70 SALMON GEAR LIMITATION 



specially to hear challenges to state laws based on claimed violations 

 of the federal constitution. In its opinion the court treated these two 

 aspects of the case as follows: 



First, as to enforcement, should the menhaden fishery be per- 

 mitted, the court said: 



'The difficulty of enforcement is also a salient feature entitled to 

 weight. It was given point by the plaintiff Corsa while on the stand. Testi- 

 fying that he was aware of the Maryland prohibition against purse nets 

 within the three-mile belt, he stated with astonishing candor that he habitu- 

 ally fished for menhaden within this area whenever he thought he would 

 not be apprehended. The difficulty of enforcement would be compounded 

 if purse netting for menhaden were permitted within the three-mile coastal 

 area. It is obvious that it would be more burdensome to police against 

 purse netting for food fish if purse netters were permitted to enter the 

 area in pursuit of menhaden; an enforcement official so testified. "^^ 



Second, as to the sports fishing and attendant economic activity, 

 the court said: 



"Decision as to whether the State's interest requires a prohibition of 

 all purse netting in this area in order to protect sports fishing, which itself 

 supports a considerable industry in the State, is also a legislative preroga- 

 tive. It is a legitimate objective for the State to sponsor sports fishing and 

 the economic interests dependent upon it . . . the testimony also showed, and 

 it is a matter of common knowledge, that sports fishermen seriously object 

 to purse netting as interfering with their pursuits. ""^^ 



What the United States Supreme Court thought of the fishermen's 

 argument is indicated in a brief memorandum decision delivered by 

 that court on November 12, 1957: Upon the state's motion to dismiss 

 the fishermen's appeal from the decision of the three-judge court 

 "upon the ground that the questions presented are so unsubstantial 

 as not to warrant further argument,""*^ the United States Supreme 

 Court ordered, "The motion to aflRrm is granted and the judgment 

 is afiftrmed.'"*^ 



Thus, it is to be noted from this case that not only could the 

 legislature effectively abolish an established commercial fishery, it 

 could also do so for some reason other than the elimination of some 

 hazard to health, safety, or morals. It was for the legislature to 

 decide that it should put a high value on the sports fishery and its 

 attendant economic activity and that in order to promote this value 



44. 149 F. Supp. at776. 



45. Id. 



46. Appellees' Motion to Affirm, p. 1 



47. 355U. S. at37. 



