FINES. 



71 



''proof as to a part of an animal shall be sufficient to sustain a charge 

 as to the whole of it." The contention has sometimes been made that 

 a statute simpl}^ prohibiting- the possession, sale, or other disposition 

 of certain specified birds or animals, without mention of the parts 

 thereof, could not be invoked against a person dealing in heads, horns, 

 hides, liesh, plumage, or any other constituent part of game or birds. 

 To obviate such contention and set the matter at rest, the Colorado 

 provision or one similar thereto should be inserted in every game law. 



FIXES. 



So much has already been stated in reference to 'Fines,' under the 

 heads 'Game protection funds,' and 'Separate offenses,' that very little 

 remains to be said here. 



One phase of the subject, however, deserves fuller and more extended 

 presentation. A number of cases involving the game laws have gone 

 to the courts of last resort upon the ground that the fine authorized to 

 be inflicted was excessive and that the statute was, therefore, in con- 

 travention of that clause of the State constitution prohibiting the im- 

 position of excessive fines. The courts without exception in these 

 cases have sustained the law and have held the following fines not to 

 be excessive: One dollar for each lobster in Maine (State v. Craig, 13 

 Atl., 129); $5 for each lobster in Maine (State v. Lubee, 15 Atl., 520); 

 $5 for each prairie chicken in Nebraska (McMahon r. State, 97 N. W., 

 1035); $10 for each duck in Minnesota (States?. Poole, 100 N. W., 617); 

 $20 for each bird in Rhode Island (In re Stone, 41 Atl.. 65S; 21 R. I., 

 11); $50 to $75 for a wild duck in Wisconsin (State r. DeLano, 19 N. 

 W., 808); and $100 for each deer in Minnesota (State v. Rodman, 59 

 N. W., 1098; 68 Minn., 393). One of the clearest and most satisfac- 

 tory expositions of this question is found in the case of State v. Rod- 

 man (Minn., 1891), 59 X. W., 1098. In this case, which involved the 

 unlawful possession of 58 deer, the maximum punishment provided by 

 the statute was a fine of $5,800, or imprisonment in the county jail for 

 about sixteen years. In the course of its decision, the court said: 



While the fines imijosed are certainly large, yet we can not say that they are 

 excessive, in a constitutional sense. A large discretion is necessarily vested in the 

 legislature to impose penalties sufficient to prevent the coniniission of an offense, and 

 it would have to be an extreme case to warrant the courts in holding that the consti- 

 tutional limit had been transcended. 



Ten years later the same court (the supreme court of Minnesota) 

 as already explained (see p. 05) sustained the lower court in the imposi- 

 tion of a nuich larger fine— $20,000— for having in possession 2,000 

 wild ducks with intent to sell them. 



The following table shows by comparison the amount of fine and 

 term of imprisonment imposed by statute \u the sev<>ral States for 

 three classes of offenses— killing deer and quail in close season, and 

 for nonresidents hunting witliout license: 



