The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1911-05-01
THE FOREST
RESERVES
ARE LEGAL
Western RancherS Lose Bitter
Contest With U. S.
Government Can Set Aside Vast
Areas as Reserves
Supreme Court Hands Down
the Decision Today

Washington, May by holding that
the federal government, without the
consent of the state affected, may set
aside vast areas Of the public lands as
forest reserves and that such reserve
| is not subject to the state fencing laws,
| the supreme court of United States to-
day settled two burning western is
sues.
The stockman of the west lost hard
fought contest today when the SUI
preme court also decided that indict-
ments could be brought against per-
sons grazing in forest reserves with
out permits
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 20 enjoin Fred Light, a
prominent Colorado cattle man, from
causing or permitting his cattle to
trespass upon the Holy Cross forest re-
serve In Colorado. A stubborn con-
test arose and among the other de-
fenses put forth by Light, was the one
/
reserve without the consent of the state
of Colorado, was unconstitutional AS
the other vast reserves in the west had
been formed by a similar process OF
| federal action i'm 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.
/ Througlout The cont "a, sae FEDERAL
government claimed that when Light
turned his cattle onto his ranch, adj
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 SUI
perior grass and water supply. Such
practice, the government contended,
was tanamount in the law to Light
driving the cattle onto the reserve.
| The defense met the government
with several arguments. In the first
place, II was pointed out that the re-
serve had not been fenced by the gov
eminent, and Colorado law provided
that no person should recover dam
ages for trespass unless the land in
question was fenced. Therefore Light
pointed to this law as barring the
government from relief. The govern
ment retorted that the fence law ap-
piled only to individuals and not to
the state of Colorado or to the United
states. If Ii 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 centered on this
point.
So widespread was the interest in
the case and so vital the questions
involved that the state Of Colorado
threw itself into the contest. ATTORNEY
General Barnett was authorized 10 as
sist Light in fighting the federal gov
ernment. He did so.
The attorney general emphasized the
! argument before the supreme court
that no provision of the constitution
empowered the federal government 70
conserve the national resources bv
providing for a continuing timber sup-
ply regulating the flow of streams and
preserving power sites from being
lmonopolized. He urged that the with
drawal Of such large tracts OF land.
said to be one-fifth OF the entire area
OF Colorado was the denial of eaual-
ty with the older states which had
been allowed to exercise domination
over all the territory within their
boundaries.
Only Simple Right.
i Justice Lamar announced the opin-
ion of the court as to the constitu-
tionality Of the forest reserve. He said
that the United States has the absolute
right to do as it pleases with its own
property. The constitution had given
It such power This control the Justice
said was not the right incident to
sovereignty as claimed by the on
ponents of the reservations but was
the exercise Of the right which every
citizen possessed.