FOREST AND STREAM. 
A WEEKLY JOURNAL OF THE ROD AND GUN. 
Terms, $44 Yusr. 10 Ors, a Copy. 
Siz Montzgs, $2. 
NEW YORK, DECEMBER 18, 1884. 
VOL. XX11I.—No, 21, 
{ Nos. 39 & 40 Park Row, New Yore, 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
THE ForREST AND STREAM i8 the recognized medium of entertain- 
ment, instruction and information between American sportsmen, 
Communications upon the subjects to which its pages are devoted are 
respectfully invited. Anonymous communications will not be re- 
garded. No name will be published except with writer's consent. 
The Editors are not responsible for the views of correspondents. 
ADVERTISHMENTS. 
Only advertisements of an approved character inserted. Inside 
pages, nonpareil type, 25 cents per line, Special rates for three, six 
and twelve months. Reading notices $1.00 per line. Eight words 
to the line, twelve lines to one inch. Advertisements should be sent 
in by the Saturday previous to issue in which they are to be inserted. 
Transient advertisements must invariably be accompanied by the 
money or they will not be inserted, 
SUBSCRIPTIONS 
May begin at any time. Subscription price, $4 per year ; $2 for six 
months; to a club of three annual subscribers, three copies for $10; 
five copies for $16. Remit by registered letter, money-order, or draft, 
payable to the Forest and Stream Publishing Company. The paper 
may be obtained of newsdealers throughout the United States, 
Canadas and Great Britain...Newsdealers in the United Kingdom 
may order through Dayies & Co., No. 1 Finch Lane, Cornhill, Lon- 
don. General subscription agents for Great Britain, Messrs. Sampson 
Low, Marston, Searles and Rivington, 188 Fleet street, London, Eng. 
Address all communications, 
forest and Stream Publishing Co, 
Nos. 39 anp 40 Park Row. New York Crry. 
CONTENTS. 
SzAa AnD River FisHine. 
Fishing Laws for Lake Cham- 
EDITORIAL. 
Non-Resident Laws. 
Theodatus Garlick. plain. 
THE SPORTSMAN TOURIST. A Day With the Spongers. 
The Best Fishing. FISHCULTURE. 
Les Cheneux. American Fishes in Germany. 
we Tekend of Crazy Woman’s | Tor KENNEL. 
ork. 
The Mastiff Puppies. 
A, K, R.—Special Notice, 
National Field Trials. 
The Collie Classes. 
Kennel Management. 
Kennel Notes, 
RIFLE AND TRAP SHOOTING, 
Revolver Target Shooting, 
Range and Gallery, 
Overhauling the Ditty-Bag. 
NaruRAL History. 
Notes of the Woods and Waters. 
Moose, Caribou and Bear. 
Horns of the Female Caribou, 
Gamez BaG AND Gun. 
Louisiana Plover Shooting. 
Colorado Large and Small 
Game, The Trap. 
The Maine Game Lays. CANOEING, 
Non-Residents in North Carolina New York ©. C. Annual Dinner, 
Canadian Game Law. YAcHTING. 
Signs of the Times. 
Boston Cutters. 
Some Remarkable Shots. 
Snipe Shooting. 
Gulf City Gun Club. Yacht Designs. ; 
The Best Bullets. Alarming Spread of the ‘‘Cutter 
Notes and Comments, Craze.” 
Towa Game Notes. 
Deer in the Adirondacks. 
Philadelphia Notes. 
SEA AND RIVER FISHING. 
That Twenty-four Pound Trout, 
Eehoes From the Tournament. 
Oneida Lake. 
_ Snelling and Gimping. 
Cruising on Lake Ontario. 
Schooners in 1884. 
International Races. 
Mizzen for a Yawl. 
Cutters on the Pacific, 
Oriva and Penguin. 
ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS, 
PUBLISHERS’ DEPARTMENT. 
NON-RESIDENT LAWS. 
HE dolorous narrative told by a correspondent of two 
sportsmen who had been shooting in North Carolina, 
can no doubt be matched in the experience of many of our 
readers. The special question as to the rights of non-resi- 
dents to shoot from batteries, is one about which the pub- 
lie mind is by no means clear, The points at issue are some- 
what complicated by being mixed up with other legal ques- 
tions bearing on riparian rights, a subject of very great 
difficulty. 
While the constitutionality of this particular law has 
neyer been brought up, proceedings have been taken against 
a club member for having violated this statute, The cir- 
cumstances were as follows: 
During the season of 1882 Mr. Lewis Edwards, of this 
city, a member of the Currituck Club, and now also of the 
Narrows Island Club, was shooting on the grounds of the 
former club, The fowl] were not flying near his point, but 
a native in a battery at no great distance was having good 
shooting. He therefore went-over to this man and arranged 
with him to occupy his battery, where, for two hours, he 
had good shooting. During this time one of the natives 
sailed by him, and then going away, returned with another 
man in his boat, evidently as a witness. The next morning 
on leaving the club house, Mr. Edwards left word with the 
steward to accept any papers that might be served on him, 
and to send word to the justice that he would present him- 
self whenever wanted. The papers were served that day, as 
anticipated, and the next the defendant appeared before the 
justice of the peace and offered bail, which was accepted. 
In due time the case came on and was held before a judge 
from Newbern. Mr, Edwards conducted his own case, and 
decision was rendered in his favor, on the ground that the 
law under which he had been sued was passed by a Legis- 
lature convened by the Governor for the especial purpose of 
selling the Norfolk and Western Railroad, and that having 
been brought together for this purpose, they had no right to 
consider, or to legislate in regard to, any other matter. Sub- 
sequently, in conversation with legal authorities, the opinion 
was expressed that the members of clubs, being taxpayers, 
were sufficiently residents of the State to have the right to the 
same privileges in this matter as those whose domicile was in 
the State. 
Quite apart from anything touched on in the above deci- 
sion is the general question as to whether such a law, dis- 
criminating against non-residents, is in violation of the Con- 
stitution of the United States. 
The subject is of great importance, and is one which 
presents many difficulties to the lay mind, since the principles 
involved are by no means generally understood. The ques- 
tion turns wholly upon the police power of the State in re- 
gard to game. Those who regard it as unconstitutional 
argue that it is a law discriminating against the citizens of 
another State; others believe that the State has the right to 
legislate as it pleases in regard to the game within its borders. 
There are decisions which appear to show that the latter 
are in the right, The matter has been brought up is the 
United States’ Court, and opinions have been given which 
fully establish the right of the State to legislate against non- 
residents in regard to animals ferw nature found within 
its limits. As we have already demonstrated (ForEST AND 
Stream, Aug. 16, 1883, p. 41, et seg.), the property enjoyed 
in such animals ratione soli is only a limited or qualitied 
property, but the State would be justified in legislating about 
them for the common good of its citizens, even if it had no 
such property in these living and unappropriated animals, 
In the case of Corfield ys. Coryell, 4, Washington, 380 
(U. 8. Circuit Court, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, April, 
1823), opinion by Washington, J., this principle is clearly 
laid down. This was an action for trespass, for seizing, 
taking and carrying away, and converting to the defendant's 
use, a certain vessel, which had been taken from a man who 
was gathering oysters in Maurice River Cove in New Jersey. 
The defendant plead not guilty, with leave to justify. In 
justification he plead the act of June 9, 1820, of the State of 
New Jersey, which act, among other things, declares in its 
sixth section, ‘‘that it shall not be lawful for any person who 
is not at the time an actual inhabitant and resident in this 
State [New Jersey] to rake or gather clams, oysters or shells 
in any of the rivers, bays or waters in this State, on board of 
any canoe, flat scow, boat or other vessel not wholly owned 
by some person inhabitant of and actually residing in this 
State;’ and then recites the penalties for the same. On this 
point the counsel for plaintiff contended that the sixth sec- 
tion of this act is contrary to the second section of the 
fourth article of the constitution of the United States, by 
denying to the citizens of other States rights and privileges 
enjoyed by those of New Jersey. 
As to this point, Judge Washington said: ‘2. The next 
question is, whether this act infringes that section of the 
Constitution which declares that ‘the citizens of each State 
shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citi- 
zens in the several States?’” He then cites some of these 
privileges and goes on to say: ‘‘But we cannot accede to the 
proposition which was insisted on by the counsel, that under 
this provision of the Constitution the citizens of the several 
States are permitted to participate in all the*rights which be- 
long exclusively to the citizens of any other particular State, 
merely upon the ground that they are enjoyed by those citi- 
zens; much less that in regulating the use of the common 
property of the citizens of such State the Legislature is 
bound to extend to the citizens of all the other Siates the 
same advantages as are secured to tneir own citizens. 
‘‘A several fishery, either as the right to it respects running 
fish, or such as are stationary, such as oysters, clams, and the 
like, is as much the property of the individual to whom it 
belongs as dry land, or land covered by water; and is equally 
protected by the laws of the State against the aggressions of 
others, whether citizens or strangers. Where those private 
rights do not exist to the exclusion of the common right, 
that of fishing belongs to all the citizens or subjects of the 
State. Itis the property of all, to be enjoyed by them in 
subordination to the laws which regulate itsuse. They may 
be considered as tenants in common of this property; and 
they are so exclusively entitled to the use of it that it-cannot 
be enjoyed by others without the tacit consent or the express 
permission of the sovereign who has the power to regulate 
its use. 
“This power in the Legislature of New Jersey to exclude 
the citizens of other States from a participation in the 
right of taking oysters within the waters of that State, was 
denied by the plaintiff_’s counsel, upon principles of public 
law, independent of the provision of the constitution which 
we are considering, upon the ground that they are incapable 
of being appropriated until they are caught. This argument 
is unsupported, we think, by authority. Rutherforth, b. 1, 
ch. 5, sect. 4and 5, who quotes Grotius as his authority, 
lays it down that, although wild beasts, birds, and fishes 
which have not been caught, have never in fact been appro- 
priated, so as to separate them from the common stock to 
which all men are equally entitled, yet where the exclusive 
right in the water and soil which a person has occasion to 
use in taking is vested in others, no other person can claim 
the liberty of hunting, fishing or fowling, on lands or waters, 
which are so appropriated. ‘The sovereign,’ says Grotius, 
ities ch. 2, sect. 5, “who has dominion over the land, or 
waters, in which the fish are, may prohibit foreigners [by 
which expression we understand him to mean others than 
subjects or citizens of the State] from taking them.’ 
‘*That this exclusive right of taking oysters in the waters of 
New Jersey has never been ceded by that State, in express 
terms, to the United States, is admitted by the counsel for 
the plaintiff; and having shown, as we think we have, that 
this right is a right of property, vested either in certain in- 
dividuals, or in the State, for the use of the citizens thereof, 
it would, in our opinion, be going quite too fur to construe 
the grant of privileges and immunities of citizens as amount- 
ing to a grant of a co-tenancy in the common property of 
the State to the citizens of all the other States. Such a con- 
struction would, in many instances, be productive of the 
most serious public inconvenience and injury, particularly 
in regard to those kinds of fish, which, by being exposed to 
too general use, may be exhausted. The oyster beds belong- 
ing to a State may be abundantly sufficient for the use of the 
citizens of that State, but might be totally exhausted and 
destroyed if the Legislature could not so regulate the use of 
them as to exclude the citizens of the other States from 
taking them, except under such limitations and restrictions 
as the laws may prescribe.” 
Other decisions in recent times have been to the same 
effect, so that there appears to be little doubt as to the rights 
of the different States, not only to-protect their animals 
Jere nature from their own citizens and from non-residents, 
but also to grant to their own citizens special privileges, as 
to the pursuit and taking of such animals, in which priy- 
ileges non-residents, even though they be citizens of the 
United States, may not share. 
Fissine Laws.—In another column we give a resumé of the 
new fishing law of Vermont, as amended by the last Legis- 
lature. The principal changes have been in the penalties, 
the extension of the close time for black bass and the for- 
bidding of the capture of black bass below a certain size. 
Formerly fish were merely confiscated when found to be 
illegally taken, but the imposing of a fine subjects the 
offender to a term in the House of Correction at hard labor 
at the rate of three days for every dollar, in case he does not 
pay. The making of the close season for black bass, and 
some other fishes, to June 15, nearly covers the spawning 
season. The old law permitted their capture with hook and 
line at all seasons and was entirely too liberal. ‘The clause 
requiring all black bass less than ten inches in length to be 
returned to the water is a good one and might be adopted 
with profit by other States. A ten-inch black bass, if the 
caudal fin is included, will not much exceed a half pound 
and may sometimes fall below that weight, and it is small 
enough to kill. 
Tar MArmne Commissioners have presented their annual 
report, and that portion of it relating to game is printed else- 
where. The report is a most encouraging one. It shows 
progress. That portion of it which will be read with the 
greatest interest is the reference to the proposed change in 
the deer shooting season. This change is emphatically dis- 
countenanced. The Commissioners are strongly opposed to 
it. Irrespective of the arguments which have been adduced 
or which may be adduced, pro or con, this expression of the 
Commissioners should be accepted as a sufficient objection 
to any change from the present law, 
Fieup Tria JupGmne.—We were astonished to learn 
from Canton, Miss,, that in the absence of Dr. Jarvis, the 
Southern Sportsmen’s Association had appointed as judge, in 
place of that gentleman, an individual with such an unsavory 
field trial record as C. B, Whitford. Dr. Jarvis must have 
felt highly complimented when he heard of it. 
Tue MicNoNETTE CREW, whose conviction of murder 
for having killed and eaten a companion, was reported in 
our columns last week, have been sentenced to six months 
imprisonment. That is to say, shipwrecked yachtsmen who 
kill and eat a companion are guilty of murder, but it is not 
hanging murder, 
