Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/281/261/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:40:39+00:00

Document:
Iowa and Nebraska are bounded by the middle of the main channel of the Missouri River. The Act of Congress admitting Iowa into the Union gave her "concurrent jurisdiction on" the river. An Iowa statute made it lawful for any person to take fish with nets and seines from the river within the jurisdiction of the state upon procuring a license. A Nebraska statute forbade the taking of fish with nets and seines from the waters within the state, and prohibited the possession of nets and seines. This suit was brought by a resident of Nebraska to enjoin enforcement of the Nebraska statute.
1. That the two statutes, as applied to the Missouri River, though not concurrent, are not inconsistent, each relating only to the part of the river within the jurisdiction of the state enacting it, and that the Nebraska prohibition is valid, at least as against residents of Nebraska. P. 281 U. S. 263.
2. That a state may regulate or prohibit fishing within its waters, and, for the proper enforcement of such statutes, may prohibit the possession within its borders of the special instruments of violation, regardless of the time of acquisition or the protestations of lawful intentions on the part of a particular possessor. P. 281 U. S. 264.
Certiorari, 280 U.S. 541, to review a decree of the Supreme Court of Nebraska which reversed a decree of injunction, and ordered that the bill be dismissed, in a suit to prevent the enforcement of a Nebraska statute against fishing with nets, etc.
"It shall be lawful for any person to take from the Mississippi or Missouri Rivers within the jurisdiction of this state any fish with nets or seines upon procuring from the state game warden an annual license for the use of such nets and seines."
Code of Iowa (1927), § 1747.
"concurrent jurisdiction on . . . every . . . river bordering on the said State of Iowa so far as the said river[s] shall form a common boundary to said state, and any other state. . . ."
Act March 3, 1845, c. 48, § 3, 5 Stat. 742, 743. He asserts that, in any event, the prohibition of the mere possession of innocuous traps, nets, and seines violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court issued an injunction. The supreme court of the state reversed the decree and directed that the bill be dismissed, 118 Neb. 174. This Court granted a writ of certiorari, 280 U.S. 541.
The grant of concurrent jurisdiction to Iowa does not deprive Nebraska of power to legislate with respect to its own residents within its own territorial limits. Nicoulin v. O'Brien, 248 U. S. 113; compare McGowan v. Columbia River Packers' Assn., 245 U. S. 352. While the two states have not concurred in this legislation, there is no conflict between them. Each has legislated only as to that part of the river which is within its own territorial limits. It is unnecessary to consider the questions which might arise if Nebraska undertook to prohibit the fishing on Iowa's part of the river, or if Miller were a citizen of Iowa and fished under an Iowa license. Compare Nielsen v. Oregon, 212 U. S. 315. Neither Miller nor any of the persons in whose behalf he brought the suit have licenses from Iowa; nor does it appear that they could obtain them.
The claim under the Fourteenth Amendment is also groundless. A state may regulate or prohibit fishing within its waters, Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U. S. 240; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133; Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, and, for the proper enforcement of such statutes, may prohibit the possession within its borders of the special instruments of violation, regardless of the time of acquisition or the protestations of lawful intentions on the part of a particular possessor, Barbour v. Georgia, 249 U. S. 454; Samuels v. McCurdy, 267 U. S. 188; compare Lawton v. Steele, supra; Silz v. Hesterberg, 211 U. S. 31; Miller v. Schoene, 276 U. S. 272.

References: § 1747
 § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.