Monday, May 1, 1911. Light v. United States. "All the public lands of the nation are held in trust for the people of the whole country."

U.S. Supreme Court

Light v. United States, 220 U.S. 523 (1911)

Light v. United States

No. 360

Argued February 27, 28, 1911

Decided May 1, 1911

220 U.S. 523

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Syllabus

United States v. Grimaud, ante, p. 220 U. S. 506, followed to effect that Congress may authorize an executive officer to make rules and regulations as to the use, occupancy and preservation of forests and that such authority so granted is not unconstitutional as a delegation of legislative power.

At common law, the owner was responsible for damage done by his livestock on land of third parties, but the United States has tacitly suffered its public domain to be used for cattle so long as such tacit consent was not cancelled, but no vested rights have been conferred on any person, nor has the United States been deprived of the power of recalling such implied license.

While the full scope of § 3, Art. IV, of the Constitution has never been definitely settled, it is primarily a grant of power to the United States of control over its property, Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 89; this control is exercised by Congress to the same extent that an individual can control his property.

It is for Congress and not for the courts to determine how the public lands shall be administered.

Congress has power to set apart portions of the public domain and establish them as forest reserves and to prohibit the grazing of cattle thereon or to permit it subject to rules and regulations.

Fence laws may condone trespasses by straying cattle where the laws have not been complied with, but they do not authorize wanton or willful trespass, nor do they afford immunity to those willfully turning cattle loose under circumstances showing that they were intended to graze upon the lands of another.

Where cattle are turned loose under circumstances showing that the owner expects and intends that they shall go upon a reserve to graze thereon, for which he has no permit and he declines to apply for one, and threatens to resist efforts to have the cattle removed and contends that he has a right to have his cattle go on the reservation, equity has jurisdiction, and such owner can be enjoined at the instance of the government, whether the land has been fenced or not.

Quaere, and not decided, whether the United States is required to fence property under laws of the state in which the property is located.

This Court will, so far as it can, decide cases before it without reference to questions arising under the federal Constitution. Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 213 U. S. 175.

The Holy Cross Forest Reserve was established under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1891. By that and subsequent statutes, the Secretary of Agriculture was authorized to make provisions for the protection against destruction by fire and depredations of the public forest and forest reservations, and to

"make such rules and regulations and 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."

26 Stat. 1103, c. 561; 30 Stat. 35, c. 2; Act of Congress February 1, 1905, 33 Stat. 628, c. 288; 7 Fed.Stat.Ann. 310, 312, and Fed.Stat. Ann.Supp. 1909, p. 663. In pursuance of these statutes, regulations were adopted establishing grazing districts on which only a limited number of cattle were allowed. The regulations provided that a few head of cattle of prospectors, campers, and not more than ten belonging to a settler residing near the forest might be admitted without permit, but, saving these exceptions, the general rule was that "all persons must secure permits before grazing any stock in a national forest."

On April 7, 1908, the United States, through the district attorney, filed a bill in the Circuit Court for the District of Colorado reciting the matters above outlined, and alleging that the defendant, Fred Light, owned a herd of about 500 cattle and a ranch of 540 acres, located two and a half miles to the east, and five miles to the north, of the reservation. This herd was turned out to range during the spring and summer, and the ranch then used as a place on which to raise hay for their sustenance.

That between the ranch and the reservation was other public and unoccupied land of the United States, but, owing to the fact that only a limited number of cattle were allowed on the reservation, the grazing there was better than on this public land. For this reason, and because of the superior water facilities and the tendency of the cattle to follow the trails and stream leading from the ranch to the reservation, they naturally went direct to the reservation. T he bill charged that the defendant, when turning them loose, knew and expected that they would go upon the reservation, and took no action to prevent them from trespassing. That, by thus knowingly and wrongfully permitting them to enter on the reservation, he intentionally caused his cattle to make a trespass, in breach of the United States property and administrative rights, and has openly and privately stated his purpose to disregard the regulations, and without permit to allow, and, in the manner stated, to cause, his cattle to enter, feed, and graze thereon.

The bill prayed for an injunction. The defendant's general demurrer was overruled.

His answer denied that the topography of the country around his ranch or the water and grazing conditions were such as to cause his cattle to go on the reservation; he denied that many of them did go thereon, though admitting that some had grazed on the reservation. He admitted that he had liberated his cattle without having secured or intending to apply for a permit, but denied that he willfully or intentionally caused them to go on the reservation, submitting that he was not required to obtain any such permit. He admits that it is his intention hereafter, as heretofore, to turn his cattle out on the unreserved public land of the United States adjoining his ranch to the northeast thereof, without securing or applying for any permit for the cattle to graze upon the so-called Holy Cross Reserve; denies that any damage will be done if they do go upon the reserve, and contends that if, because of their straying proclivities, they shall go on the reserve, the complainant is without remedy against the defendant at law or in equity, so long as complainant fails to fence the reserve, as required by the laws of Colorado. He claims the benefit of the Colorado statute requiring the owner of land to erect and maintain a fence of given height and strength, in default of which the owner is not entitled to recover for damage occasioned by cattle or other animals going thereon.

Evidence was taken, and, after hearing, the circuit court found for the government and entered a decree enjoining the defendant from in any manner causing, or permitting, his stock to go, stray upon, or remain within the said forest or any portion thereof.

The defendant appealed and assigned that the decree against him was erroneous; that the public lands are held in trust for the people of the several states, and the proclamation creating the reserve without the consent of the State of Colorado is contrary to and in violation of said trust; that the decree is void because it, in effect, holds that the United States is exempt from the municipal laws of the State of Colorado, relating to fences; that the statute conferring upon the said Secretary of Agriculture the power to make rules and regulations was an unconstitutional delegation of authority to him, and the rules and regulations therefore void, and that the rules mentioned in the bill are unreasonable, do not tend to insure the object of forest reservation, and constitute an unconstitutional interference by the government of the United States with fence and other statutes of the State of Colorado, enacted through the exercise of the police power of the state.

MR. JUSTICE LAMAR, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the Court.

The defendant was enjoined from pasturing his cattle on the Holy Cross Forest Reserve because he had refused to comply with the regulations adopted by the Secretary of Agriculture, under the authority conferred by the Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 35, c. 2), to make rules and regulations as to the use, occupancy, and preservation of forests. The validity of the rule is attacked on the ground that Congress could not delegate to the Secretary legislative power. We need not discuss that question, in view of the opinion in United States v. Grimaud, ante, p. 220 U. S. 506.

The bill alleged, and there was evidence to support the finding, that the defendant, with the expectation and intention that they would do so, turned his cattle out at a time and place which made it certain that they would leave the open public lands and go at once to the reserve, where there was good water and fine pasturage. When notified to remove the cattle, he declined to do so, and threatened to resist if they should be driven off by a forest officer. He justified this position on the ground that the statute of Colorado provided that a landowner could not recover damages for trespass by animals unless the property was enclosed with a fence of designated size and material. Regardless of any conflict in the testimony, the defendant claims that, unless the government put a fence around the reserve, it had no remedy, either at law or in equity, nor could he be required to prevent his cattle straying upon the reserve from the open public land on which he had a right to turn them loose.

At common law, the owner was required to confine his livestock, or else was held liable for any damage done by them upon the land of third persons. That law was not adapted to the situation of those states where there were great plains and vast tracts of unenclosed land, suitable for pasture. And so, without passing a statute, or taking any affirmative action on the subject, the United States suffered its public domain to be used for such purposes. There thus grew up a sort of implied license that these lands, thus left open, might be used so long as the government did not cancel its tacit consent. Buford v. Hout, 133 U. S. 326. Its failure to object, however, did not confer any vested right on the complainant, nor did it deprive the United States of the power of recalling any implied license under which the land had been used for private purposes. Steele v. United States, 113 U. S. 130; Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 513.

It is contended, however, that Congress cannot constitutionally withdraw large bodies of land from settlement without the consent of the state where it is located, and it is then argued that the Act of 1891, providing for the establishment of reservations, was void, so that what is nominally a reserve is, in law, to be treated as open and unenclosed land, as to which there still exists the implied license that it may be used for grazing purposes. But

"the nation is an owner, and has made Congress the principal agent to dispose of its property. . . . Congress is the body to which is given the power to determine the conditions upon which the public lands shall be disposed of."

Butte City Water Co. v. Baker, 196 U. S. 126.

"The government has, with respect to its own lands, the rights of an ordinary proprietor to maintain its possession and to prosecute trespassers. It may deal with such lands precisely as a private individual may deal with his farming property. It may sell or withhold them from sale."

Canfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 524. And if it may withhold from sale and settlement, it may also, as an owner, object to its property being used for grazing purposes, for

"the government is charged with the duty and clothed with the power to protect the public domain from trespass and unlawful appropriation."

The United States can prohibit absolutely or fix the terms on which its property may be used. As it can withhold or reserve the land, it can do so indefinitely. Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 U. S. 243. It is true that the "United States do not and cannot hold property as a monarch may, for private or personal purposes." Van Brocklin v. Anderson, 117 U. S. 158. But that does not lead to the conclusion that it is without the rights incident to ownership, for the Constitution declares, § 3, Art. IV, that

"Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or the property belonging to the United States."

"The full scope of this paragraph has never been definitely settled. Primarily at least, it is a grant of power to the United States of control over its property."

"All the public lands of the nation are held in trust for the people of the whole country." United States v. Trinidad Coal Co., 137 U. S. 160. And it is not for the courts to say how that trust shall be administered. That is for Congress to determine. The courts cannot compel it to set aside the lands for settlement, or to suffer them to be used for agricultural or grazing purposes, nor interfere when, in the exercise of its discretion, Congress establishes a forest reserve for what it decides to be national and public purposes. In the same way and in the exercise of the same trust, it may disestablish a reserve, and devote the property to some other national and public purpose. These are rights incident to proprietorship, to say nothing of the power of the United States as a sovereign over the property belonging to it. Even a private owner would be entitled to protection against willful trespasses, and statutes providing that damage done by animals cannot be recovered unless the land had been enclosed with a fence of the size and material required do not give permission to the owner of cattle to use his neighbor's land as a pasture. They are intended to condone trespasses by straying cattle; they have no application to cases where they are driven upon unfenced land in order that they may feed there. Lazarus v. Phelps, 152 U. S. 81; Monroe v. Cannon, 24 Mont. 324; St. Louis Cattle Co. v. Vaught, 1 Tex.Civ.App. 388; The Union Pacific v. Rollins, 5 Kan. 176.

Fence laws do not authorize wanton and willful trespass, nor do they afford immunity to those who, in disregard of property rights, turn loose their cattle under circumstances showing that they were intended to graze upon the lands of another.

This the defendant did, under circumstances equivalent to driving his cattle upon the forest reserve. He could have obtained a permit for reasonable pasturage. He not only declined to apply for such license, but there is evidence that he threatened to resist efforts to have his cattle removed from the reserve, and in his answer he declares that he will continue to turn out his cattle, and contends that, if they go upon the reserve the, government has no remedy at law or in equity. This claim answers itself.

It appears that the defendant turned out his cattle under circumstances which showed that he expected and intended that they would go upon the reserve to graze thereon. Under the facts, the court properly granted an injunction. The judgment was right on the merits, wholly regardless of the question as to whether the government had enclosed its property.

This makes it unnecessary to consider how far the United States is required to fence its property, or the other constitutional questions involved. For, as said in Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 213 U. S. 193,

"where a case in this Court can be decided without reference to questions arising under the federal Constitution, that course is usually pursued, and is not departed from without important reasons."

The decree is therefore

Affirmed.

The decision still makes Bob Ide and Bill Allemand cry. 

There was a major snowstorm in Nebraska.

May Day a Snow Day in 1911

Not from 1911, but 1912:

Last edition:

Sunday, April 30, 1911. Fire in Bangor, Maine.

Labels: 1910s, 1911, Disaster, Francisco I. Madero, Maine, Maine (Bangor), Mexican Revolution, Mexico, Porfirio Díaz

The Agrarian's Lament: Nebraska is burning and its time to stop pretending this is normal.

The Agrarian's Lament: Nebraska is burning and its time to stop pretendin...:   Actually, that time was some time ago, but for those "clean coal" and "drill baby drill" people, you are converting th...

Nebraska is burning and its time to stop pretending this is normal.

 

Actually, that time was some time ago, but for those "clean coal" and "drill baby drill" people, you are converting the planet into an image of Hell.

It's not too late to address this, but it'll take major action.  The good news is that a nation that can waste billions of dollars on a war with Iran for no reason whatsoever, can afford to address it, and reverse it.

And not only, that, the rest of the world is leaping ahead of us in alternative energy systems, including China in spite of what the dolt in the White House says.

Simply believing that because we've always done things one way means its okay, or that our pocketbooks depend on coal and oil mean sit okay, is absolute lunacy.  The day of fossil fuels either needs to end, or they'll end us.

And as a final note, all too often I've heard farmers and ranchers take the global warming is a fib line. This year, there's no water in the west, none coming, and there will be none . We won't be growing anything. 

Wake up.

Wednesday,. June 3, 1925. Blimps and Stormy Weather.

June 3, 1925: The 1st Goodyear Blimp

Last edition:

Tuesday, June 2, 1925. A headache becomes history, Marines in Shanghai, and Amundsen lost

How dim can people be?

Seen on Sen. Deb Fischer of Nebraska's Twitter feed, this comment:

Shirley Trout@TroutShirley 1h

PLEASE help keep funds available to our rural counties for roads projects! Custer County is still trying to recover from the 2019 Bomb Cyclone! Heard today that funds have been frozen. If true, this is NOT GOOD!!! 

Thanks for staying tough so Nebraska can regain its strength!

It's been reported that some of Stalin's victims praised Stalin before they were executed.  They were too brainwashed to do other, just as Shirley Trout is too brainwashed to realize that Donald Trump really doesn't care about Custer County, Nebraska's disaster funding problems, and Deb Fischer is a Trump automaton.

And they're far from being the only ones.

As things go down the tubes, and they are rapidly, and she goes into the grocery store at Broken Bow, or to the cafe, I hope people reminder her, well, Shirley, you did that.

Thursday, November 20, 1924. The marriage of my father's parents.

Which was oddly a Thursday.  I think of most weddings being on Saturday.

At least they are now.

The wedding was in Denver, where they had met and where my grandfather was working.  They'd live there until 1937, when they'd move to Scottsbluff.  In that time they had all of their children save for one, who would be born in Scottsbluff, the first one being born in 1926 and my father being born in 1929.

They were both 23 years old.  He had been on his own since age 13.  She was living with her parents in Denver, where they had moved after her father had closed his store in Leadville.  Her parents were of 100% Irish extraction, with her mother being from Cork.  His parents were of 100% Westphalian extraction.  They were both Catholic, although I don't know what church they were married in.  Likey one of the Catholic churches downtown.

The American Automobile Association of State Highway Officials approved a resolution recommending that states agree to a consistent system of numbered highways.

Last edition:

Tuesday, November 18, 1924. Adding to the public domain.

Labels: 1920s, 1924, 1950s, 1954, Army, Black Hills, Calvin Coolidge, Commentary, Medicine, Personalities, Public Land, South Dakota, United States Forest Service

The 2024 Election, Part XXVII. Heading for the Last Roundup

Only a few more days to go.

Still, with the constant influx of news, we thought it was time for a new edition and to retire the last one.

October 24, 2024

You have no idea what I did in the White House. I stopped wars with France.

Trump at a recent rally.

Eh? 

October 25, 2024

Russia spread disinformation about the recent hurricanes in the US in order to attempt to influence the upcoming U.S. election.

Guess we know for sure who Putin wants in office.

No surprise there.

Trump indicated he'd fire special prosecutor Jack Smith as soon as he was in office, if he returns to office.  

No surprise there.

Unfortunately, you got a lot of American leaders who like to beat their chest and say; this [Ukraine] is the good guy and this [Russia] is the bad guy.

J. D. Vance.

Well, J. D., that's because Ukraine is the good guy and Russia is the bad guy.

Tucker Carlson compared the United States to a "15 year old" girl, who needs a spanking.

Eh?

I have a daughter and I don't think I ever spanked her.  I sure didn't at 15, which is a downright creepy thing to say.

Trump's going to deliver the spanking of the nation, according to Carlson.

cont:

The Washington Post returns to its position of not endorsing Presidential candidates:

Opinion 

 On political endorsement

October 27, 2024

Russian actors were behind a widely circulated video falsely depicting mail-in ballots for Donald Trump being destroyed in Pennsylvania, U.S. officials confirmed Friday.

Associated Press.

Locally we have a school board race that the Freedom Caucus, in the form of Mom's For Liberty or people aligned with their thinking are in. The folks below are those who are not part of that group.

These seem to be the populist ones:

Frankly, while I probably ought to post it elsewhere, I think there's a crisis in American education, but its not the one that commonly comes up.  There's probably a series of crises actually.

Locally, we've always had excellent public schools.  One thing that we can really tank our community ancestors for is appreciating the value of education.  School boards for many years have had people who took the task on with a sense of public duty.  People like to complain about the schools nonetheless, but that's in no small part because education is a spectator sport, like agriculture.  I've heard so many things about how to raise sheep, for example, from people whose family have not had a connection with sheep since Roman times, it's not funny.

The problem that seems to have developed recently is that education has been impacted, like politics in general in Wyoming, by an influx of people who were raised and educated well outside of the region, and brought a lot of regional ideas with them.  This reflected itself at first with a notable homeschooling movement which included quite a few people who were convinced that schools were teaching children "left wing" ideas, which they weren't and never have been.  In some instances the concerns of those parents included a strongly anti scientific background.

Now its spilled into the schools in general.  While she didn't run for the school board, in a way this is reflected by the one term now defeated House member Jeanette Ward.  Looking into her background it seems that a big part of her problems with Illinois' politics, where she came from, had to do with schools.  She was upset, for instance, that a class noted that Muslims pray to the same God that Christians do.  And she was upset with school mask mandates, which ironically Wyoming also had.

This has spilled over into the war over library books, which actually doesn't have much to do with actual school libraries.  

At any rate, it's a sad fact of American life that a lot of primary education in the United States is really lacking.  This reflects itself in politics right now, which finds actual debates over topics that simply are decided on the basis of the evidence.  The ability of highly monied people to lead others around reflects it as well.  Education in the US has always been uneven.  There's a scary chance that the excellent education that the Upper Plains and Rocky Mountain regions have always had, may be impacted by the populist flood.

cont:

Trump continues to make statements that in any other era would be regarded as dumb:

There will be no hydrogen. They tend to blow up and once they blow up you are not recognizable anymore. No, they say that's the hottest new thing. Hydrogen does. Anybody in the, they say it's so hot. The problem is when it's not, when it's not hot, it's bad. It's bad. So, I don't want to do that. They say for the most part here is for the most part it's really wonderful. But when it goes bad it's over, you're not recognizable. They call the wife. Please come and inspect to see whether or not this is your husband. He's lying against a tree and the tree has a lot of red on it... Is that ok for everybody?

Indeed, one of the things that really scares me about Trump is his supporters claim he says things that they're thinking.  If that's the case, we've got a massive lack of intellect in this country.  Are we this dumb? 

October 28, 2024

Given the story on Russia above, this is of interest:

October 28, 2024

Russia

Possible Russian Gains in Georgia and Moldova

Apparently Trump's rally last night at Madison Square Garden was packed with racist comments and off color remarks by the various speakers.

On other matters, there appears to be a very strong chance that independent candidate Dan Osborn may beat Trump Senate lackey Deb Fisher in Nebraska.

October 30, 2024

It's becoming increasingly clear Trumpites are mobilizing and planning to steal the 2024 election if Trump does not win it.  They'll use lawsuits, ballot challenges and fake electors in a more planned effort this time.

cont:

October 31, 2024

Elon Musk, who supporters fellow billionaire Trump, has been chatting with Putin.

Trump proposes to put Robert Kennedy, whose health ideas are wackadoodle, in charge of some sort of health thing.

November 1, 2024

Real Clear Politics electoral map predictors show Trump winning the election decisively.

November 2, 2024

At a rally in Milwaukee Donald Trump simulated oral sex, albeit briefly, on stage.

Is this really whom Republicans want to be President?

And is this truly the man some Evangelicas see as a neo Cyrus the Great?

More locally:

America’s growing political divide reaches Wyoming school boards, city councils

November 3, 2024

It's now crystal clear that Trump is making plans to steal the election, should he lose it.

cont: 

Internal Trump polling must show that he's losing the election, as he's spending a lot of time attacking the results that haven't even occurred yet.

Related threads:

Blog Mirror: Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke on Voting.

Some election predictions.

Blog Mirror: Class Matters: Many working-class voters feel forgotten by parties founded to represent them

Last edition:

The 2024 Election, Part XXVI. The Early Voting Edition.

Labels: 2020s, 2024, 2024 Election, Automobile racing, Donald Trump, J. D. Vance, Kamala Harris, Mental Health, National Conservatism, Old Age, Politics, Predictions, Standards, Weird, Wind River Reservation, Wyoming

Friday, August 9, 1974. President Nixon Resigns.

Lex Anteinternet: Today In Wyoming's History: August 9, 1974. Presi...: 

Today In Wyoming's History: August 9, 1974. President Nixon resigns and the 60s end.

Today In Wyoming's History: August 9: 1974    Gerald R. Ford was sworn in as the 38th president of the United States following the resignation of Richard M. Nixon.  Ford has a connection with Wyoming in that his father was part of a family that had shipping and commercial interest in Wyoming and Nebraska.  Ford was born on Omaha Nebraska as Leslie Lynch King, and his parents divorced almost immediately after his birth.

Nixon departing the White House on August 9, 1974.

Just the other day I posted an entry here titled Growing Up in the 1960s.  In that I defined the 60s as ending on this date (which I was a day off on, for some reason), when I stated:

So I was in school in the last three years of the decadal 1960s, but in reality I was in school for most of the 1960s, as the 1960s really ran from our commitment of ground forces to Vietnam until Nixon's resignation on August 8, 1974

For whatever reason, that we were near the 45th anniversary of that date, didn't occur to me at the time (the original linked in post here was obviously from five years ago, now we're at the 50th).

Under the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling on Presidential Immunity, I frankly think Nixon could have stayed in office.  Of course, the Court at that time wouldn't have reached that horrific result.

Last edition:

Monday, August 5, 1974. Inescapable conclusions.

Labels: 1970s, 1974, Cartoons, Crime, Richard Nixon, Watergate

Saturday, July 19, 1924. Birth of Stan Hathaway.

Argentinian police and ranchers killed 400 indigenous people of the Toba and Mocoví native groups following heighted tensions between the native groups and ranchers which had lead to livestock killing.

Democratic Senator Burton K. Wheeler was chosen as the VP candidate for the Progressive Party.

Stan Hathaway, Governor of Wyoming from 1967 to 1975,and briefly Secretary of the Interior, was born in Osceola, Nebraska.

Hathaway, whom I saw argue in front of the Wyoming Supreme Court many years ago, was the fifth of six children born to Lily (Koehler) and Robert C. Knapp.  He was raised and adopted by a cousin and her husband, Velma and Frank Hathaway, following his mother's death, on their farm near Huntley Wyoming.  He served on a B-17 in World War Two as a radioman, and was shot down over occupied France where he avoided capture with the crew through the assistance of the French Resistance.  He term of Governor was marked by the passage of environmental laws and the enactment of the first mineral severance tax in Wyoming and the creation of the Trust Fund from the same.

He was a great Governor who would no doubt be constantly attacked as being a RINO by populist who think they're Republicans today.  

Hathaway was an Episcopalian for most of his life, but late in life, converted to Catholicism.

Last edition:

Friday, July 18, 1924. The Murder of Robert Imbrie.

Labels: 1920s, 1924, Baháʼí, Iran, Persia

Blog Mirror: A Movable Feast – Trinity Sunday at Heun

A Movable Feast – Trinity Sunday at Heun

Saturday, May 3, 1924. Foundings.

The Grand Order of the Aleph Zadik Aleph (AZA or אצא), an international fraternity for Jewish teenagers, was founded in Omaha, Nebraska.

It would go on to found the B'nai B'rith Youth Organization a year later.

The SS Catalina, which would be in service for 51 years ferrying passengers between Los Angeles and Santa Catalina Island, was launched.

German police raided the Soviet Trade Delegation

Zinaida Kokorina, against the odds and through the intervention of the Soviet head of state, became the first female military pilot on this day in 1924.

She wanted to become a fighter pilot, but was persuaded to remain a flight instructor, which she did through World War Two.  She later became headmistress of a village school at Cholpon-Ata in Kyrgyzstan before retiring to Moscow.

Last prior edition:

Friday, May 2, 1924. Craters of the Moon.

1920s, 1924, Calvin Coolidge, Craters of the Moon National Monument, Cuba, Government, Idaho, Radio

Wednesday, March 1, 1944. The last surface raid in history begins.

U.S. Navy recognition depiction of Japanese Aoba-class heavy cruisers

Three Japanese cruisers broke out for the Indian Ocean Raid.  It was the last action by Axis surface raiders during World War Two, and hence the last such example, something that dated back to the age of sail, in history.  That the Japanese would engage in it frankly showed how far their fortunes had fallen.

There will never be another surface raid again.  This concludes something that dates back to antiquity.

Like much associated with the Japanese in World War Two, it would be marked by mindless atrocity.

The Kingisepp-Gdov Offensive concluded in a Soviet victory.

The Huon Peninsula Campaign concluded in an Allied victory.  As part of that, the Battle of Sio on New Guinea also ended in an allied victory.

A huge strike broke out in the Italian Social Republic against the government.

Hitler received the leaders of the Independent State of Croatia to discuss then current political issues, which is frankly rater surreal.

Today In Wyoming's History: March 1: 1944 Fremont County, Wyoming agriculture agents request 200 POWs for farm labor.

There was a major POW camp in Wyoming, housing Italian and German POWs, in Douglas. Ft. F.E. Warren also housed POWs during the war.

Nebraska also had six, including one at Scotsbluff and one at Camp Robinson.

German POWs, it might be noted, were particularly problematic, in part because US Army authorities in the US were sort of second stringers.  Often the Nazi elements in the camps were able to co-opt the system and even hold court-martials of German POWs within them in order to enforce the ideology of the regime.

Italian POWs, it's often noted, were glad to be out of the war, something that speaks highly for the intelligence of the average Italian.  Often criticized for not showing the fighting spirit the Germans did, the Italians actually served the interest of their country and people to a much greater extent than the Germans in uniform did.

On Italy, for the second time in the war, the Vatican was bombed accidentally by a plan of the RAF, killing one, and injuring another.

The U-358, U-630 and &-709 were sunk by the Allies in the Atlantic.

Monday, June 4, 2023. Frank Hayes and Sweet Kiss.

The United States Supreme Court decided in Meyer v. Nebraska that school could be conducted in languages other than the English, striking down a Nebraska law.  In so doing, it stated:

262 U.S. 390

43 S.Ct. 625

67 L.Ed. 1042

MEYER

v.

STATE OF NEBRASKA.

No. 325.

Argued Feb. 23, 1923.

Decided June 4, 1923.

Messrs. A. F. Mullen, of Omaha, Neb., C. E. Sandall, of York, Neb., and I. L. Albert, of Columbus, Neb., for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 391-393 intentionally omitted]

Messrs. Mason Wheeler, of Lincoln, Neb., and O. S. Spillman, of Pierce, Neb., for the State of Nebraska.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 393-395 intentionally omitted]

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in the district court for Hamilton county, Nebraska, under an information which charged that on May 25, 1920, while an instructor in Zion Parochial School he unlawfully taught the subject of reading in the German language to Raymond Parpart, a child of 10 years, who had no attained and successfully passed the eighth grade. The information is based upon 'An act relating to the teaching of foreign languages in the state of Nebraska,' approved April 9, 1919 (Laws 1919, c. 249), which follows:

'Section 1. No person, individually or as a teacher, shall, in any private, denominational, parochial or public school, teach any subject to any person in any language than the English language.

'Sec. 2. Languages, other than the English language, may be taught as languages only after a pupil shall have attained and successfully passed the eighth grade as evidenced by a certificate of graduation issued by the county superintendent of the county in which the child resides.

'Sec. 3. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be subject to a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25), nor more than one hundred dollars ($100), or be confined in the county jail for any period not exceeding thirty days for each offense.

'Sec. 4. Whereas, an emergency exists, this act shall be in force from and after its passage and approval.'

The Supreme Court of the state affirmed the judgment of conviction. 107 Neb. 657, 187 N. W. 100. It declared the offense charged and established was 'the direct and intentional teaching of the German language as a distinct subject to a child who had not passed the eighth grade,' in the parochial school maintained by Zion Evangelical Lutheran Congre ation, a collection of Biblical stories being used therefore. And it held that the statute forbidding this did not conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment, but was a valid exercise of the police power. The following excerpts from the opinion sufficiently indicate the reasons advanced to support the conclusion:

'The salutary purpose of the statute is clear. The Legislature had seen the baneful effects of permitting for eigners, who had taken residence in this country, to rear and educate their children in the language of their native land. The result of that condition was found to be inimical to our own safety. To allow the children of foreigners, who had emigrated here, to be taught from early childhood the language of the country of their parents was to rear them with that language as their mother tongue. It was to educate them so that they must always think in that language, and, as a consequence, naturally inculcate in them the ideas and sentiments foreign to the best interests of this country. The statute, therefore, was intended not only to require that the education of all children be conducted in the English language, but that, until they had grown into that language and until it had become a part of them, they should not in the schools be taught any other language. The obvious purpose of this statute was that the English language should be and become the mother tongue of all children reared in this state. The enactment of such a statute comes reasonably within the police power of the state. Pohl v. State, 102 Ohio St. 474, 132 N. E. 20; State v. Bartels, 191 Iowa, 1060, 181 N. W. 508.

'It is suggested that the law is an unwarranted restriction, in that it applies to all citizens of the state and arbitrarily interferes with the rights of citizens who are not of foreign ancestry, and prevents them, without reason, from having their children taught foreign languages in school. That argument is not well taken, for it assumes that every citizen finds himself restrained by the statute. The hours which a child is able to devote to study in the confinement of school are limited. It must have ample time for exercise or play. Its daily capacity for learning is comparatively small. A selection of subjects for its education, therefore, from among the many that might be taught, is obviously necessary. The Legislature no doubt had in mind the practical operation of the law. The law affects few citizens, except those of foreign lineage.

Other citizens, in their selection of studies, except perhaps in rare instances, have never deemed it of importance to teach their children foreign languages before such children have reached the eighth grade. In the legislative mind, the salutary effect of the statute no doubt outweighed the restriction upon the citizens generally, which, it appears, was a restriction of no real consequence.'

The problem for our determination is whether the statute as construed and applied unreasonably infringes the liberty guaranteed to the plaintiff in error by the Fourteenth Amendment:

'No state * * * shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'

While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 21 L. Ed. 394; Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U. S. 746, 4 Sup. Ct. 652, 28 L. Ed. 585; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064, 30 L. Ed. 220; Minnesota v. Bar er, 136 U. S. 313, 10 Sup. Ct. 862, 34 L. Ed. 455; Allegeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578, 17 Sup. Ct. 427, 41 L. Ed. 832; Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 25 Sup. Ct. 539, 49 L. Ed. 937, 3 Ann. Cas. 1133; Twining v. New Jersey 211 U. S. 78, 29 Sup. Ct. 14, 53 L. Ed. 97; Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. v. McGuire, 219 U. S. 549, 31 Sup. Ct. 259, 55 L. Ed. 328; Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 36 Sup. Ct. 7, 60 L. Ed. 131, L. R. A. 1916D, 545, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 283; Adams v. Tanner, 224 U. S. 590, 37 Sup. Ct. 662, 61 L. Ed. 1336, L. R. A. 1917F, 1163, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 973; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 246 U. S. 357, 38 Sup. Ct. 337, 62 L. Ed. 772, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 593; Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U. S. 312, 42 Sup. Ct. 124, 66 L. Ed. 254; Adkins v. Children's Hospital (April 9, 1923), 261 U. S. 525, 43 Sup. Ct. 394, 67 L. Ed. ——; Wyeth v. Cambridge Board of Health, 200 Mass. 474, 86 N. E. 925, 128 Am. St. Rep. 439, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 147. The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect. Determination by the Legislature of what constitutes proper exercise of police power is not final or conclusive but is subject to supervision by the courts. Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 137, 14 Sup. Ct. 499, 38 L. Ed. 385.

The American people have always regarded education and acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance which should be diligently promoted. The Ordinance of 1787 declares:

'Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'

Corresponding to the right of control, it is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life; and nearly all the states, including Nebraska, enforce this obligation by compulsory laws.

Practically, education of the young is only possible in schools conducted by especially qualified persons who devote themselves thereto. The calling always has been regarded as useful and honorable, essential, indeed, to the public welfare. Mere knowledge of the German language cannot reasonably be regarded as harmful. Heretofore it has been commonly looked upon as helpful and desirable. Plaintiff in error taught this language in school as part of his occupation. His right thus to teach and the right of parents to engage him so to instruct their children, we think, are within the liberty of the amendment.

The challenged statute forbids the teaching in school of any subject except in English; also the teaching of any other language until the pupil has attained and successfully passed the eighth grade, which is not usually accomplished before the age of twelve. The Supreme Court of the state has held that 'the so-called ancient or dead languages' are not 'within the spirit or the purpose of the act.' Nebraska District of Evangelical Lutheran Synod, etc., v. McKelvie et al. (Neb.) 187 N. W. 927 (April 19, 1922). Latin, Greek, Hebrew are not proscribed; but German, French, Spanish, Italian, and every other alien speech are within the ban. Evidently the Legislature has attempted materially to interfere with the calling of modern language teachers, with the opportunities of pupils to acquire knowledge, and with the power of parents to control the education of their own.

It is said the purpose of the legislation was to promote civic development by inhibiting training and education of the immature in foreign tongues and ideals before they could learn English and acquire American ideals, and 'that the English language should be and become the mother tongue of all children reared in this state.' It is also affirmed that the foreign born population is very large, that certain communities commonly use foreign words, follow foreign leaders, move in a foreign atmosphere, and that the children are thereb hindered from becoming citizens of the most useful type and the public safety is imperiled.

That the state may do much, go very far, indeed, in order to imporve the quality of its citizens, physically, mentally and morally, is clear; but the individual has certain fundamental rights which must be respected. The protection of the Constitution extends to all, to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue. Perhaps it would be highly advantageous if all had ready understanding of our ordinary speech, but this cannot be coerced by methods which conflict with the Constitution—a desirable and cannot be promoted by prohibited means.

For the welfare of his Ideal Commonwealth, Plato suggested a law which should provide:

'That the wives of our guardians are to be common, and their children are to be common, and no parent is to know his own child, nor any child his parent. * * * The proper officers will take the offspring of the good parents to the pen or fold, and there they will deposit them with certain nurses who dwell in a separate quarter; but the offspring of the inferior, or of the better when they chance to be deformed, will be put away in some mysterious, unknown place, as they should be.'

In order to submerge the individual and develop ideal citizens, Sparta assembled the males at seven into barracks and intrusted their subsequent education and training to official guardians. Although such measures have been deliberately approved by men of great genius their ideas touching the relation between individual and state were wholly different from those upon which our institutions rest; and it hardly will be affirmed that any Legislature could impose such restrictions upon the people of a state without doing violence to both letter and spirit of the Constitution.

The desire of the Legislature to foster a homogeneous people with American ideals prepared readily to understand current discussions of civic matters is easy to appreciate. Unfortunate experiences during the late war and aversion toward every character of truculent adversaries were certainly enough to quicken that aspiration. But the means adopted, we think, exceed the limitations upon the power of the state and conflict with rights assured to plaintiff in error. The interference is plain enough and no adequate reason therefor in time of peace and domestic tranquility has been shown.

The power of the state to compel attendance at some school and to make reasonable regulations for all schools, including a requirement that they shall give instructions in English, is not questioned. Nor has challenge been made of the state's power to prescribe a curriculum for institutions which it supports. Those matters are not within the present controversy. Our concern is with the prohibition approved by the Supreme Court. Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. 594, 37 Sup. Ct. 662, 61 L. Ed. 1336, L. R. A. 1917F, 1163, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 973, pointed out that mere abuse incident to an occupation ordinarily useful is not enough to justify its abolition, although regulation may be entirely proper. No emergency has arisen which renders knowledge by a child of some language other than English so clearly harmful as to justify its inhibition with the consequent infringement of rights long freely enjoyed. We are constrained to conclude that the statute as applied is arbitrary and without reasonable relation to any end within the competency of the state.

As the statute undertakes to interfere only with teaching which involves a modern language, leaving complete freedom as to other matters, there seems no adequate foundation for the suggestion that the purpose was to protect the child's health by limiting his mental activities. It is well known that proficiency in a foreign language seldom comes to one not instructed at an early age, and experience shows that this is not injurious to the health, morals or understanding of the ordinary child.

The judgment of the court belo must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed.

Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice Sutherland, dissent.

The US decided to ignore foreign protests on booze rules.

The now ineffective Zero Milestone in Washington D.C., intended to be the starting point for all U.S. highways, was dedicated.

Horse trainer Frank Hayes, serving as a jockey on Sweet Kiss, died during the race which the horse won.  A very lightweight individual to start with, he'd lost twelve pounds for the race and perhaps accordingly imperiled his health.