UNITED STATES
v.
ALFORD

U.S. | 1927-05-16
No. 983
274 U.S. 264 Supreme Court of the United States (1927) Caution
Also reported at: 71 L. Ed. 1040 · 47 S. Ct. 597 · SCDB 1926-067 · 1927 U.S. LEXIS 26
Cited by 56 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Alford was indicted for building and failing to extinguish a fire near inflammable material on public lands, but the lower court dismissed the case by construing a federal statute as applying only to fires built on forest reservations. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute's phrase "upon the public domain" modifies the description of inflammable materials rather than the location where the fire is built, thereby making the law applicable to fires built near public forests regardless of whether the fire itself is on privately owned land. The Court also upheld the statute as constitutional, reasoning that Congress may regulate conduct on private lands when necessary to protect publicly owned forests.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Holmes

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 construe<| 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 § 53 of the Penal Code of March 4, 1909, “ 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 doi 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 ever since the passage of the original Act of February 24, 1897, c. 313; 29 Stat. 594: We regard the meaning as too plain to be shaken¡ by the suggestion that criminal statutes are to be construed strictly. They also are to be construed with common sense.

The statute is constitutional. Congress may prohibit the doing of acts upon privatély owned lands that imperil the publicly owned forests. Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518. See McKelvey v. United States, 260 U. S. 353. The word ‘ near ’ is not too indefinite. Taken in connection with the danger to be prevented it lays down a plain enough rule of conduct for anyone who seeks to obey the law.

Judgment reversed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

  • Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1931)
    …am and reservoir might not also have been constitutionally conferred for the specified purpose of irrigating public lands of the United States.8 Compare United States v. Rio Grande Dam and Irrigation Co., 174 U. S. 690, 703; United States v. Alford, 274 U. S. 264. Or for the specified [*458] purpose of regulating the flow and preventing the floods in this interstate river.9 Or as a means of conserving and apportioning its waters among the States equitably entitled thereto. Or for purpose of performing intern…
  • Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19 (U.S. 1941)
    …. . . usually occupied by any cattle grower”); Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U. S. 497, 501-503 (meat represented to be “kosher”); Miller v. Oregon, 273 U. S. 657 (dangerous rate of speed; see 274 U. S. at 464-465); United States v. Alford, 274 U. S. 264, 267 (building fires “near” any forest or inflammable material); United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U. S. 396, 399 (receiving contributions for “any political purpose whatever”); United States v. Shreveport Grain & Elevator Co., 287 U. S. 77, 81-82 (“re…
  • Martin v. United States, 100 F.2d 490 (10th Cir. 1938)
    …offends the due process clause. Nash v. United States, 229 U.S. 373, 33 S.Ct. 780, 57 L.Ed. 1232; Miller v. Strahl, 239 U.S. 426, 36 S.Ct. 147, 60 L.Ed. 364; Omaechevarria v. Idaho, 246 U.S. 343, 38 S.Ct. 323, 62 L.Ed. 763; United States v. Alford, 274 U.S. 264, 47 S.Ct. 597, 71 L.Ed. 1040; United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396, 50 S.Ct. 167, 74 L.Ed. 508; Sproles v. Binford, 286 U.S. 374, 52 S.Ct. 581, 76 L.Ed. 1167; McElvogue v. United States, 8 Cir., 40 F. 2d 889; United States v. Hill, 3 Cir., 90 F.…

Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (21 total)

View all 21 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw