Williams news., 1906-12-29
A MISTAKEN IDEA

upon throughout the west on the supposition that it declared illegal the regulation of grazing on forest reserves and the system of charging for grazing permits. As a matter of fact, the decision, which was handed down by Judge Whitson. of the United. States district court for eastern Washington. in the case of the United States vs. Matthews, has no bearing whatever upon the legality of the grazing regulations or of grazing fees, which stand pre- cisely as before. The legal ques- tion involved was simply this: Does the law authorizing the secretary of agriculture to issue regulations make the breach of those regulations crime?
 Judge Whitson's decision merely answered this question "No." It was in substance that the objection to the indictment against Walter Matthews was the absence of law defining the act therein charged as criminal offense. Upon that ground the court held that the demurrer must be sustained and the defend  ant discharged.
 Though the point was simple and clear enough, it was entirely mis- construed in the press reports of the decision and in editorial com ments upon it. For instance. in the Wyoming Tribune of Tuesday. Nov. 6, news of Judge Whitson's action was given under the head lines: "Grazing Fees Illegal Decides Federal Judge," and the article declares that "As a result of the decision, Matthews, who entered the Mount Rainier forest reserve without the permit required by the secretary. is still using the reserve and is not paying the fee imposed by the secretary. As matter of fact, MT. Matthews's sheep were immediately removed upon notice by the forest officers and have not since entered the reserve.
 In the Sheridan, Wyo, Post it is said: "A decision fraught with importance to Wyoming stockmen is that appearing in this issue. wherein it is held by the United States district court that the col lection of fees for grazing live stock is illegal. Since it's inn position this fee has been regarded as illegal and arbitrary by many well informed Wyoming people. and the views expressed by the court in this decision meet with general approval here. The litigant is still running his sheep on the Rainier reserve without pay ing the fees"
 Decisions like Judge Whitson's had before been made hy the fed eral courts in three other districts, one of them six years ago. but none of these interferes in the slightest with the right of the United States to institute civil action against trespassers violating the grazing regulations, or with charging the grazing fee. The United States circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit deci1ed definitely, in the case of Dastervignes vs. United States. that the provisions of the act of March 4, 1897, delegating to the secretary the power to make regulations, is constitutional, that the regulation prohibiting the pasturing of sheep on forest reserves without permit is valid. and that the federal courts will enforce the regulation by injunction. The su preme court of Arizona, three judges sitting in the case of b. vs. United States (76 Pacific Re- porter, 455),- went still further. under circumsta nces which made the decision most emphatic. Dent was criminally prosecuted for graz ing sheep on a forest reserve with out permit, in violation of the regulations, and the court has held