The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-05-02
Supreme Court Rules Estab- lishment of Reserves
 Is Valid
U. s. GOVERNMENT IS
 IN ENTIRE CONTROL
States Have Nothing to Say Regard ing Use of Such Reserves-De- cision Is One of Great
 importance

Washington, May 1.-The legal bst~ | tie against the forest reserves In the
 west in particular and conservation | by the federal government of natural resources in general was lost today in
 the supreme court of the United States.
 That tribunal not only unheld the
 constitutionality of the establishment
 of the vast reserves for any national
 and public purpose, hut 1t settled once
 for all that the federal government
 and not the states may say how the
 reserves shall be used.
 The immediate results of the con
 clusion of the court are that Fred
 Light, prominent Colorado cattlemap,
 will remain enjoined from allowing his
 cattle to graze on the Holy Cross for est reserves in Colorado, and that
 Pierre Grimaud. K, P. Carajous and Antonio 1nda, Californian sheepmen.
 must answer to the indictment. charg-
 ing them with grazing sheep upon the Sierra forest reserve without a per
 init. in violation of the regulation 45
 of the Secretary of Agriculture and
 the statute of Congress of 1891. | io oubJtCi was ucdlt Wltn III tWo
 opinions delivered by Justice Lamar The entire court eoncurred The basic principle upon which he proceeded was that the nation is owner and has made Congress its principal agent to dispose of it's property"
 The United States can prohibit ab- solutely and fix the terms on which its property may be used" said the l justice in the Colorado case. As 1t can withhold or reserve the land, it
 can do so indefinitely. It Is true that the United States does not and cannot
 hold property as monarch may for private and personal purposes. But
 that does not lead to the conclusion
 that 1t is withou the rights incident
 to ownership for the constitution de-
 clares that Congress shall have p6wo2
 to dispose Of and make all needfui
 rules and regulations respecting the
 territory or property belonging to the United States"
 In the California case Justice Lamar upheld the rules which the Secretary of
 Agriculture had promulgated for the con- trol of the reserves. He said the viola
 tion of reasonable rules regulating the 1 tSt s1iiu OSSuPdHSy Ol tIe pTOpeTIy IS made crime not by the Secretary Of Agriculture, but by Congress- | It was difficult. he said. to separate the legislative power to make laws and the administrative power to prop1ulgate rules and regulations to put the laws into force
 ''The offense Is not against the Secre- tary, but as the indictment properly con- cludes, contrary to the laws of the United States and the peace and dignity thereof.
 Case Started in Colorado l The constitutionality Of the vast forest 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 dis
 strict of Colorado.
 The United States government had
 brought suit to enjoin Fred Light, a l prominent Colorado cattle man, from | causing his cattle to trespass upon the Holy Cross forest reserve in Colorado. l stubborn contest arose and among the other defenses put forth by Light. was the one that the formation of the Holy Cross reserve, without the consent of the state of Colorado, was unconstitu- | west had been formed by a similar pro- cess of federal action in withdrawing public land from entry, the argument ap- piled by analogy to them. The injunc- ton was granted. and an appeal taken to the supreme court of the United States. Throughout the contest the federal gov | ernment claimed that when Light turned his cattle on 10 his ranch, adjoining the forest reserve they followed well de- fined cattle tras in order to get grass and water, directly to the reserve, where there existed superior grass and water supply. Such a practice, 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 reserve had not been fenced by the government, and Colorado law provided that no person should recover damages for trespass un- less 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 individuals. and not to the state of Colorado or to the United States. If it was meant to apply to the United States. it was argued by the government that the law was unconstitutional. One of the sharp issues of the case was cen- tered on this point
 NNdi QucStlOu So widespread was the interest in the case and so vital the questions involved that the state of Colorado itself threw itself into the contest. Attorney General Barnett was authorized to assist Light In fighting the federal government. He did so.
 The attorney general emphasized the argument before the supreme court that no provision of the constitution empow- cred the federal government to conserve the national resources by providing for a continuing timber supply, regulating the flow of streams and preserving power sites from being monopolzed. He urged that the withdrawal of such large tracts of land. said to be one-ffth of the entire area of Colorado, was the denial of equal | ity with the older states which had been allowed to exercise dominion over all the | territory within their boundaries. Oliver Is Consul | New Orleans, May 1.--Albert J. Olivier. appointed consul general of Honduras by l r,..