66 COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND FISHERIES. 



State for the use of these natural resourqes and for the expense of the 

 enforcement of the protective legislation. The provision in the pro- 

 posed act which limits the privileges of the lobster fishery to citizens 

 commends itself to the approval of your Commissioners on the general 

 ground that the fishery is one of those natural resources of much 

 importance which has not been developed by individual enterprise, 

 and also on the ground that the citizens of the State, through their 

 General Assembly, are bearing the expense of the maintenance and 

 development of the lobster fishery." 



It thus appears that the General Assembly has authorized the 

 expenditure of, and that there has been expended, a liberal amount 

 of money for the purpose of not only preserving, but if possible of 

 increasing the supply of lobsters for the benefit of the people of the 

 State. It would be of little benefit to the people of the State if lob- 

 sters were hatched, cared for during a critical period of their existence 

 and until they attained an age and strength sufficient to enable them 

 to protect themselves against their natural foes, if they were to be 

 liberated without the protection of the law against the cupidity of 

 man. In such circumstances there would be little hope of increase 

 on their part. No one will deny that lobsters are animals ferae 

 naturae and that those which inhabit the public waters of the State 

 are the common property of the people of the State until caught and 

 when caught by one having the right to fish for them belong to him 

 who thus reduced them to captivity. This condition calls loudly for 

 the exercise of the police power of the State if the subject comes 

 within the purview of that power. It hardly needs the citation of 

 authority to convince any reflecting person that it does, but fort- 

 unately authorities are not lacking on the subject and a few will 

 suffice. As was said by Mr. Justice, now Chief Justice White, in 

 Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, et seq: ''From the earliest tradi- 

 tions the right to reduce animals /erae naturae to possession has been 

 subject to the control of the law-giving power," and again, "The 

 common law of England also based property in game upon the prin- 

 ciple of common ownership, and therefore treated it as subject to 



