The independent-reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1909-1955, 1922-10-12
Interview on Law Court Decision

Interview on Law Court Decision
Because of an impression that had
gained some Roadway, after the law
court decision in the case of Nc
henney ct ais, VS. Farnsworth. ct ais.
that the Commissioner of Fish and
Game would not issue rules and reg
uiatlons in regard to fishing and
hunting. Commissioner Parsons gave
out the following interview, inter
preting the situation:
Although there is no question but
that the law is constitutional, author
lzing the Commissioner to issue rules
and regulations in regard to fishing
and hunting, wrong impression
seems to prevail in some quarters in
regard to the recent decision of the
law court in Sea and Shore Fisheries
case.
William NJ. McKennsy, ct ais. VS..
Alton b. Farnsworth, ct ais.
Because one clause of that law, to
wit: the last clause of Sec. 3, Chapter
293 of the public laws of 1917, was
declared unconstitutional, it has been
enormously assumed by some that
the whole law was unconstitutional.
That clause reads
Rules and regulations so made and
close time so declared shall be held
to take precedence over any then ex-
listing provisions of statutes inconSist-
ent Herewith" thus attempting to
give the sea and shore Fisheries
Commission authority to repeal an
IL, \,
clause in any part OF the Inland
FISHERIES and Game laws, hence every
part Of them is constitutional
This explanation is made in an
swer to the many Inquiries from the
friends of fish and game as we'll as
some Of the would-bo poarchers who
would be glad to have the law de-
clared unconstitutional The Sea and
Shore Fisheries law, except the above
clause, was upheld and the petition
dismissed, as the case shows, but in
view of the fact that such a wrong
Impression prevails with many and
the woods are rapidly filling with
hunters, some of them near the
Kathadin Park Game Preserve, and
other territory closed by the Com
that part of the decision of the law
court in the above case which up
holds the law and shows clearly that
law authorizing the Commissioner
to pass rules and regulations is con-
Sttutonal.
THE opinion was drawn by Justice
A. M. Spear and concurred in by the
other members of the court. The
Court says
THE only unconstitutional act
contemplated by the last clause of
Section 3 is entirely Independent of
the rest of the sections and will
arise only when the Commission un-
dertakes to promulgate rule or
regulation that is inconsistent with
an existing act of the Legislature"
That part of the opinion touching
upon the authority of the commission
to issue rules and regulations reads
as follows:
While the power to make the laws
may not be delegated to a board or
commissioner is nevertheless true.
general policy of regulation and
control having been adopted by the
Legislature, that the delegation of
the power to promulgate rules and
regulations in accordance with the
spirit and purpose of the Legislative
Will, has long been held to be proper
and no infringement on constitutional
In support of the above conclusion
limitations. II r. c. l.. 1912. Sec. 20.
may also be cited State VS.. Dodge III
Maine, 269, in which a lucid expo
sition of the general doctrine may be
found
Kindred cases may also be cited
In Brodbne VS.. Revere, 1872, Mass.
1913; Commonwealth VS.. Growing
shield 1877, Mass 1885, Commonwealth
vs. Sisson 1889; Mass 247; Common
wealth VS. Staples 1911; Mass. 1884:
Portland and Oxford Central r. r.
Co. VS. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. rs
Maine SO; Wadleigh VS. Gilman, II
Maine, 109
Maine, 103.'
The court also discusses at length
the reason and wisdom of such leg
islation"