The Glenwood post., 1908-05-23
ANSWER OF FRED
LIGHT IS FILED
Attacks co'lstihdena|iy Of
Forest Reserve Act. Says
Cattle Recent Purchase
s1RAYED NINE MILES

Fred Light, the Pitkin county
rancher against whom the United
States attorney general has
brought suit for grazing cattle or
the Holy Cross forestreserve,
Saturday filed his answer in the
federal court, denying the right
of the United States to prohibit
him from grazing his cattle on the
reserve as long as it remains un-
fenced. He denies that he pur-
posely allowed his cattle to enter
the reserve, but admits his inten-
tion of turning them looose on the
unreserved public lands adjoining
it, holding the view that SO long
as there is no fence between the
two tracts he cannot be held re-
sponsible if his cattle stray into
the restricted area.
The Light case is being made
a test case on which to base flu
ture prosecutions for violations of
the grazing regulations and is at
tracing widespread interest
among cattle growers Throughout
the West. The Roaring Fork
Cattle Growers association is
back of Mr.. Light in his fight
against the government and the
case will doubtless be fought with
all the best legal talent obtain
able.
In his answer filed Saturday
Mr.. Light denies that the Holy
Cross reserve is subject to the jur-
isdiction of the secretary of agri-
culture, but on the contrary, he
expressly admits the jurisdiction
of the state of Colorado, both
civil and criminal. He declares
that the proclamation of the pres
ident "purporting to set aside the
so-called Holy Cross reserve
without the consent of the state
of Colorado "is without warrant
of law and in violation of the con-
stitution of the United States. Z"
He denies that the rules and reg
ulations governing forest reserves
were promulgated by the secre.
tary of agriculture in exercise of
his lawful authority and makes ii
plain that the case must decide
the jurisdiction of the state as
apposed to that of the nation.
With regard to the specific acts
with which he is charged, the de-
fendant denies. deliberate inten-
tion to trespass on the property
of the plaintiff and does not ad-
nit that he announced his inten-
tion of causing his cattle to Craze
on the reserve. He says that he
did turn 40 cattle loose ON the
public land adjoining the reserve
without securing or intending to
secure permit to do so, but he
submits that he had a right to let
his cattle run in this fashion, even
though he knew that there was no
fence between the reserve and the
other public land adjoining it.
Attached to his answer, Mr..
Light furnishes a map of the dis
trict in which he lives, showing
the relative position of his ranch,
it's fences, the boundaries of the
reserve and the nature of the
country. He refers to this map
to show that the customary graz
ing grounds of his cattle are in
the opposite direction from the
reserve and that in order to tres
pass as charged they had to stray
nine miles from where they were
turned loose. Most of the cattle
being newly purchased from an
other locality, he says, they could
not contract the habit Of grazing
on the reserve as charged in the
complaint.
In conclusion the the defendant
asks that the case be dismissed
with the costs assessed against the
plaintiff.