SPHERE OF STATE GOVERNMENT 65 



nations and among the several states and with the Indian 

 tribes." 40 



Prior to the case of Geer v. Connecticut 41 there had been 

 a conflict in the decisions of the state courts in its application 

 to the shipment of wild game. They were agreed upon the 

 validity of state statutes prohibiting the exportation or im- 

 portation of illegally killed game, but were in disagreement 

 regarding legally killed game. The question was considered 

 from two different angles, first, whether a state could pro- 

 hibit the exportation of game legally killed in the state dur- 

 ing the open season; and second, whether a state could 

 prohibit the importation during the closed season of game 

 legally taken during the open season in some other state. 



The Supreme Courts of Kansas and Idaho 42 held that a 

 state prohibition of the export of game legally killed within 

 the state to another state to be a violation of the commerce 

 clause, while the Supreme Courts of Minnesota, Arkansas, 

 and Connecticut 43 ruled the opposite upon the same point. 

 The question was finally settled when the case of State v. 

 Geer 44 was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. 

 In its decision the court said : 45 



It is indeed true that in certain cases it was held that a state 

 law prohibiting the shipment outside of the state of game killed 

 therein violated the interstate commerce clause of the constitu- 

 tion of the United States, but the reasoning which controlled 

 the decision in those cases is, we think inconclusive, from the 



40 United States Constitution, art. i, sec. 8. 



41 161 U. S. 519, 1 6 S. Ct. 600 (1896). 



42 State v. Saunders, 19 Kan. 127 (1877); Territory v. Evans, 2 Id. 

 658 (1890). 



43 State v. Rodman, 58 Minn. 393 (1894) ; Organ v. State, 56 Ark. 267 

 (1892) ; State v. Geer, 61 Conn. 144 (1891). 



44 61 Conn. 144 (1891). 



45 Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, 16 S. Ct. 600 (1896). 



