CONTENTS, 



Page. 



1. PACIFIC SPECIES OF SALMON AND TROUT. By David Starr Jordan, 



Prosidcnt of Lelaiul Stanford Junior T^nivcrsity 75 



2. THE PARENT-STREAM THEORY OF THE RETURN OF SALMON. By 



David Starr Jordan, President of Leland Stanford Junior University 98 



;i ARTIFICIAL PROPAGATION OF SALMON IN THE SACRAMENTO RIVER. 



By Cloudslet Ritter, Naturalist. LT. S. Fish Commission steamer Albatross.- 103 



SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. 



4. AH KING. Petitioner, vs. POLICE COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY 



OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent. (139 Cal. 718) 108 



Fish and Game Law — Title of Act — Constititional Law. The preservation 

 of tish and game is a single subject of legislation; and the Fish and Game 

 Law is not invalidated by the constitutional provision requiring Acts of the 

 Legislature to embrace but one subject, to be expressed in their titles. 



5. THE PEOPLE, Respondent, vs. THOMAS J. MILES AND S. S. DINWIDDIE. 



Appellants. (143 Cal. 636) 108 



Criminal Law— Violation of Fishing Law — Use of Set-Net in Slough. 

 Under the fishing law jirescribed in Section 636 of the Penal Code, the use of 

 a set-net in any waters of the State is forbidden, and it is not material 

 whether the waters have a current or tide. A net in a slough connected 

 with a navigable river must be left free to drift, and not be set or permanent. 



6. THE PEOPLE, Respondent, ;•*■. PAUL HAAGEN, Appellant. (139 Cal. 115)-_ 110 



Criminal Law— Violation of Fishing Law — Penalty— Constriction of Penal 

 Code — Jurisdiction of Superior Court — Case Affirmed. The Superior 

 Court has jurisdiction of a criminal prosecution for the violation of Section 

 634 of the Penal Code in regard to the possession and sale of fresh salmon 

 between the tenth of September and the sixteenth of October of a specified 

 year. That section fixes no maximum limit of penalty for the offense ; and 

 its construction is not affected by Section 19 of the Penal Code. The case of 

 People vs. Tom Xop, 124 Cal. 150, affirmed and applied. 



Id. Defect in Information — Omission of Word. The omission of the word 

 "did" before the verbs "have" and "sell" in the information, thereby 

 making these verbs in the wrong tense, is a mere defect in matter of form, 

 not tending to the prejudice of a substantial right of defendant upon the 

 merits, and is not ground for reversal. 



Id. Date of Catching of Fish — Rejection of Evidence— Case Affirmed. 

 Where the charge is to the effect that on the eleventh day of September, 

 being the first day of tlie prohibited season, the defendant unlawfully had in 

 his possession and sold fresh salmon, it was not error to refttse evidence that 

 the fish were caught prior to that date. The case of E.r Parte Moier, 103 Cal. 

 ■476 (1), affirmed and applied. 



