Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/402

 The Green Bag

370

Fed. 568; U. S. v. Domingo, 152 Fed.

566;

U. S. v. Bale,

156 Fed. 687;

U. S. v. Rizzinelli, 182 Fed. 675. But the regulations were held to be invalid in U. S. v. Blasingame, 116 Fed. 654; U. S. v. Matthews, 146 Fed. 306; Dent v. U. S., 8 Ariz. 138, 71 Pac. 920.

“From the various acts relating to the establishment and management of forest reservations, it appears that they were intended ‘to improve and protect the forest and to secure favorable condi

tions of water ﬂows.‘

It was declared

for which they were established. But a limited and regulated use for pastur

age might not be inconsistent with the object sought to be attained by the statute. The determination of such questions, however, was a matter of

administrative detail. What might be harmless in one forest might be harmful to another. What might be injurious at one stage of timber growth, or at one

season of the year, might not be so at another. . ..

that the act should not be ‘construed to prohibit the egress and ingress of actual

“The Secretary did not exercise the legislative power of declaring the penalty or ﬁxing the punishment for grazing

settlers’ residing therein, nor to ‘pro hibit any person from entering upon such

sheep without a permit, but the punish

forest reservations for all proper and cuting, lawful purposes, locating and including developing that ofmineral prose

offense is not against the Secretary,

resources thereof; provided that such persons comply with the rules and regu lations covering such forest reservations, (Act of 1897, 30 Stat. at L. 36, chap. 2, U. 5. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1540). It

ment is imposed by the act itself.

The

but, as the indictment properly con cludes, ‘contrary to the laws of the United States and the peace and dig nity thereof.‘ The demurrers should have been overruled.” See Forest Reserves.

was also declared that the Secretary ‘may

Boycotts. Reversible Error in Taking

make such rules and regulations and

Questions from the Jury — Principal and Agent. U. S.

establish such service as will insure the objects of such reservations; namely,

to regulate their occupancy and use, and to preserve the forests thereon from destruction; and any violation of the provisions of this act or such rules and

regulations shall be punished’ [30 Stat.

The long-standing controversy be tween the Danbury (Conn.) hatters and the union known as the United Hatters of

North

America

was

brought

up

again March 10 by a reversal of the judgment for $232,240.12 which D. E.

at L. 35, chap. 2, U. S. Comp. Stat.

Loewe & Co. of Danbury obtained as

1901, p. 1540], as is provided in sec. 5388 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp.

damages for the union's alleged boycott of the hat manufacturers’ interstate busi

Stat. 1901, p. 3649), as amended.

ness.

“Under these acts, therefore, any use of the reservation for grazing or other

of Appeals took up the case on a writ of error to review the judgment of the Circuit Court in Connecticut. In an opinion written by Judge Lacombe and

lawful purpose was required to be subject to the rules and regulations estab lished by the Secretary of Agriculture.

To pasture sheep and cattle on the reservation, at will and without re straint, might interfere seriously with

the accomplishment of the purposes

The United States Circuit Court

concurred in by Judges Coxe and Noyes, the judgment is reversed. The ground for the reversal was the error of the lower court in taking the case from the jury and itself “deciding every