United States v. Alford, 983
Citation | 274 U.S. 264,71 L.Ed. 1040,47 S.Ct. 597 |
Decision Date | 16 May 1927 |
Docket Number | No. 983,983 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. ALFORD |
Court | United 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), 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-
Garner v. U.S., 71-1219
...... 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
...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
...... 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).
...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 ......
-
THE EMERGING LAW OF OUTDOOR RECREATION ON THE PUBLIC LANDS.
...Cir. 1983); United States v. Brown, 552 F.2d 817, 822 (8th Cir. 1977), cert, denied, 431 U.S. 939, 949 (1977); United States v. Alford, 274 U.S. 264, 267 (463) 660 F.2d 1240 (8th Cir. 1981), cert, denied, 455 U.S. 1007 (1982). (464) See Kimbell, 516 F. Supp. 2d 982, 997 (D. Minn. 2007), aff......
-
RESPONSE TO KISONAK'S "FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ON FEDERAL LANDS: THE AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATE FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES".
...(113) Id. at 1043 (citing 18 U.S.C. [section] 1855 (2018)). (114) Id. at 1044 (citing the statute at issue in United States v. Alford, 274 U.S. 264 (1927), 18 U.S.C. [section] (115) Id. at 1046. (116) Kisonak, supra note 2, at 953. (117) 549 U.S. 497, 519 (2007). (118) Kisonak, supra note 2......
-
Unbuilding a bridge to the twenty-first century: the Coast Guard, common sense, the law, and sustainable development.
...text. (125) 33 U.S.C. [sections] 502(a) (1994). (126) Id. (127) Southern Ry. Co., 88 F.2d at 34 (quoting United States v. Alford, 274 U.S. 264 (128) 33 C.F.R. [sections] 116.01(a) (1999). (129) Id. (130) 33 U.S.C. [sections] 502 (1994). (131) 33 C.F.R. [sections] 116.01(b) (1999). (132) 33 ......
-
FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ON FEDERAL LANDS: THE AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATE FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES.
...constitutional right of protecting the public lands from nuisances erected upon adjoining property."). See also United States v. Alford, 274 U.S. 264, 267 (1927) (holding that Congress may regulate activity on private land which "imperil[s]" federal (121) See Camfield, 167 U.S. at 525 ("The......