32 Thirtieth Annual Meeting 



tlu' Courts. It was held by tlic Supremo Court of Massachusetts 

 in 1809, that the legishiture might regulate the taking of fish 

 witliin the state and oblige all persons to conform to the regula- 

 tions by inliicting penalties for the violation of them. Burnham 

 V. Webster, 5 Mass. 266 ; Nickerson v. Brackett, 10 id. 212. This 

 power may be exercised for the protection of the fish, to prevent 

 extermination of the species, and for the maintaining of equality 

 in ri>spect to the right to fish, and the state may regulate fisheries 

 by reasonable regulations. Holyoke Water Power Co. v. Lyman, 

 82 U. S. 500 ; Fish Commissioners v. Holyoke Water Power Co., 

 104 Mass. 446. 



The cases declaring or recognizing this right are very 

 numerous : 



Barber v. Cummings, 20 Johns. 90; 



Gentile v. State, 29 Ind. 409 ; 



State V. Norton, 45 Vt. 258 ; 



People V. Collison, 85 Mich. 105 ; 



Magner v. People, 97 111. 320. 



II. To ^\l\at V^' (iters the niyitt of Control Extends.— The 

 riglit of control and regulation of the fisheries extends : 



1 . To the inland rivers and streams, whether navigable or 

 not, but it does not extend to private or artificial lakes or ponds, 

 artificially stocked and having no connection by channel with 

 other lakes or streams of a public character. The property of 

 such fisli is in the private owner. 



2. To all lakes or ponds, except such as are sul)ject to abso- 

 lute private ownership. \n the western states, the meandered 

 lakes are not the subject of private ownership but the fee is in the 

 state, of the soil below low water mark. 



3. To private waters as well as to navigable streams ; that is,, 

 to streams where the waters flow in non-navigable streams 

 through the lands of more than one owner. 



4. And each state owns the bed of the tide waters within the 

 state, subject to the paramount right of navigation (McCready 

 V. Virginia, 94 F. S. 391.), in trust for the enjoyment of the 

 public riglit of fishery, which the state may control. Manchester 

 V. Massachusetts, 139 U. S. 240. This right extends on the 



