Graham guardian., 1906-12-21
Grazing on Forest Reserves

bluGiHS w tOiuVl HVuOliVO
Some weeks ago the GUARDIAN
published a dispatch which stated
that the Washington supreme
court had held that grazing fees
on forest reserves were illegal.
In reply to that dispatch, Mr..
Marshall, forest supervisor of the
Mount Graham reserve has given
us the following:
"Many newspapers of the west
and southwest have recently pub
lished what purports to be "a de-
cision by Judge Whitson in the
state of Washington in the case of
the United States VS.. Matthews,
and alleging that under the de-
cision the grazing fees are Illegal,
that there is no authority in law
for prohibiting grazing on forest
reserves and further alleging that
Matthews continued to keep his
stock in the reserve.
GAIL of the publications are in
direct contravention of the facts in
the case.
"The case against Matthews was
a criminal prosecution and the
judge simply held that 1t was not
a crime to Craze stock in a reserve
without a permit, that the act
which imposed a criminal penalty
was to that extent unconstitutional.
"The decision of Judge Whitson
simply followed those of Judge
Wellborn Of California and Judge
Marshall Of Utah.
"Tbe Circuit Court of Appeals,
ninth circuit, in the case of Dastcr.
vignes, ct al, VS.. the United States,
decided that the forest regulations
are valid as the basis for injunction
to prohibit the pasturing of live,
stock on forest reserve lands.
Judge Whltson's court would
be bound by this decision in
civil action for tresspass, and it
is certain that he would not refuse
an Injunction, nor declare the graz
ing fees illegal in civil action,
because such decision could be
taken for review before the Circuit
Court of Appeals which would un-
doudtedly override him.
"Mr, Matthew's stock was re-
moved from the reserve in 1905 |
upon notice to him to do so and |
has not since been in the reserve.
"The supreme court of Arizona
has held that it is crime to
pasture stock in forest reserve
10 violation Of the reguIa 10 MS and
,an be punished as such, see Joseph
Dent VS.. the United States; (Su-
Dreme Court of Arizona. 76 Pac.
Rep, 1859 Appeal from the dis.
rlct court of the fourth Judicial
district, before Justice R. e. Sloan.
son rehearing, the appellant
vas convicted of the crime Of
upon public lands in
orest reservation, in violation of
he forest regulations promulgated
lnder Authority of the Act of
congress Of June 4, 1897, $50
'tat., 35).
"Aside from the legality of the
'razing fees and the authority to
nforce them, the grazing interests :
i the entire country are awaken
ng to the fact that the forest re
erves are Of benefit to their wei
ire; that overgrazing has injured
be public lands within and with
ut the forest reserves; that re-
tricted grazing is to the interest
f the largest number for all time
nd the policy of the forest service
as been approved and endorsed
y the National Livestock Asso-
iation and quite recently by the
rizona Cattle Growers Associa-
on, at their annual meeting at
hoeniX, November 1906.
"Trusting this will meet and
orrect the incorrect reports which
ave gained some circulation and
lay the anxiety of the many
ockmen and especially the small
wners who heartily approve of
'e forest reserve policy.