564 GAME LAWS. 



there was no such prohibition.^^ And one controlling game 

 consigned from another State for sale is liable for having pos- 

 session out of season, though the consignment was made at 

 a proper time and the game was stored in the refrigerator 

 warehouse of a company.^^ 



In Illinois a similar statute was held not to be unconstitu- 

 tional as conflicting with the power of Congress to regulate 

 commerce. Scholfield, J., said: "We think it obvious that 

 the prohibition of all possession and sales of such wild fowls 

 or birds during the prohibited seasons would tend to their 

 protection, in excluding the opportunity for the evasion of 

 such law by clandestinely taking them, when secretly killed 

 or captured here, beyond the State and afterwards bringing 

 them into the State for sale, or by other subterfuges and 

 evasions. It is quite true that the mere act of allowing a 

 quail netted in Kansas to be sold here does not injure or in 

 anywise affect the game here; but a law which renders all 

 sales and all possession unlawful, will more certainly prevent 

 any possession or any sale of the game within the State, than 

 will a law allowing possession or sales here of the game taken 

 in other States. This is but one among the many instances 

 to be found in the law where acts, which in and of themselves 

 alone are harmless enough, are condemned because of the 

 facility they otherwise offer for a cover or disguise for the 

 doing of that which is harmful." ^* In Missouri also the 

 statute was held to be violated by having game in possession 

 during the close season irrespective of the time and place 

 of killing. "The game laws would be nugatory if, during 

 the prohibitory season, game could be imported from the 

 neighboring States. It would be impossible to show in 

 most instances where the game was caught." ^^ There 



°' Phelps V. Racey, 60 N. Y. 10. 



"^ N. Y. Game Assn. v. Durham, 51 N. Y. Super. Ct. 306. 

 '* Magner v. Peo., 97 III. 320, followed in Merritt v. Peo., 169 id. 218. 

 °° State V. Randolph, i Mo. App. 15. And see State v. Judy, 7 id. 524; 

 State z'. Farrell, 23 id. 176. 



