The morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1899-1930, 1907-07-27

There are two questions involved In
this ease, oGc IL the iaw and the other
il the limit Of the action Of this court.
have found In the past that the fed
ernl courts In these matters have been
open TO the cry OF the men OF wealth
and deaf 10 the appeals OF the men who
are obliged 10 earn their living by labo..
For years | have tried TO uphold The
laws that will protect the fisheries Of
the Columbia River but every time a
man has been convicted In the state
courts OF violating law for the protec.
ton OF the fisheries, the federal courts
have taken him out Of the Jurisdiction
Of the court on "a writ vi habeas corpus,
a thing they had no more right 10 do
than has this court TO grant n writ 10
man convicted In the federal court.
have never changed my mind since de-
Gliding the Matson case and still be-
licye Oregon has entire jurisdiction TO
enforce it, laws over the waters of the
Columbia River, the only question 10
my mind being whether or not the dris.
ing Of fish trap in the soil on the
Washington shore takes the trap out
OF Oregon's jurisdiction, shall not
change my mind until the supreme
court OF the United States decides the
matter and il will decide IL right. There
II no condic, OF legislation In this case.
The state Of Washington says that
purse scines may he licensed, but II
does not compel man to fish with
them. /. simply says that 40 far as
the State Of Washington Is concerned.
purse scines may be used II license is
paid. On the other hand Oregon says
the scines Shall be prohibited That Ia
not conflict Of legislation. No man
can be arrested in Washington for not
fishing with purse sencs. Concurrent
jurisdiction cannot mean concurrent
legislation even II the federal district
court has 40 bell. II does not mean
that both parties must do the same
thing at the same time or al all II
merely means that either party has the
authority Ia act in the matter. in his
case that each state has the right to
enforce its laws The federal courts
are creating great deal Of trouble
for the future II they persist in the
liEe Of decisions on which they have
started. The principle reaches beyopi
the fishing question. The liquor laws
OF the two states for instance, are not
identical. IL the decision of Judge VOL
yerton stands neither state viii lie able
TO enforce its laws on The river and we
may have a string OF saloons and
bruthels along the shore, loo feet from
the wharf line extending from St,
Helens TO the sea II is my belief that
before any one can fish in the Column
bia river he must comply with the laws
OF both Oregon and Washington. Oregon
has prohibited certain gear and she is
within her right in doing 50, because
Washington has not done so Is no
criterion. In fact, Washington has been
slack in laws to protect the fisheries
and Judging from the aid given by her
officers TO protect the violators OF Ore.
gon's fishing laws, it would not be sur
prising ii Washington should author
ize the use of explosives in killing
salmon But this is a federal question
OF that there can be no doubt The
federal courts have made two decisions
on the matter and while do not agree
with those decisions, would out OF
Difference Of the federal courts concur
with them and discharge the defendant
except for the purpose OF taking the
matter to the higher courts and as the
state cannot appeal, will confirm the
decision of the justice court, on condi-
tion that the defendant shall be per-
mitted TO continue fishing until the case
has been finally determined"