United States v. Alford, 983

Citation274 U.S. 264,71 L.Ed. 1040,47 S.Ct. 597
Decision Date16 May 1927
Docket NumberNo. 983,983
PartiesUNITED STATES v. ALFORD
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

The Attorney General and Messrs. R. W. Williams and H. H. Clarke, both of Washington, D. C., for the United States.

[Argument of Counsel from page 265 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court.

Alford was indicted for building a fire near inflammable grass and other inflammable material and timber situated upon the public domain of the United States, and for not extinguishing the same before leaving it, by reason of which the said grass and other material was burned. The count was demurred to on the ground that the statute concerned does not cover the building or leaving of fires at any place except upon a forest reservation, and that if it attempts to cover fires elsewhere it is unconstitutional and void. The District Court construed the statute in the same way and sustained the demurrer. A writ of error was taken by the United States.

By the Act of June 25, 1910, c. 431, § 6 (36 Stat. 855, 857), amending section 53 of the Penal Code of March 4, 1909 (Comp. St. § 10220):

'Whoever shall build a fire in or near any forest, timber, or other inflammable material upon the public domain, or upon any Indian reservation, or lands belonging to or occupied by any tribe of Indians under the authority of the United States, or upon any Indian allotment while the title to the same shall be held in trust by the Government, or while the same shall remain inalienable by the allottee without the consent of the United States, shall, before leaving said fire, totally extinguish the same; and whoever shall fail to do so shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.'

The court read the words 'upon the public domain' as qualifying the phrase 'whoever shall build a fire.' We are of opinion that this was error, and that 'upon the public domain' should be referred to the words immediately preceding it: 'forest, timber, or other inflammable material.' So interpreted they make better English and better sense. The purpose of the act is to prevent forest fires which have been one of the great economic misfortunes of the country. The danger depends upon the nearness of the fire not upon the ownership of the land where it is built. It is said that the construction that we adopt has been followed by the Department of Justice and by a number of cases in the District Courts...

To continue reading

Request your trial
60 cases
  • Garner v. U.S., 71-1219
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 5, 1972
    ...... Roy D. GARNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, . v. . UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. . No. 71-1219. . United States ......
  • Herr v. U.S. Forest Serv., Case No. 2:14–cv–105
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • June 13, 2016
    ...L.Ed.2d 34 (1976) (holding that Congress, under the Property Clause, may regulate wild animals on public land); United States v. Alford , 274 U.S. 264, 47 S.Ct. 597, 71 L.Ed. 1040 (1927) (upholding congressional laws that prohibit building fires on or near any federal property and the failu......
  • State v. Zuanich, s. 45363
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • April 26, 1979
    ...... York statute is unconstitutionally vague has been addressed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In United States v. ...Alford, 274 U.S. 264, 266-67, 47 S.Ct. 597, 71 L.Ed. 1040 (1926) (the statute was ......
  • Sanders v. Szubin, 09–cv–3052 (ENV).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • December 6, 2011
    ...whole matter by his own declaration that to write any word upon the government blank would bring him into danger of the law.” Sullivan, 274 U.S. at 264, 47 S.Ct. 607. By his failure to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination, Sanders waived it. As a consequence, OFAC was not barred ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT