﻿DECISIONS 
  OF 
  THE 
  COURTS. 
  47 
  

  

  cases 
  was 
  appealed 
  to 
  the 
  supreme 
  court, 
  and 
  the 
  decisions, 
  therefore, 
  

   even 
  had 
  they 
  directly 
  considered 
  the 
  license 
  principle, 
  could 
  not 
  be 
  

   considered 
  as 
  furnishing 
  authoritative 
  precedents. 
  In 
  1903 
  the 
  circuit 
  

   court 
  of 
  Crittenden 
  County, 
  Ark., 
  declared 
  the 
  Arkansas 
  law 
  pro- 
  

   hibiting 
  nonresidents 
  from 
  hunting 
  in 
  the 
  State 
  unconstitutional 
  in 
  

   so 
  far 
  as 
  it 
  prohibited 
  nonresidents 
  from 
  hunting 
  on 
  their 
  own 
  land. 
  

   (Am. 
  Field, 
  LX, 
  p. 
  52, 
  July 
  18, 
  1903.) 
  This 
  case 
  has 
  been 
  appealed 
  

   to 
  the 
  supreme 
  court 
  of 
  Arkansas, 
  but 
  the 
  decision 
  has 
  not 
  yet 
  been 
  

   rendered. 
  In 
  May, 
  1901, 
  a 
  case 
  (Cummings 
  v. 
  People) 
  which 
  may 
  

   result 
  in 
  a 
  decision 
  on 
  the 
  nonresident 
  license 
  question, 
  was 
  carried 
  to 
  

   the 
  supreme 
  court 
  of 
  Illinois 
  on 
  writ 
  of 
  error. 
  One 
  of 
  the 
  conten- 
  

   tions 
  in 
  this 
  case, 
  which 
  involves 
  the 
  constitutionality 
  of 
  the 
  Illinois 
  

   game 
  law 
  of 
  1903, 
  is 
  that 
  the 
  statute 
  is 
  invalid 
  because 
  it 
  discriminates 
  

   between 
  resident 
  and 
  nonresident 
  hunters. 
  

  

  On 
  the 
  other 
  hand 
  two 
  decisions 
  have 
  been 
  rendered 
  by 
  higher 
  courts 
  

   which 
  uphold 
  the 
  constitutionality 
  of 
  such 
  laws, 
  one 
  by 
  the 
  supreme 
  

   court 
  of 
  New 
  Jersey 
  in 
  1886 
  and 
  the 
  other 
  by 
  the 
  United 
  States 
  circuit 
  

   court 
  of 
  the 
  northern 
  district 
  of 
  Illinois 
  in 
  1899. 
  In 
  the 
  former 
  case 
  

   (Allen 
  v. 
  Wyckoff, 
  18 
  N. 
  J. 
  Law 
  Hep. 
  90; 
  2 
  Atl. 
  659) 
  one 
  Allen 
  was 
  

   arrested 
  and 
  fined 
  $50 
  for 
  violating 
  the 
  act 
  for 
  the 
  protection 
  of 
  game 
  

   and 
  game 
  fish 
  approved 
  April 
  4, 
  1878, 
  which 
  imposed 
  greater 
  restric- 
  

   tions 
  and 
  severer 
  penalties 
  upon 
  nonresidents 
  of 
  the 
  State 
  than 
  upon 
  

   residents. 
  The 
  case 
  was 
  appealed 
  to 
  the 
  supreme 
  court 
  of 
  New 
  Jersey, 
  

   which 
  held 
  that 
  the 
  act 
  in 
  question 
  was 
  not 
  in 
  violation 
  of 
  the 
  four- 
  

   teenth 
  amendment 
  of 
  the 
  Constitution 
  of 
  the 
  United 
  States, 
  prohibiting 
  

   any 
  State 
  from 
  making 
  any 
  law 
  which 
  shall 
  abridge 
  the 
  privileges 
  of 
  

   citizens 
  of 
  the 
  United 
  States 
  or 
  den} 
  7 
  to 
  any 
  person 
  the 
  equal 
  protec- 
  

   tion 
  of 
  the 
  laws 
  ; 
  and 
  furthermore 
  that 
  the 
  statute 
  was 
  valid 
  in 
  its 
  

   application 
  to 
  a 
  nonresident 
  killing 
  game 
  on 
  the 
  property 
  of 
  persons 
  

   who 
  have 
  formed 
  an 
  association 
  under 
  the 
  laws 
  of 
  the 
  State 
  for 
  the 
  

   protection 
  of 
  game 
  on 
  their 
  own 
  property. 
  

  

  In 
  passing 
  upon 
  the 
  question 
  of 
  constitutionality, 
  after 
  showing 
  that 
  

   section 
  2 
  of 
  Article 
  IV 
  of 
  the 
  Constitution, 
  and 
  so 
  much 
  of 
  the 
  four- 
  

   teenth 
  amendment 
  as 
  secures 
  the 
  privileges 
  and 
  immunities 
  of 
  a 
  citizen 
  

   of 
  the 
  nation 
  were 
  not 
  applicable 
  to 
  the 
  case 
  in 
  hand, 
  as 
  Allen 
  was 
  not 
  

   a 
  citizen 
  of 
  the 
  United 
  States, 
  the 
  court 
  said: 
  

  

  The 
  only 
  clause 
  of 
  the 
  federal 
  constitution, 
  therefore, 
  which, 
  on 
  the 
  surface 
  seems 
  

   to 
  have 
  any 
  pertinency 
  is 
  that 
  forbidding 
  a 
  state 
  to 
  deny 
  to 
  any 
  person 
  within 
  its 
  

   jurisdiction 
  the 
  equal 
  protection 
  of 
  the 
  laws. 
  But 
  even 
  this 
  appearance 
  is 
  dissipated, 
  

   I 
  think, 
  when 
  we 
  examine 
  the 
  decision 
  of 
  the 
  supreme 
  court 
  of 
  the 
  United 
  States 
  

   in 
  the 
  Slaughter-house 
  Cases, 
  16 
  Wall. 
  36. 
  It 
  was 
  there 
  argued 
  that 
  a 
  state 
  law 
  

   which 
  authorized 
  a 
  corporation 
  to 
  establish 
  stock-yards 
  and 
  slaughter-houses 
  in 
  

   and 
  near 
  New 
  Orleans, 
  and 
  prohibited 
  all 
  other 
  persons 
  from 
  slaughtering 
  cattle 
  or 
  

   keeping 
  stock-yards 
  elsewhere, 
  within 
  an 
  area 
  of 
  about 
  1,154 
  square 
  miles 
  around 
  

   the 
  city, 
  was 
  an 
  infringement 
  of 
  this 
  fourteenth 
  amendment; 
  that 
  the 
  right 
  to 
  use 
  

   one's 
  land, 
  skill, 
  and 
  labor 
  in 
  any 
  lawful 
  business 
  for 
  the 
  acquisition 
  of 
  property 
  

  

  