Arizona citizen., 1872-02-10
RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.

of the Supreme Court in the Richard
 confscation case. This opinion declares
 and maintains the rights of the peo-
 pie. It is @ staggering blow to all
 who would, if they could, pile up
 wealth by extorting from the Indians
 and destroying their neighbors who
 only ask an even opportunity with law
 equitably administered. It is an ex-
 position of law grounded in honesty,
 and elucidated by that experience
 which comes from a thorough and
 pure education, and an incorruptible
 determination to prevent bad men
 from perverting the law for sordid
 ends. The honest people of Arizona
 have reason to rejoice that two men
 of unbending integrity and undoubted
 learning occupy the Supreme bench.
 The importance of this decision to
 the people at large can hardly be
 over-estimated. Many may still be
 in doubt as to the extent of the ini- quitous design which originated the suit that led to this righteous decision. The objects seem to have been to con- fine the Indians dealings to few
 licensed traders who would fix the prices on goods they sold and the pro- ducts purchased therefor, thus prac- tically saying to the Indians, |" Heads I win, tails you lose;" and further, to confscate for the benefit of informers and bad officers, the goods and prop erty of every man in Arizona who had, or should have, any trade with the Indians; and it is we'll known that nearly if not quite every merchant, teamster and farmer in the Territory have sold them food, clothing and other necessaries of life without H- cense.
 These were to all appearances, and the published opinion strengthens them, the objects of the attempted of Richard & Co.'s goods. With all the zeal ever in- spired by hope of illegitimate gain, 8 United States Attorney, notoriously known for avarice and roguery, pre- ,ented the case to the District and Su- preme Courts, both of which could not discover even probable cause for the raid on Richard $ Co.,, and refused certif- ,ate that any such existed. This just refusal was very naturally opposed by one Judge whose reputation could hardly be worse, and whose construc- ion of law in his unsigned but publicly delivered opinion of dissent, is pro- nounced "vicious." by the majority of the Court, as witness this in the lat 5er's opinion:
 The protection and improvement of the Indians has been cherished policy of the United States. Not less so has been the settlement of the public domain by citi- zens, its organization and development as Territories, and their admission into the Union as States cOequal with those al- ready there. The laws regulating trade and intercourse with the Indians are the of both branches of this policy, and any construction of these laws must De yiciOUS which excludes either branch of this policy from its consideration.
 The italics in the quotation are ours. Is not that rough on Reavis, coming as it does from grave Supreme bench, and pronounced by men whose integ- rity is above suspicion Compared to the majority opinion, the minority one is a travesty on plain law, con- mon sense, and even justice, and we have high authority for terming it vicious. Reavis did not even sign his bad stuff, and if we published it as his, it would be consistent in him to deny its authorship. With this excuse, and the fact that we complimented him last week by publishing the entire record in one of his cases, together with one