Show h I t I RIGHTS TO DESERT I i LAND LIND ENTRIES i t Can They be Transferred Before Reclamation of land Has HasI Seen Been Made MadeI I I QUESTION IS TO BE TESTED on Both of Controversy to SubmIt It to U S St t Supreme Court Washington Feb Feh on 1 j both sides Ides of the controversy aro pic paring for tor the final determInation by bythe 1 the supreme court of the United States whether of oC the Ion long mooted question right to tanti entries ma may be beI I transferred before reclamation hUi I fl been made madeA InvolvIng that thit poInt has blen been J A case I set for argument before beCore the court on 41 Feb 21 1 tt At the sumo arno time the to court t is to as to 10 whether 4 it I b a crime against thc tc United Stat I to graze sheep In u a forest foret reservation without permission of the government I The question of oC tho right to trans for ter a desert land entry arises In a ai i criminal prosecution William If H Ham Hammers t I mers of oC southern was wa indict j ed cc In the thc federal court for or the Southern district of California on a charlo chargo o oI of I committing perjury In an nade In the Interest of oC Beulah Rose Beckler to the effect that improve p ments of oC a 11 certain value had been made on desert land lantI In Imperial coun w i ty tr Cal Calf f In defense It was up UI that the tho thoI 1 I land In had been entered b by r Granville Cranville M 1 Bo er on Oil Aug H 14 1907 nt at the tle lan land In Los AnSele and that the thc attempted transfer of oC his hisS S rights In the lan land on oil Aug 26 6 1907 1007 to 1 Deulah Beulah Rose ll was void be bc because 1 1 cause tho right to make such transfer J was not possessed b by Dorer It was wasI argued that as Doyer Boyce not IO 1 9 f t I lUch n ft rl right ht the affidavit of oC Hammers as a f I the de deI defense i rho district court ourt sustained and the tho government appealed to I It I the supreme court 1 I II The question ot of the ability of an en trman to transfer a desert land entry j J has been considered h by the court be before before fore On the previous occasion the theS S court held that under the desert land net act of 1877 the ent man had no right rightS I which he could sell or transfer The rhe S I governments contention In the pres present ent case Is that under the desert land act of oC 1991 1891 such a right Is given Ien the I S It Is said that thousands ot of persons who hoe have obtained their land b by transfer under the desert land act of ISO will be affected b by the decisIon This Is regarded as true particularly I i of the tho Imperial vailey aile In California Whether It Is a crime to graze raze sheep without permission In n a forest r reserve erO has arIsen In the ot of Pierre J P and Antonio t Inda of oC California who ere charged with having grazed their sheep without the tho permission ot of the h In the Sierra forest re resene servo sene In California These Indictments were all brought In n the court for tho Southern district of California i D By act of oC Congress approved June 4 04 1897 the secretary of the Interior and later the secreta secretary f of oC agrIculture I was directed to maIm mako provision for the protection of oC the forest reserves It Itt Iti t i was provided that an any violation of the I provisions as made should be punish punishable able accord according Ins to the thc revIsed statutes i In 1906 Secretary Wilson t Sated gated a regulation requiring all per persons persons sons to obtain a permit grazing I animals In u a forest reserve It was wasby b by rea on of oC alleged violations of this re regulation of oC the were wele brought Attorneys for Cor the she con contended contended tended however that the net act ot of 1897 I was void old so far Car as It attached pen penalties to any violation of regulations thereafter to be bc made because It liou sought ht to provide n a penalty penally for a 11 crime not completely complete defIned It was also argued that the act was an at attempt attempt tempt to confer conCer legislatIve authority on an executive The Tho court sustained the thc defense and the govern Goern ment appealed to the tho supreme court I |