Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/278/1/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:39:22+00:00

Document:
1. An order of the district court refusing a temporary injunction will not be disturbed on appeal unless the refusal was contrary to some rule of equity, or was the result of improvident exercise of judicial discretion. P. 278 U. S. 6.
(1) One challenging the validity of a state enactment on the ground that it is repugnant to the commerce clause is not necessarily bound by the legislative declarations of purpose, but may show that, in their practical operation, the provisions directly burden or destroy interstate commerce. P. 278 U. S. 10.
(5) The statute (upon the facts alleged) is not sustainable as an exercise of the power of the state, as trustee for her people, to conserve the shrimp, as common property, for intrastate use. Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, distinguished. P. 278 U. S. 11.
(6) Taking the shrimp, with authority from the state to ship and sell all the products thereof in interstate commerce, ends the trusts upon which the state is deemed to own and control the shrimp for the benefit of her people, and those so taking them necessarily thereby become entitled to the rights of private ownership and the protection of the commerce clause; they are not bound to comply with, or estopped from objecting to enforcement of, conditions that conflict with the Constitution. P. 278 U. S. 13.
(7) From the record, it clearly appears that refusal of a temporary injunction was an improvident exercise of judicial discretion. P. 278 U. S. 14. Reversed.
of improvident exercise of judicial discretion. Meccano, Ltd. v. John Wanamaker, 253 U. S. 136, 253 U. S. 141.
is intended for the interstate and foreign business of the Sea Food Company, and, if prevented from obtaining such shrimp, the business of that company will be destroyed and its plant will be of no value.
in chicken feed." But, when they have been "conserved for the purposes herein stated, the right of property therein theretofore existing in the state shall pass to the lawful taker or the possessor thereof." Section 13. Penalties are prescribed for violations. Section 19.
And the complaint alleges that, for years, shrimp taken from Louisiana waters has been shipped out of the state unshelled; that only a negligible amount of hulls and heads of such shrimp as are consumed within the state has ever been used as fertilizer; that the declared purpose to conserve them is a subterfuge. And plaintiffs state that, notwithstanding their willingness to pay all charges, licenses, and taxes imposed and to comply with all the valid requirements, defendants, if not enjoined, will prevent plaintiffs from taking or acquiring shrimp from Louisiana waters, to their great and irreparable loss.
At the hearing on their motion for a temporary injunction, plaintiffs presented affidavits which tend to show the facts following. By reason of favorable topographical, climatic, labor and other conditions, shrimp taken from the Louisiana marshes may be more conveniently and economically canned at Biloxi than in Louisiana near to the source of supply. The Biloxi plants have long constituted an important center of the industry, and they are largely dependent upon the Louisiana marshes for their supply. The enforcement of the Act would injure or destroy the shrimp business of plaintiffs and the industry at Biloxi. About 95 percent of the shrimp obtained from the waters of Louisiana, when taken, is intended for consumption outside the state. Some shrimp bran is made from the hulls and heads in Louisiana, but all of it is shipped to Biloxi, where it is used to make fertilizer. It is worth less than 1 percent of the value of the shrimp. Not more than half the hulls and heads removed in Louisiana is used for any purpose. They have no market value, cannot be sold or given away, and often constitute a nuisance.
The facts alleged in the complaint, the details set forth in plaintiffs' affidavits, and the provisions of the Act to be restrained show that the conservation of hulls and heads is a feigned, and not the real, purpose. They support plaintiffs' contention that the purpose of the enactment is to prevent the interstate movement of raw shrimp from the Louisiana marshes to the plants at Biloxi in order, through commercial necessity, to bring about the removal of the packing and canning industries from Mississippi to Louisiana. The conditions imposed by the Act upon the interstate movement of the meat and other products of shrimp are not intended and do not operate to conserve them for the use of the people of the state.
262 U. S. 553, 262 U. S. 596; Oklahoma v. Kansas Nat. Gas Co., 221 U. S. 229, 221 U. S. 255.
"Whilst the fundamental principles upon which the common property in game rests have undergone no change, the development of free institutions has led to the recognition of the fact that the power or control lodged in the state, resulting from this common ownership, is to be exercised, like all other powers of government, as a trust for the benefit of the people, and not as a prerogative for the advantage of the government, as distinct from the people, or for the benefit of private individuals, as distinguished from the public good. Therefore, for the purpose of exercising this power, the state, as held by this Court in Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. , 41 U. S. 410, represents its people, and the ownership is that of the people in their united sovereignty."
"The wild animals within its borders are, so far as capable of ownership, owned by the state in its sovereign capacity for the common benefit of all its people. Because of such ownership, and in the exercise of its police power, the state may regulate and control the taking, subsequent use and property rights that may be acquired therein."
"in view of the authority of the state to affix conditions to the killing and sale of game, . . . it may well be doubted whether commerce is created by an authority given by a state to reduce game within its borders to possession, provided such game be not taken, when killed, without the jurisdiction of the state. . . . Passing, however, as we do, the decision of this question, and granting that the dealing in game killed within the state . . . created internal state commerce, it does not follow that such internal commerce became necessarily the subject matter of interstate commerce, and therefore under the control of the Constitution of the United States. . . . [P. 161 U. S. 532] The fact that internal commerce may be distinct from interstate commerce destroys the whole theory upon which the argument of the plaintiff in error proceeds."
commerce. As to such shrimp, the protection of the commerce clause attaches at the time of the taking. Dahnke-Walker Co. v. Bondurant, supra; Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, supra, 262 U. S. 596 et seq. As the representative of its people, the state might have retained the shrimp for consumption and use therein. But, in direct opposition to conservation for intrastate use, this enactment permits all parts of the shrimp to be shipped and sold outside the state. The purpose is not to retain the shrimp for the use of the people of Louisiana; it is to favor the canning of the meat and the manufacture of bran in Louisiana by withholding raw or unshelled shrimp from the Biloxi plants. But, by permitting its shrimp to be taken and all the products thereof to be shipped and sold in interstate commerce, the state necessarily releases its hold and, as to the shrimp so taken, definitely terminates its control. Clearly such authorization and the taking in pursuance thereof put an end to the trusts upon which the state is deemed to own or control the shrimp for the benefit of its people. And those taking the shrimp under the authority of the Act necessarily thereby become entitled to the rights of private ownership and the protection of the commerce clause. They are not bound to comply with, or estopped from objecting to, the enforcement of, conditions that conflict with the Constitution of the United States. Quaker City Cab Co. v. Pennsylvania, 277 U. S. 389; Power Co. v. Saunders, 274 U. S. 490, 274 U. S. 493, 274 U. S. 497; Hanover Insurance Co. v. Harding, 272 U. S. 494, 272 U. S. 507.
plaintiffs will suffer great and irremediable loss if the challenged provisions shall be enforced, their right to have a temporary injunction is plain. From the record, it quite clearly appears that the lower court's refusal was an improvident exercise of judicial discretion.
"To declare all shrimp and parts thereof in the waters of the state to be the property of the state of Louisiana, and to provide the manner and extent of their reduction to private ownership; to encourage, protect, conserve, regulate and develop the shrimp industry of the State of Louisiana. . . ."
"Section 1. . . . That all salt water shrimp existing in the waters of this state, and the hulls and all parts of said salt water shrimp, shall be and are hereby declared to be the property of the state until the title thereto shall be divested in the manner and form herein authorized, and shall be under the exclusive control of the Department of Conservation of the State of Louisiana until the right of private ownership shall vest therein as herein provided, and that no person, firm, or corporation shall catch or have in their possession living or dead, any salt water shrimp, or parts thereof, or purchase, sell, or offer for sale, any such shrimp or parts thereof after same have been caught except as otherwise permitted herein."
"Section 4. That the right to take salt water shrimp from the waters of this state and the right to can, pack or dry the said shrimp when caught are hereby granted to any resident of this state, to any firm or association composed of residents of this state, or to any corporation domiciled in or organized under the laws of this state, operating a canning or packing factory or drying platform in this state. These rights shall be confined to such persons and corporations, and are granted subject to the further conditions hereinafter stipulated."
"Section 13. All salt water shrimp and the shells or hulls and heads of all salt water shrimp are hereby declared to be the property of the state, and the shells or hulls and heads to be valuable for use as a natural resource of the state as a fertilizer in the state, and it shall therefore and hereafter be unlawful to export from the state of Louisiana any salt water shrimp from which the shell or hull and head shall not have been removed."
"In order that all of the inhabitants of the State of Louisiana may enjoy the state's natural food product, it shall be lawful to ship unshelled shrimp from any point in the State of Louisiana to any other point in the State of Louisiana for edible consumption, subject to such regulations and restrictions as may be imposed by the Department of Conservation. Any person, firm or corporation of this state who shall lawfully take any shrimp from any of the waters of the state, or lawfully acquire the same, shall have a qualified interest or property in the shrimp so taken or acquired in the shells, which qualified interest may be sold or transferred to any other person, firm or corporation within the limits of the state; and after the edible portions of the abdomen popularly called tail meat of said shrimp shall have been removed from the shell, within the State of Louisiana, such lawful taker or possessor, his heirs or assigns, as the case may be, shall be vested with all of the rights and property of the state in and to said shrimp tail meat and shall have the right to sell such shrimp tail meat or ship the same beyond the limit of the state, without restriction or reservation."
"It shall be the duty of all licensees operating under the Department of Conservation in the shrimp industry in this state to conserve for fertilizer purposes all shells or hulls and heads of salt water shrimp and to report monthly, on blanks to be furnished by the Department of Conservation, the quantity thereof on hand, to the Department of Conservation. It shall be unlawful to export from the State of Louisiana any raw shells or hulls and heads of salt water shrimp as they are required to be manufactured into fertilizer or used for an element in chicken feed. When the shrimp hulls or shells and heads shall have been conserved for the purposes herein stated, the right of property therein theretofore existing in the state shall pass to the lawful taker or the possessor thereof. Any person, firm or corporation violating the provisions of this section shall be liable to the penalties hereinafter imposed."
I think the court below properly applied the correct doctrine, and that the challenged decree should be affirmed.
"The wild game within a state belongs to the people in their collective sovereign capacity. It is not the subject of private ownership, except insofar as the people may elect to make it so, and they may, if they see fit, absolutely prohibit the taking of it, or traffic and commerce in it if it is deemed necessary for the protection or preservation of the public good."
and the consequent power of the state to follow such property into whatever hands it might pass with the conditions and restrictions deemed necessary for the public interest."
Manifestly, Louisiana has full power absolutely to forbid interstate shipments of shrimp taken within her territory. These crustaceans belong to her, and she may appropriate them for the exclusive use and benefit of citizens. If the state should conclude that the best interests of her people requires all shrimp to be canned or manufactured therein before becoming part of interstate commerce, nothing in the federal Constitution would prevent appropriate action to that end. This would not interfere with any right guaranteed to an outsider. How wildlife may be utilized in order to advantage her own citizens is for the producing state to determine. To enlarge opportunity for employment is one way, and often the most effective way, to promote their welfare.
Certainly I cannot accept the notion that the record discloses any subterfuge -- something resorted to for concealment -- by Louisiana. And I think no weight should be given to the gratuitous allegation of such purpose by nonresidents who are seeking to defeat control by the state in order that they may secure benefits for themselves from wild life found therein.
Any profitable discussion of this controversy must take into consideration the marked distinction between game and property subject to absolute ownership. Cases like Dahnke-Walker Co. v. Bondurant, 257 U. S. 282, which concern property of the latter kind are not persuasive here. A state may regulate the sale and transportation of wild things in ways not permissible where wheat is the subject matter. Geer v. Connecticut, supra; Silz v. Hesterberg, 211 U. S. 31, 211 U. S. 41; Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland Railway, 242 U. S. 311.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.