The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-10-24

tho preservation OF game and hsh. re-
stricfing tho,r taking and molestation
to certain seasons OF the year. although
laws 10 thls effect. II Is believed, nave
/. been I'm force I'm many OF the older states
since the organization OF the feoeIai
0overnmcnt on the contrary, the con-
etltutionol right 20 enact such laws mas
h.on oxnreeslv affirmed In respect TO tsh
in Massachusetts, I'm Burnham vs. wen
ster. Mass. 265; Nickerson vs. bfacke.l,
| 10 Ia. N2; by Indiana In Sentile vs. me
State. 70 Ind. 20e, and IN REGARD 10 saiile
hv New York in Phelps vs.. Racy, 80 y.
" IA and In Vermont In state VS.. Nor
ton A VI 25S and upon principle the
,i,b, ie clear. The ownership being In
~. ,eonie Of the State-the repository Of
thc eovorelcn authority-and no indi-
vidual having property rights TO be ar
e@,.od a necessarily results that the
Tooseiature as the representative OF the
people OF the State. may withhold or
grant 10 individuals the right to hunt ana
KIN game. or qualify or restrict II as IN
tho opinion Of It's members VIII best serve
the public welfare
In Iawton vs.. steele. 152 L. S.. 49,
March 1890 the Supreme Court of the
United states had the whole general sub
fect under consideration and unanimously
held in respect TO an act Of the Lcgisla-
ture of New York. that II is within police
power OF a State 10 preserve from eH-
tinction fisheries within its JURISDICTION
bv prohibiting exhaustive methods OF FISH
ing or the use OF such destructive lnstfu-
mcnts as are likely TO result IN the eN-
termination Of the young as well as the
mature fish. and that such legislation does
not deprive the citiZena OF MS property
without due process Of Law IN Vloialioh
of the provision Of the constitution OF the
United states, And in Greer vs.. Connec-
tcutt. 16l L. s.. SO. (March, 1890 the
Supreme Court again had the general sub
loot under elaborate consideration and
held that the provision in the general
statutes Of Connecticut that mo person
shall at any time kill any woodcock, rut-
fed grouse or quail for the purpose or
conveying the same beyond the limits OF
this State. or shall transport or nave IN
possession. with intent 10 procure the
Recommendation beyond said ! mits. any
such birds killed within this state" was
LEGISLATION within the constitutional pow
er of the legislature Of the state to en-
act. and was not in conflict with the IN
tcrstate commerce clause Of the Federal
constitution.
In that case the nature OF property IN
game and the authority which the STATE
had a right. lawfully to exercise IN reia-
tion thereto. were discussed with rare
learning and ability. especially in the
opinion Of the majority Of the court de-
livered by Mr.. Justice White. The pre-
else question there, however. was not as
TO the constitutional power OF state leg
islature 10 enact such legislation as Is
here in question, but the power 10 go
further as the legislature of Connecticut
has done. and prohibit the transportation
beyond the limits of the State, of game
which which had been killed for that pur-
nose. Obviously the great and pivotal
question in that case went far beyond lhe
question Of the power or state 10 resu-
late the killing of birds or other game
within its own limits for 1t involves the
further questions whether after the bird
had been killed and had thus become the
Individual property in possession OF the
buntsman il was not the subject of in
terstate commerce and thus under the
protection of the constitutional provision
reaulating commerce between the
States. Upon that question MI. justice
Field and Mr. Justice Harlan dinered
from the majority Of the court and delV-
cred separate opinions. But the Judges
all concurred as to the power of the state
TO regulate the killing Of game WITHIN us
own limits and the only divergence OF
opinion was as to the power. after the
killing. to prevent the property thus ac-
ouired from becoming the subject or IN
terstatc commerce For the numerous
adudicated cases cited i'm opinion of the
court. recc gnizing the right of the states
ia control and regulate the common prop
ertv in game. see the l6i L. s. pps. 529' ct
sco.. and for distinct recognition OF the
Same principles by the dissenting Judges
see DID. 535. 554 IL need hardly be Cd
qorved in respect TO the exercise OF ihe
..,Iice mower. i'm general, under which
encb LEGISLATION has it's only sanction
that the present Court OF Appeals OF
virginia has recently gone as far as the
fartbest of any court i'm sustaining leg
islative action. Palmer VS.. Lacy q "
+. Rep $50. 80. ,...,,,,
The constitutional power OF the leslsia-
ture of Virginia 10 enact laws regulating
or prohibiting the killing Of game within
the limits of the state, having thus beeh
established. the necessity for their enact
ment at any given time. or for their CON
tinuance i'm force. must be determined, as
Am the exercise Of any other constitutions
al mower. bv the legislature according as
,1,o nublic interests in its judgment ana
diecretion may seem TO require and rs not
,1,o eubiect of judicial inquiry Cooley
CON. Line C Ed p. 663; Tates EX OF vs.
The Central Lunatic Asylum 81 Va p.
27l. Thompson on Corp. sects. 5o92 ana
500. 1890 rrov,-AD,,
Riclrrond, Va, oct. 22 1891
----N--
no1t,hffutft-