THE SOLICITOR. 795 



HYDROELECTRIC POWER PERMITS. 



During the year there was submitted to the Sohcitor, for examina- 

 tion, 45 apphcations for permits under tlie act of February 15, 1901, 

 which provides that the Secretary of Agriculture may, in his discre- 

 tion, allow the use of rights of way in the National Forests for the 

 generation and utilization of hydroelectric power. A careful scrutiny 

 of all these applications has been made by this office and reports 

 submitted to you thereon. In addition to tliis there have oeen 

 several contests between opposing applicants for rights of way over 

 the same lands which have resulted in hearings before the Solicitor 

 for report to you. 



DECISIONS OF THE COURTS. 



As of first importance under this heading should be mentioned 

 the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States handed 

 down on May 1, 1911, in the cases known as the United States v. 

 Fred Light and United States v. Grimaud, Carajous, andlnda. (220 

 U.S., 523; Id., 506.) 



The case of United States v. Fred Light was an action by the United States to 

 restrain Light from pasturing stock upon the Holy Cross National Forest, Colo., 

 without a permit from the Secretary of Agriculture. Light defended on the ground 

 that the laws of Colorado make it indispensable to the maintenance of such an action 

 that the o\vner of land must fence it against trespassing stock, and that the act of 

 June 4, 1897, is unconstitutional, because it delegates legislative authority to the 

 Secretary of Agriculture to make and define a crime, and that the act of March 3, 

 1891, authorizing the President to set aside public lands as national forests, is also 

 unconstitutional and can not authorize the creation of forests without the consent of 

 the State in which the lands are situated. The substance of the decision of the 

 Supreme Court is as follows: 



1. The United States can prohibit absolutely or fix the terms on which its property 

 may be used and can withhold or reserve the land indefinitely, and this, without 

 the consent of the State in which it is situated. 



2. The long-continued sufferance by the United States of the pasturing of cattle 

 on the public lands did not confer upon anyone a vested right to the use of those 

 lands for that purpose; nor could it deprive the United States of the power of recall- 

 ing the implied license arising therefrom so to do. 



3. The Government has, with respect to its own lands, the rights of an ordinary 

 proprietor to maintain its possession and prosecute trespassers, and it may deal with 

 such lands precisely as an ordinary individual may deal with his farming property. 

 (United States v. Canfield, 167 U. S., 524.) 



4. Section 24 of the act of March 3, 1891, authorizing the President of the United 

 States to set apart and reserve public lands bearing forests as national forests, is con- 

 stitutional. 



5. The act of June 4, 1897, conferring upon the Secretary of Agriculture authority 

 to make rules and regulations for the administration of the national forests, is con- 

 stitutional, and the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture, made and promul- 

 gated thereunder, requiring all persons to secure permits before grazing any ^tock 

 m a national forest, is valid and enforceable. (United States v. Grimaud, decided 

 same day.) 



6. Statutes providing that no recovery can be had for damages done by trespassing 

 animals unless the land had been inclosed with a fence of the size and material required 

 by State law do not give permission to the owner of cattle to use another's unfenced 

 land as a pasture, and, therefore, if the statute of Colorado requiring owners to fence 

 their land against straying stock is at all enforceable against the United States such 

 a statute does not afford immunity to one who intentionally and willfully pasturoM 

 and allows his stock to graze in the national forests. 



The cases of United States v. Grimaud, Carajous, and Inda, consolidated for con- 

 sideration by the Supreme Court, were criminal prosecutions for pasturing stock on 

 the Sierra National Forest, Cal., in violation of the regulations of the Secretary of 



