530 HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE, [June 19, 
forbade catching any game fish in the state waters otherwise than 
with a hook. 
This law was assailed as depriving the citizen of his property 
without due process, as an undue restraint on liberty and an inter- 
ference with the maritime jurisdiction of the United States. The 
trial court sustained this contention as to the first point and gave 
Lawton judgment for the value of his nets. The Court of Appeals, 
however, reversed this, sustained the law as a valid exercise of 
police power in the state and dismissed the action. ‘To reverse 
this judgment the case was taken for review to the United States 
Supreme Court. In an opinion by Justice Brown the act is upheld 
as within the police power of the state. He finds not only that 
the state may interfere on behalf of the public health, safety and 
morals, but 
“wherever the public interest demands it, and in this particular a 
large discretion is vested in the legislature to determine not only what 
the interests of the public require but what measures are necessary for 
the protection of such interests.”’ 
He proceeds to investigate the bounds of this discretion just as 
any other judge does, by looking at the decisions. He finds in 
Rockwell vs. Nearing,‘ a law providing for the summary sale of tres- 
passing animals was held bad as a deprivation of property without 
due process of law. In that case an examination of the precedents 
had shown this not to be an ordinary way of punishing or guarding 
against trespasses by animals, so the constitutional provision ruled 
it out. The protection of game by means of a forfeiture and sum- 
mary destruction of poaching appliances is a common exercise 
of governmental power, and so the constitutional protection of 
private property is no bar to its use in this case and he finds the 
law good. 
He cannot forbear, however, expressing some scruples about the 
summary destruction of the nets without a trial. As to this, the 
precedents are extensively considered together. ‘The refusal of the 
court to apply the constitutional provisions for trial by jury to 
petty offenses is cited, and the conclusion is reached that actual 
injustice can hardly occur under this act. If a party’s property is 
wrongly taken he can replevin or sue for damages. 
Chief Justice Fuller and with him Justices Field and Brewer dis- 
135 UVa Vi, 202. 
