76 CATJPORNIA FIRII AND GAME. 



from, or Ihe ti-aiisi)oi-(nl ion lor any one i»or.soii ol' more lliau (he Ici^al limit of i;am(' 

 iillowod to be taken or killed by cue person, or the shipping or offer for shipment bv 

 an individual of any such excess, and whieh also require every common carrier to 

 keep all shipments of game in oi)en view, labeled with the name and residence of th(( 

 shipper and of the consignee, and the exact contents of the package, were designed, 

 of course, to prevent shipment of wild game iliegally taken and to enable the 

 authorities to more easily discover violations of the game laws, all with a view to the 

 proper preservation of the wild game of the state for the people of the state. The 

 section, as so amended, contains the provision involved in this proceeding, one entirely 

 new in this state, but obviously having the same purpose as the other provisions. 

 It is urged on his behalf in this proceeding that the provision of the statute is void 

 as being both an unlawful interference with a federal instrumentality, viz.. the postal 

 service of the United States, and an attempt to regulate interstate commerce. 

 Petitioner also claims that it constitutes an unlawful interference with the property 

 right of citizens to use the United States mail, and that it is in violation of section 11 

 of article I of our own constitution, which requires that all laws of a general nature 

 shall have a uniform operation. 



Of course, no one disputes the proposition that the postal service is a federal 

 instrumentality under the exclusive .lurisdiction of Congress, and that a state may in 

 no way regulate or burden the operation thereof. It isthis very fact which furnishes 

 the basis for the discrimination against the use of that service" by our citizens in the 

 shipment of "wild game" (included in which is tish. People vs. Truckee Lumber Co., 

 116 Cal. 397), and in favor of other methods of shipment. When game is deposited 

 in the parcel post it is at once subject to the exclusive control of the postal authorities 

 under the statutes of the United States and regulations of the Postoffice Department, 

 and absolutely free from state inspection and control. For reasons which are obvious 

 the federal government could not tolerate the slightest interference with its officers 

 and employees in the handling and delivery of the mail. For the purpose of protect- 

 ing the game of the state for the use of the people of the state, the legislature has 

 enacted many laws relative to the taking of game, some prohibiting the taking of 

 certain kinds at any time, others prohibiting the taking of certain kinds except 

 during a certain time known as the "open season" for such game, others limiting the 

 number of certain kinds that may be taken by one person during a stated time!^ and 

 so on. As a method of guarding against illegal taking of game it has been provided 

 that the Fish and Game Commissioners of the state shall see that the game laws are 

 strictly enforced, and "shall inspect all buildings, _ other than dwellings, and all 

 receptacles, other than the clothing actually worn by a person at the time of inspec- 

 tion, where game or fish may be stored or placed, and all boxes and packages contain- 

 ing fish or game that are held for transportation by any transportation company or 

 common carrier; * * * ^q inspect regularly * * * ^n boxes and packages, 

 containing fish or game that are held for transportation by any transportation com- 

 pany or common carrier." Also to "seize and take possession of all game or fish," 

 which has been illegally taken, killed or had in possession, or has been shipped or 

 offered for shipment contrary to any of the laws of the state. It is necessarily con- 

 ceded that these provisions as to inspection and seizure by the state officers of game 

 shipped or offered for shipment can not be enforced as to shipments by mail. Any 

 attempt to so enforce them would indeed be an attempted unlawful invasion of the 

 exclusive .federal jurisdiction. If these provisions for insjiection and seizure of game 

 found to be illegally taken are valid enactments of state law, the fact that they 

 can not be enforced as to game delivered to the postal .service for transportation 

 furnishes a sufficient basis for excluding the parcel post from the means by which 

 game may be shipped, in so far as any objection of special legislation or want of 

 uniformity in operation under our state constitution is concerned. 



The argument of learned counsel for petitioner in support of the proposition that 

 the provisions as to inspection, etc., are invalid as improperly interfering with property 

 rights, and that the provision here involved which precludes petitioner from using the 

 United States mail for the shipment of game is in effect a deprival of his property 

 right to use the United States mail without due process of law, to our minds fails to 

 give due effect to the well settled doctrine as to the nature and extent of one's 

 property right in wild game. That doctrine was stated by this court through 

 Mr. Justice Van Fleet in Ex parte Maier, 108 Cal. 470, 483, in language subse- 

 quently approvingly quoted by the Supreme Court of the United States in Geer vs. 

 Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, 529, as follows : "The wild game within a state belongs to 

 the people in their collective, sovereign capacity ; it is not the subject of private 

 ownership, 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 any traffic or commerce in it, if 

 deemed necessary for its protection or preservation, or the public good." The offense 

 there charged was that of selling deer meat in violation of a state statute which 

 prohibited any such sale in California. The meat sold was cut by the defendant from 

 the carcass of an entire deer theretofore brought by him from the state of Texas, in 

 which state it had been lawfully killed. It was contended that the statute did not 

 and could not prohibit the sale of meat lawfully taken in another state. It was 



