St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-07-26
GAME LAW IS SUSTAINED.
POSSESSION or GAME AFTER SEASON
rs UNLAWFUL.
AWE MERCHANTS DEFEATED.

mpreme Court Settles the Fact
That Merchants Must Not
Handle Game of the Kinds
Protected More Than Five
DAYS After Game Season Clos
es-Other Decisions.
OF the four decisions handed down by
the supreme court yesterday the impor-
tant one is that of the state against e.
w. Rodman and X. E. Cobb, in which
the game law of 1890 is sustained. The
provision of the law called in question
was that prohibiting having in posses
sion. more than five days after the COM
mencement of the closed season, certain
kinds of game, although lawfully taken
or killed during the open season. The
court CONSTITUTES the provision literally,
and affirlns the judgment OF the lower
court in the point raised regarding the
constitutionality of chapter 124 of the
General Laws of 1898.
The defendants were separately IN
dicted for having in possession more
than five days after the end of the open
season parts of the flesh and meat of
deer, contrary to the provision of Il. L..
1891, ch. 9. sec. IL, as amended II. l..
1898. CHI. 124, sec. 9. which reads as fol-
lows:
mo person shall catch, take or kill
or have in possession or under control
for any purpose whatever, any fawn,
at any time, nor elk, moose, caribou or
antelope, before the first day of Janu-
airy, 1898. nor any variety of deer at any
time between the twentieth day OF No
vember and the first dav Of November
following, except that when the same
have been lawfully caught, taken or
killed they may be had in possession or
under control for five days after the
time herein limited, for use in the man
ner ana for the purpose herein al
lowed"
The law goes on to provide for the
punishment of Offenders, and the court,
i'll lis opinion, first disposes of the QueS-
tons of law raised in the argument and
decided in favor of the state.
1.-The contention of the defendants is
that the act should be construed as pro-
hiDiting only the having in possession
during the closed season game unlaw-
fully caught, taken or killed. On this
we need but 10 say that the language
of the act is so clear, plain and unam-
biguouS as to leave no room for any
such construction. 1t is perfectly OBJ
Vious that it makes il an Otfense to have
in possession during the closed sea-
son any game caught or killed in
the state, the time when it was
caught or killed being immaterlal. No
court would be- justified in declaring
unreasonable the provision limiting the
u - g., ,ar,f
of the closed season, during which a
person lnay lawfully retain possession
of game taken or killed during the open
season. What this provision aims at is
not the mere TACT of possession OF game
unlawfully obtained, but to prevent its
being unlawfully taken or killed.
There is nothing in the point made
by counsel for defendants as 10 the con-
struction of this five days. limitation.
The evident intent of the legislature
was to extend the open season for pos
session five days beyond the open sea-
Son Tor killing.
while The fines imposed are certain
ly large, yet we cannot say that they
are excessive in constitutional sense.
a large discretion is necessarily vested
in the legislature to impose penalties
sufficient 10 prevent the commission of
an offenSe. and it would have to be an
extreme case to warrant the courts in
holding that the constitutional limit had
been transcribed"
The opinion was written by Justice
Collins. The syllabus is as follows:
State of Minnesota, plaintiff, vs.. c. W.
Rodman, defendant; State of Minnesota
plaintiff, vs. r. E. Cobb, defendant (TWo
cases
Syllabus. General Laws, 1891, CHI.
D. sec. IL, as amended General Laws,
1898, CHI. 124, sec. 8, construed as pro.
hibiting the having in possession more
than five days after the commencement
of the closed season certain kinds of
game, although lawfully taken or killed
during the open season.
2. Held, that this statute is proper
exercise of the police power of the state
to protect and preserve wild game, be-
cause reasonably tending to prevent the
unlawful killing of such game during
the closed season.
3. 1t is within the police power of
the state to enact such laws as will pre-.
serve from determination or undue de-
pletlUn wild game ada pied to cOnSump-
ton as food or to other useful purpose,
and to that end may adopt any reasons
able regulations, not only as to the time
and manner of taking or killing such
game, Out also imposing such limlta-
tlons and restrictions upon Its use or
right of property in 1t after it has been
taken or killed as will tend to prevent
such determination or depletion.
4. Held. that the subject of the
Rmendatory act of 1898 is sufficiently ex.
pressed in its title.
5. The provisions of section II of the
act as amended are not obnoxious to
that part of the constitution which pro-
hibits the imposition of excessive fines.
Orders affirmed and causes remanded.
CAVITY, j.
Buck, j.. did not sit.
In the case of The State against The
Northern Pacific Express Company the