Gunnison news-champion., 1902-09-05
NIil TuE LAW AJANb,
Hs-A tsss n~s~ces ~ urssi . ssssiJ


the stale OF Colorado v. Ealssa.
~sercby the defendant r. charged
sass GsAiag ia .a enclosure usI oH
pablic laad withsat the csn-esi ef
she owner. A. Hartman.
THE case came az Cor hearing IN
abe coaaiy sosrt before Judge Heth-
crtagton last Monday on a aptios 10
esss-h on grounds thai The Law under
~s ieh the ease wss % be tried
-s~sosstitstie tienal Cor the reason thai
At did not comply with the statutes
OF the state OF Colorado. G. NJ. iism-
sssnd. Of Delta, represented the de-
fead ant. j. NJ. McDoaQal a. deputy
district attorney for the people aud
srewn aud Noarse. special ATTORNEYS. 5.
appeared ia behalf oi the plaintiff
NJ. Hammond cited Numerous
authorities holding that all Bavi Z able
rivers ANA lakes were public property.
Volume % United states laws. page
39l holds that each state has the
power 10 make its own laws governing
land sei0w high water marx.
auae Constitution Of this state de-
.slsres that the waters in ali streams
sseleog 10 people and Mr. Hammond
cootended that the owners OF all lands
an 1his state took up their claims sub
sect TO the restrictions of the eonsti-
ation. therefore, they have no
right 10 prevent people from fishing
Ia the Gunnison river or any other
public stream. lie also holds that
the law set forth in the statutes Of
1893, entitled, "A bill to protect fish
aud game" Is unconstitutional for the
the reasons that, first, the same was
-.ascted by the general assembly Of
Colorado in violation of section "a,
sSticle of the constitution, which
provides that mo bill shall be passed
containing more than one subject,
which shall be clearly expressed in
the title, bat if any subject shall be
-e@brsced in any act which shall not
he expressed in the title, such act shall
tr void only as TO so much thereof as
shall not be expressed :" second, the
Si!, was amended materially without
ssing printed, SO that the members
we're unable TO vote inteliigently and
Saow just what was contained therein.
The journal was adduced as pr1ot
On this point, defendant urging that
it should be taken as authority from
OF the transactions of the assembly,
and of late years had been admitted
ia evidence by the courts. This book
did not show that the the bill had
been printed after il was amended.
Third, that a law granting special
privileges to owners of enclosures
not granted to the general public
was against the state constitution.
On the other hand opposing coun-
sel argued that the bill was passed
as all other bills are passed and un-
less positive proof could be shown
that the bill was not printed the
court could not do otherwise than
presume that it had been printed ac-
covding to law the law was eonsti-
tutional because the purpose Of the
Dill was clearly expressed in the title
"a that the restriction to the public
from fishing ON the enc closed land was
satended as protection to the fish
aud not to the land owner; that the
owners of land had right to prohibit
the people from entering upon their
property for the purpose of fishing or
for pleasure.
The court took the case under ad-
-visement and five days was given the
attorneys in whicli to Fl lie additional
authority ON the subject.
The finding of the court will be an
imports ant one as it not only involves
The rights of the public to the waters
of the state, but il the law is found
20 be unconstitutional, the protection
OF game and fish will be endangered
Directly of course it involves the
right of rsnchmen and other land
owners to keep trespsssers OF their
hsy and the right Of spOrtsmen 10