Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1911-05-01
GOVERNMENT
WINS CASE
Conservation Policy Sustain
ed by U. S. Supreme
Court
STATE Law IS NOT BINDING
National Forests Need Not Be
Fenced According to This
Opinion.


Washington, D. c.. May by hold
ing that the federal government, with
out the consent of the state affected,
may set aside vast areas of public
lands as a forest reserve and that
such reserve is not subject to the
state fencing laws, the supreme court
of the United States today settled two
burning western issues.
The Story of the Case.
Washington, May 1.-The consti-
tutionality of the vast forest reserva-
tions 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 cattle man, from
causing or permitting his cattle to
trespass upon the Holy Cross forest
reserve in Colorado. A stubborn con.
test arose and among the other de-
fenses put forth by Light, was the one
that the formation OF the Holy Cross
reserve, without the consent Of the
state of ColohadG, was unconstitu-
tional AS the other vast reserves
in the west had been formed by SIM
liar process of federal action in with
drawing 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, ad-
joining the forest reserve, they fol-
lowed well defined cattle trails, in or
der 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 driv-
irg the cattle onto the reserve.
The defense met the government
with several arguments. In the first
place, it was pointed out that the re-
serve had not fbeen fenced by the
government, and Colorado law pro-
viGed that no person should recover
damages for trespass unless the land
in question was fenced. Therefore
Light pointed to this law as barring
tine government from relief. The gov
eminent retorted that the fence law
applied only to individuals, and not to
the state of Colorado or to the United
States. If 1t was meant to apply to
tho United States, 1t was argued by
the government that the law was un-
constitutional. One of the sharp is
sues OF the case was centered on this
point.
So widespread was the interest in
the case and so vital the questions
involved that the state of Colorado It.
self, threw itself into the contest. At
torney General Barnett was authorix-
ed to assist Light in fighting the fed
aral government He did SO.
The attorney general emphasized
the argument before the supreme
court that no provision OF the consti-
tuition empowered the federal govern
ment to conserve the national re-
sources by providing for continu-
ing timber supply, regulating the flow
of streams and preserving power
sites from being monopolized. He
urged that the withdrawal Of such
large tracts of land. said to be one
fifth of the entire area of Colorado,
was the denial Of equality with the
cider states which had been allowed
to exercise dominion over all the ter.
ritory within their boundaries.
No Decision Standard OH Case.
Washington d. c., May 1.-The U.
IS. supreme court did not announce a
decision today in either the Stand.
ard Oil or the Tobacco suits arising
under the Sherman antitrust act.