Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1896-10-01
GAME LAWS VALIDITY.
Test Case OF the Oshkosh Fisher
men Charged with illegally
Using Net.

Madison. Wis. Sept 26.-[Special l.
The validity of the state fish and game
law passed by the Wisconsin Legislature
at the session of 1895 is to be decided in
case argued before the Supreme court
today-that of the state, plaintiff, VS..
Emil Wendler. defendant. Wendler is
one of the Oshkosh fishermen who have
given the game wardens so much trouble
by their persistence in netting fish and
who have now combined to make a test
case of the validity of the law under
The ground on which they are seeking to
have the law thrown down" by the
court is that it was not legally enact
ed; that the law as it finally passed
the Legislature. chapter 221, laws of
1895, differs materially from the same
the bill as it finally passed the Legisla-
ture was not passed by an aye and no
vote, though it contains an appropria ton.
and the constitution provides that ON the
passage in either House of the Legisla-
ture of any law which approprates mon
ey the question shall be taken by the
yeas and nays.
The case was argued by G.. e. Whelan,
special counsel of the state fish and game
warden, with II. B. Harshaw of counsel,
for the state. and John w. Hume for the
defense. 1t is admitted by the state
the journal clerk in the Assembly in des-
ignating the bill as reported from the
conference committee as 25S A, when it
should have been 25S S; that the law
owing to a mistake by the enrolling
clerk, does not include amendments made
by the conference committee to certain
sections: and that when it was finally
passed by the Senate. after the report
of the conference committee. an aye and
no vote was not taken. 1t is contended,
however, that these irregularities, if con-
coded. do not affect the sections under
which defendant was convicted, but that
they stand separately and are good law
The bill as reported by the fish and
game committee was introduced in both
houses. The Senate passed it's bill, this
time by an aye and no vote. and sent it
to the Assembly. The lower House
ate refused to concur in the amendments
and a conference committee was appoint
ed, an agreement finally reached and the
bill passed. Then the enrolling clerk
neglected to include the conference COM
mittee's amendments in the bill as pre-
pared for the governors signature, but it
is claimed for the state that these amend
mentS are not germane to the case at
issue and do not yitiate the entire act.
AS TO the necessity of an aye and no
vote, it is shown that when the bill was
first passed by the Senate an aye and
no vote was taken, which, it is contend
ed, was sufficient. But it is further con-
tended that even should this invalidatc
the appropriation. it does not affect the
sections under which conviction was had
in this case.
The case came up in the county court
of Winnebago county, the defendant rails
ing the question of the laws validity
after he was convicted of netting fish,
and was certified up to the Supreme
court for the determination of these ques-
tons of law.
The following other cases have been
argued in Supreme court:
Cottrel ct al, respondents. VS.. Scllautz
ct AL, appelants-Argued by J. G. Flanders
for appellants and Gerrit I. Thorn for re-
spendents. Two cases.
Shevlin, respondent, VS.. American Mutual
Accident association, ppellant-Argued by
NJ. G.. Phillips for appellant and D. Lloyd
Jones for respondent.
Carter Rittenberg, Hamlin & Co.. re-
spondent, VS.. Mcdonald, appellant-Argued
by d. Lloyd Jones for respondent and sub
mitted for appellant on case and brief
Boles, respondent. VS.. Welch ct al, APP
pellants-Argued by R. F. Bundy for re-
spondent and submitted for appellants
case and brief