m 



However, this privilege of selling timber thus cut was held 

 to be incidental to the clearing of the land for bona fi^e agri- 

 cultural purposes, and the courts have declared that it must 

 not be used as a cloak to cover a cutting conducted pri- 

 marily with a view to the derivation of a profit from the 

 sale of the timber, under penalty of civil prosecution under 

 the common law or criminal prosecution under section. 2461 

 or 5388 of the Revised Statutes or the acts whicji supersede 

 these sections. l 



. - ' .-.;;. i 



Exemption from prosecution was also allowed to those 

 who used timber within reasonable limitations upon mining 

 claims acquired under the act of July 26, 1866 (14 Stat., 

 L. 251), which, like the homestead acts, clearly contem- 

 plated Governmental encouragement to those who should 

 engage in the development of the mineral resources of the 

 nation. 



Although those charged with the administration of the 

 public land laws overlooked and even approved the use of 

 timber from agricultural or mining claims, or even con- 

 doned the use of reasonable quantities from adjacent lands 

 for bona fide domestic purposes, and the courts openly rec- 

 ognized and sanctioned such use in trespass prosecutions 



1. Stone v. U. S. 167 U. S., 178, 17 S. Ct. 778, 42 L. Ed. 127 (affm'g 64 Fed. 667. 

 12 C. C. A. 451); Shiver v. U.S., 159 U. S. 491, 16 S. Ct. 54, 40 L. Ed. 231; 

 U. S. v. Cook, 19 Wall (86 U. S.) 591; U. S. v. Briggs, 9 How. 351, 13 L. Ed. 

 170; U. S. v. Ellis, 122 Fed. 1016; U. S. v. Blendauer, 122 Fed. 703 (Revs'd 

 on other grounds in 128 Fed. 910, 63 C. C. A. 636) ; Potter v. U. S. 122 Fed. 



49, 58 C. C. A. 231; Teller v. U. S. 117 Fed. 577, 54 C. C. A. 349; Teller v. 

 U. S. 113 Fed. 273; Cunningham et al. v. Metropolitan Lbr. Co., 110 Fed. 

 332, 49 C. C. A. 72; Grubbs v. U. S., 105 Fed. 314, 44 C. C. A. 513; Conway 

 v. U. S. 95 Fed. 615, 37 C. C. A. 200; U. S. v. Niemeyer, 94 Fed. 147; U. S. v. 

 Perkins, 44 Fed. 670; U. S. v. Norris, 41 Fed. 424; U. S. v. Taylor, 35 Fed. 

 484; U. S. v. Murphy, 32 Fed. 376; U. S. v. Freyburg, 32 Fed. 195; U. S. v. 

 Ball, 31 Fed. 667, 12 Sawy. 514; U. S. v. Lane 19 Fed. 910; U. S. v. Williams. 

 18 Fed. 475, 9 Sawy. 374; U. S. v. Yoder, 18 Fed. 372, 5 McCrary 615; U. S. 

 v. Stores, 14 Fed. 824, 4 Woods, 641; U. S. v. Smith, 11 Fed. 487; 8. Sawy. 

 107; The Timber Cases, 11 Fed. 81, 3 McCrary 519; U.S. v. Mills, 9 Fed, 684; 

 U. S. v. Nelson, 5 Sawy. 68, 27 Fed. Gas. No. 15, 864; U. S. v. McEntee, 26 

 Fed. Gas. No. 15673; King-Ryder Lbr. Co. v. Scott, 73 Ark. 329, 84 S. W. 487, 

 70 L. R. A. 873; Stevens v. Perrier, '12 Kan. 297; Orrell v. Bay Mfg. Co. 83 

 Miss. 800, 36 So. 561, 70 L. R. A. 881; Anderson v. Wilder, 83 Miss. 600, 36 



50. 875; 4 Opin. Atty. Gen. 405, July 16, 1845; Winninghoff v. Ryan, 40 L. D. 

 342; Finley V. Ness, 38 L. D. 394; Davis v. Gibson, 38 L. D. 265; Patten v. 

 Quackenbush, 35 L. D. 561 ; E. S. Gosney case, 29 L. D. 593, 30 L. D. 44; 

 Isadore Conn case 20 L. D. 238. See also Reports G. L. O. 1889. p. 291, 

 1887, p. 479; 1 L. D. 596 (Timber on accretions.) 



And compare Jones v. Donahoo, Morr. (Iowa) 493; Hughell v. Wilson, Morr 

 (Iowa) 383; Bower v. Highbee, 9 Mo. 259; Nickelson v. Cameron Lbr. Co. 

 39 Wash. 569, 81 Pac. 1059; Arment v. Hensal, 5 Wash. 152, 31 Pac. 464; 

 U. S. v. Helena, 26 Fed. Gas. No. 15342, (Revers'g 26 Fed. Gas. No. 15.341); 

 The Cherokee, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,639, 12 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 33. 



