these learned Judges in the lower Courts have referred to or recognized.
And finally in the Omaechevarri case,[1] to which Judge Hazel refers upon the point that rules of conduct must necessarily be expressed in general terms and depend upon varying circumstances, it was clearly pointed out that in a criminal statute general provisions are not necessarily in violation of constitutional rights where common experience in the subject matter renders such terms definite. The Court said in this case, construing an Act regulating sheep rangers: "Men familiar with range conditions and desirous of observing the law will have little difficulty in determining what is prohibited by it." This decision, therefore, is directly contrary to that arrived at by Judge Hazel in the Weed case.[2]
Consequently a close analysis of the Weed Case forces the conclusion that the broad, underlying principles of constitutional rights and of economic necessities have been almost completely disregarded in the course of reasoning which brought the Court to its decision. Furthermore, that the Circuit Court of Appeals, although it turned aside from the contentions and authorities given so much weight in the Court below, and based its affirmance principally upon the exigencies of a great conflict ended, nevertheless failed to realize that the remedy, for the ills of which the Act was intended to
- ↑ Secundino Omaechevarri vs. Idaho, 246 U. S. 343. 1918. A statute of Idaho, in order to avert clashes between sheep herdsmen and cattle rangers, prohibited any person having charge of sheep from allowing them to graze on a range usually occupied by cattle. The object of the statute was to prevent the encroachment of sheep upon cattle ranges, resulting in driving out the cattle and impairing the industry. It was contended that the act was indefinite in its terms. The court held that the act was to be interpreted in the light of the common experience and knowledge of those familiar with the subject matter of the statute.
- ↑ Weed & Co. vs. Lockwood, U. S. Atty., 264 Fed. 453. 1920.
