SALE. 53 



dealers are licensed, and, in addition to the regular license, are required 

 to obtain a special license at a cost of $25 to keep game in cold storage 

 during the close season. 



The question of the status of imported game has been greatly sim- 

 plified by the passage by Congress of the Lacey Act; and in this con- 

 nection attention may again be called to section 5 of tbat act, which 

 provides that all game imported into any State becomes subject to the 

 operation of the laws of that State (provided they are broad enough 

 to cover it) to the same extent and in the same manner as if produced 

 in that State. 



SALE. 



Thirty-two States and Territories and 6 Provinces of Canada now 

 prohibit the sale of all or certain kinds of game at all seasons. There 

 has been a steady increase in the prohibitions against sale, and during 

 the past year such provisions have been enacted by Arizona, California, 

 Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, 

 North and South Dakota, and Quebec. 



In Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, and Nevada the 

 sale of all game protected by the State law is prohibited. In Massa- 

 chusetts and New Hampshire the sale of rufi^ed grouse or partridge, 

 and woodcock is forbidden; in South Dakota, big game; in Minnesota, 

 quail, ruffed grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, prairie chicken, and all aquatic 

 fowl; in California, Washington^ and Manitoba, all big game and 

 upland game; and in Ontario, quail, ruffed grouse or partridge, wood- 

 cock, and snipe. In some States, after the close of the open season, a 

 few da^^s are allowed in which to dispose of game. Such provisions 

 prevail in Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jerse}^, Ohio, and 5 

 Provinces of Canada. The right of the State to prohibit dealers from 

 storing or selling game imported from other States has been hotly 

 contested. While there has been diversity of opinion on this point, 

 the majority of the decisions have sustained the State. Such decisions 

 have been rendered in California {Ex -paTte Maier, 103 Cal. 476), the 

 District of Columbia (Javins v. U. S., 11 App. D. C. 347), Illinois 

 (Magner v. People, 97 111. 320), Maryland (Stevens v. State, 89 Md. 

 669), Michigan (People v. O'Neil, 68 N. W. Rep. 227), Missouri (State 

 V. Judy, 7 Mo. App. 521), New York (Phelps y. Racey, 60 N. Y. 10), 

 and in other States. 



A decision of the same kind has recently been handed down by 

 the United States circuit court in the district of Oregon.^ A dealer in 

 Portland had been convicted by the State of selling, contrary to the 

 law of Oregon, certain trout purchased in Seattle, Wash. He was fined, 

 and in default of payment was imprisoned. Application was there- 

 upon made to the Federal court for a writ of habeas corpus, which was 



^ III re Deininger, circuit court, district of Oregon, April 17, 1901. 



5037— No. 16—01 5 



