Arizona republican., 1909-06-21
4 MISAPPREHENS|ON
 OF WELLB0RNS RULING
WITH RESPECT TO FOREST
 GRAZING REGULATIONS.
1t Does Not Mean That They Are ln-
 volved.

Washington, June 15.-(Special Cor respondence of The Republican)-A somewhat prevalent misunderstanding of the significance Of the action re- gently taken by Judge Wellborn, ol the United States district court for the southern district of California, north ern division, in dismissing indictments aganst three sheepmen, Cazajous, Grl- maud, and India charged with having unlawfuny graZed sheep without a grazing permit upon a national forest has led Acting Assistant Forester Hatton of San Francisco to send to all forest supervisors in California let ter explaining the situation in the fol lowing passages:
 Tn connection with this case my at tention has been called to a newspaper clipping referring to Judge Wellborns decision as follows: This decision means. in effect, that from this time on there will be no restriction of the grazing which may be done in the hills a matter of great interest to those who have herds and flocks in the noun tains.'
 Another statement which appears in the clipping is as follows: Grazing will be permitted ad libitum on forest reserves until congress can enact new laws to cover the situation
 The language above quoted indi- cates an entirely erroneous conception of the effect of Judge WellbOrn's de cision. Judge Wellborn did not ques- ton the right of the secretary to con trol grazing upon the national forests, nor his right to prohibit any unper- mitted grazing"
 After setting forth that the author ity of the secretary of agriculture to prohibit grazing without a permit had been expressly upheld by the United States circuit court of appca's .1 the Shannon and Dastervignes cases. MT. Hatton's letter continues:
 "The authority of thAse decisions was expressly recognized b. Judge Wellborn. Those cases were, however. civil cases in which the United States was granted iniunctions restraining the defendants from grazing trespass upon forest reservations. while the cases of Cazajous. Grimaud. and India. decided by Judge Wellborn' at Fresno, were criminal prosecutions.
 Judge Wellborn held that while the secretary of agriculture has full au- thority under existing laws of congress to promulgate regulations prohibiting grazing upon national forests except under permit. and while the forests can be protected against any violation Of such regulations, by the bringing of civil actions and suits for injunction, still a violation of the regulations can not he held to be a crime. In other words. the decision of Judge Wellborn did not question the right of the secre- tary of agriculture to enforce by civil process proper observance of the graz ing regulations, but held merely that violations of the regulations could not be made the basis of criminal action.
 Under the criminal appeals act of March ?. 1907. GA Stat. 1246D the at tOrney general has instructed the Unit ed States attorney at Los Angeles to sue out writs of error at once and have Judge Wellborn's decision reviewed by the supreme court of the United States. This is the first opportunity the government has had to obtain a ruling upon this question by the su- preme court. The appeal will be pros ecuted to as early decision as possi- ble"
 Judge Wellborn's ruling, as Mir 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