930 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



forest, must execute such stipulations as may be required by the 

 government respecting the use and enjoyment of the privilege granted, 

 the prevention of forest fires, and compensation for timber cut down 

 or destroyed, or for other injuries done to the reservation. Decision 

 June 4, 1917. 



(8) In the case of Cameron et al v. the United States the Supreme 

 Court held that the land department of the United States government 



, is empowered to determine whether or not a mining location is valid, 

 and if found invalid to declare it null and void. This case in\'olved 

 mining locations controlling strategic points in what is now the Grand 

 Canyon National Park. Had the contentions of the claimant been sus- 

 tained it would have been possible through misdirection of the mineral 

 laws to prevent the reasonable administration by the government of any 

 National Park or National Forest. 



(9) Now comes the decision in the Kern River Company case, 

 another instance where a powerful water power company has attempted 

 to use the public lands for private profit without charge. Again the 

 Supreme Court has sustained the contention of the conservationists. 



Isn't it about time to forever lay upon the shelf this contention of 

 "unlawful interference with business interests?" The foregoing record 

 shows conclusively who has upheld the law and who has defied it or 

 tried to break it down. 



