Semi-weekly herald., 1909-06-17

prohibit grazing without a permit had
been expressly upheld by the United
States circuit court of appeals In the
Shannon and Dastervignes cases, Mr..
Hatton's letter continues:
The authority of those decisions
was expressly recognized by Judge
Weliborn. Those cases were. how.
ever. civil cases in which the United
States was granted lnjnnctions re-
straining the defendants from grazing
trespsss upon forest reservations,
| while the cases of Cazajous, Grimaud
and linda, decided by Judge welIborn
| at Fresno were criminal prosecu-
lions.
Judge Wellborn held that while
the secretary of agriculture has full
authority under existing laws OF cou-
gress 10 promulgate regulations pro-
hibiting grazing upon national forests
except under permit. and while the
forests can be protected against any
violation of such regulations, by the
bringing on civil actions and suits for
| Injunction, still 4 violation OF the .regu-
htions can not be held to be a crime.
In other words. the decision OF Judge
WeIlborn did not question the right of
the secretary OF agriculture to enforce
5y civil process proper observance OF
| the grazing regulations but hold mere.
iy that violations of the regulations
| could not be made the basis of crimi.
| nal action.
Under the Criminal Appeals Act
OF March 2, 1907. (34 Stat. l246) the
| attorney general has Instructed the
United States attorney at Los Angeles
TO sue out writs OF error at once and
have Judge Wellborn's decision re-
viewed by the supreme court of the
portunity the government has had 10
| obtain ruling upon this question by
the supreme court The appeal win
be prosecuted to as early a decision as
possible"
Judge Wellborn's ruling. as Mr.. Hat
ton points out, was directly contrary
to decisions OF the United States dis.
trict courts of Idaho. northern Cali
fornia, and South Dakota, and the su-
preme court of Arizona. and also to
an opinion of United States Attorney
General Griggs. In explanation of the
course now TO be pursued by the for.
est service. Mr.. Hatton's letter says:
As heretofore. the grazing regula-
tions Will continue 10 be vigorously
enforced upon every forest Any will
ful violation will be at once reported
by the forest officers and prompt ac-
ton will be taken. Past experience
has shown that only upon very rare
occasions indeed is court action neces-
sary. The acknowledged justice and
propriety OF the grazing regulations
have generally appealed to the sense
OF fairness of forest users, with the
result that willing compliance with,
and hearty cooperation in the en-
forcement OF. the regulations, have
been the rule. and cases OF willful
violations have been OF rare occur
renee, Where court action is found
ne cesssry !, has always been and will
continue to be the rule OF the forest
service TO avoid criminal prosecution
Il possible, and TO reply upon remedy
by civil action
After remarking that, since the Unit.
ed States district court for the north
ern district of California has held con
trary to Judge Wellborn's decision,
there is no reason why criminal prose
cutions may not. in proper cases, be
brought In that court. the decision OF
which has equal authority with that
Of Judge Weilborn. the letter contin.
ues
1T is proper also to call attention
TO the fact that. pending the appeal
from Judge Weiiborn's ruling. there
has been no nnal determination thar
It is not crime to wilfuliy violate the
grazing regulations and II In any case
fragrant abuse Is attempted IN the
meantime, the guilty party will. II the
Wellborns ruling, be liable in every
case TO criminal prosecution, and TO
tine OF not more than $500 or impris-
onment for one year. or both. as pro
yided by the Act OF Congress approved
June 4, 1883"
NEW YORK. June i5.--Abandon-
ment was the only charge upon which
Mrs. Katherine clemmons Gould's sui
for separation from her husband. How
ard Could rested when the hearing OF
The case was resumed today Charges
OF cruelty and non-support which was
part OF Mrs. Gouid's original complaint
were stricken out by Justice DowiinY
at the motion OF counsel for Mr.. Gould
today's evidence was confined to The
hearing of abandonment only. AIRS,
Gould declared she has not spoken 10
MIR. Gould since July, 1906. when she
had complained TO him about the COZ
dition of Maurice Malioy whom Mr.
Gould had put in charge OF Castle
Could. the Long Island home OF Mr.
and Mrs. Gould. Subsequently Mrs