Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/260/353/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:00:48+00:00

Document:
1. An indictment founded on a general statutory provision defining the offense need not negative the matter of an exception made by a proviso or other distinct clause, whether in the same section or elsewhere. P. 260 U. S. 356.
"no person, by force, threat, intimidation or by any fencing or enclosing, or any other unlawful mean, . . . shall prevent or obstruct free passage or transit over or through the public lands"
applies to transient acts of force and intimidation as well a continuing obstacles such as a fence or the maintenance of an armed patrol. P. 260 U. S. 357.
3. Punishment for offenses defined by the above act is not confined by the fourth section to persons acting as "owner, part owner or agent." P. 260 U. S. 357.
4. Congress has power to punish intentional obstruction to free passage over the public lands within a state accomplished by acts of violence, and its exercise works no interference with the power of the state to punish the acts of violence as such. P. 260 U. S. 358.
Certiorari to a judgment of the circuit court of appeals affirming a conviction in the district court under an indictment for unlawful prevention and obstruction of free passage over the public lands.
of Idaho upon a charge of unlawfully preventing and obstructing, by means of force, threats, and intimidation, free passage over and through certain unoccupied public lands of the United States by designated persons, they being the three employees hereinafter mentioned. The circuit court of appeals affirmed the judgment. 273 F. 410. A writ of certiorari brings the case here.
did was to prevent the employees from proceeding with the sheep over those lands. The lands were comprised in two townships, each six miles square, and within these townships were several small tracts -- a minor part of the whole -- which were claimed and held by individuals under the public land laws; but the trail did not pass over these small tracts, nor were the employees driving or intending to drive the sheep over them.
"Sec. 3. That no person, by force, threats, intimidation, or by any fencing or enclosing, or any other unlawful means, shall prevent or obstruct, or shall combine and confederate with others to prevent or obstruct, any person from peaceably entering upon or establishing a settlement or residence on any tract of public land subject to settlement or entry under the public land laws of the United States, or shall prevent or obstruct free passage or transit over or through the public lands: Provided, this section shall not be held to affect the right or title of persons who have gone upon, improved, or occupied said lands under the land laws of the United States, claiming title thereto in good faith."
"Sec. 4. That any person violating any of the provisions hereof, whether as owner, part owner, or agent, or who shall aid, abet, counsel, advise, or assist in any violation hereof, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and fined in a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars or be imprisoned not exceeding one year, or both, for each offense."
The indictment was challenged on several grounds by a demurrer and a motion in arrest of judgment, both of which were overruled, and error is assigned on these rulings.
made in the proviso to § 3. This is not a valid ground. By repeated decisions, it has come to be a settled rule in this jurisdiction that an indictment or other pleading founded on a general provision defining the elements of an offense, or of a right conferred, need not negative the matter of an exception made by a proviso or other distinct clause, whether in the same section or elsewhere, and that it is incumbent on one who relies on such an exception to set it up and establish it. Schlemmer v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg Ry. Co., 205 U. S. 1, 205 U. S. 10; Javierre v. Central Altagracia, 217 U. S. 502, 217 U. S. 508, and cases cited.
Another ground is that the words of § 3, "or shall prevent or obstruct free passage or transit over or through the public lands," refer to a continuing obstacle to passage or transit in general, such as a fence or the maintenance of an armed patrol, and not to a transient obstacle to passage or transit by particular persons on a particular occasion, such as is charged here. We think this ground is not tenable. The words "by force, threats, intimidation, or by any fencing or enclosing, or any other unlawful means" are as comprehensive of transient means of obstruction as of continuing or relatively permanent means. Besides, it is "free" passage or transit that is to be unobstructed. Passage or transit is free in the sense intended when it is open to all. When some withhold it from others, whether permanently or temporarily, it is not free.
A third ground is that, under § 4, the only punishable offenses are those wherein the offender acts as owner, part owner, or agent, and that this indictment does not show that any of the defendants were so acting. This ground is without merit. While § 4 is not happily worded, there is no difficulty in getting at its meaning. It is the penal section, and broadly fixes the punishment for the several acts made unlawful by the other sections.
Some of the proscribed acts involve an assertion of a groundless right to the exclusive use and occupancy of public lands, a right which the offender might be asserting in his own behalf, or in behalf of himself and another, or in behalf of others whom he serves as agent. But in several of the proscribed acts there is no such element. The offense charged here is of the latter class. With this understanding of the acts made unlawful by the other sections, it is apparent that the words "whether as owner, part owner, agent" in § 4 are intended merely to make sure that offenders acting as owners, part owners, or agents are brought within the penal provision, and not to exclude other offenders therefrom or to absolve them from punishment.
for which the perpetrator is liable to punishment, and the same act may be also a gross breach of the peace of the state, a riot, assault, or a murder, and subject the same person to a punishment, under the state laws, for a misdemeanor or felony. That either or both may (if they see fit) punish such an offender cannot be doubted. Yet it cannot be truly averred that the offender has been twice punished for the same offense, but only that, by one act, he has committed two offenses, for each of which he is justly punishable."
It is firmly settled that Congress may prescribe rules respecting the use of the public lands. It may sanction some uses and prohibit others, and may forbid interference with such as are sanctioned. Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518, 167 U. S. 525; United States v. Grimaud, 220 U. S. 506, 220 U. S. 521; Light v. United States, 220 U. S. 523, 220 U. S. 536; Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U. S. 389, 243 U. S. 404-405. The provision now before us is but an exertion of that power. It does no more than to sanction free passage over the public lands and to make the obstruction thereof by unlawful means a punishable offense.
It also is settled that the states may prescribe police regulations applicable to public land areas, so long as the regulations are not arbitrary or inconsistent with applicable congressional enactments. Among the regulations to which the state power extends are quarantine rules and measures to prevent breaches of the peace and unseemly clashes between persons privileged to go upon or use such areas.
by prior usage, has come to be a cattle range, Omaechevarria v. Idaho, 246 U. S. 343. As construed by the supreme court of the state, these regulations are not intended to cover the driving of sheep from one range to another, nor such occasional grazing as is done by the sheep while being driven or during temporary stops for needed rest or similar purposes. In view of the instructions to the jury in this case, the verdict must be taken as finding that there was no herding or grazing here which was forbidden by these regulations.
Complaint is made of several rulings on the trial, but we think all were right. As to some, the complaint is disposed of by what has been said, and as to the others, it is so wanting in substance that it does not call for special notice.
* Presumably under § 10 of the Act of December 29, 1916, c. 9, 39 Stat. 862.

References: § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 § 4
 § 4
 § 4
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 10