Arizona citizen., 1871-12-16

maddening sense of wrong, or miscon- ceivcd right, or intolerable suffering, or gloomy despair, or conflicting inn pulses, involving these defendants in moral darkness, and impelling them in spite of themselves to do the deed charged in the indictment.
 Another inquiry presented by this case is whether the defendants in the deadly attack on the Apache camp charged in the indictment, have vio- lated any law of the United States, or whether that attack was not the exer- else of natural right to prevent or restrain the murder and spoliation to which the people of this Territory have been and are now subjected by the Apache nation, and, as the evidence in this case shows, by that portion of 1t quartered near Camp Grant on which the deadly assault, charged in the in dictment, was made.
 The relations of the different classes of the defendants towards the United States and its laws are by no means identical. I have already stated that both tho Apache and Papago nations are tribal organizations with codes of their own, concerning peace and war, much older than the United States. In the language of the Supreme Court of the United States, announced in a celebrated case: "The Indian tribes are distinct, independent political communities, retaining the right of self-government, subject to the pro tecting power of the United States" It will be hard to show that this de- scription is not as applicable to the Pa pago nation now, as 1t was to the Cherokees and other Indian tribes in 1882, when 1t was announced.
 The evidence in the present case shows that state of war now exists and has existed from an undefned and uncertain period between the Pa pago and Apache nations. By the bar barous codes of both nations, the slaughter of their enemies, of all ages and sexes, is justifable, and such has been their practice. The United States has neither abrogated these codes or either of them, nor prevented hos tilities between these Indian tribes, nor protected the Papagos from the murder and spoliation of the Apaches, for I submit that the evidence in the present case shows that the Papagos have been and now are subject to the predatory assaults of the Apaches. If the Papago nation were not ex- ercising recognized legal right ln the murderous assault charged in the indictment, charge you that lr has not been and cannot be shown, the. shey are guilty of murder as chTged iH tho present case at all
 It is alleged m the indictment that the Apacbes ct the time the assault charged was made, were prisoners of war and thus under the protection of the uniteu States. For al the pU-- poses of the present case, this may be accepted as a true statement of their condition. Every government owes protection to all persons within its limits and jurisdiction, while they are obedient to its laws and at peace to- wards other persons within the same limits. If they violate these laws or assail other persons subject to the common government, it is its duty to nunish or restrain the law breakers and to prevent the assaults All per sons forfeit the right of government protection, who persist III infringing its laws, or in assailing, murdering and despoiling other persons entitled to the same protection. It IS the duty of government to protect all persons and classes of persons within its limits and jurisdiction from the wrongs and assaults of all other per sons within the same. This Is neces- sary to prevent civil and social con- fict and bloodshed. If, however, gov ernment allows one class of persons within its limits and jurisdiction per sistently to assa1l and spoil another then the injured class IS reunited to it's natural right Of self-defonse, aud may use force enough for this pur- pose.
 The application of these rules of law to the present case Is clear. The government of the United States owes its Papago, Mexican and Amer ican residents in Arizona protection from Apache spoliation and assault. If such spoliation and assault are per- carried on and not prevented
 CONTINUED ON FOURTH PAGE