Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1886-11-11
COMMUNICABLE

Messrs. Editors The recent decision dc
Judge Stone on the Fishery law you very
justly observed will be "far,reaching i'll ils
effects" and seems also far-fetclled III It'll
conclusions, If based on the old reht III
usage in common under the commoH law
of England, that has been abolish py
Parliament and was never applisas.ss heso
under our form of government Tho de-
cision states that the right of fishery be-
longs to the people in common; that they
had never surrendered that right" 10
whom could they surrender it? We have
no King and it has not been surrendered
to the General Government Under dem
ocratic government the people are sovcr-
cign and all public property belongs to
them i'll common. The vacant lands of the
State belong to the people IN common and
yet they can be escheated surveyed, taken
up and applied TO private use without any
special constitutional Surrender" The
public lands under the water are equally
subject to the disposition of the Legislature
as those above. The jurisdiction OF the
Legislature was,eXcrcised over them, lines,
limits and bounds marked out and the State
Fishery Force organized beJore the adoption
of the present State Constitution and the
members of the Constitutional Convention,
clothed with sovereign power, aware at the
time of the exercise of this right by the
Legislature never qucsti1 ncd il or surmised
that a Solomon or Daniel would sit in
judgment to eXpound Il "higher law" I'M.
written and invisible to human eyes and
undreamed Of in their philosophy The
| division of the water lines to the several
counties within their limits was an act Of
general cqutyand not specially ain favor of
amy class or section 1t had become
fixed and settled law, just and satisfactory
TO all but this hair-splittng decision has
oyerriden the expressed will of the
people, unsettled the law and brought moth
ing but chaos and confusion.
The Constitution of the u. 5. says that
"no State shall pass any law discriminating
| between the citizens Of one State and the
citizens of another State" Yet the citizens
of another State cannot take out an oyster
license and ii is II criminal offence to take
or catch oysters within the waters Of this
State. This is straining at Il gnat and
swallowing camel.
If the Legislature chad no right to pass
any special fishery legislation in favor of
any class or section" and cannot draw II
line for county limits, the right to survey,
mark and bound five acres of oyster lands
must be null and void also for special pri-
vate uses Yet the law in the latter has
been affirmed and the former annulIed by
the same authority. 1t is good law for
five acres, but bad for five thOusand--goOd
for individual residents 10 mOnopoliZc Oys-
ter lands binding on the river, but bad for
licensed tongers to be confined to Il county.
If "the right Of fishery beonged TO the PEG.
pie in common" with no Surrender" what
right has the Legislature to tax them speci-
ally for longing, dredging and using n cam
mon right Is there any constitutional
distinction between longing a biyalye or
angling a fish Why not tax both
Moses had but ten laws-so simple, 50
terse, 50 concise that it embraced all moral
ity all jurisprudence all that was neces
sary for humanity. How many have we
now? Millions would notenumerate them
Every decision Of CHS Honor, the Judge
is law Of itself-not like those Of the
Modes and Persians, but as changabc as
the Chameleon that sits on the bench
What constitutional commentators and con
structionists What sophistries and alb
stractions, nice points and labyrinths OF
knowledge SO unfathomable that an honest
man with just cause finds law but a lot
terry and knows not whether he will come
out Of Il Court House on his head or his
heels longer.
Patuxent, Nov. 7, 1886.