SPHERE OF STATE GOVERNMENT 69 



We think we may safely hold that the citizens of one state are 

 not invested by this clause of the constitution with any interest 

 in the common property of the citizens of another state. If 

 Virginia had by law provided for the sale of its once vast public 

 domain and a division of the proceeds among its own people 

 no one would contend that the citizens of other states had a con- 

 stitutional right to the enjoyment of this privilege of Virginia 

 citizenship. . . . And as all concede that a state may grant to 

 one of its citizens the exclusive use of part of the common 

 property, the conclusion would seem to follow, that it might by 

 appropriate legislation confine the use of the whole to its own 

 people alone. 



Limitation Imposed by the Equal Protection of the Laws 

 Clause upon State Control: Numerous discriminatory laws 

 regarding hunting and fishing have been passed by the states 

 in favor of their own citizens and upheld on the basis of 

 the doctrine above quoted. A law discriminating between 

 citizens of the state, however, may be a violation of the 

 constitutional clause guaranteeing to all persons within the 

 jurisdiction of a state equal protection of the laws. 56 



This clause does not prevent a state from closing certain 

 areas to hunting, nor from forbidding the killing of certain 

 species, but the state may not grant to the inhabitants of one 

 county the exclusive right to take game within the county to 

 the exclusion of other residents of the state nor upon more 

 favorable terms. 57 The Florida Supreme Court speaking of 

 this matter in State v. Bryan 58 said : 



The Legislature in protecting game may in its discretion limit 

 a statute in the extent and purpose of its operation, but the 



56 I4th amendment, sec. i. 



57 A state may provide lesser fees while hunting within the county 

 of residence, but such a reduction must apply to all counties within the 

 state. 



5*87Fla. 56, 99 So. 327 (1924). 



