FROM THE GAME FIELDS. 



129 



The Constitution of the United States 

 does not prohibit the enactment of game 

 laws (Phelps v. Racey, 60 N. Y., 10; State 

 v. Randolph, 1 Mo. Appeals, 15; Boonham 

 v. Webster, 5 Mass., 266; Gentile v. State, 

 29 Ind., 409; State v. Norton, 45 Vermont, 

 258). 



A state, having allowed game to be killed 

 within its limits, cannot prohibit its trans- 

 portation beyond (Bowman v. Chicago, 

 etc., R.R. Co., 125 U. S., 465); .but that 

 does not prevent it from declaring what 

 persons may have a right to take that 

 which belongs to it. The state holds the 

 ownership of game in trust for all the peo- 

 ple of the state, but not in trust for all the 

 people of the United States. This trust 

 existed before the United States was 

 formed, and there is nothing in the Con- 

 stitution compelling one state to allow citi- 

 zens of other states to enter its limits, kill 

 its game, and transport it. 



In Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheaton, 419, 

 it was held that while a state cannot pro- 

 hibit the transportation of legitimate arti- 

 cles of commerce into or through its ter- 

 ritory, it may, under its police power, 

 regulate the sale of such commodities 

 within its own limits. This being so a 

 state surely has a right to confine the kill- 

 ing of game, in which nobody has a private 

 right, within its own limits. While the en- 

 joyment of certain rights, privileges and 

 immunities, secured by the Constitution of 

 the United States, is guaranteed by the 

 Constitution to all citizens of the United 

 States, in all the states, the comity between 

 the states, so far as it concerns rights and 

 privileges and immunities not so guaran- 

 teed, must yield to the laws and policy of 

 the state in which it is sought to be in- 

 voked. 



The Constitutional provision above re- 

 ferred to was held not to extend to the 

 enjoyment, by a non-resident, of the right 

 to share in the common property of citi- 

 zens of a state. In McCready v. Virginia, 

 94 U. S., 391, the Supreme Court upheld 

 Virginia's right to confine the right of fish- 

 ing in the navigable waters of the state to 

 her own citizens. The argument in that 

 case, its reasoning, and its conclusions, are 

 equally applicable to the question of power 

 in a state to confine the right of pursuing 

 game within her borders, to her own citi- 

 zens. John S. Wise. 



MAINE GAME NOTES. 



On December 1st, close time began on 

 moose. The year's crop of moose has been 

 small; not because moose were few, but 

 because few were killed. This was due 

 mainly to the change in the game laws, 

 enacted by the last legislature. The open 

 season did not begin until October 15th, 15 

 days later than ever before. By that time 

 the calling season was nearly or quite past. 



Experienced guides remarked early in the 

 season that all the moose killed this year 

 would be secured by accident. The knowl- 

 edge of that fact kept many hunters from 

 coming to this region. Many who usually 

 come to Maine for moose, went to the 

 provinces, where hunting is reported good. 

 This even affected the late summer vis- 

 itors; who would have remained on the 

 ground ready to take the first opportunity 

 to hunt the moose, had the law remained 

 as it was. 



The game that escaped the hunter will 

 probably go to feed the lumbermen scat- 

 tered over the hunting region. I am told 

 that it is a regular winter work to hunt for 

 the camps, and that deer are sold at the 

 established price of 4 £ents a pound. 

 Moose suffer to a certain extent also. 



It is claimed that the change to October 

 15, was not intentional, but due to a cler- 

 ical error. If such was the case, the law 

 will probably be changed at the next ses- 

 sion of the legislature, a year from now. 

 Maine legislators have done fairly well in 

 making laws to protect her citizens, but 

 not so well when they legislate in behalf of 

 her wild animals. 



An article has gone the rounds of the 

 papers, urging that each hunter be re- 

 stricted to one instead of 2 deer a year. 

 The plea is on the ground that the present 

 law will permit the extermination of deer. 

 It is estimated that there are now 150,000 

 deer in the woods of Maine. Suppose 50,- 

 000 of them are does, old enough to bear 

 young. The destruction of young, by foxes 

 and in other ways, will be something; but 

 many of the does will bear twins. So we 

 will let this figure remain. 



Probably 3,000 deer have been brought 

 out of the woods by the railroads and other 

 public conveyances. Not over 1-3 of these 

 were killed by men who had had more than 

 one deer. So that the proposed law would 

 not have saved more than 1,000 this year. 

 It would also have saved some deer from 

 being killed by those who live on the bor- 

 ders of the forest. Another estimate puts 

 the number of deer killed each year at 

 10,000. If this is anywhere near the truth, 

 the deer are increasing at the rate of 25,000 

 to 40,000 a year. And that is after making 

 large deductions for a shrinkage of which 

 we know nothing. So that the one deer 

 limit does not seem to be called for, at 

 present. 



There may be a necessity of better means 

 of enforcing the law now on the statute 

 book. 



Several visits to the woods lead me to 

 think that the game laws are as well en- 

 forced now as could reasonably be ex- 

 pected. Several features of the game laws 

 are unsatisfactory; and an effort will be 

 made to change them when the next legis- 

 lature meets. 



I'll give it up! I mean the 30 calibre 



