24 GAME REFUGES. 



Mr. Williams. Yes 



Mr. Jacoway. If that is so, do you concede that the Federal Gov- 

 ernment in attempting to control these sanctuaries is doing something 

 indirectly that it can not do directly ? 



Mr. Williams. No; I do not concede that at all. I will tell you 

 why. Wnen I say that the State has complete jurisdiction over the 

 protection of game I mean that the State can prescribe the seasons 

 in which the game may be killed or may not be killed within the 

 borders of the State, including the land of the United States. It may 

 say, "This is the open season" and "This is the closed season," and 

 nobody has the right to kill game contrary to the seasons. 



Mr. Reilly. The State regulations might say that you could kill 

 game on all the public land in July and the United States might come 

 along and say, "You can not kill it on this land." 



Mr. Williams.' Absolutely. 



Mr. Reilly. The State has not absolute control of the game ques- 

 tion? 



Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Reilly. It is limited ? 



Mr. Williams. No, sir. 



Mr. Reilly. When the United States does not stop it, that is all ? 



Mr. Williams. When the United States does not stop it, yes, sir; 

 it has full control of the game, so far as prescribing the seasons, but 

 it has not complete control over the game on your land in your State 

 so as to say that a man may go upon your land in July and kill game 

 when you say you do not want him to do so. 



Mr. Reilly. That is true. Your own State has control subject to 

 the right of the individual ? 



Mr. Williams. That is the issue precisely. 



Mr. Reilly. The State also has control subject to the right of the 

 United States to come in and say "You shall not hunt on these 

 lands?" 



Mr. Williams. Exactly. 



Mr. Reilly. From your study of the case, is there any difference 

 between the ownership of the individual and of the United States ? 



Mr. Williams. The only difference is that the ownership of the 

 United States is more complete than the ownership of the individual, 

 because Congress can legislate for the protection or for the adminis- 

 tration of the public lands, while the individual proprietor is depend- 

 ent upon the action of the legislature for protection of his lands 

 from criminal trespass. 



Mr. Reilly. And that is where you and Mr. Mondell differ ? 



Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Reilly. Mr. Mondell claims that there is a limitation upon the 

 United States that is not on the individual? 



Mr. Williams. As to game. 



Mr. Mondell. I do not think that I said there was a limitation 

 on the ownership of the United States that was not on the individual, 

 although that is true. It has been held by the courts, but not in 

 matters affected by this bill, that the authority of the Federal 

 Government, within certain lines, is broader than that of the individ- 

 ual. The individual can prevent trespass and injury to his property 

 under State law. He can compel a party to get off or to remain off 

 his land, but he can not prescribe the punishment for the trespass 



