The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-05-02
CONTROL OF FOREST RESERVES.

CONTROL OF FOREST RESERVES,
The opinion handed down by the t.
y. Supreme Court Yesterday in the mat.
ter of the power of the National Gov.
ernment to establish and regulate forest
reserves, is clearly in the line of Ma
tionality, and the maintenance Of thc
power of the National government to
do what it will with its own. The court
WAS careful 10 say that the power of
the government to establish forest re.
serves, and to maintain and regulate
them In its own way. is not question
Of sovereignty. but of ownership. It
neither raises nor settles any question
of power between the National gov.
ernment and the State governments,
but it holds National rights as nm.
assallable. IT puts the whole matter
| on basis of ownership and proprietary
rights. Tho owner of property may
do what he wills with it, provided al
ways he does not threaten or destroy
the public peace or invade the rights
of his nelghbors. And as the proprietor
ship of the United States over the
lands embraced in the forestry re-
serves in no way interferes with any
other proprietary right. il is supreme
and exclusive
The distinction made must he kept in
mind in order TO arrive Mt proper
understanding Of what was decided.
The government does not set aside.
maintain and administer the forest re
serves through the virtue of its innate
sovereignty IT does this as the owner
of the land, just as any other owner of
land might do the same thing with it
if he chose; the distinction between
private ownership and public owner
ship being. that the United States, as
an administrative power over it's own
property. cannot be interfcred with by
the States. SO far as this is concerned
the reasoning is precisely on parity
with that which declares that bonds
issued by the United States govern
States.
The case arose in Colorado. where
cattle owners undertook to plead the
power of the State laws, holding that
the Holy Cross Forestry Reserve, being
established without the consent of the
State of Colorado. was established un-
lawfully. The trespass of the cattle
owned by Colorado men upon the re.
serve mentioned was the foundation OF
the suit. The outcome is the complete
vindication of the governments CON
tention throughout. The State cannot
enforce any fence or other restrictive
law against the Federal Government,
nor can it in any way hamper the Ma.
tional control over the forest reserves.
Reduced to its final terms, one will
curious that suit of this kind should
he begun and prosecuted at all, see
ing that in the very nature of the case,
clear statement of facts and deduc-
tons would almost necessarily settle
the point involved in favor of the
Government, The day cf State inter
ference with the National government
in its proprietorship and it's admins,
tration Of Its own property and laws
has gone by. The further we progress
in the administration of our practical
affairs, the more 1T is seen that the
National government cannot be inter
fcred with in its rights, it's ownership
and in its sovereignty, although the
latter point was not involved in this |
case The decision of the Supreme
Court in this case was precisely what |
it had to be. The wonder would have |
been to see any other conclusion. And |
yet the satisfaction with it is en-
hanced by the fact that Justice La
mar. a recent appointee to the bench |
from the South, and Democrat, deliv-
cred the unanimous opinion of the
court. The fact that he did so marks |
a change of Southern sentiment on this !
question that is both encouraging from
the National standpoint and satisfac- !
tory from the standpoint of practical |
administration and effective Federal |
control.