THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AND 

 CONSERVATION POLICIES 



By E. a. Sherman 

 Associate Forester, U. S. Forest Service 



On November 21 the Supreme Court of the United States handed 

 down a decision which constitutes the ninth consecutive legal victory 

 sustaining a major controverted conservation policy. There have been 

 no defeats. The last victory was in the case entitled Kern River Com- 

 pany et al V. the United States. In this decision the Supreme Court 

 sustains the contention of the Forest Service to the effect that a right- 

 of-way across public lands secured "for the purpose of irrigation" 

 cannot lawfully be used for the development of water power, and that 

 a permit or license for the use of public land for water power develop- 

 ment must be secured under the water power laws. 



And thus, one by one, the Supreme Court of the United States has 

 set its stamp of approval upon the Roosevelt conservation policies. 

 These policies were each in turn loudly condemned as "unconstitu- 

 tional," "unlawful," "arbitrary," "confiscatory," and the like, and the 

 men who advocated them or put them into administrative practice were 

 denounced as "lawless" and as placing their own opinions above the law. 

 In the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court, however, the "law- 

 less" ones were those men and special interests who condemned these 

 policies and who smugly based their condemnation upon the law and 

 the constitution. 



It is interesting to call the roll of Supreme Court decisions on major 

 conservation policies. It follows : 



(1) In the case of Light v. United States the Supreme Court held 

 that under the constitution Congress has a right to determine how the 

 public lands shall be administered, and that the long and uninterrupted 

 use of the public domain by the stockmen conferred no vested rights 

 upon any person and had not deprived the United States of the power 

 of recalling such implied license. Decision May 1, 1911. 



(2) A decision in the case of the United States v. Grimaud, and 

 United States v. Inda, held that it was constitutional for Congress to 

 provide a penalty for the violation of the rules and regulations for the 



928 



