58 PROBLEMS IN WILD LIFE CONSERVATION 



naturae, notwithstanding the general introduction of prop- 

 erty, still remained in common but, 12 



... as disturbances and quarrels would arise among individ- 

 uals, contending about the acquisition of this species of property 

 by first occupancy, the law has therefore wisely cut up the root 

 of the dissension by vesting the things themselves in the sover- 

 eign of the state, or else in his representative appointed and 

 authorized by him, usually the lord of the manor. 



Supporting his view with what appears to be a reasonable 

 explanation, Blackstone says that the king had exclusive 

 right to take wild game because he was, 13 



... the ultimate proprietor of all lands in the kingdom they 

 being held to him as the chief lord . . . and therefore he had the 

 right to universal soil, to enter thereon, and to chase and take 

 such creatures at his pleasure : as also upon another maxim of 

 the common law . . . that these animals are bona vacantia, and 

 having no former owner, belong to the king by his prerogative. 

 As therefore the former reason was held to vest in the king a 

 right to pursue and take them anywhere ; the latter was supposed 

 to give the king and such as he should authorize a sole and ex- 

 clusive right. 



Blackstone' s Interpretation Questioned: Edward Chris- 

 tian 14 first challenged the historical accuracy of Blackstone's 

 interpretation of the common, law in his Treatise on the 

 Game Laws published in 1817. The evidence which he pro- 

 duced at that time and the research of modern historians, 



12 2 Blackstone 14. Justice White does not quote this particular passage 

 but the decision implies acceptance of Blackstone's theory of royal 

 ownership. 



13 Ibid., p. 415. The author realizes that so far as the federal courts 

 are concerned, the interpretation of the English common law as set 

 forth in Geer v. Connecticut is binding. See Rope, Herbert, The English 

 Common Laiv in the United States, 24 Harvard Law 6 (1910). 



14 Legal writer of early ipth century. 



