LEGAL ANALYSIS 101 



plicants were to be granted permission to hunt for this Hmited pur- 

 pose. The Hmitation on number of hunters was not the only way, 

 it will be noted, by which the legislature might have tried to accom- 

 plish its objective. It could presumably have said that all applicants 

 shall be allowed to hunt, but that the game director should so limit 

 the duration of the hunt that the correct number of animals would 

 be killed. But, this is a matter clearly within the realm of legislative 

 choice. Since the legislature had decided, however, that only a 

 certain number of hunters ought to participate and yet it further 

 desired that all persons have an equal opportunity to take part, the 

 only feasible scheme was to conduct a drawing. Here, too, the legis- 

 lature could have decided to pick only the best qualified hunters to 

 do the job; yet, again, this is a matter for legislative choice, for it 

 can decide for itself how it wants to accomplish its objective. 



It is possible, of course, that the legislature might wish to accom- 

 plish other subsidiary purposes in limiting the number of fishermen. 

 For example, if a determination were made by the legislature, as is 

 quite possible, that it wished to avoid the undesirable consequences 

 of persons entering the fishing industry who were prospectively poor 

 risks from a financial standpoint, an additional standard for licensees 

 could also be specified. This type of qualification could of course 

 be extended almost indefinitely, as the legislature deemed it advisable 

 in the interests of the public welfare. Such matters as the person's 

 ability to pay his crew, to have safe equipment, and to provide 

 adequate refrigeration for the fish might well be considered to be 

 influenced by the financial resources of the applicant, and thus such 

 a standard could be considered highly material. Or, a person's dem- 

 onstrated or otherwise established prospective ability to handle a 

 boat or other technical qualification could well be prescribed by 

 the legislature. If such matters be additionally considered necessary, 

 the scheme would resemble most closely that followed by the federal 

 government in determining who should have radio and television 

 channels for broadcast. There the applicants are frequently all 

 capable of meeting a minimum of quality: but, since the absolute 

 number of participants must be limited, the choice is made, within 

 that numerical limit, of the applicants who are best qualified. There 

 could be no doubt that sucli a scheme ought to meet constitutional 

 standards if employed in the fishing industry. 



The additional subsidiary purpose of providing for administrative 

 convenience is or may be important in the legislative scheme adopted 



