The Union and eastern journal. [volume] (Biddeford [Me.]) 1854-1858, 1856-09-12
Important Decision in Fishery
~ -. --L. Case, l---- - --l

The Boston Advertiser publishes an ao'e
and elaborate decision recently rendered oy
Chief Justice Shaw ut the term OF the gu.
preme judicial Court in the country o'
Nantucket, which viii be Of special inter
est to large part OF our readers in the ma
ratime towns and cities Of New. Esland.
The following is synopsis:
The case which came before the court
arose from the passage by the Massachusetts,
Legislature in the year 1850 Of statute
forbidding certain kinds of fishing, at GER
tain seasons Of the year, within one mile
from the shores of Nantucket, Tuckernuck,
Smiths, Muskeeket, and Gravel Islands"
The defendant in this action was resident
of Westerly in the State of Rhode lsland'
who was proved to have taken certain bass
by sienes, within the prohibited limits. He
maintained that the Legislature had no
right to interfere with OF restrain his right
of fishing that the law assuming an inter
ference or constraint was unconstitutional !;
that the Legislature Of Massachusetts, could
not constitutionally qualify or restrain the
right of subjects of other States to fish in
the waters where the siening took place.
The court decided adversely on oil these
points made by the defendant. They Of
firm the propriety and rightfullncss Of leg
islation undertaken with view to the pre-
servation Of fish by prohibiting the exercise
OF fishing at certain seasons. The jurisdic-
tion of the legislative authorities extends
a marine league or three geographical miles
from the shore; while the seining in the
spresent case was less than mile from the
shore. They decide that the power to reg
ulate the use Of the fisheries on the coasts
and in the tide waters Of the State was left
to the States, in the distribution of powers
between the general and State governments;
subject only to such powers as Congress
may just by exercise in the regulation of
commerce, foreign and domestic. The en-
rolment by the defendant of his vessel as q
coasting and fishing vessel, gave him no
privilege not allowed by the laws of the
State, to which he was menable when he
came within the jurisdiction of the State.
The Court add to the end Of the decision
further remark relating to point not di-
rectly arising in the present case. The
statute which was violated by the defendant
in the present action is general in its terms,
and prohibits fishing by any and all persons
in the times and places designated. There
are other statutes, however, of u similar ma
ture, which exercise discrimination, nc
cording fishing privileges within our waters
to citizens of massachusetts, which are de-
MED to those of other States. The question
may ut some time arise whether those stat
utcs are constitutional. A decision OF the
Circuit Court of the United States would
seem 20 indicate their validity. The ques-
ton does not arise in the present case, as
the statute under consideration docs not
contain the discrimination and the Court
say that they wish not to be understood as
implying that il it had been otherwise the
act would have been unconstitutional
This "m must be deemed an open question to
be decided blythe competent tribunals when
il arises"