Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-02-05

this session. Certainly no measure
has been so fully discussed by the
newspapers, and the people generally,
in recent years, as this proposed tax
on nonresident hunters. More has
been said and written upon this sub
ject, than upon the proposed resub-
mission resolve, about the prohibitory
law.
1t cannot be claimed that the peo-
Pile of the State generally have not had
ample notice of the fact that an effort
would be made at this session to have
this measure enacted into law, and it
is fact that the people take very
great and intelligent interest in this
matter. l have heard but two objec-
lions advanced by the opponents of
this measure: One is that it is I'M
constitutional. Now, gentlemen, l am
prepared to show you that this measure
is constitutional.
This precise question has been
passed upon by the highest tribunal
in this land, to wit, the supreme court
of the United States, our own supreme
court, and the highest courts in other
states, and pronounced to be in ac-
cordance with the constitution, as the
following will show:
This basic or fundamental princi-
pie is now universally acknowledged
by all the, courts-both of the United
States and the several states-"that
the people of the State, in their SOW
ereign capacity, own absolutely the fish
and the game within it's borders, and
through their representatives in the
Legislature can make such laws for its
protection as they see fit" U. S. Su-
preme Court Reports, Vol. 161, p. 526.
The highest court in Maine early
recognized this principle. The case of
State VS.. Tower, reported in the Saith
Maine Report, page 444, where the
court says: 1.-The State has the ex-
elusive jurisdiction to regulate and
control the fisheries in the waters of
the State, both tidal land interior wa
tiers. The right to fish in it's waters
is not privilege of the citizens of the
several States; and granting to citizens
of this State the right to fish for and
take fish in a manner and for pur
pose described in r. S., Chapter 40, Par
As, is not a discrimination against the
privileges" of citizenship of the sew
eral states within the meaing of Art. A.
Sec. II, Part 1, of the constitution of
the United States.
The contention of the respondent
in this case was that the statute per-
hitting citizens of this State, during
February, March and April to fish for
and take landlocked salmon for their
own use, and forbidding citizens of
other states from enjoying this privi-
lege was an unconstitutional discrimi-
nation against citizens of other states
In brief, the court held that this
discrimination" was constitutional, and
cited 81 U. S. Report, Page 391; The
opinion in this case was by Chief JUS
tice Waite, and several other author
tiles are there cited, and the court
says that 1.-The citizens of one state
are not invested by the constitution
with any interest in the common prop
erty of the citizens of another state"
This question of Ownership" of the
fish and the game was again under
consideration by our highest tribunal
in the somewhat celebrated case of
State VS.. Snowman, as to the constitu-
tionality of the guide law" so called,
reported in Vol. "a of the Maine Re-
ports, Page 80. The court here says
that THE fish in the waters of the
State and the game in it's forests are
the property of the people in their
collective, sovereign capacity, who may
permit or prohibit the taking thereof
CONTINUED on page g.