II.— FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS REGULATING TRANSPORTA- 

 TION AND SALE OF GAME. 



The last forty years have witnessed a steady development in laws 

 relating to game. In 1864 onlj- 18 States and the District of Columbia 

 had enacted such legislation ; in 1874 this number had increased to 24; 

 and at the present time every State and Territory has restrictive 

 measures of some sort on its statute books. The earlier laws were 

 concerned chiefly with fixing seasons and methods of capture, but of 

 late, markets have come to be regarded as the chief factor iu gauie 

 destruction and more attention has been given to the restriction of 

 export and sale. The importance of the question of transportation 

 has become so great as to receive consideration from Congress, and 

 during the present year a Federal law has been enacted which pro- 

 hibits interstate commerce in game killed in violation of local laws. 



Not only have the regulations concerning capture, transportation, 

 and sale increased in number and complexity, but there is a growing 

 tendenc}' toward uniformity in the different State statutes, and various 

 principles are gradualh^ receiving more general recognition. Promi- 

 nent among these is the principle of State ownership of game, which 

 has been stated as follows : 



"The wild game within a State belongs to the people in their col- 

 lective 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, absoluteh' proliibit the taking of it, or traffic and com- 

 merce in it, if it is deemed necessary for the protection or preserva- 

 tion of the public good."^ This principle, as thus defined by the 

 supreme court of California, has been uiDheld b}' the supreme court of 

 Minnesota and by the Supreme Court of the United States. It forms 

 the foundation of all modern legislation affecting trade in game. 

 Every State and Territory in the Li^nion, except Georgia, Kentucky, 

 Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, and Virginia, deems it 

 "necessarj^ for the protection or X3 reservation of the public good" to 

 prohibit traffic and commerce in game to a greater or lesser extent. 

 And two of the excepted States, Missouri and Nebraska, have until 

 recentty had laws of this kind. 



It is important to note that not only is the killing of game a privi- 

 lege and not a right, but that the ownership of game differs from that 

 of other property in that even after it has been reduced to possession it 

 is subject to certain restrictions. On this principle are based the non- 



Ex parte Maier, 103 California, 476. 



45 



