St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1896-01-28
ONE OF THE STATE GAME LAWS
SUFFERS THE FATE OF OLD
DOG TRAY.
IT'S TITLE BELIED ITS END.
CHIEF JUSTICE START SAYS 1T
WAS TO PROTECT FOREIGN
GAME.
fI'S NAME SAID MINNESOTA.
The Next Legislature VIII Have to
Be More Careful With
Titles.

One prop has been taken out from
beneath the state game and fish COM
mission, temporarily at least, Chief
Justice Start yesterday declaring I'M
constitutional the law passed by the
last legislature declaring it illegal to
ship game into this state from other
states or countries which was caught
or killed during the closed season in
those places.
While the commission has not tech
nically been enforcing this law, in
that it has not made any prosecutions
it has in effect been enforcing it to the
extent that such game or fish has been
seized. 1t was to get around this that
one violator of the law Edwin o.
Keith, had himself arrested and then
secured a writ of habeas corpus, or
tried to. The district court denied the
writ, but the supreme court orders
Keith's release.
The syllabus, handed down by Chief
Justice Start yesterday, is as follows:
State of Minnesota ex rel; Edwin o. Keith,
appellant, Charles e. Chapel, sheriff,
respondent.
Syllabus-Section PHI, General Statutes
1884, making it misdemeanor, for any per-
to have in his possession, within this
state, any game or fish, which has been
captured in or shipped out of any other state
or county, in violation of the laws thereof is
unconstitutional, because it's subject matter
Is not expressed in the title of the act where
OF it is part, as required by article/4 sec
ton q, of the state constitution.
Order reversed. Start, c. J.
In the opinion accompanying, the
chief justice relates the facts of
Keith's arrest and imprisonment and
the denial of the writ by the lower
court. and adds that the only question
before the court is the validity of the
statute referred to, which is as follows:
No person at any time shall have in pos
session or under control any bird, animal or
fish which has been caught, taken or killed
at time, in manner, for purpose, for
hidden by the laws of the state, territory or
county where the same was caught, taken or
Killed, or which was shipped out of said state
territory or country in violation of the laws
4 thereof
1t is claimed by the relator, the opin-
ION continues, that this statute does
not comply with the provision of the
constitution that mo law shall have
2 more than one subject which shall be
expressed in it's title.
rms constitutional provision must be lib
orally construed" says the opinion.
ms IN stuart vs. Kensella, IA Mimi, 524, the
insertion in a law of matters which
may not be verbally indicated by the title if
suggested by it, or concluded with or proper
10 the more full accomplishment of the OBJ
Ject SO indicated, is held to be in accordance
with It's spirit; but a more liberal construc-
ton cannot be given without letting in the
eVlls which the provision was intended to ex-
clude.''
This rule has been repeatedly approved by
thls court. The question Is therefore: DO
the provisions of the statute in question tend
In any reasonable manner to the accomplish
ment OF the purposes of an act for the pres
erVatlon, propagation and protection of the
game and fish of the state of Minnesota If
so, IL is germane to the title and is valid,
1or the necessity or propriety of such a regu-
Iaton is question within the exclusive ju-
risdiction of the legislature
DO the provisions of the statute tend in
any degree to preserve the game and fish of
this state? Does the statute on its face ind-
cate any such purpose? We answer these
questions in the negatives It's object une-
qulVocaly expressed, is to protect the game
and fish of other states by refusing to the
violators of the laws of those states a cover
ana market for game secured by such viola
ton
This statute relates exclusively to foreign
> game, While the subject with which its title
deals IS the protection of the game of Mime,
sofa. No lawyer or layman can place the
statute and its title side by side without be-
ing at once struck by the radical discrepancy
ut is, however, claimed by counsel for re-
spondent, that the provisions of this statute
prevent evasions of our game laws and facil-
ltate the detection and punishment of per-
sons violating such laws, and therefore the
statute tends in greater or less degree to
protect the game of Minnesota
II the premise of the argument is correct
the conclusion is also. The statute is not linn
tied to the closed season in this state. If it
were and the prohibition applied to all for
efgn game then the tendency would be to pre-
vent evasions of our laws and protect Mime
sofa game, but by excluding foreign game
during our open season, when 1t is perfectly
lawful to take, have and possess Minnesota
game, only increases the demand for the lat
ter and tends to its extinction rather than its
preservation. Such being the case
the subject of the statute is not expressed in
Its title within the rule we have stated
Order reversed and violator DISCHARGED
Executive Agent Fullerton, Of the
fish and game commission, said yester
day that he did not believe the decision
would prevent the commission from
Selling the game shipped illegally from
other states, though it would prevent
the prosecution of the offenders. The
reason assigned for this is that if those
who ship the game attempt to recover,
they will have no standing in court,
because they cannot go in with clean
hands. To say that game illegally
killed could not be seized outside the
state would be like saying that the au
thorities could not seize a stolen horse
which had been brought to this state
from some other. In this expression,
however, he was without legal advice,
and could not definitely declare himself
until he had an opportunity to confer
with the attorney Of the commission,
T. E. Byrnes, of Minneapolis.