The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-04-07
NO DREDGING AFTER
APRIL 1ST.
Attorneys elmer S
Opinion on the New Oys-
ter Law.

There must be no dredging for oysters
after April list.
That is the way Attorney General Gil
mer CONSTITUTES the law in an opinion rem
dered yesterday by request of oyster
Commissioner w NJ. Webb, who wrote to
him asking If the act passed by the Cen
eral Assembly at it's recent session.
making it unlawful to use scoops, scrapes
or dredges in taking oysters from the
natural oyster beds of this State between
the 18th day of November anf
day OF April, repealed that portion of
section IA, chapter $50 Public Laws of
1901, which permitted the use of such
implements under a proper license, to
the first day OF May.
General Gilmer's opinion is as follows:
Section 2. chapter II, laws of North
Carolina, session 1891 made it 'unlaw-
full for any person or persons to take or
catch oysters from any of the pubic
grounds or natural oyster beds OF North
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 license, in &C
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 ii unlawful to dredgc
after the first day of April.
THE question presented is whether the
Iiecnsee, 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
Rea " Hampton, 101 N. c. 81. State
V. Conner, 107 N c. 9S1. McCready v
State of Virginia. "a u. S. 391.
I'm 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 il may deem wise and just and condu-
Give to the public good
ne license 1SSuGu uHutI lut att VI
1901 allowing dredging does not establish
any contractual relation between the
State of North Carolina and the licenses,
but Ii is only a permission to do an act,
which. without such license, would not
be allowable.
at is well established that when a IL
cense is issued for the purpose of regu-
lating a matter over which the Legisla-
turc has plenary power in the exercise
of governmental function, that such 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
Ticdman on State and Federal Control of
Persons and Property. Vol. 1. p. 500.
SIN the case of Hess " Muir, IS 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 a license revocable at the pleas
'sThe case under consideration is not one
THE case under consideration is not
in which the State has vested in par
ty the exclusive right to use and occupy
a particular oyster bed, marked and
staked. so as to bring, it within the rule
of the inviolablity of a grant, in ac
cordance with the decision of the Su-
preme Court. in State V. Spencer, ia n.
C. 40.
at seems that under the authorities,
as we'll as on principles of sound public
policy. il must be decided that the Ii
censees obtained no vested rights under
the act OF 1901. This being so, it was
competent for the Legislature to change
the period allowed for dredging. and in
making this change it must be assumed
that that body acted in good faith for the
public good. State V. Moore 104 n. c
ia"