558 GAME LAWS. 



the owner of the soil while his lands are unenclosed prohibit 

 the exercise of this right to others : the hunting of wild ani- 

 mals in the forests and unenclosed lands of this country is as 

 ancient as its settlement, and the right to engage in it is 

 coeval therewith.^ 



"It is a very common police regulation to be found in 

 every State, to prohibit the hunting and killing of birds and 

 other wild animals in certain seasons of the year, the object 

 of the regulation being the preservation of these animals from 

 complete extermination by providing for them a period of rest 

 and safety, in which they may procreate and rear their young. 

 The animals are those which are adapted to consumption as 

 food, and their preservation is a matter of public interest. 

 The constitutionality of such legislation cannot be ques- 

 tioned." ^ And an act providing for greater restrictions as 

 to hunting game and severer penalties therefor upon non- 

 residents of the State than upon residents, is not unconstitu- 

 tional.* 



In Arkansas and Minnesota it was held that statutes mak- 

 ing it unlawful to export game or fish from the State were not 

 tinconstitutional.'^ But in Kansas, this was held to be a regu- 

 lation of interstate commerce and therefore void.^ The same 

 question arose in Connecticut, where a similar statute was 

 held to be constitutional on the ground that the State had 



' McConico V. Singleton, 2 Mill (S. C.) 244; Broughton v. Singleton, 

 2 Nou & McC. (S. C.) 338. 



If a man has a limited right of passage over private ground, that does 

 not entitle him, while using such right, to kill game: Colt v. Webb, i 

 Fraser (Sc. Ct. Justic.) 7. 



'' Tiedeman Limns, of Pol. Power 440. 



' Allen V. Wyckoff, 48 N. J. L. 90. 



' Organ v. State, 56 Ark. 267; State v. North. Pac. Expr. Co., 58 Minn. 

 40-3. 



Under such a statute game killed by tribal Indians on a reservation 

 may be seized by the game warden while it is in the possession of a com- 

 mon carrier to whom it had been delivered for shipment in another State: 

 Selkirk v. Stevens (Minn.), 75 N. W. Rep. 386. 



' State V. Saunders, 19 Kan. 127. 



