The Birmingham age-herald., 1921-07-17
SHRIMP INDUSTRY IS FORCED INTO
 FIGHT FOR LIFE
Attorney General Joins Com missioner Wallace In Move ment for Defense of the
 State Shrimp Law
By FRED H. GoRMLEY M Montgomery Bureau, The Age-Herald 22I-2 First National Bank Building

Montgomery July tSpecjaL)- The shrimp industry around Bayou La Batre on the gulf coast, which has become an industry of far-reaching importance and of great profit has been forced into a lfe-and- tn struggle as a result of the filing of a bill in the federal court here testing the validity of the law of 1919 which levies a tax on shrimp transported to other states for canning and which gives the state department of con servation the right to prohibit the re- moval of raw shrimp to other states when the market price of shrimp in Alabama is as great as that of other states.
 In order to protect the industry Harwell C. Davis, attorney general, and Hugh White, special assistant attorney general have joined John H. Wallace, Jr., commissioner of con servation in a movement for the de- fense of the shrimp law. E. E. Ell mer, shrimp packer of Biloxi, filed the bill before Judge Henry D. Clay ton, contending that Alabama IS dis criminating against interstate com merce by prohibiting the removal or raw shrimp to other states except under certain conditions, that the law levies q tax on exports which Is eX- pressly prohibited by the constitu- ton of the United States and that the law violates the constitution of Alabama because the caption is not sufficiently explanatory of the vari- ous sections of the law.
 In answer to the petition, which re- quests the federal court to declare the state law unconstitutional and of no force and effect, the state filed de- murrers this week asking the court to dismiss the bill on the ground that 1t is a suit against the state (the state cannot be sued), that the shrimp in the waters within the Jurisdiction of the state belong to the state. that the state has the right to say how. when and under what conditions shrimp may be taken by individuals and even may prohibit the taking of shrimp at all, that the plaintiff has no right, title and interest whatever in the shrimp within the waters of the state, that the act of 1919 under which the commissioner of conser- vation revoked the right of Elmer to take shrimp from the waters of Ala bama is valid in all respects. that shrimp which the state seeks to pro- feet and conserve are not subject of interstate commerce, that the tax which the state has levied on shrimp taken from the state Is not an impos on exports as alleged by the plain tiff. that there is no duty incumbent upon the state to place in the defend ant or any other person any right to take shrimp from the waters of thu state and that the state has the full right to impose the conditions undel which any person may take shrimI from the waters within the jurisdic 1 ton of the state.
 1 Concluding the demurrers, whici are 43 in nun Der, the state alleged that each averment of the plaintiff lis merely an ingenious device of tn, plaintiff in his effort to get int, court in case in which he has noth ing upon which to invoke the juris diction of the court"
 When the case is called for tria of the state belong to the state tha rious decisions of the courts of tht United States which have held that { state is within it's rights in protect ing game and fish by the making O regulations under which they may b taken, by the imposition of tax or the act of taking and even by pro hibiting the taking.
 Since the shrimp law of 1919 be came effective thousands of dollar have been invested in shrimp can ming plants at Bayou LaBatre and al adverse decision will seriouslys inter fere with these industries. according to the contention of the state conser vation department. Because of tn high prices paid for shrimp, man. persons who were engaged in tn gathering of oysters have turned their attention to the catching 0