30 TWENTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL MEETING 



all the United States Court decisions have been to the effect 

 that the United States has no authority over those waters. 

 There have been a number of decisions, and I believe all have 

 been in that direction. Mr. Eavenel is better acquainted with 

 that matter and with the law than I am . 



Mr. Ravenel: It is simply a matter of guess as far as I am 

 concerned, but we have always understood and I think the 

 State Courts have been sustained by the United States Courts, 

 that the jurisdiction of the Great Lakes rests entirely with the 

 states bordering on the lakes. In Canada it is entirely differ- 

 ent. In our country each state passes its own laws and en- 

 forces them and the United States has no jurisdiction what- 

 ever over inland waters or lakes. 



Mr. Titcomb: I would like to inquire if there has anything 

 been done towards the states ceding their rights to the United 

 States? If these states bordering on the Great Lakes should 

 cede their rights or their jurisdiction over the fish of those 

 waters, would it not then be possible for the United States to 

 enact proper protective laws which would be uniform? 

 Mr. Bowers: It would necessitate an act of Congress. 

 Mr. Titcomb: I understand if every state should cede the 

 control of these waters, then the TTuited States, through Con- 

 gress, could enact laws protecting the fish. 



Mr. Ravenel: I know that at present we have no juris- 

 diction. 



Secretary Whitaker: I believe this matter was brought up 

 in the Supreme Court of the United States many years ago 

 and the first decision was rendered by Chief Justice Washing- 

 ton, and uniformly from then down to Chief Justice Waite, 

 whenever the ITnited States Supreme Court has been called 

 upon to pass upon this question its decision has been that the 

 power of police regulation under the constitution as it was 

 adopted was reserved to the individual states, and that the 

 United States Government could not exercise it. That is the 

 condition of the law, and it has been the decision of every court 

 of inferior and superior jurisdiction in this country. I think 

 that may be said to be true without any sort of qualification. 



Mr. Ravenel: It would require a constitutional amendments 

 would it not? 



Secretary Whitaker: It would require a constitutional 

 amendment, an agreement to it by the states. I would say in 

 that connection that last fall I was invited to appear before 

 the High Joint Commission at Quebec on this very question, 

 and I took occasion to say certain things to them upon the 

 matter, and very likely that will be one of the questions that 

 Commission will decide, if they ever decide anything, in the 

 near future. 



