121 
inquiry is that it is impracticable because Congress has 
no jurisdiction under the Constitution over the fisheries 
in waters which are within the boundaries of the States. 
A thoughtful consideration of the whole subject, how- 
ever, convinces most persons that it is also undesirable 
as well as unconstitutional. 
October 17th and 18th, 1883, an interstate convention 
of fish commissioners was held at Detroit, and .at the 
request of the Michigan Board, Otto Kirchner, who was 
then Attorney General of the State, examined the autho- 
rities and announced to the convention his conclusion 
that it was not within the powers of the Federal Gov- 
ernment to assume control of the fisheries in waters 
within the State boundaries. 
Within the present month John Z. Rogers publishes 
over his own signature in Harper's Weekly of May 14th, 
1892, an article in which he forcibly depicts the rapid 
decrease in the catch of codfish, mackerel and lobsters 
within the past ten years, and shows that the depletion 
caused by the destructive methods of fishing has resulted 
in the ruination of the business, and concludes, as so 
many others have, that the remedy lies with Congress 
passing laws for the protection of the fisheries. 
In view of the precedents upon the subject and the 
repeated decisions of the courts that Congress has no 
authority over the matter, it is surprising that people of 
intelligence should so persistently fall into this error. 
The right of the State over the fisheries in waters within 
its borders has been the subject of frequent decisions of 
the courts of this country, and those decisions have been 
uniform and without conflict or variation in favor of the 
exclusive jurisdiction of the State authorities. These 
decisions are not confined to the State tribunals, but the 
most potent and forcible of them were enunciated by the 
Supreme Court of the United States. This unbroken 
line of decisions commences as early as 1823, with the 
case of Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C., 371, and 
