Heppner gazette. [volume] (Heppner, Morrow County, Or.) 1892-1912, 1906-12-20
THE FOREST RESERVE.
important Decision Favorable to
StOCkmen.


dispat' hes from Seattle, WASH, state
that the federal court for the eastern
district of Washington handed down 9
decision of vast importance to the sheer
and wool growing industry of the entire
country relative to forest reserve graz
ing fees. In 1905 Walter Matthews, a
sheep man. entered tho Mount Rainier
forest reserve with largo band ofsheep
without first securing q permit from the
forestry bureau. Accordingly, the Uni
ted States district attorney, acting under
instructions from the atto'ney.general,
secured Mr.. Matthew'S Indictment for
violation OF the following regulations
adopted under Section "a Of the act ap'
proved March 81. 1901, entitled, IAN
act to repeal the timber calture laws and
for otner purposes" Mr.. Matthews
was probably In ignorance Of tho forest
reserve regulations, the sane ss are
hundreds Of flock masters throughout
tho country. He had used the forest
areas for summer grazing tor years. and
naturally supposed he could do so in
1905, and the subpoena of the United
States officers was probably the first in
timation he had that he was violating
any alleged law. Mr.. Matthews was
prosecuted for the alleged violation OF
the following:
"Section 9-A!l persons must secure
permits before grazing any livestock in
a forest reserve, except few head in
actual use by prospectors. campers and
travellers, and milch cows and work
ANIMALS. but not exceeding the total of
SIX head owned by bona fde settlers,
which are excepted and require no per-
mits. Any person responsible for graz
ing stock without permit is liable to
punishment for violation Of the law"
The court. after going into the case at
great length, and reviewing the admin
power Of the forestry bureau.
said:
"Congress cannot leave . statute to
be enlarged upon either by the courts
or by the executive departments. 1t
capnot authorize any other branch of
the government to define that which is
purely legislative, and that is purely
legislative which defines rights, pc, mite
hinge to be done or prohibits the doing
hereof"
After citing numerous decisions and
authorities, the court cor tinued:
1.-The grazing OF stock on the forest
eserves has not been prohibited by any
act. The prohibition
ests entirely upon regulations made by
he secretary of agriculture.
Regulation No. 9 prescribes, ,as we have
cen. that ell persons, before grrzlng
heep in for est reserve, must secure
'ermit and any person without a permit
8 liable to punishment for violation OF
he law. That is, whoever violates a
ates law passed by congress. The
vident embarrassment attending the
making OF regulation No. ON an attempt
, bring it within the act of congress is
pparent by the language used. Ger
linly here is the secretary If agriculture Z
no has undertaken to enact this law.
is he who designated that which con-
itutes the crime, the thing Prohibited,
lie thing for which the party is to b.
1nished, the act which is the offence is
escrbed by the secretary and not en-
ted by congress. The objection to :.
e indictment against Walter Matthews
the absence of law defining the act :
erein charged as a criminal offense.
pom that ground the demurrer must
sustained AID the defendant is dis
arged."
The expected has happened, for GER
n persons have contended for some
ne that the forest reserve regulations
.tricting the grazing OF livestock,
arRing a fee for such grazing and even
nying livestock owners the right to
ter the reserves, were illegal, and tie