The Glenwood post., 1907-11-02
Forest Departments Position
Explained Clearly BY
Its Law Officer
VERY IMPORTANT NEWS

The following letter from the law
officer of the U. S. forestry department
to Fred P. johnson, relative to the
trespass of Fred Light on the forest
reserve is printed here without com
ment in order that all readers may
understand the government $ attitude
concerning this and other cases of a
similar nature:
Mr.. Fred P. Johnson. Secretary Colo
Cattle and Horse Growers Associa
tion, Denver, Colo:
Dear Sir-Your letter of October 3
to Mr.. Potter, with enclosed copy of
Mr.. c. p. Larson's letter of September
% to you, is received. Mr. Potter is
now absent in the field. The depart
ment of justice has been requested to
proceed in the case against Mr.. Light
and the proposed bill of injunction
which had been referred by the United
States attorney to me and was returned
by me on September l6. Lights at
ttude since the agreement to submit
his case as a friendly suit has not been
at all consistent with such an arrange
ment. l am reliably Informed that he
has openly stated at Aspen that the
forest service has given him fve-year
grazing permit and that he later re
fused to retract the statement openly
but said that it would take five years
for the case to be decided, so that his
former statement was, in his opinion,
substantially correct.
am frank to admit that had the at
titude of Mr.. Light toward the forest
service been known at the time the
suit was arranged for, it would have
been insisted that the suit should be
brought against some person who was
really desirous of having a fair test
of the legal questions involved and who
was not merely seeking to be placed
in conspicuous position in order that
he might more effectively injure the
interests of the government. How
ever, United States Attorney Cranston
will now proceed, / am sure, to bring
the case to an issue. 1t is to the in
terest of all concerned that the quet
ton be definitely decided before the
applications for the next year s grazing
are due.
There was certainly no agreement
made between us that the forest ser
vice would allow other persons than
Mr.. Light to Craze unpermitted stock
upon the national forests. On the con
trary. my information and understand
ing was that he was the only trespasser
on the Holy Cross forest. Moreover, ]
had no information that any other cat
tleman in your association was tres
passer on any forest this season. l un-
derstood further that Mr.. Light had
trespassed as the representative of
your association for the sole purpose OF
getting a fair case to test the applica-
national forests. On this ground alone
the agreement was made for the forest
service, subject to the approval of the
United States attorney, that Mr.. Light
should pay the grazing fee for this sea
son if the case went against him, and
that the forest service should not take
further steps to insist upon such pay
ment of his fee until that time. 1t was
further agreed that Mr.. Lights tres
pass this season and the fact that he
had not paid this seasons fee pending
the suit, should not prejudice his case
if he applied for permit next sea
son, and on the other hand that the
forest service shall be perfectly free
to deal with any trespass by Mr.. Light
next season in the usual manner.
AS to other trespassers in this or
following seasons the agreement did
not have any reference to them or limit
the action of the forest service in re
gard to them in any way whatever 1t
is obvious that since they were not
present at the conference. they were
not parties to the agreement. So far
as members of your association are con
cerned would have expected, in view
of your participation in the conference
and agreement, that you would have
discouraged trespass by other members
than Mr.. Light, though I do not assert
any legal obligation upon you to do so.