The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-05-07
NO DREDGING AFTER
APRIL 1ST.
Attorncy.Ge GiImer's
Opinion on the New 0ys-
ter Law.

There must be no dredging for oysters
after April LIST.
That is the way Attorney General Gil
MGR construes the law in an opinion rem
dcred yesterday by request of oyster
Commissioner w NJ Webb, who wrote to
him asking II the act passed by the Gen
eral Assembly at it's recent session.
making IL unlawful to use scoops, scrapes
or dredges in taking oysters from the
natural oyster beds of this State between
the 18th day of November and the first
day of April, repealed that portion OF
section l., chapter $50, Public Laws OF
1901, which permitted the use of such
implements, under a proper license, 10
the first day of May.
General Gilmer's opinion is as follows:
Section 2, chapter IL, laws of North
Carolina, session 1891, made it 'unlaw-
full for any person or persons to take OF
catch oysters from any of the public
grounds or natural oyster beds OF Noruh
Carolina, with any dredge, drag, SCOOP
ETC..
''By chapter $50, public laws OF North
Carolina. session 1901, this manner OF
taking or catching oysters from the wa
tiers therein indicated, was permitted
upon the issuance of a license, IN ac-
cordance with the provisions of section
Z, ct seq. of the said chapter, and by
section IA of the said chapter, dredging
was permitted to the first day of May
The act passed by the Legislature at its
last session makes 1t unlawful to dredge
after the first day of April.
THE question presented is whether the
liccnsee, under the law of 1901 is au-
thorized to continue to catch oysters
by dredging. etc, until the first day of
May. | am of the opinion that he can
not
1.-The preservation of fish and oysters in
the streams and beds of the State is
proper function of the government in the
exercises of its police power.
Roa V. Hampton, 101 n. c. 81. State
v Conner. 107 N. c. 931. MeCready V.
State of Virginia. "a u. S. S91.
"In State V. Conner, supra, it is said:
The State has the right to impose such
limitations and restrictions upon the
mode and manner OF taking oysters
in the navigable waters of the State
as it may deem wise and just and condu-
Give to the public good
THE license issued under the act of
1901 allowing dredging does not establish
any contractual relation between the
State of North Carolina and the licenses,
but ii is only permission to do an act,
which without such a license, would not
be allowable.
1T is well established that when IL
cense is issued for the purpose of regu-
lating matter over which the Legisla-
ture has a plenary power in the exercise
OF governmental function, that such a Ii
cense is not in any sense a contract, but
a mere permit which may be revoked at
any time. or to which new conditions may
be attached.
Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, p.
2S6. Prentice on Police Powers, p. 2S6.
Tiedman on State and Federal Control of
Persons and Property, Vol 1, p. 500
sin the case of Hess v. Muir, 65 Md,
the Supreme Court of that State held
That the privilege of locating oyster lots
has no elements of a grant by patent, but
is simply license revocable at the pleas
''Tho case under consideration is not one
THE case under consideration is not
in which the State has vested in a par
ty the exclusive right to use and occupy
a particular oyster bed, marked and
staked, so as to bring 1t within the rule
of the inviolability of grant, in ac-
cordance with the decision of the Su-
preme Court, in State V. Spencer, ia N.
C. no
at seems that under the authorities.
as well as on principles of sound public
policy, 1t must be decided that the Ii
eensees obtained no vested rights under
the act of 1901. This being so. ii was
competent for the Legislature to change
the period allowed for dredging. and in
making this change ii must be assumed
that that body acted In good faith for the
public good State V. Moore, 104 N. C
IA"