SERVICE NOTES FOR NOVEMBER. 



OFFICE OF THE FORESTER. 



LAW. 



Grazing Trespass 



The following quotations are taken from Judge Carland's charge to the jury 

 in the case of United States v. R. E. Bale (Black Hills National Forest), 

 which was decided in the United States district court of South Dakota on 

 September 5, after a demurrer to the indictment had been overruled : 



Under this authority, conferred by the act of Congress mentioned [act of 

 June 4, 1897, 30 Stat, 11], the Secretary of the Interior, and subsequently 

 the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, to whom the powers 

 vested formerly in the Secretary of the Interior have been transferred, 

 promulgated a rule to the effect that no person shall graze cattle upon 

 these forest reservations without first obtaining a permit from the proper 

 authority. It being perfectly competent for Congress to confer this power 

 upon the Secretary of the Interior, and subsequently to transfer it to the 

 Secretary of Agriculture, and the rule itself being within the power con- 

 ferred by the act of Congress upon these officers, it can not be said that 

 there was a delegation of legislative power by Congress to these officers, 

 for the reason that the act of Congress itself provides and fixes the pun- 

 ishment for the violation of the rule, and the offense is not created, as 

 contended by some, by the Secretary of Agriculture. 



******* 



A person would be held to graze cattle upon a forest reservation if he 

 knowingly drove cattle upon the same for that purpose, or if. knowing his 

 cattle are grazing upon such reservation, he allows them to remain there 

 without immediately removing them therefrom and thereafter keeping them 

 from returning thereto. 



In this case, gentlemen of the jury, there is no claim that the defendant 

 ever procured any permit, and the question of the guilt or innocence of the 

 defendant in this case all turns upon the question as to whether he grazed 

 any cattle upon this forest reservation as charged in the indictment ; there- 

 fore the question in this case is, Did the defendant use all the means within 

 his power to keep his cattle off the reserve. If he did, and, notwithstanding 

 his efforts, his cattle escaped and went on the reserve he could not be said to 

 have grazed his cattle upon the reserve. On the other hand, if he know- 

 ingly drove the cattle on the reserve for grazing or negligently or carelessly 

 allowed his cattle to go upon the reserve to graze, and knowing them to be 

 there, did not use all the efforts -within his power to remove them therefrom 

 and keep them off, then he would be held to have grazed his cattle upon the 

 reservation. 



The jury returned a verdict of guilty and the trespasser was fined $100 and 

 costs. This he paid at once and was thereupon released. 



(14) 



