190 THE USE BOOK APPENDIX. 



States of Oregon and Washington is made because the con- 

 tinuous moisture and abundant rainfall of the Cascade and 

 Pacific coast ranges make rapid renewal of herbage and under- 

 growth, possible, etc. 



In view of the foregoing, you request my opinion whether a 

 criminal prosecution will lie to punish a person who grazes sheep 

 in a forest reservation in violation of the regulation quoted. 



I recognize the existence of the salutary rule that Congress can 

 not delegate its legislative power so as to authorize an administra- 

 tive officer, by the adoption of regulations, to create an offense and 

 prescribe its punishment. But here the statute proclaims the pun- 

 ishment for an offense which in general terms is denned by law, 

 the regulation dealing only with a matter of detail and administra- 

 tion necessary to carry into effect the object of the law. The pro- 

 tection of the public forest is entrusted to the Secretary of the 

 Interior. Section 5388 makes it an offense, punishable bv fine and 

 imprisonment, for any person wantonly to destroy any timber on 

 a public reservation. In furtherance of this policy the act of 

 June 4, 1897, directs the Secretary to make provision for the pro- 

 tection of the forests and authorizes him to regulate the use and 

 occupancy of the forest reservations and to preserve the forests 

 thereon from destruction, making for such purpose proper rules 

 and regulations. Any violation of such rules and regulations is, 

 by the statute, made an offense, punishable as provided in section 

 5388. 



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

 vations is handed over to the Secretary for the purpose of preserv- 

 ing the forests thereon, and any occupancy or use in violation of 

 the rules and regulations adopted by him is made punishable 

 criminally. It seems to me Congress has a right to do this. Sup- 

 pose 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 regu- 

 lation 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 Kollock (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 offence. 



Your question, therefore, is answered in the affirmative. 

 Very respectfully, 



JOHN K. RICHARDS. 



Solititor- General. 

 Approved : 

 JOHN W. GRIGGS, 



A ttorney- General. 



