The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-03-23

Fish Csmmfsssoner Crawford Discusses
Oregsa's Claim.
VAscorvER WASH. March II. 1904
To TEE EpIroR. Judge Mcbride. Of the
circuit court Of Cia;sop county. Or. re
Gently delivered an opinion touching the
right of Oregon 10 enforce the criminal
statutes OF that state beyond what seems
20 me to be her territorial limits. / have care
fully looked up the matter and am salts
ned that the learned judge erred in de-
csding sha: Oregon has concurrent, iuris-
dictiou with Washington over the Column
oia river where that river forms > boundary
oefseen the two states condensed
history OF the genesis Of the cause which
led 10 the judges decision may not be ont
81 place Last June Sheriff Smith. OF
Siatsop county, Or, while patroiing the
river, looking for violators of the laws
made for the protection Of salmon, crossed
over into the waters Of Washington and
found. as he says. some pound nets yioias-
ing The law; he arrested the owners. or
Ehose whom he supposed to be the owners.
brought them 10 Astoria. and had them
tried for violating the Oregon Law. The
justice Of the peace before whom the trial
vas held decided that Oregon had con-
current jurisdiction over the entire Colum-
bia river when that river formed q bound
ary between the two states. The jury try
ing the cases disagreed. Subsequently.
the grand jury Of Clatsop county indicted
one of the persons Sheriff Smith had ar
rested, and he was apprehended in Astoria
and held for trial. the jury again disagree
ing.
The constitutions Of the respective
states f xes the dividing line boundary to
run along the middle channel of the Co
iumbia river. It may be difficult at times
TO locate the line definitely one side or the
other; however this may be the lire has
been established, and ,ts location is SIM
ply question of fact to be determined in
the same manner as other questions OF
fact are determined. in our courts; and
when once it has been determined the ter
ritorial limits of the state. FOR that case. is
determined. The trainers of the respec.
tive constitutions were probably aware of
this. and the fact that an article or Sec
zion Of the Oregon constitution says that
Oregon and the territory OF Washington
shall have concurrent jurisdiction over the
Columbia river. can in no way bind the
state of Washington. When the channel
changes the line changes with it. and the
line a. changed marks the boundary just
as legally as il il had been changed by q
constitutional amendment When the
question arises il Is not necessary to as
certain where 1t was originally To-
Gated; all that Is necessary 10 to
inquire where Ii was at the time of the
commission Of the alleged offense. In the
prosecution of criminals In the state of
Oregon 1t is necessary for the state to
prove the location Of the crime; that 10,
that the ofiense was committed in the
state OF Oregon. and in the county
charged. 1t may be difficult for the state
to prove this, but to say that because it is
difficult the proof may be dispensed with
Is to assert proposition which is abso-
lutely absurd. 1t 10 equally absurd to
maintain that the Oregon officers can
come into Washington, arrest it, citizens,
take them to Oregon and try them for vio-
lating the laws of Oregon, for an offense
committed within the territorial limits Of
Washington. Laws. like courts. have
their jurisdiction, beyond which they are
OF no effect. The statutes of one state
are not of force in another, nor do those
of the United States bind i'm the states
persons and things within the exclusive
sphere Of state sovereignty" If the
boundary was marked by a township line.
would any one contend that the Oregon
courts could try . man for an
ofiense committed q mile over the
line and within the limits of
the state of Washington What differ
en,e does il make whether the line is over
water. or on land? Where do the courts
Of Oregon derive their power to extend
their Jurisdiction beyond the limits of the
state. and to punish offenders for acts
committed In another state? Neither the
constitution nor the laws of the state
could give them any such power. The
common law positively prohibits any such
an assumption of foreign jurisdiction. 1t
is claimed that congress enacted law
which gave the state of Oregon and the
territory of Washington concurrent juris-
diction over the Columbia river. do not
think that any one will seriously contend
that by this statate congress intended to
extend the jurisdiction of the state courts
beyond the limits OF the state. Ii has not
been the practice of congress to regulate
and prescribe the jurisdiction OF state
courts, nor has IL any such power If it so
desired. Ii deals only with Federal courts
and with Federal questions. The right of
congress to exercise control over navigable
rivers within the United States is derived
solely throUgh the grant of powers given
10 the Federal government by the several
states, and is limited to the powers thus
conferred. The powers thus conferred
were: FIRST. the right of jurisdiction by
its courts, as defined and regulated by
congress, in admiralty and maritime
causes arising anon the high seas or upon
the navigable waters within the limits of
the state. and accessible to vessels from
/ other states; second, the power To regulate
commerce with foreign nations and among
the several states. The latter includes
the right 10 keep such waters omen and
free for The purpose Of intercourse be-
tween foreign nations and between differ.
ent states. The Jurisdiction thus con-
ferred is limited 10 the Federal courts and
refers oaly u admiralty and maritime
causes. From the examination | have
given the subject II appears to he well
settled. by an unhvoken line of decisions
! that the power to regulate the use of the
fisheries on the coast and in the tide va.
tiers of the states was lef, in the dis,ribn-
ton OF powers between, the general and
state governments. with the states. sub
lect only 10 such powers as congress may
justly exercise in the regulation OF com
nerce foreign and domestic. The SOW
eFign power ana right of the state TO
regulate and control its navigsble waters
exist, in any state in the Union"
The law upon this question can be
| found in Gould on Waters. sections a. %
McCreaty VS.. Virginia ~. 4. :. sci: Com
moneeasth We. AieeF :. Cgsh Mass 81.