70 GAME COMMISSIONS AND WARDENS. 



game, but after the purpose for which it was bought has been satisfied 

 it must be forwarded to the nearest hospital for the use of the inmates 

 thereof. 



Under the common law, and in conformity to constitutional prohibi- 

 tion in most if not all the States, no person can be compelled to tes- 

 tify against his will in any criminal proceeding to any fact that may 

 tend to convict him of a crime. There are many violations of the 

 game laws that could not be punished unless testimony of participants 

 in the violation could be adduced, and the protection accorded such 

 persons under this exemption would render the State powerless to 

 procure the necessary evidence to convict were the law to go no fur- 

 ther. But several States have incorporated in their game laws provi- 

 sions extending exemption from punishment to an}^ witness testifying 

 to facts in auy prosecution against another which might be used 

 against himself in a prosecution for the same offense. The Minnesota 

 and South Dakota laws contain examples of such provisions. Other 

 States have taken a more advanced position and declared that under 

 the game laws no person shall be excused from testifying in any pros- 

 ecution on the ground that his testimony might tend to incriminate 

 him or subject him to a criminal prosecution. But in every such case 

 the statute provides that such testimony shall not be used against the 

 witness. Such is the language of the laws of Colorado, Maine, and 

 New Jersey. The Maine statute is as follows: 



In any prosecution under this chapter, any participant in a violation thereof, when 

 so requested by the county attorney, commissioners, or other officer instituting the 

 prosecution, may be compelled to testify as a witness against any other person 

 charged with violating the same, but his evidence so given shall not be used against 

 himself in any prosecution for such violation. (Be v. Stats., 1903, ch. 32, sec. 59.) 



It is doubtful whether any of these provisions is enforceable, should 

 a witness see fit to claim his privilege, for the reason that it only 

 restricts the State so far as using his testimony given at the trial is 

 concerned, and does not protect him against subsequent prosecution 

 for a violation of the game law, some intimation of which may be 

 given bj his examination. To be valid and enforceable such a provi- 

 sion must afford absolute immunity against future prosecution for the 

 offense to which the testimony relates/ 6 The New York game law 

 contains a provision measuring up to this test, which is as follows: 



Sec. 193. * * * A person called for the people and so testifying shall not 

 thereafter be liable to indictment or conviction for the violation or violations of this 

 act respecting which he has so testified, and may plead or prove the giving of such 

 testimony in bar of such an indictment or conviction. 



A ver}^ wise precaution against the failure of a prosecution on 

 account of insufficiency of evidence to establish the charge of an 

 offense as to an entire bird or animal is taken in several States by the 

 express provision in the game law, for example, that of Colorado, that 



a See Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S., 517; Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S., 591. 



