The record-union., 1894-08-03
Wild GAME BELONGS TO THE STATE
So Declares the Supreme Court in a
Late Decision.
The Deer Law Upheld-FuII Power III
the Legislature to Make Pro-
tectiye Laws.

Simon Maier was arrested in Los An
geles for selling a pound of meat cut
from deer that had been brought from
Texas. The deer was lawfully killed IN
Texas, and Maier asked for his discharge
on habeas corpus on the ground that the
complaint did not state public offense
The Supreme Court yesterday decided
that the complaint does state a cause OF
action and remanded the prisoner. The
law passed by the last Legislature for the
protection and preservation of game was
reviewed by the court.
One paragraph in it reads: every per-
son in tie State of California who shall at
any time sell or offer for sale the hide or
meat Of any deer, elk, antelope or mount
ain sheep shall be guilty of a misde-
meanor." The court in its opinion said:
Petitioner contends that this provision
OF the statute properly construed does
not prohibit the sale OF deer meat law
fully taken without the State, but has
reference solely to deer killed within this
State; that the law is intended to protect
game within the State, not TO prohibit the
importation and sale OF game from other
Etates. With this contention we are un-
able TO agree. 1t is true that the law is
intended for the protection Of game with
In the State, but it by no means follows
from that fact that it is not the intention
as means of accomplishing the very end
to prohibit the sale of the meat Of the an
imals procured elsewhere. The statute is
perfectly plain and unamblguous IN its
terms. and is sufficiently broad and com
prehensive to include the inhibited arti-
Gle, Wheresoeyer taken or procured.
The facility and ease with which the
statutes Tor the protection of game have
been evaded in the past is d matter OF
common knowledge. Deer and other
game have been slaughtered during the
close season and foisted upon the market
as game procured without the State, and
owing to the practical impossibility in
the great majority of cases of proving
with certainty the source from which it
was procured the attempted enforcement
OF the statutes tor its protection has
largely proved abortive. These and like
considerations no doubt actuated The
Legislature in the premises and induced
the enactment OF the statute in its present
stringent form. And we know of no
good reason why it should not be held to
mean what it says.
Nor do we think that in giving the
Act this effect it contravenes the Con-
stitution of this State as being in excess
of the police power of the State.
The wild game within State belongs to
the people in their collective sovereign
capacity. 1t is not the subject of private
ownership except In so far as the people
may elect to make it so, and they may if
they see mt absolutely prohibit the taking
of it, or any traffic or commerce with it,
If deemed necessary for it's protection or
preservation or for the public good. TO
this extent it is conceded that the State
may go.
"But it is contended that to go farther
and prohibit the sale of game lawfully
killed elsewhere and brought here as
private property is in effect TO destroy
private property, and that this is going
beyond proper eXertion of the police
power. While it is true that the power to
regulate is not the power TO destroy, in
its absolute sense, 1t is nevertheless true
that the right to regulate frequently and
as a necessary sequence carries with it
the right to so control and limit the use
or enjoyment of private property as to
amount to its destruction. Private inter-
est must yield to the public advantage.
There can be no serious injury to any
one under such regulation. If any per-
son imports the meat of the deer into the
State he does it with his eyes open. Un-
der such circumstances he cannot COM
plain if he is prevented from making
use of the article which the Legislature
has declared to be detrimental to the we'll
being Of the State.
ut is furthermore strenuously urged
that the Act violates the Constitution of
the United States, in that it is an attempt
to regulate interstate commerce-a sub
ject wholly committed to Congress. But
after very careful consideration of the
numerous authorities cited we do not
think the statute open to this objection"
The opinion was written by Justice Van
Fleet and concurred in by all the other
Justices, with the exception of De Haven,
who was absent.