Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1911-05-01
States RIGHTS
GWEN KNOCKOUT
'vH3rE0 srArss surasms coUrr
sREMnERs IMPORTANT FOR
T'T"y o''"'o". Y
IAN sGT ASIDE VAST AREAS
WITHOUT STATE CONSENT
Lssai fsssiss Laws Do Not Asply 70
Such Observation-Disclosures stitutienaiit
81 Conservation Laws Uphold in Rul-
Ing ef High court-othsr TsIssra-
p'''s hsw'. ,ssliAlf


the federal government without con-
sent 81 the state may set aside vast
Arsss 5f public lands as a forest re-
serve and that such reserve il not
subject to ahe state fencing laws. the
|supfeme court OF the United States to-
pay settled two burning western issues.
The constitutionality Of the vast for
4 = reservations OF the west and the
" ddity 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 snjoin Fred Light. .
Prominent Colorado cattle man. from
causing or permitting his cattle to
treapass upon the Holy Cross forest
reserve in Colorado. A stubborn con-
test arose and among the other de-
lenses put forth by Light, was the
ono that the formation Of the Holy
S.o5ss 1reeSe-.e gtthnnt the consent Of
the state OF Colorado. was unconsti-
tutional. A the other vast reserves
In the west had been formed by q
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.
Turnout the contest. the federal gov
eminent claimed that when Light
turned his cattle onto his ranch, adj
joining the forest reserve. they followed
well-defned cattle trails. In order to get
yfass and water. directly to the re-
serve where there existed superior
grass and water supply. Such a prac-
tSe, the government commended, was
tantamount in law to Light driving the
cattle onto the reserve.
Arguments Of Dsfsnss.
Tho defsnse met the government
with several arguments. In tho first
Hlace It was pointed out that the re-
SERVE had not been fenced by the gov
efnmsnt, and q Colorado law provided
that 10 person should recover damages
f4r tsspass unless the land in ques-
tlon was fenced. Therefore Light
,EsainHd to this Law az barring the gov
4 Auent from relief. The government
I1dked that the fence law applied only
- @dividuals, and not to the state Of
61UO OI ~ Lie OuAS0&4 SsuAcos ~
10 meant 70 apply to the United
81. II was argued by the govern
that the Jaw was demonstrations
lone Of the sharp issues OF the case
conferred on this point.
{ widespread was the interest In the
and so vital the questions inyolv-
q That the state Of Colorado itself
Ew itoslf into the contest Attorney
3eral Barnett was authorized to as
Light In hEhting the federal gov
nent. He did so.
attorney general emphasized the
tment before the supreme court
no provision of the constitution
lowered the federal government to
aServe the national resources" by
1viting for q continuing timber sup
regulating the flow Of streams and
serving power sites from being
knopolized. He urged that the with
tWat OF such large tracts Of land,
II to DO one-fifth of the entire area
Colorado, was the denial Of equal
4 with the older states which had
I'm allowed 70 exercise dominion over
the territory within their bound
llss.