Daily Kennebec journal., 1896-03-12
FISH AND GAME.
important Decision u. S. Su-
preme Court on Game Laws.
Gives the State The Right to
Control Its Game.
State Can Prevent Fish or Game Being Taken
Away For Sale.

Ooi harrington, secretary OF tlc NJ. ..
f. & G. A., sends the following com
munication, which will be lead by the
interest.
The sportsman, and al vino believe in
the fish and game interests of Maine and
it's care and protection, can with good
grace, take Off their hats and make a low
bow, to the supreme court of the Z. :.
for the decision sent down March the
second. The following taken from the
Forest and Stream of March the 7th, will
give a very clear idea of tho opinion of
the t. 5. court, regarding the rights of
| the State, to control its game,
Not only will it be seen, that it gives
| the State control, hut goes much further
than most men have thought, it gives the
State the right 80 control it for the citi
zcns of the State. Even the interstate
commerce laws. cannot Interfere with the
right TO prevent its transportation from
the State to another. The State can, if
this is correctly understood, prevent fish
or game being taken from the State for
the purpose of sale
This decision gives the State a solid
basis upon which to stand, and it Will be
easy to make our laws, SO as to secure the
greatest of benefit to the State, from these
immense resources.
We may all now take courage and zeal
| ously work together for the advancement
of the game interests Of the State, and
make its revenue to our people, of greater
value than ever before.
There will be no need Of putting an en-
barge upon sportsmen from out of the
State, but they will understand that they
come here by the permission of the State
of Maine, and if they are allowed to take
cur game, it must be under such rules as
the State sees fit to adopt.
The committee on legislation, of oui
association, never have had any doubts
but what the transportation laws, would
be found valid nor but what we should
be able to remedy defects if any in our
laws. This decision, however, will leave
matters in much better condition than ap-
peared few weeks ago.
1t has always seemed as though If the
State owned its fish and game, it had the
right to make its ownership when killed
a qualified ownership.
"In October of 1889, Edgar NJ. Geer of
New London, Conn, was prosecuted oD
the charge of having in his possession GER
tain game birds with intent to procure
their transportation beyond the limits of
the state. The birds, it was conceded, had
been lawfully killed in the open season.
They were at the time of their seizure in
transit from New London, Conn, 20 the
city of New York, on board one of the
boats of the Norwich line. They had been
bought by Geer in open market in New
London, and were in course of shipment
to the markets of New York under con
tract of sale. The statute under which
the action was brought reads as follows;
. Expectation. n.-Sec. 2546. No person
shall at any tirpe kill any woodcock. ruffed
grouse, or quail for the purpose Of con
veying the same beyond the limits Of this
state, nor shall transport, Or have in pos
session with intent to procure the trans
portation beyond said limits any of such
birds killed within this state. The recep-
ton by any person within this state of
any such bird or birds for shipment to
point without the state shall be prima
face evidence that said bird Or birds were
killed within the state for the purpose of
carrying the same beyond it's limits Sec
2547. Any person violating any of the
provisions of the preceding section shall
ba fined not less than 81 nor more than
$50.
Geer was found guilty and took his case
up to the supreme court of errors for Con
necticut, which sustained the lower courts
in the following words:
1t being conceded that the state, under
its general police power, may lawfully
prohibit the killing of the game birds in
question it may. of course, control such
killing and the times and purposes there.
Of 1t may lawfully enact that they may
be killed and sold and held for sale only
for domestic consumption. The state in
the exercise Of its power, instead of pro-
hibiting the killing altogether permits
the person kllIDg tDcul 10 acquire only
qualified right in Them namely the right
TO appropriate them to his own use, and
the right to sell or transport them for do
mestic use.
The birds in question never became
articles of commerce within the meaning
of the term contended for by the defend
ant. They became private property of a
qualified character. The law limited the
purposes for which they might be killed
and become private property. The differ
ence between property of this sort and the
ordinary private property of commerce is
obvious.
The case was then carried to the SD
preme court of the United States, the
question at issue being this: "Csn a
state. after permitting the killing of game
birds. and after allowing them to be
bougbt and sold in the markets of tie
state. impose the restriction that they can
not be transported beyond the limits of
the state Or, in other words, can Il state
nv legislative enactments constitute game
birds an article of domestic commerce as
distinguished from and as prohibiting in
terstate commerce in them?'
The specifications of errors claimed to