San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1897-09-08

it would have so stated. If the act
had intended only to prohibit the car
rier from receiving game for transpor-
tation the latter clause "or TO trans
port, carry or take" would have been
unnecessary. If the hunter has the
game with him it cannot be said that
the railways takes him and not his
game. If hunters would come from
an adjoining tate'and kill our game in
large quantities and seek to carry it
across the line by carrying 1T with
them in the passenger coaches, would
it not seem clear that the railways
We're carrying or taking" game out
of the state? Whether they carry 1t
within the state or out of the state
the prohibition is the same. If the
act prohibits railways from transport
ing, carrying or taking game. then
the railway cannot evade the statute
by carrying game in manner differ
ent from the usual mode of transpor-
tation. The act Of carrying game is
forbidden and the means employed is
immaterial.
Il don't think this part of the law
will be strictly enforced, for railways
will probably not concern themselves
very much about the contents of the
bags and baskets placed in the coach
es, but it must be observed that if the
sportsmen can in this way bring home
his game, then the market hunter can
in the same way bring his game to
market. l do not express any opinion
as to the validity of this part of the
law, nor do l pretend to say that the
law is, as it ought TO be, but merely
give you my opinion of the law as it
is
W. A. Wurzbach-"'"rhen new game
law which was enacted by the 25th
legislature and which went into effect
on the 22nd Of last month has been
the theme most talked about by the
local sportsmen in the past few days.
l think it is good law, it is not too
stringent and will attain the object for
which it was enacted, the preserva
ton of the game in the state Of Texas.
The protection and preservation of
game has been secured by law in all
civilized countries, and may be justi-
fed on many grounds. The measures
best adapted to the end are for the
legislature to determine. The new
law in its preamble states that the
deer, quail, ETC., found within the bor-
ders of this state shall be, and the
same are hereby declared to be pro-
perty of the public"
This is not new law as the state has
an interest right to the wild game
within its borders.
The ownership being in the people
of the state and no individual having
any property rights to be effected, it
nacaSsariIu paSultS thot fba Iao;slo
ture, as the representatives of the
people of the state may withhold or
grant to individuals the right to hunt
or kill game or qualify or restrict it.
as in the opinion of its members will
best subserve the public welfare.
Section 2 of the new law absolutely
restricts the sale and purchase of
wild deer, wild antelope, wild tur-
keys, wild ducks, wild geese and wild
grouse, wild prairie chickens (pinnated
grouse), wild Mingolin or English
pheasants, wild quail or partridges,
wild plover, snipe and jack snipe,
killed or taken within the state, eX-
cept if the said game is sold and pur-
chased in the county where such
game was killed or taken.
Under this section it is unlawful for
a person to purchase or have in his
possession after purchase any of the
said wild game out of the county in
which it was killed, at first blush
it appears as if this would be an in
reference with private right, amount
ing to a destruction of the right of
property without due process of law.
\ person naturally argues that the
wild games in the fields and prairies
may be the property of the public, but
after l kill the same, do not the dead
animals become my property and can
not l dispose of them as see fit?
On examination of authorities l
found one case decided in Illinois in
which about the same question was
involved. American Express COM
pany VS.. PeOpe 133 Ill. $40 the court
says: 1T is however argued that
were quail have been killed, the dead
animals become property and an act to
prevent "A sale or transportation for
sale within the state would be an in
reference with private right, amount
ing to destruction of the right of
property without due process of law.
The fallacy of the position consists in
the supposition that the person who
may kill quail has an absolute pro-
perty in the dead animals. In the
Magher case (97 ILL., $3.50 it was held,
that no one has property in animals
and fowls denominate game; the
ownership was in the people of the
state. This being so it necessarily
followed that the legislature has the
right to permit persons to kill or take
game upon such terms and conditions
oS itS Nyisdom uTnioht 1iptntp and that
the persons killing game might have
such property interest in it, and such
only. as the legislature might confer.
The Legislature has never conferred an
absolute property in quail upon the
n sn Thn