Elk City mining news. (Elk City, Idaho) 1903-1913, 1911-05-11
Supreme Court Decision III Forest
Reserves.

By holding that the federal govern
ment, without consent of the state af-
fected, may set aside vast areas of
public land as forest reserves and that |
such reserves are not subject to the |
state fencing laws, the supreme court
IF the United States settled two inn
portant western issues.
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 district of Colorado.
The United States government had
brought suit to enjoin Fred Light, a
prominent Colorado cattleman, from
causing or permitting his cattle to
trespass upon the Holy Cross forest
reserve in Colorado. A stubborn con-
test arose and among other defenses
put forth by Light, was the one that
the formation of the Holy Cross re-
Serve, 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.
Throughout the contest, the federal
government claimed that when Light
turned his cattle onto his ranch adjoin-
ing the forest reserve, they followed
well-defned cattle trails in order to get
grass and water directly to the reserve
where there existed superior grass and
water supplies. Such a practice, the
government contended, was tanta-
mount in law to Light driving the cattle
into 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 Eovr
eminent, and Colorado law provided
that no person should recover damages
for trepass 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 individuals, and not
to the state of Colorado or the United
States it was argued by the govern
ment that the law was unconstitutional.
One of the sharp issues of the case was
conferred on this point.
So widespread was the interest in the
case and so vital the questions involved
J that the state of Colorado itself threw
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
r empowered the federal government te
conserve the national resources" hy
5 providing for continuing timber sup
, ply, regulating the flow of streams and
= preserving power sites from being
t monopolized. He urged that the with
: drawal of such large tracts of land, sait
3 to be one-ffth of the entire area O.
t Colorado, was the denial of equalit,
a with the old states which had been al
! lowed to exercise dominion over all tn
e territory within their boundaries,
n Justice Lamar announced the opinf6i
: Of the court as to the constitutionalit.
Il of the forest reserves. He said tina
: the United States had ab3ofute right t.
: do what it pleased with its own prop
d erty, as the constitution had given
Z such power. This control, the justic
t said, was not right incident to S "
d ereignty, as claimed by the opponent
: of conservation, bit Was the extfeis
g of right which every citizen pos
r sesses.
e "All public land is held BY tn
: United States in trust for the Who'll
It people, and it is not for the court t
e say how that trust shall he admins
IS tered. That is for congress to say"