The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-12-25

can not procure license to take ovsters
wtenih the waters Of The Sta.e. altnou m
tnsy may be able TO purchase license and
Make lander OF the amount TO the p.oper
aotnoIluy. Inc question then is does axe
lact mat SUCH peisons-are prohibited from
procuring Ecense, while all other persons
citizens OF che United States aad resiueut.s
Within the State OF Texas and taxpayers
can procure license to take oysters rem
ael' the statute in question viola.ive o. the
constitution of The State above auoLel?
We can ind no case In which ia. aues-
tlon as mere Presented has been aalu .lcat-
ed. we do lind a number of cases in which
the question OF Bhe proprietary rignls and
common rights OF fisheries have bean dis
clssed In all Of the cases, SO Tar as We are
advised, it is held that navigao.e rivers ami
Contiguous portions of thy sea embraced
wIlnln thd territory belonging TO che 5 ate
is the properly OF the STATE; that it belongs
to all The citizens thereof. ana that every
citizen has a right in common with every
other citizen TO talsi fish in sucn waters
See Collins VS.. Bradbury ct al. 3 Ired
IN. Co, 277; Carson VS.. Blazer. Bimley
tPa), AIS; Chalker OF al VS.. Dickinson ct
al. Conn.,, 49,; Lay vs. King ct al. Day,
70; Peck vs.. Lockwood, 8 Day. %. The EAST
cited case was case involving the rlght 90
take shell fish on land claimed by plaintiff.
The facts we!'e that the plaintiff owned
tract of land fronting on the river where
the tide ebbe1 and flowed At low u4da the
locus in quo was dry land. but waen the
tide was In II Was covered by tn lio@ OF
the sea. Plaintiff claimed proprietary
rights In the locus in quo and defendant
justified on the ground that at higl waite
1t was part OF the river or sea- and was
open for the purpose OF fishing to all the
citizens of the State. The court discussed
a number of common law authorities on ule
subject. and from them deducei the follow
ing: THAT the right to fish on the soil of
another whsn overlooked with the tide from
the sea or arm OF the sea is common
right, and everyone may fish In the sea OF
common right, though 1t flows on tae SOL
of another" AS stated. however, there is no
controversy upon this point; that is that
the locus quo in this case was the properly
OF the State. Nor Is it controVerted that
the State may properly regulate the use OF
all its property; but il is insisted IN grant
ing privileges to use It's PUBIC uonain'
whether of land or water, 1t mus 40 80
under the operation OF the fuhiamsh'ai
principle upon which our government 10
Northumberland Is equality. Our consl-
,,,,J1n nroyides (section 8, article u: All
cree men. when they form social compact,
have equal rights, and no man or sci OF
men il, entitled to exclusive separate PUBIC
,,roo,,,ments or privileges, but In consloera-
tion of nubli: services" Section 20 pro-
yides: "Perpeuities and monoli'sles ule
contrary to the genius OF "A iree so'e,n
mant and shall never be allowed M
,-ooIey says on this subject (Cooeys Cons.
lin. 4S5), Equality Of rights prlVlieSes
and capacities unquestlo2abiy shouiu ~
tins aim of the law; and ii specaai prlVnesss
are granted, or special burneHs VI
dons imposed In any caSe,'lt nlus. ~
sumed that the legislature oesigned w
mart as little ae possible from 'n,s tata
mental maxim OF government. Inc e'a..'
a. ;s ,o he presumed has no favoqs 10 ee-
.Yow and designs to tnflict no arbitrary
nrivatiop of rights. Special prVi4eses az
,,uays obnoxious, and discrlmiHapl",,,
aya,nst persons or classes Is stil me. 50,
All n Is commended here that tne rtsn.
take the oysters in the PUBIC Masee So
the State IS a pTiviis9e Whieu - losso
can bestow as 1t plesses that II can -. ,1
can io1 ,ts nublec domain on whatever terms
a sees Mt We can MI assem- 10 1,,,,aJv
nronosition. It might be so IN n,as;
ro,nsrnuent. but not in free sosslhi,
In which all are equal pefo.e nc I'm
And right here II occurs to us Is "nsi ,atad
provisions or our constitution aptse w. M
come into operation. Inc e'a c,tizen
right to discriminate against any ei ~
,r lass of oitazens as to the ensoyhien. ~
90 ~. ,,,lic domain. The State has NJ iioie
10 ~ authorize one class OF us citi@eAs,
~. exclusion OF another class 10 use
rsnf this character oil properly u 10
,youid have to authorize one -.
,,ti,ens 10 rent or use It's Pubic iana
W. do not believe 1t would pc se. uriz.
,on,snded that the state couid autho' ao
ouIv taxpayers to rent It's pupIo y,
, nn,y Of lands to the excursion Who
ma,,i hor class OF It's citizens VINO
go ,"' NE taxpayers. This wouid noa oin' "a
sHe no. ,,insfiou. but discrimination IN ia
q a. w :, he rich as against the poo 30
n ,,is o as We understand It, was exasIy wna'
o,I,s stitution ntended 70 guat' s cItinens
~ ~ M state could authorize jus nliisun'
~ were taxpayers and infen.t its ssh si
" w. sybo were not taxpayers from hsnai,s
f.s ~ n,,buc waters. 1t coulo equslis
(, ho-ize ~ citizens who we're NOT 1870. ~
~ ash In such waters 10 the eAo.as.'n "
,S,ae Who we're taxpayers. IN tlas so
= ecJ,rn we would observe paat we .niss
Inc I,w On this subject as passed ~ nv
lee, xia,ure intended TO Apply 70 pslsohs
Wa r,sid taxes on property II Fn.s pc tne
t,na constructsen, .tan great number o.
AR c,,tsens would be deprived OF the POM
~ N nrocu-e a license TO take oysters IN
,he na,hIic waters Of tbs state no maMer
low WING they might be 10 pay the n
s,'rse tax and comply with the law in o'ner
rssrectg Rut It Is said that our consu-
t,,tton authorizes poll tsu. But one
VINO pays : poll tax be considered TAX