12 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES. 
that ‘‘the Commissioner may take or cause to be taken at all times in the waters of 
the seacoast of the United States, where the tide ebbs and flows, and also in the 
waters of the lakes, such fish or specimens thereof as may in his judgment from time 
to time be needful or proper for the conduct of his duties, any law, custom or usage 
of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”’ 
On November 6, 1903, which was during the closed season under the Michigan 
statute, while the eggs of white-fish and trout for the purpose of propagation in 
Michigan were being gathered near Marquette, in Lake Superior, under the direction 
of S. P. Wires, superintendent of the United States fish hatchery at Duluth, he was 
arrested by the defendants in this case, and the fish in his possession were confiscated. 
The action of Superintendent Wires and his men in submitting to the humiliation of 
the forcible boarding of their boat and the seizure and confiscation of the fish, with- 
out forcible resistance, and appealing to the courts where controversies of this nature 
between the two sovereign governments should be settled without friction, can not 
be too highly conimended. 
The defendants are the Michigan state game and fish warden and his deputy, who 
claim that all fishing by the United States Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries in 
the Great Lakes bordering on the state of Michigan must be done under their super- 
vision, and that the only right the United States Fish Commission has to fish, for 
the purpose for which Congress created it, in Michigan waters during the closed 
season, is considered by act No. 88 of the Public Acts of 1899, which reads: ‘‘It 
shall be lawful for the United States Fish Commission, through its representatives 
or employees, to fish with nets in any of the waters of this state, during any season 
of the year, for the purpose of gathering spawn from such fish caught, to have and 
to hold both ripe and unripe fish, and to have the privilege of selling such fish after 
stripping to help defray the expense incurred in the work of propogation; that such 
fishing by said Fish Commission shall be under the supervision and control of the 
state game and fish warden: And provided further, That at least seventy-five per 
cent of the fry resulting from the spawn so taken shall be planted in the waters of 
this state, the same to be determined by reports to the state game and fish warden.’’ 
A deputy of the state game and fish warden demanded the right to superintend 
the fishing operations of the United States Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries, 
which demand was refused, and he then seized and confiscated the fish in the 
possession of the Commissioner’s agents, and caused the arrest of Wires and the 
persons found assisting him. 
If the United States has the right which Congress evidently intended to confer by 
the legislation above quoted, and a deputy game warden can legally interfere with 
the exercise of that right, in the manner admitted in the answer filed in this case, 
then the Government is entitled to the contempt which the deputy game warden 
exhibited toward it. The United States can not undertake any work where it is not 
supreme, and a Government officer could not, in any legitimate function of the Goy- 
ernment, be under the direction and control of a state officer. If the Federal statute, 
by which it was intended to confer on the Commissioner the right to take or cause 
to be taken in the waters of the lakes such fish as in his judgment is needful for the 
proper conduct of his duties, is constitutional, the legislation is exclusive, and any 
act of any state, so far as it conflicts with that legislation, is void. The Attorney- 
General in his brief says: ‘‘The defendants contend that the right of complainant 
to so take fish can be exercised only pursuant to the authority granted to the United 
States Fish Commission by the laws of the state of Michigan; that the power of 
complainant is limited and defined by those laws, and that any enactment of Con- 
gress contravening the statutes of this state in relation to such fishing is unconstitu- 
tional and void.’? The act of Congress, if invalid, is so because it conflicts with the 
Federal Constitution, and not because it contravenes the statutes of the state of 
Michigan. If it is decided that the United States has no right to take fish, under 
