Arizona weekly citizen., 1885-02-07
Shall the Court be Sustained '

The Berger case has inaugurated a contest which involves a principle that so far does not seem .to be appreciated by the people. It presents the question of whether the rights of the residents of this Territory shall be determined by the Courts created for that purpose or by irresponsible executive officers of the Federal Government. When this fact is properly understood, 1t would seem that the people and press would, with one accord, rise above eiudice, politics or cabals and give an earnest expression of ' support to the position taken by the Judge of the District Court in tLe fear ' less protection of their rights against | the power of the Government, repre- scented by the Interior Department.
 Letting the personality of both Berger and Wheeler, and Paul as well, drop out of the matter, and the facts are these: person Is upon tract of land claiming | title, and the President, by an executive crder, sets apart an Indian reservation ! which covers this tract Of laud Now, ii | the party owns this land the order mak- Ing reservation on this tract is void, for the Constitution prohibits 1t. This | being the situation. the Indiaa Agent, on behalf of the Government, without the judgment of any Court, forcibly evlcts tine party from his home. 4 per
 son not learned ID the law can see that If the Courts are powerless, there IS no
 remedy for the most wanton acts Of | tyranny, and that an Indian reservation | could be declared on the tOwnsite of | Tucson and on the same principle We could all be turned out by military force,
 with no redress. Here is where the | Courts form the protection of the most humble citizen, and he has a right to be
 heard, and the right to have the strong
 arm of Its process thrown around him
 to shelter him, eyel though hls oppress-
 or Ue a Federal officer.
 Under these circumstances, while the
 Indian Agent Is still holding the prem
 ises, and an attempt to enforce the order | If the Court Is met with armed resist ance, under hI5 directions, or that of his subordinate, the principle for which | Berger Is contendIng, that hs shall
 have decIsIon as to his rights. IS one. as above stated, which interests every property owner and citizen. In his ac- ton Tn the contempt proceeding the ru e was declared by the District Court that So far as lay m its power to declare. tie citizen was the equal of the Govern ment. when demanding a hearing and determination of his rights, and Tn the assertion of this principle the rule thus declared IS purely for the protection of the weak against oppression, and for the firmness with which it was declared the Court should be approved, and not condemded, and while We sympRthise with the unfortunate Dr. Hart, yet If his superior had have instructed him to have rendered obedience to the Courts mandate, or had declfred himself re- sponsible for HRrt's actions, then the result would have been different.
 Ii the authorities at Washington ur- derstand that p1blic opinion frowus down the substitution of force for law, then these matters will be relegated to the Courts for settlement, and a white man may have some rights m a Terri tory which the Government will respect. But If our press joins with the Federal l officers ID decryIng and defylng the pow CT of the Courts, then the people show temsslyes unit for the exercise of the rights which are theirs.