The Glenwood post., 1908-02-22
GOVERNMENT HAS
EXCLUSIVE DOMINION
Over Public Lands According to Decis-
ION Of Circuit Court in Famous Shan
non Case Involving This Question
RULES MUST Be COMPLIED WITH

1t is the aim of the Post to be
perfectly fair and absolutely
truthful in all matters Of news,
and this without regard to wheth-
er the facts, bear out the editorial
views of the paper or not.
There are SO many people who
read our news columns and abso-
lutely bank on our honesty of
statement that we could not at
ford, even if there were a desire
to do so, to make misstatement
in printing a news item. But it
seems that this is just what the
Post did in referring to the Unit
ed States circuit court decision
in the Shannon case involving the
right Of ranchman to allow his
cattle to drift on the forest re-
serve.
The mistake made by the Post
was not intentional and the same
mistake was made by some other
Colorado papers, evidently
through misunderstanding Of
the facts or by mere oversight.
The error consisted in saying that
the lower court upheld the con
tention of Shannon, this state
ment being exactly contrary to
the facts.
Now, there has been SO much
said about the Fred Light case
that the Post desires briefly to re-
lew this Shannon case which is
almost identical with the Light
ease in Colorado.
History Of the Case.
Shannon owns tract of 32O
acres of land, l6O lying withing
the limits Of the Little Belt ma
tional forest in Montana and 160
acres adjoining the national for
est, so that when his fences were
down his cattle had no place tc
go except on the forest reserve;
and in this respect it would seem
he is even more excusable than is
Light, whose ranch is some dis
tance from the reserve. There is
no evidence to show that Shan-
non drove his cattle on the ma
tional forest-he just took down
his fences or allowed others to do
so, and permitted his cattle TO
drift on the reserve and refused
to take them off when requested
to do so. He also refused to re-
pair his fences, claiming that he
was not Obliged to do so.
He took cut no grazing permit
and refused to pay the grazing
fee. The law of Montana is al
most exactly the same is in Colo
RADIO in regard to fencing-that is
that land owners must enclose
their property with a suitable
fence if they would keep stock
offh Many stockmen in Montana,
as In Colorado, claimed that this
would compel the government to
fence the reserves before they
could prevent farmers pasturing
their cattle thereon, but Judge
HINT IT the district court held
that d state law could not bind
the federal government in the
use and control Of government
land and that the authority del
egated by sct of congress to the
secretary Of the interior 70 ad-
minister the forest reserves and
regulate the use thereof gave the
officers the right to deny the use
Of the range to Shannon until he
had complied with the rules Of
the department. Here is a quota
.ion from Judge Hunts decision
bearing on the government au-
thority to exclude trespassers
from its lands Notwithstanding
the custom Of years and notwith-
standing the state law in regard
to fencing:
@ "In considering the several .
Q ofeatures Of this case it must Q
0bc conceded that defendants Q
Q counsel is correct in his argu- .
@msnt that the general policy =
0of the state Of Montana, voic- .
o Cd through its laws, has been 9
ethat owners Of stock are per 9
Omitted to have their cattle st .
@laree, and that they may feed 2
oul b the open public domain .
oan1 Inst IN eWnef Of lsnds x
onat nsnood 4 Wat&nut fesedy :