The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1911-05-03
FORESTS MAY Be CONSERVED
SUPREME COURT THUS DECIDES
IN APPEALED CASE.
Appeal of Colorado CattIemen As.
sisted by State Claims Reservation
is Against Constitution.

battle against the forest reserves of
the West in particular and conserva-
'ioh oy the government Of
natural resc Il general was lost
today in ) IRENE court Of the
% limited ~ That tribunal not only
es' ). lent of the vast reserves
& national and public purpose,
g settled once Tor all that the fed
al government and not the States
may say how the reserves shall be
used.
The immediate results of the con-
cIusions of the court are that Fred
Light prominent Colorado cattle
man, will remain enjoined from all
lowing his cattle to Craze on the Holy
Cross forest reserve in Colorado. and
that Pierre Grimaud, j. P. Caraious
and Antonio linda, California sheep
men, must answer to the indictment
charging them with grazing sheep
upon the Sierra forest reserves with
out a permit, in violation of regula-
ton As Of the secretary of agricuI-
ture and the statute Of congress of
1891.
The subject was dealt with in two
opinions delivered by Justice Lamar.
The entire court concurred.
The basic principle upon which he
proceeded was that the nation is an
owner and has made congress the
principal agent to dispose Of it's prop
erty."
The constitutionality of the vast
forest reservations of the West and
the validity of the modern conserva-
ton policy were questioned early in
this case in the circuit court of the
United States for the district OF Color
ado.
The United States government had
brought suit to enjoin Fred Light. a
prominent Colorado ,catters,an.s fre-s1,is
causing or permitting his cattle to
trespass upon the Holy Cross forest
reserve in Colorado. A stubborn con-
| rest arose, and among the other de-
| lenses put forth by Light was one
| that the formation Of the Holy Cross
reserve without the consent of tha
State Of Colorado, was unconstitution-
a \ c the other ,-oC+
West had been formed by a similar
process Of federal action in Withdraw
ing public land from entry, the argu-
| ment applied by analogy 10 them.
The injunction was granted and an
appeal taken to the supreme court of
the United States.
The defense met the government
with several arguments. In the first
place. it was pointed out that the re-
serve had not been fenced by the
government, and a Colorado law pro-
vided that no person should recover
| damages for respass unless the land
| in question was fenced Therefore
Light pointed to this law as barring
| the government from relief. The gov
ernment retorted that the fence law
| applied only to individuals. and not
TO the State of Colorado or to the
United States. If it was meant to
apply to the United States il was
argued by the government that the
law was unconstitutional. One of the
sharp issues Of the case was centred
on this point
so widespread was the interest in
the case and SO vital the questions in
volved that the State of Colorado
threw itself into the contest. At
torney General Barnett was author
lied to assist Light in lighting the
federal government. He did SO.
The attorney general emphasized
the argument before the supreme
court that no provision Of the con-
sutution empowered the federal gov
'rnment to conserve the national re-
sources" 10y providing for a con-
tinuing timber supply. regulating the
flow Of streams ana preserving power
sites from being monopoliZod. He
urged that tn" withdrawal Of such
large tracts of land. said to he one
fifth Of the entire area Of Colorado.
was The d,nial Of equality with tho
older states whi"h Had ben allowed
,o exercise dominion OYER all the ter
ritory within their boundaries.