Arizona silver belt., 1885-02-07
WE sAy MES.

WE SAX MES.
 The Tucson Citizen, of areeent date, contains this headline: Shall the Court be Spstained2"
 We answer most emphatically, yes!I And supplement 1t with few, to us,a good reasons for the same This int quiry is prompted by the recent events trauspiring in connection with the Berger case,
 It is only necessary for us to gointo the case sufficiently to reach the point raised, without critical review It is enough for the purpose of illustra- ting our views, and grounding our opinions, that there is conflict of authority, or rather an overriding of the judicial by the Interior Depart ment, and for the punishment of which Dr Hart is undergoing sentence. Yet it becomes important that we first es- tablish the status of Berger
 At the establishment of the Papago reservation, Berger was, and for more than thirty-fve years, had been ia possession of small tract of land which possession he held un- der Q Mexican grant There lad been no dispute of his right to the peaeeable occupation of this land, un- til the recent visit of Indian Inspector Benedict The finding of Berger with in the limits of the reservation, was to Benedict not only presumptiye, but conclusive that he was a trespasSer, and he so reported him to the lnte- rior Department. Through the uatu- ral channel, the directions for Berger's removal reached the Indian Agent, Wheeler, and 1t was while carrying into effect the orders of the Interior Department, that the conflict between authorities arose. Mir, Berger, dumb founded at the unexpect d appearance of the Agent and his imperious com msnds to at once quit his home, recall. ing the legal maxim, ga mans house is his castle" did not quietly with. draw, and cheerfully surrender his life work to the hand ofdespoilers, but applied to the circuit court, for an in- junction restraining the Agent from further interfering wlth his possession during the pendency of suit to de- termiue his right to the hnd so long occupied by him as a h}me. Judge Fitzgerald granted the order, and mo- tiee was served upon th4 Agent, but ignoring the existence of any other authority than the Interior Depart. ment, the Agent, n the person of Dr. Hart, who, assiste,l by the military, had already forcibly eected Berger and his family, even goiag 50 far as wantonly to iniure his buildings, and trample his crops-forbid the return of Berger or family.
 This raises the question which all law-abiding citizens are interested in, to wit: In time of peace, with no sus- pension of the writ of babeas corpus, is the civil authority subseryient to the military?
 In the founding of the nation, the wise fathers divided the departments of fgovernment into three heads Leg islatiye, Executive and Judicial. The prerogatives of each were distinct and untrammeIed; these rights were to be exercised. The stability of the nation rests upon the enforcement of those wise provisions of the organic law
 If they are not enforced, personal liberty becomes at once endan- gsred; right of property not only imperiled, but so uncertain and weak as to disturb the whole system of iu- tercourse between men. Among the causes assigned by the colonists for withdrawing from the mother country was the fact "that the King obstruct- cd the administration of iustce by re- fusing bis assent to laws for establish ing judiciary powers"
 We are not discussing the right of Berger to his land, but the right of one department, or branch of govern ment, to overthrow another Courts are legally established Tn our midst to protect life, liberty and property; to further the ends of personal happi- ness, inalienable rights; to secure and perpetuate which, governments are formed. And the great props to the whole Superstructure are the civil courts, when honestly presided over. By the constitution the judicial power extends to all controversies in winch the claims to lands in any way, whether under grants by states or na- tion, may be brought into controver- sy. Their prerogatiyes are peculiar, but no less potent To enforce their mandates they are clothed by the Ma tional Statutes, section 725, with power 10 punish for contempt, the dsobe- dicuce or resistance by any officer, party, juror, witness on other person, to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree or command of such court.