The Glenwood post., 1911-05-06

PASSES NOR DO THEY AFFORD
IMMUNITY TO THOSE WHO. IN
DISR f G ARD OF PROP PERTY
RIGHTS, TURN LOOSE THEIR CAT,
TIE UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES
SHOWING THAT THEY WERE IN.
TENDED TO CRAZE UPON THE
LAND OF ANOTHER. THIS THE
DEFENDANT DID UNDER CIR
CUMsTANCES EQUIVALENT TO
DRIVING HIS CATTLE UPON THE
FOREST RESERVE
In the California case Justice Lamar
upheld the rules which the secretary of
agriculture had promulgated for the
control of the reserve He said the
"violation of reasonable rules regulat-
ing the use and occupancy of the prop
erty is made crime not by the secre
tary of agriculture, but by congress-
1t was difficult, he said, to separate
the legislative power to make laws and
the administrative power to promul-
gate rules and regulations to put the
laws into force.
offense Contrary to United States
~ ss Laws - 80.
''The offense is not against the sec
retary, but. as the Indictment properly
concludes. contrary to the laws of the
United States and the peace and dig
nifty thereof -
The constitution ionality of the vast for
est reservations of the west and the
validity of the modern conservation
policy were raised early in this case in
the circuit court of the United States
for the district of Colorado.
The United States government had
brought suit to enjoin Fred Light,
prominent Colorado cattle man, from
causing or permitting his cattle to tres
in Colorado. A stubborn contest arose
and among other defenses put fortA
by Light, was the one that the forma-
ton of the Holy Cross reserve, without
the consent of the state of Colorado,
was unconstitutional. As the other vast
reserves in the west had been formed
by similar process of federal action
in withdrawing public land from entry,
the argument applied by analogy to
them. The injunction was granted
and an appeal taken to the supreme
court of the United States.
Tantamount to Driving Cattle Onto
Reserve
Throughout the contest, the federal
government claimed that when Light
turned his cattle onto his ranch, ad
joining. the forest reserve, they follow
ed well defined cattle trails, in order to
get grass and water directly in the re
serve, where there existed superior
grass and water supply. Such prac'
tice, the government contended, was
tantamount in law to Light driving the
cattle onto the reserve.
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 gov
ernment and a Colorado law provided
that no person should recover damages
for trespass unless the land in question
was fenced. Therefore Light pointed
to this law as barring the government
from relief. The government retorted
that the fence law applied only to in
dividuals, and not to the state of Colo
RADIO or to the United States. If 1t
was meant to apply to the Unite1
States. it was argued by the govern
ment that the law was unconstitutional.
One of the sharp issues of the case
was centered on this point.
So widespread was the interest IN
the case and so vital the questions in
volved that the state of Colorado itself
threw itself into the contest Attorney
General Barnett was authorized to as
sist Light in fighting the federal gov
ernment. He did so.
Says withdrawal Is Denial Of Equality
The attorney general emphasized the
argument before the supreme court that