Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1910-03-23

In the decision rendered by Judge
Wellborn sustaining the demurrer in
the cases Of C%aZajous, Grimaud and
linda. he did not question the right of
the secretary of agriculture to con-
troll grazing up on the national for
ests, nor his right TO prohibit any un-
permitted grazing. That the secretary
has such authority had been express
|ly held BY a higher court. the United
States circuit court Of appeals of the
Ninth circuit, sitting at San Franvis-
co, both in the case of shannon VS.. T..
s., 100 Fed. Rep. 20. and in The earl
.ier case of Dastcrvignes vs.. L. s.. 1872
Fed. Rep. 90. Indeed, the authority.
OF those decisions was expressly recog-.
nized by Judge Wellborn. Those cas-
Us Were, however, civil cases in which
the United States was granted in
functions restraining the defendants
from grazing tfespass upon forest res
cfNatiOns. while the cases OF Ctzaious.
Grimaud and INDIA. decided by Judge
Wellborn at Fresno, were criminal
prosecutions.
Judge Wcllhorn held that while the
secretary of agriculture has fun au-
thority under existing laws Of con-
sress to promulgate regulations pro-
hibiting grazing upon national for
ests except under permit, and while
the forests can be protected against
n violation Of such regulations, by
the bringing OF civil actions ana suits
for Injunction, still Il violation of the
regulations car be held to be a crime.
In other words. the decision of Judge
Wcllborn did not question the right
of the secretary of agriculture to en-
force by civil process proper ohscrV-
ance of the grazing regulations. but
talI mandy tl4f ts5,14ffetag of tl.. MOO
ulations could not be made the basis
of criminal action.
Under the Criminal Appeals Act 81
March ,. 1907, ga Stat. 1246) the at
torney general has instructed the Unit
ed States attorney at Los Angeles TO
sue ont Writs Of error ut once and
have Judge Wellborn's decision re
viewed bN the supreme court of the
United States. This is the first oppor-
tunity the government has had to OBJ
tain a ruling upon this question by the
supreme court. The appeal viii be
prosecuted to as early q decision as
possible.
Judge Wellhorn's ruling is directly
contrary to decisions by inc follow
ing courts. which have held hat vio-
of the secretarys regulations
are criminal and may be the subject
Of criminal prosecution:
T.. s., District court, District of
Idaho, in the case of L. ;. US. Domin-
20 Csc Fed. Rep. 1900. decision IN
Judge Beatty. March IA. 1907.
T.. $. District Court, Northern Dis
trict OF california. Ia the ease OF H.
). vs.. nequirro Cl52 FEED. Rep. 56Sj.
decision by Judge DeHaven, October
1906.
L.. S. District Court. South Dakota,
i'm the case of L. $. VS.. Bale tl56 Fed.
Rep. $50. decision hN Judge Garland.
3. 1907.
The supreme court of Arizona in
the ease OF Dent VS.. IT,. s.. (76 Pac.
Rep. i55l. opinion by chief Justice !
Kent.
United states attorney general. John
W. Griggs. also held 90 opinions of
Attorney General. 266), that amy vio-
lation of the grazing regulations con-
a crime and may be prescott
cd and punished MS such.
As heretofore, the grazing regula-
viii continue TO ho vigorously |
enforced upon every crest. ANY will
ful violation viii be at once reported
by the forest officers and prompt ac-
ZION viii DE taken. Past experience
shown that only upon very rare
occasions indeed is court action nee
assarN. The acknowledged justice and
.proprietY OF the grazing regulations
have generally appealed to the n
of fairness of forest users. with the
fesult thai willing compliance with,
ma hearty corporation in the en-
.orccmcnt of the regulations have
ocen oi rare occurrence.