110 FISH AND GAME COMMISSION 



At about the same time the Globe Cotton Oil Mills, of Los Angeles, 

 asked for a hearing on their application for permission to take sardines 

 for the purpose of manufacturing edible oil. This the Commission 

 refused and the company sought a writ of mandate in the Supreme 

 Court to compel the Commission to hold the hearing. The Supreme 

 Court decided in favor of the petitioner. The court's decision, in part, 

 is as follows : 



' ' This court is of the view, however, that admitting that the Fish 

 and Game Commission can not be granted any power which consti- 

 tutionally belongs exclusively to the judicial department of the 

 state government, the granting of power to hold hearings and deter- 

 mine facts incidental to the regulation of fish and game, and to the 

 granting of permits to take and use fish, is valid as an administra- 

 tive or regulatory power, and in no wise transgresses upon the 

 judicial functions of the judicial department." 



This was, in effect, a victory for the Commission. After this decision 

 was rendered on January 20, 1927, the Commission notified the sar- 

 dine canners that they must make application to have the capacities of 

 their canneries determined by the Commission. Most of the southern 

 California canners failed to make application. The Commission then 

 sought to enjoin the Van Camp Sea Food Co., Inc., from using sardines 

 in its reduction plant. The defendant filed a general demurrer. 

 On November 14, 1927, Judge Stephens, of the Los Angeles County 

 superior court overruled the demurrer, thus sustaining the Fish and 

 Game Commission. This was really a reversal of the judge's earlier 

 ruling, and was caused by the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Globe 

 Cotton Oil Mills case quoted from above. The Commission then filed 

 injunction proceedings against three other canners at San Pedro who 

 were using sardines in their reduction plants without a permit from the 

 Commission. The court issued orders temporarily restraining all of 

 these companies from using any sardines in their reduction plants. All 

 canners thereupon applied to the Commission for hearings and agreed 

 to abide by the regulations of the Commission. The pending cases 

 were therefore dismissed. 



Floating reduction plants. 



At the beginning of the sardine season of 1926-27, the Ocean Indus- 

 tries, Inc., had equipped the old concrete barge Peralta with reduction 

 machinery, and anchored it five miles from shore within Monterey Bay 

 and proceeded to take sardines from two purse seine boats, which were 

 careful to catch their sardines more than three miles from the shore, 

 although they were caught within the bay. The Commission arrested 

 the two captains of the fishing boats and seized their nets, charging them 

 with violating the Fish Exchange Act, which forbids the diversion of 

 food fish for purposes other than human consumption without the writ- 

 ten consent of the state market director. Injunction proceedings were 

 brought against the company and a restraining order was issued by the 

 superior court of Santa Cruz County. The defendant thereupon filed 

 petition for an injunction in the United States District Court at San 

 Francisco, claiming that the Partita and their fishing boats were beyond 

 the jurisdiction of the state. Their application for injunction was 

 denied by Federal Judge A. F. St. Sure, who decided that all of Mon- 

 terey Bay was within the State of California. On November 1, 1926, 



