68 COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND FISHERIES. 



People, 133 Illinois, 649; State v. Northern Pacific Express Co., 58 

 Minnesota, 403; State v. Rodman, 58 Minnesota, 393; Ex parte 

 Maier, 103 California, 476; Organ v. State, 56 Arkansas, 267, 270; 

 Allen V. Wyckoff, 48 N. J. Law, 90, 93; Roth v. State, 51 Ohio, St. 

 209; Gentile v. State, 29 Indiana, 409, 415; State v. Farrell, 23 Mo. 

 App. 176, and cases there cited; State v. Saunders, ubi sup.; Territory 

 V. Evans, ubi sup. 



"Whilst the fundamental principles upon which the common 

 property in game rests have undergone no change, the development of 

 free institutions has led to the recognition of the fact that the power 

 or control lodged in the State, resulting from this common owner- 

 ship, is to be exercised, like all other powers of government, as a trust 

 for the benefit of the people, and not as a prerogative for the advan- 

 tage of the government, as distinct from the people, or for the benefit 

 of private individuals as distinguished from the public good. There- 

 fore, for the purpose of exercising this power, the State, as held by 

 this court in Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367, represents its people, 

 and the o^vnership is that of the people in their united sovereignty. 

 The common ownership, and its resulting responsibility in the State, 

 is thus stated in a well considered opinion of the Supreme Court of 

 California : 



" 'The wild game within a State belongs to the people in their 

 collective sovereign capacity. It is not the subject of private OAvner- 

 ship except in so far as the people may elect to make it so ; and they 

 may, if they see fit, absolutely prohibit the taking of it, or traffic and 

 commerce in it, if it is deemed necessary for the protection or preser- 

 vation of the public good.' Ex parte Maier, ubi sup. 



"The same view has been expressed by the Supreme Court of 

 Minnesota, as follows: 



" 'We take it to be the correct doctrine in this country, that the 

 ownership of wild animals, so far as they are capable of ownership, 

 is in the State, not as a proprietor but in its sovereign capacity as the 

 representative and for the benefit of all its people in common.' State 

 V. Rodman, ubi sup. 



