The Glenwood post., 1908-02-22

that the right has always existed
is another and a wholly different
matter. The exercise Of the right
may have been mere question Of
policy that has been availed Of or
not as circumstances may have
justified; but the right is in tho
nature Of a trust in the general
government f,r the people Of tho
United States, never subordinate,
but paramount to, the policy or
law Of a state which would seek
to curtail tho full enjoyment Of
such right.
o The public lands bslong .
o to the United States, and NO Q
Q trespass Of any kind involved o
Q herein, even though counte- Q
Q nanced for years by the gov Q
Q ernment, can imply authority Q
Q in the trespasser as against Q
Q the United States or bar it, o
Q right at any time to forbid ae
Q continuance Of the trespAss. 9
The Post has repeatedly ex-
pressed the view that the govern
ment of the United States unques-
tionably has the right to control
and designate the use of its own
property and for this expression
We have been censured by some,
but not one syllable of law or ar
gument has ever been advanced
against this policy, so far as this
paper is aware. AS to the exclu-
sive use and dominion of the gov
ernment, Judge Hunt continues:
Exclusive 0wner1hip
in Government.
"As we have seen, the exclusive
dominion and ownership being in
the United States, it has a right
to say that there shall be no use
or occupancy of the reserve by
stock growers, or it may allow oc-
cupancy under rules and regula.
tions to be made by designated
bead of one If its executive de.
partments. And if. by its forest
reserve legislation it has inaugu.
rated a policy restrictive of priv
ileges formerly not withheld from
stock growers, no policy of the
state can lessen the right of con-
gress to assert its full contro,
over lands belonging to the gen.
eral government, whether by for
bidding use Or occupancy or by
declaring that there may be GER
tain use, provided the secretary of
the interior believe; that no in
jury may be done.
Believing. theref ore. that the
secretary of the interior has been
lawfully authorized TO make rules
and regulations which forbid the
occupancy or use of the reserve
by defendant for grazing mis- cat:
tie, unless by permission, and that
defendant has knowingly allowed
his cattle to go upon and remain
on the reserve, not having a per
init therefor, as required by the
rules of the interior department.
it follows that injunction will lie
to prevent him from allowing his
cattle to enter or feed upon the
reserve.
So ordered.
Hunts Decision Sustained.
From this decision of Judge
Hunt Mr.. Shannon appealed to
the United States circuit court of
appeals and that tribuna | last
week at San Francisco handed
down decision completely sus.
tanning Judge Hunts decision
and making permanent the writ
Of injunction against Shannon.
The forestry department is very
much in hope that Mr.. Shannon
may now appeal the case to the
highest tribunal in the land to
the end that the matter may be
finally settled in court of last
resort, and the question of the
rights of the department forever
determined. AS the conditions
are almost identical with the
Light case and the arguments
used in Light 3 favor are SO fully
answered by Judge Hunt, it is
difficult to know what can be
gained by trial of the Light
case.
1t may be said, however, that
Lights case passed out Of the
hands Of the forestry officers last
October and the papers are now
filed with District Attorney
Cranston, who will probably
docket the case before he retires
from Office and his successor, Mr..
Ward, has said that he will ask