54 DIGEST OF GAME LAWS FOR 1901. 



denied. In rendering this decision the court cited the case of Geer v. 

 Connecticut,^ and disposed of the question as follows: 



The decision [Geer v. Connecticut] is based upon the fundamental distinction that 

 exists between the quaUfied ownership in game and the perfect nature of ownership 

 in other property. If game when reduced to possession became an article of property, 

 in the ordinary sense of the word, it would belong to commerce; otherwise, it is a 

 subject of control by the State, in the exercise of its police power. There is, in my 

 opinion, no room to distinguish between the right to take game out of the State and 

 the right to bring it within the State. Interstate traffic is affected as much in one 

 case as in the other. It is not material that in one case the killing of game is dis- 

 couraged by the limitation which the law puts upon its use, by prohibiting its expor- 

 tation, while in the other the enforcement of the law against the taking of game is 

 rendered practicable by making its possession for sale unlawful. The ultimate object 

 sought in each case is the same, and the law in each case is a legitimate exercise of 

 the police power of the State. 



Illinois specifically provides that the sale of certain game imported 

 from other States shall be lawful at certain seasons, although the same 

 kind of game killed within the State can not be sold at an}^ time. 

 Missouri, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania restrict prohibitions against 

 sale of game to that taken within the State. Nebraska permits the 

 storage but not the sale of imported game during the close season in the 

 State for similar game. In a few instances prohibitions against the sale 

 of certain game are so general as to afford protection over a considerable 

 area. Thus rufled grouse can not be sold in New Brunswick, Ontario, 

 Manitoba, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mich- 

 igan, or Minnesota. Antelope can not now be shipped from an}^ State, 

 although the}^ ma}" still be killed in Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, Ore- 

 gon, Washington, and W3'oming. Practically CA^er}" State in which 

 prairie chickens occur has now prohibited their sale or export. Hence 

 the exposure for sale of these birds in an^^ State where they do not 

 occur, as in an}" city east of Indianapolis, is strong indication of viola- 

 tion of law. 



The following table is intended to show two ver}^ distinct things: 

 (1) The species which each State and Province prohibits fi;om sale 

 at all seasons. (2) The extension of time be^^ond the limits of the 

 regular open season allowed dealers in some States, to enable them to 

 dispose of game on hand which can be lawfully sold within the State. 

 The two lists have little in common except that the}^ both come under 

 the head of restrictions on sale of game. 



^In which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the constitutionality of 

 the nonexport law of Connecticut. 



