Albuquerque evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1911-1914, 1911-05-01
Federal Government May Set
Aside Lands for Such Pur.
poses Without Consent of
States Affected in Decision.
FENCING LAWS ARE
NOT APPLICABLE THERE
Matter Came Up in Circuit
Courts in Colorado and the
Present Action Is in Nature
of Test of Law.

81, E,eninR Herald \. q. Leased Nir.i
Washington. MaN di' hoidtns
tha, the federal government without
conscui ui he state affected may set
aside ,a,i areas OF public lands a. q
torcs, reserve and that such reserve
- not subject TO the state iencinE
Laws. thr supreme court oi th. tuitci
States TODAY settled twO hurninS
Western issues.
Tho conslitul tonality OF the vast
forest ros,rvations oi the west ana
ih, yalidij, oi The modern consr,Nd-
ION pollc,. were raised early IN ihe
case in lhc circu, court OF The United
States iul the district of Colorado.
The United states governments had
BROUGHT suit go oniotn Fred Light
promiu ut Colorado cattle man from
causiup on permitting his cattle Co
tipsr-s upuu the HOLY Cross iorc-'
reserve m Colorado \ stubborn cuu-
tost arose and among thc other de
lenses put forth hv light. was tn
enc thar thr formation ut Tho lluN
Cross rosprv, without the consrn' OF
lh" state of colorado. WIS uutunsti.
tuuunal ~ The other yasi reserves
n thn west had been formed uN "a
similar process OF federal action n
Withdrawing public land from oulrF.
The argument applied hp analogy io
them The Injunction was granted
ana an appeal nben lo the suprom,
court ui the United states
Throughout he contest thc .cGrini
government cismrd thai when l.ieAt
turned bis cattl. onto his ranch ad.
JOINING the forest reserve they fol-
lowed V'li defined cattle trails iu
order go get rIass and water. direct
lt tu 'hc reserve where thp.p exist
ci superior grass and Naicr suppl,
such practice, the government con
tended was tautamouu iu Law 30
liuhr driving tho cattle onto The 20
s,l'y
The defense M the government
with several argJmenI-. I'm the hIst
place. 20 was pointed cut that The &C.
serve had nor been fenced u, ho gov.
eminent and Colorado luN HruNi l
od that 10 person should recover lam.
AGES tor trespass unless 'h, land u
question was fenced
Therefore Light pointed to 'hls law
~ barring the government from 80.
I.,f The government r,toricd that
iho fence law applied ouly to iudi1id.
uals and not tu be state ot Colorado
pr 90 the United states g. n was
meant so apply To the United States
i' was argued D., The government 'hai
the law was unconstitutional ON
nl the sharp issues az the case Was
g. ntefcd on this poinl
So widespread was the mtcrD-' y
lhr case and 50 vital The question Boz
vllVcd that the state OF Colorado =
self throw itself into The con
! NttOrney General Harnyi was authur
/ ized 20 assist Light Ia nrhtiu- tb,
federal government ile dij go
The attorney general Cuuba-If i
thc argument before thy uW,W,
| court thar no provision ~ ~, c1n7r
tuition empowered the federal gov
crumcnt TO conserve th, national Ic
sources ny providing tor cunt.uu
ing timber snppl, rcgulu'ius rhy loV
ot streams and pruscitne noWol
-itea rr"m h-ina wnp9ao'l2"d ~
urged thar the Withdrawal pf uci
/ large tract. OF land said 40 be- one
/ FIFTH ui tbc entir. arra oi Colorado
was On, leu.al of equality with IN,
/ Older sta .os which had been above.
1 90 exercise dominion over all 'hc tcr
ritory within hoir boundaries