74 GAME COMMISSIONS AND WARDENS. 



IMPRISONMENT. 



The only punishment authorized under man}- of the older game stat- 

 utes was a fine, and if the defendant was impecunious he escaped pun- 

 ishment altogether. A veiy considerable proportion of ofi^'enders 

 against the game laws are of this class, and experience has demon- 

 strated that to secure obedience the alternative corrective, imprison- 

 ment, must be allowed; otherwise manv violations go unpunished. 



In some localities it is ver}" difficult to secure conviction under the 

 game laws where the punishment is limited to imprisonment alone. 

 On the other hand such laws are often very lightly respected when 

 offenders know that the only punishment is a fine. It would seem, 

 therefore, that the provision in the penal clause of the game laws of 

 most of the States authorizing tine or imprisonment, or both, is the 

 proper scheme of punishment 



Some statutes declare that in default of payment the defendant 

 shall be imprisoned till the fine is paid or until he is otherwise legally 

 discharged, which is equivalent to the requirement that he be held 

 until he resorts to the remedy- usually provided for insolvent convicts, 

 that is, proof of his inability to pay the fine. Another method of 

 enforcing the penal clause exists in a few States, exemplified l\y Colo- 

 rado, where it is directed that no person upon whom a fine is imposed 

 shall be discharged therefrom on account of his inability to pay the 

 fine, but must be imprisoned one da}" for each Jive dollars thereof. It 

 is interesting to note the discrepancy in value placed upon a day's 

 restraint of liberty. At the other extreme from Colorado is Arkan- 

 sas, where the defendant must be imprisoned one day for each seventy- 

 Jive cents of the fine. Still another form obtains in some States, 

 where, as in Florida, the alternative of imprisonment if fines are 

 not paid appears as a general statute applicable to all crimes. 



It has been held by the courts that when a person is sentenced 

 to pa}'^ a fine and, upon default, to be imprisoned till it is paid 

 or defendant is discharged in pursuance of an enabling statute, such 

 imprisonment, even if full}- served, does not satisfy' judgment for the 

 fine, but such judgment remains in full force until collected. This is 

 so by the game statute in New York. Such being the case it would 

 seem that in order to bring the ease to a finality and clear the records, 

 the Colorado scheme is the best. 



Among the cases resulting in imprisonment in 1906 may be men- 

 tioned the following-: In Illinois two defendants, each of whom had 

 killed a prairie chicken, were committed to jail for 10 days; for fail- 

 ure to pay fines one defendant was committed to jail for killing a pheas- 

 ant, three for hunting without a license, one for hunting before sunrise, 

 and one for killing quail out of season. In Michigan two defendants 

 received a sentence of 60 days in jail and $100 fine each for attempting 



