﻿DECISIONS 
  OF 
  THE 
  COUKTS. 
  49 
  

  

  (Corfield 
  v. 
  Coryell, 
  4 
  Wash. 
  C. 
  C. 
  371). 
  This 
  is 
  a 
  leading 
  case 
  on 
  

   the 
  subject. 
  In 
  1855 
  the 
  supreme 
  court 
  of 
  Rhode 
  Island 
  sustained 
  a 
  

   similar 
  statute 
  of 
  that 
  State 
  passed 
  in 
  1844, 
  which 
  prohibited 
  nonresi- 
  

   dents 
  from 
  taking 
  oysters 
  within 
  the 
  waters 
  of 
  Rhode 
  Island. 
  In 
  

   1873 
  the 
  supreme 
  court 
  of 
  New 
  Jersey 
  upheld 
  the 
  New 
  Jersey 
  act 
  of 
  

   1846 
  (Haney 
  v. 
  Compton, 
  36 
  N. 
  J. 
  L. 
  507), 
  and 
  in 
  1901 
  again 
  upheld 
  

   a 
  similar 
  statute 
  passed 
  in 
  1899 
  (State 
  v. 
  Corson, 
  50 
  Atl. 
  780). 
  In 
  

   rendering 
  the 
  decision 
  in 
  the 
  Haney 
  case 
  the 
  court 
  said: 
  

  

  A 
  full 
  ownership 
  of 
  this 
  species 
  of 
  property 
  empowers 
  the 
  State 
  to 
  declare 
  who 
  

   shall 
  take 
  it, 
  upon 
  what 
  terms 
  it 
  shall 
  be 
  taken, 
  and 
  by 
  what 
  means 
  it 
  shall 
  be 
  

   removed. 
  A 
  citizen 
  of 
  Pennsylvania 
  cannot 
  claim 
  a 
  right 
  to 
  acquire 
  the 
  property 
  

   of 
  New 
  Jersey 
  in 
  a 
  manner 
  different 
  from 
  that 
  to 
  which 
  New 
  Jersey 
  agrees 
  to 
  dispose 
  

   of 
  it. 
  

  

  The 
  Supreme 
  Court 
  of 
  the 
  United 
  States 
  has 
  upheld 
  the 
  public 
  

   ownership 
  of 
  game 
  and 
  has 
  quoted 
  with 
  approval 
  the 
  decision 
  of 
  the 
  

   supreme 
  court 
  of 
  California 
  {Ex 
  parte 
  Maier) 
  to 
  the 
  effect 
  that 
  — 
  

  

  The 
  wild 
  game 
  within 
  a 
  State 
  belongs 
  to 
  the 
  people 
  in 
  their 
  collective 
  sovereign 
  

   capacity. 
  It 
  is 
  not 
  the 
  subject 
  of 
  private 
  ownership 
  except 
  in 
  so 
  far 
  as 
  the 
  people 
  

   may 
  elect 
  to 
  make 
  it 
  so; 
  and 
  they 
  may, 
  if 
  they 
  see 
  fit, 
  absolutely 
  prohibit 
  the 
  taking 
  

   of 
  it, 
  or 
  traffic 
  and 
  commerce 
  in 
  it, 
  if 
  it 
  is 
  deemed 
  necessary 
  for 
  the 
  protection 
  or 
  

   preservation 
  of 
  the 
  public 
  good. 
  (Geer 
  v. 
  Connecticut, 
  161 
  U. 
  S. 
  529.) 
  

  

  The 
  same 
  court 
  has, 
  moreover, 
  decided, 
  in 
  the 
  case 
  of 
  McCready 
  v. 
  

   Virginia 
  (94 
  U. 
  S. 
  248), 
  that 
  a 
  State 
  may 
  pass 
  laws 
  discriminating 
  

   against 
  nonresidents, 
  by 
  upholding, 
  in 
  1877, 
  a 
  statute 
  of 
  Virginia 
  (act 
  

   of 
  1846) 
  which 
  absolutely 
  prohibited 
  nonresidents 
  from 
  planting 
  oys- 
  

   ters 
  in 
  the 
  waters 
  within 
  the 
  limits 
  of 
  the 
  State. 
  In 
  rendering 
  the 
  

   opinion 
  of 
  the 
  court 
  Chief 
  Justice 
  Waite 
  said: 
  

  

  The 
  precise 
  question 
  to 
  be 
  determined 
  in 
  this 
  case 
  is, 
  whether 
  the 
  State 
  of 
  Virginia 
  

   can 
  prohibit 
  the 
  citizens 
  of 
  other 
  States 
  from 
  planting 
  oysters 
  in 
  AVare 
  Eiver, 
  a 
  stream 
  

   in 
  that 
  State 
  where 
  the 
  tide 
  ebbs 
  and 
  flows, 
  when 
  its 
  own 
  citizens 
  have 
  that 
  privilege. 
  

  

  The 
  principle 
  has 
  long 
  been 
  settled 
  in 
  this 
  court, 
  that 
  each 
  State 
  owns 
  the 
  beds 
  of 
  

   all 
  tide 
  waters 
  within 
  its 
  jurisdiction, 
  unless 
  they 
  have 
  been 
  granted 
  away. 
  * 
  * 
  * 
  

  

  By 
  article 
  IV., 
  sec. 
  2, 
  of 
  the 
  Constitution, 
  the 
  citizens 
  of 
  each 
  State 
  are 
  'entitled 
  

   to 
  all 
  privileges 
  and 
  immunities 
  of 
  citizens 
  in 
  the 
  several 
  States.' 
  * 
  * 
  * 
  we 
  

   think 
  we 
  may 
  safely 
  hold 
  that 
  the 
  citizens 
  of 
  one 
  State 
  are 
  not 
  invested 
  by 
  this 
  

   clause 
  of 
  the 
  Constitution 
  with 
  any 
  interest 
  in 
  the 
  common 
  property 
  of 
  the 
  citizens 
  

   of 
  another 
  State. 
  If 
  Virginia 
  had 
  by 
  law 
  provided 
  for 
  the 
  sale 
  of 
  its 
  once 
  vast 
  public 
  

   domain, 
  and 
  a 
  division 
  of 
  the 
  proceeds 
  among 
  its 
  own 
  people, 
  no 
  one, 
  we 
  venture 
  to 
  

   say, 
  would 
  contend 
  that 
  the 
  citizens 
  of 
  other 
  States 
  had 
  a 
  constitutional 
  right 
  to 
  the 
  

   enjoyment 
  of 
  this 
  privilege 
  of 
  Virginia 
  citizenship. 
  Neither 
  if, 
  instead 
  of 
  selling, 
  

   the 
  State 
  had 
  appropriated 
  the 
  same 
  property 
  to 
  be 
  used 
  as 
  a 
  common 
  by 
  its 
  people 
  

   for 
  the 
  purposes 
  of 
  agriculture, 
  could 
  the 
  citizens 
  of 
  other 
  States 
  avail 
  themselves 
  of 
  

   such 
  a 
  privilege. 
  And 
  the 
  reason 
  is 
  obvious; 
  the 
  right 
  thus 
  granted 
  is 
  not 
  a 
  privi- 
  

   lege 
  or 
  immunity 
  of 
  general 
  but 
  of 
  special 
  citizenship. 
  It 
  does 
  not 
  'belong 
  of 
  right 
  

   to 
  the 
  citizens 
  of 
  all 
  free 
  governments,' 
  but 
  only 
  to 
  the 
  citizens 
  of 
  Virginia, 
  on 
  

   account 
  of 
  the 
  peculiar 
  circumstances 
  in 
  which 
  they 
  are 
  placed. 
  They, 
  and 
  they 
  

   alone, 
  owned 
  the 
  property 
  to 
  be 
  sold 
  or 
  used, 
  and 
  they 
  alone 
  had 
  the 
  power 
  to 
  dis- 
  

   pose 
  of 
  it 
  as 
  they 
  saw 
  fit. 
  They 
  owned 
  it 
  not 
  by 
  virtue 
  of 
  citizenship 
  merely, 
  but 
  of 
  

  

  6095— 
  No. 
  19—04 
  4 
  

  

  