Williams news., 1907-03-09

the United States may, from time to time, set apart and reserve, in any state or territory having public land bearing forests, in any part of the public lands wholly or in part covered with timber or undergrowth whether of commercial value or not, as public reservations. and the president shall by public procla- nation, declare the establishment of such reservations and the limits thereof" (March 3, 1891
 Even a cursory animation oi the above section twenty-four readily discloses that the power of the president of the United States in the matter of creating forest reserves is limited to the extent that he may create forest reserves out of the>public lands only.
 Congress, in describing the character of lands out of which the president may create forest reserves used the term public lands" and no other descriptive term, and the repeated use of the term "public lands" in the said section twenty four, by congress, indicates al obvious intention on the part oi congress that the president shal not create forest reserves out O. any character of lands other thar public lands. Applying to the saio section twenty-four the maxim "expressio unus est exclusio al terius," the expression of one thing is the exclusion of others, the ex- ecutive branch of the government in creating forest reserves is limited to the lands that have never lost their character as public lands.
 Certainly, no one would seriously contend that, under the act of congress, approved March 8, 1891 supra, the president can create forest reserves out of lands that have lost their character as public lands. and if the power be not found in the said act of March g. 1891 supra, it does not exist at all.
 Now. observing that the president may not create forest reserves out of lands that have lost their character as public lands, we pro ceed to ascertain what are "public lands"
 In the case Newhall versus San- ger (See 92 U. s. pg 769-2 Otto 761) the supreme court of the United States held that the words "public lands" are ha bitually used in our legislation to describe such as are subjectto sale or other dis posal under the general laws" Also see the case of De Lafayette Wilcox versus John Jackson on the demise of Murray M'Connel, re ported in the 18th Peters 49S. In that case the supreme court of the United States held: "Bus we go further, and say, that whensoever a tract of land shall have once been legally appropriated to any purpose from that moment the land thus appropriated becomes severed from the mass of public lands; and that no subsequent law, or proclamation or sale would be construed to embrace it, or to operate upon it, although no reservation were made of it."
 On this point, also see United States versus Fitzgerald, 18th Peters 417. and the case Easton versus Salisbury 21, Howard 428
 There is no statutory definition of the words "public lands." and the meaning of these words. of course, varies somewhat in different statutes passed for different pur- poses. To say that sections 16 and 36 are "pubIic lands' would be to defeat the very operation of the law which reserved and saved and pledged the said sections 16 and 36 as common heritage of the child ren of this territory.
 - - a