Gilpin observer., 1911-01-26
RIGHTS OF
UNCLE SAM
1T is CLAIMED FEDERAL GOV.
ERNMENT ovERsTEPs PRIV.
ILSGES IN LAND CASE.
THE FRED LIGHT CASE
ZONE WHO TURNS CATTLE OUT
UPON UNFENcED LAND is
NOT RESPONSIBLE"

Washington.-"If the federal govern
ment has the right to set aside the
laws of Colorado, and permanently en-
join Fred Light from allowing or per-
mitting his cattle to go upon an un-
fenced reserve, then such federal
power must extend to all lands so
held; hence unreserved public lands
are not subject to the states juris-
diction."
This. in substance, is the chief con-
tention made by the attorneys for
Fred Light in an appeal to the United
States Supreme Court from the decree
of the Circuit Court of the United
States for the District of Colorado per-
petually enjoining him from permit
ting his cattle to stray upon the Holy
Cross forest reserve. The case comes
up here soon and the appellant bases
his appeal on two points:
First-The decree denies, in effect,
that the la wof Colorado concerning
fences, by which a stockman is ex-
empt from obligation to keep his cat
tie from unfenced land, is in force on
lands set apart as a forest reserve.
Second-The federal government has
not constitutional capacity to perma-
nently devote large tracts of the pub
lie domain within the boundaries of a
state to purposes other than govern
mental.
In support of the first contention
appellant says in the brief filed with
the court:
This, it is believed, no one will as
sert; for If it be true, states contain
ing public lands are, and have for
years been, exercising jurisdiction in
large districts over which they have
not and never had authority. Under
this doctrine it follows that innumer-
able occupants of government lands
have been unlawfully taxed upon their
personal property there situate, and
others have been convicted of oHenses
without warrant of law.
ut is settled by the rulings of this
court. and of other courts of high
standing, that the government holds
title to public lands, not as sover.
eign, but as proprietor only. This.
OF course, applies only to public lands
properly so-called, and not to lands
used for governmental purposes"
upon the admission of California
into the Union upon an equal footing
with the original states, the sover-
eighty for all internal municipal pur-
poses, and for all other purposes, ex-
cept such purposes and with such
powers as are expressly conferred
upon the national government by the
ncfff ff,,ti nf fhn TTv,ft to{A
passed to the State of California.
Thenceforth the only interest of the
United States in public lands was that
of proprietor, like that of any other
proprietor, except that the state un-
der the express terms upon which it
was admitted could pass no law to in
terfere with their primary disposal,
and they were not subject to taxation.
In all other respects the United States
stands upon the same footing as pri-
vate owners Of land"
AS early as 1880, in Morris VS., Fra
ker, Colo. 425, it was held that the
common law rule requiring stock own
ers to keen their stock within their
own grounds was not applicable to the
conditions in Colorado, and hence that
law was not In force.
The appellants brief declares that
the decree of the Colorado Circuit
Court sis not only contrary to the stat
utes of the state concerning the fenc.
ing of live stock, but to the law as
laid down by the Colorado Supreme
Court prior to the adoption of these
laws"
One who turns his cattle out to Craze
unrestrained upon lands where he has
right to turn them, knowing that
they will probably wander on the un-
inclosed premises of another, is under
no obligation to prevent them entering
upon such premises and If they do so
enter through following their natural
instincts, he is not responsible for the
damages occasioned thereby.