Daily Kennebec journal., 1896-03-12

Ihlrd.-1n holding that the defendant
is guilty of an offense under said section,
II such birds were lawfully killed in the
state and were bought By tho defendant
IN Inc market of the state. as articles of
property, merchandise and commerce, and
had begun to move as an article Of inter
| state commerce.
| certain minor questions relating to. the
| phraseoiogy of the statute We're brushed
1 asiue' ana The case, as referred to the
| supreme court. by agreement had to do
| ohIy with the question thus briefly stated
Aas IL State such n proprietary interest
IN game that it can permit the killing
ana selilug in open markets, and impose
"a restriction that they cannot be sold. to
| be taken out OF the state? Or. In other
"oros' has the state such proprietary in
tere't in game that it can constitute game
an arslcie of commerce within the state
ana ioThid its becoming an. article Of in
terstate commerce?
The plaintiff in error insisted that the
state has not such power, and that when
| 1t permits an article to become a subject
ol commerce 1t cannot restrict it terri
eoriaiiy without conflicting with article /,
section sol the Constitution of the United
| @N'NNHi W hiOii SlNtH SObSttSS tIHtEOt OI
interstate commerce. 1t was contended
thae thefe cannot be articles OF state COM
| nerce which may not become articles of
interstate commerce; that there is no such
snadowy, uncertain, indefnable state
where an article is for some purposes an
| article of commerce and for others is not ::
| ana 1t WIS argued that in the case under
discussion the birds had commenced to
| move us an article Of coinmcrcc from one
state to another, and from that moment
| they became IA subject of interstate COM
merce and could be controlled only by ma
tional regulation, not by police power of
the state.
For the defendant III error the points
| made were as follows, in defense OF the
statute
Il. Merely having property in ones
possession with an intent TO transport it
beyond the limits of ii state, does not
make it IL subject matter of interstate
commerce within the meaning OF the term
contended for by the plaintiff in error.
'2 The law in question relates only
TO game killed within the state, and is of
that class of legislation whereby states
seek to regulate killing of game and its
consumption.
1.-The state of Connecticut has pro-
hibited the killing of such game between
the first day of January and the first day
Of October following in each year.
And as above stated it prohibits any
one having such game in his possession
at any time with an intent to transport it
beyond its limits. 1t seeks by its game
laws to preserve game from destruction
and to limit its consumption to those
within its territorial limits.
IS. No one has any property in such
birds in their wild and unrestraiued con
dition, and the right Of the lawmskinR
power to restrict or to prohibit the taking
of such animals feroe naturde as go under
the denomination of game, has always
been recognized.
81 BY the law Of the state of Connec-
tcut such game cannot be the subject of
absolute ownership. No one can acquire
other than qualified property therein,
and is deprived of the right to transport it
beyond the state.
"It being unlawful for one to kill such
game br to have it in his possession for
the purpose Of transporting it beyond the
limits of the state, it follows that it could
not become a subject matter of interstate
commerce, and the law complained Of is
DOT in violation Of the Constitution of the
United States or any law Of Congress rela-
tive thereto.
rs. 1t is submitted that the state of
Connecticut had absolute control of the
subject matter of this suit, ana that no
one can acquire within its limits any
right to game killed within that state
other than 1t by law permits, or do any
thing with such game that it by law pro-
hibits. Its power in these respects is su
preme 1t is a matter OF internal police
regulation"
The case was filed with the supreme
court in the October term Of 1895 and its
decision was given out last Monday.
The Connecticut courts are upheld. The
law is sustained. The supreme court of
the United States declares that q sts tt
may control its own game; that it may
prescribe not only seasons and methods
for taking game but limitation as to the
use. disposition and destination OF game
after it shall have been taken and acquired
as property of a qualified character. If the
state provides that it's game may not be
captured for export and that 1t may not be
exported, such provisions, the Supreme
court says, are constitutional and are not
in conflict with the principle which gives
to Congress exclusive control OF inters tate
commerce: for game SO controllcd--and
this is the basic principle-cannot become
a lawful subject of interstate commerce.
Here is brief of the decision. as wired by
a special correspondent, and received Just
as we are going to press:
Washington, ID. c., March Especial
to Forest and Stream: In the supreme
court decision in the case of Edgar NJ.
Geervs. State Of Connecticut, it is decided
that the state has power to make it an
offense to have in possession for the pur
pose of transportation beyond the state
birds which had been lawfully killed
within the state during the open season
and that the statute, in creating this |
offense, did not violate the intcrstate COM
merce clause of the United States CoDsti- |
tuition.
That it was lawful under the United |
States Constitution for the state to allow |
the killing of birds within the state dur
ing designated open season and to allow !
such birds when 80 killed to be used, to |
be sold and to be bought for use within |
the state; and yet to forbid their trans
portation beyond the state
V,hat = ho IN no noxyar fn 10