THE USE BOOK. 273 



By this law the control of the occupancy and use of these 

 reservations is handed over to the Secretary for the purpose of 

 preserving the forests thereon, and any occupancy or use in vio- 

 lation of the rules and regulations adopted by him is made 

 punishable criminally. It seems to me Congress has a right 

 to do this. Suppose Congress had provided that the occupation 

 or use of a forest reservation by any person, without permission 

 of the Secretary, should be a misdemeanor. Would not this 

 be a valid exercise of legislative power? The present statute 

 does no more. The regulation is reasonable and necessary. It 

 restrains no one in the enjoyment of any natural or legal right. 

 To use the language of Mr. Chief Justice Fuller in In re Kol- 

 lock (165 U. S., 526, 533) : 



The regulation was in execution of, or supplementary to, 

 but not in conflict with, the law itself, and was specifically 

 authorized thereby in effectuation of the legislation which 

 created the offense. 



Your question, therefore, is answered in the affirmative. 

 Very respectfully, 



JOHN K. RICHARDS, 



Solicitor-General. 

 Approved : 



JOHN W. GRIGGS, 



Attorney -General. 



NATIONAL FOREST RESERVE CONSERVATION CHARGE FOR USE OF 

 LANDS OR RESOURCES. 



(26 Op. Atty. Gen. 421.) 



The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized by the act of Feb- 

 ruary 15, 1901 (31 Stat., 790), to make the granting of 

 permits for the use of lands or resources within the 

 national forest reserves for the purposes contemplated by 

 that act, which include irrigation, mining, and quarrying, 

 etc., dependent upon the payment of such charges as he 

 may deem reasonable. 



Whether charges based upon the grounds specifically enumer- 

 ated by the Secretary of Agriculture, to wit, the use of 

 the ground and rights of way without regard to their special 

 value for the particular purposes contemplated by the per- 

 mit, and for " conservation," being the special value of the 

 land for the particular purpose contemplated in excess of 

 its value for general purposes, would or would not be 

 reasonable, is not a question which can properly be de- 

 termined by the Attorney-General. 



69621- 



