INDIANS. 91 



storing game in no uncertain terms: Dealers in game may store their 

 stock on hand at the commencement of the close season upon giving 

 bond in such amount and under such restrictions as the forest, fish, 

 and game commissioner may prescribe and with the further condi- 

 tions that they will not sell, give away, or otherwise dispose of the 

 game in close season, and that they will not violate the law in any 

 way. The prostitution of the cold-storage plant to purposes of illicit 

 traffic in game is fortunately disappearing under recent legislation 

 and through the vigilance of the officers charged with the enforcement 

 of the game laws. 



The case of Haggerty v. St. Louis Ice Manufacturing and Storage 

 Company (44 S. W., 1114), decided by the supreme court of Missouri 

 in 1898, involved an interesting question of contract connected with 

 the storage of game. Haggerty, a game dealer in St. Louis, had 

 stored in 1892 with the defendant company a large quantity of game 

 to be withdrawn during the next open season. In 1893, when the game 

 was removed, the owner found it worthless from decay. A suit was 

 instituted for the recovery of $7,000 damages from the storage com- 

 pany. The company demurred to the complaint upon the ground that 

 the contract of storage was in violation of the game law, which pro- 

 hibited possession of game in close season. The demurrer was sus- 

 'tained and on appeal to the supreme court the judgment was affirmed. 



INDIANS. 



Years ago exceptions in favor of Indians were occasionally made in 

 the game laws of some States, as in those of Maine and California. 

 In 1853 Maine exempted Indians of the Penobscot and Passamaquoddy 

 tribes from the restrictions of the law protecting deer and moose. In 

 1854 California exempted Indians from the operation of the salmon 

 law, and in 1866 allowed them the privilege of taking trout at any 

 time. Later on, however, these exceptions disappeared, and outside 

 of their reservations Indians were placed on the same basis as other 

 persons. In 1892 the supreme judicial court of Maine, in the case of 

 State v. Newell (24 Atl., 943), decided that Indians in that State were 

 not 'Indian tribes' within the treaty-making power of the Federal 

 Government, that they had no separate political organization and were 

 subject as individuals to all the laws of the State. Similarly the 

 Supreme Court of the United States has held that the Cherokee 

 Indians who remained in North Carolina were subject to the laws of 

 that State (Cherokee Trust Funds, 117 U. S., 288). 



The game laws of Arizona, Colorado, Montana, and North Dakota 

 seem to be the only ones that now specially mention the Indian. The 

 law of Montana declares that the provisions and penalties prescribed 

 1 shall be deemed and held to include all Indians and half-breed Indians 

 when outside the Indian reservation.' (See p. 198.) Montana also has 



