SERVICE NOTES FOR MAY 



These notes contain instructions and necessary information for 

 Forest officers, and will, therefore, be carefully read and kept on 

 file for reference. 



OFFICE OF THE FORESTER 



Cooperation with Smithsonian Institution 



The Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution has requested the Forest Service 

 to cooperate in bringing to the attention of the Institution discoveries of valuable 

 objects on National Forests, since it is desirable that the Government have the oppor- 

 tunity of obtaining such objects for its collection. The materials most desired are 

 fine mineral specimens, examples of silicified wood, invertebrate and vertebrate 

 fossils, meteorites of both iron and stony varieties. Meteorites are of particular 

 interest and their occurrence should be reported promptly whenever practicable. Of 

 the vertebrate fossils, skulls and teeth are of greater importance than mere frag- 

 ments of bones of the trunk. 



Samples of specimens should be forwarded under official frank to the Smithsonian 

 Institution, Washington, D. C.,and the Supervisor should make report to the For- 

 ester and transmit it through the District office. The frank should bear the name 

 and address of the sender. Forest officers will keep in mind the request of the Secre- 

 tary and cooperate, as far as is practicable without interfering with Forest Service 

 work. 



LAW 



Rehearing in Sierra Grazing Trespass Cases 



In the April Field Program notice was given of the judgment of the Supreme Court 

 of the United States affirming the judgments of the district court for the southern 

 district of California in the cases of the United States v. Grimaud and Carajous, and 

 the United States v. Inda, involving alleged illegal grazing of sheep on the Sierra 

 National Forest without a permit, in violation of Regulation 45 of the Secretary of 

 Agriculture made and promulgated under authority of the act of June 4, 1897. Affirm- 

 ance of the judgments resulted from an even division of the justices of the Supreme 

 Court, and, while this was sufficient for the disposition of the particular cases, no 

 authoritative decision, controlling in future similar cases, was rendered, and the 

 question of the constitutionality of the regulation and the provisions of the act of 

 June 4, 1897, under which it was made and promulgated, is still undecided. 



The questions involved in these cases are so important and their final determina- 

 tion so necessary that, on April 13, the Solicitor-General petitioned the Supreme 



(357) 



