney who had the misfortune to be
retained by a man whose cause he did not champion. He had
become a terror to society and a walking menace to the
social circle in which he revolved. His