Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/204

 190 TEDKRAL BEPOETEB. �cumstances of the case. Dwyer vas a volunteer there. He was, 80 to speak, an outsider. He may bave had the right to corne in and give hia testimony in favor of the person who was presenting his claims for registration ; but Geissler was there, clothed with the authority of law, and entitled to the protection of the law, as an offieer of the United States. They, therefore, occupied entirely different positions. �I can bave no doubt that, under the authority of the acts of congress, Mr. Geissler had the right, in the absence of the marshal and his deputies, as was the case here, to preserve order, and to arrest, without warrant or process, any person who interfered with him in the discharge of his duty as a superviser. It was his right, among other things, to see that no person was improperly registered. He could, therefore, object, if the circumstances warranted it, to the registration of a person offering himself for registration ; and that the cir- cumstances did warrant it, is clear, because some of the judges themselves were in doubt as to his right, and therefore the objection of the superviser was properly made. �There can be no doubt, either, that no person had a right to molest or interfere with the superviser in the discharge of his duty, even by the use of offensive and opprobrious lan- guage. That, without any overt act, might be a molestation and interference with the superviser in the discharge of his duty. Neither can there be any doubt that there was more or less disturbance and disorder, which foUowed the use of excited language. Acoording to the weight of the evidence, as I understand it, the supervisor did tell Mr. Dwyer not to interfere, or "to stop," or "shut up," or that he would beput out ; to which Dwyer returned opprobrious language, threat- ening to strike the supervisor; and thereuponthe superviser, having insisted he should be removed or turned out, and say- ing that if no one else would do it he would himself, seized Mr. Dwyer, as some of the witnesses say, by the throat, and others say by the collar, or by the breast. It does not, per- haps, matter in what particular way. He did not strike Dwyer, and was himself immediately struck by Dwyer. The question is whether what was done by the superviser was in ����