FOREST AND STREAM. 
91 
sat has been repeatedly said that neither the fourteenth 
aimendment "nor any other amendment to the Con- 
stitution of the United States 'was designed to inter- 
sere with the power of a State, sometimes termed its 
Jtaolice power,' to prescribe regulations to promote the 
Mhealth, peace, morals, education, or good order of the 
qoeople, and to legislate so as to increase the industries 
■pf the State, develop its resources, and add to its 
Bvealth and prosperity." The court further says: "The 
Jplaintiff, having voluntarily put the nets to an unlawful 
Ipse, which made them public nuisances under the 
uitatute, is in no position to recover damages from the 
talefendants for having, as public officials, obeyed the 
: aw in abating the nuisance by seizing and destroying 
%\ he nets. Of course, the plaintiff had his right of action 
jfc o determine whether the nets were or were not in such 
/Biuilawful use. We must hold that the plaintiff has not 
■been deprived of his property without due process of 
'.aw." 
1 No case has been brought to our attention in which 
;oi court has construed a statute which provides for the 
tnleizure, forfeiture to the State, and sale of property of 
1 I he kind involved in this case which has been used in 
violation of the game laws. As a rule, the statutes have 
slteclared nets and like devices which can only be used 
tf h violation of law to be public nuisances, and pro- 
vided for their abatement by their destruction by public 
riifficers. The distinction between nets, which under the 
ejaws of the States providing for their destruction can 
wnly be used for an unlawful purpose, and firearms, 
biVhich under the laws of this and other States may be 
blsed for many other purposes, innocent and lawful in 
lijheir nature, is clearly apparent, and has been recog- 
nized by our Legislature in the act under consideration. 
3n Section i, Article III, of this act, the Legislature of 
; fhis State, has provided: 
isw Every net, seine, trap, explosive, poisonous or stupefying sub- 
aakance or device used or intended for use in taking or killing 
e lame or fish in violation of this act, is hereby declared to be a 
oitublic nuisance and may be abated and summarily destroyed by 
iqlny person, and it shall be the duty of every such officer author- 
■tcd to enforce this act to seize and summarily destroy the same, 
iwnd no prosecution or suit shall be maintained for such de- 
iJSS ruction ; provided, that nothing in this division shall be con- 
jffl|rued * * * as authorizing the seizure or destruction of fire- 
mms, except as hereinafter provided. 
B The provisions of this section as to nets and like de- 
Bices are substantially the same as those contained in 
she game laws of New York and Wisconsin heretofore 
•deferred to, and with the conclusion of these courts 
S/ith reference to laws of like nature we have no fault 
trip find. But there is a broad distinction between this 
Section and Section 3, under which the plaintiff in error 
Justifies. The Legislature has not declared a gun to 
pc a public nuisance, and has not ordered its destruc- 
Bon as an abatement of the same. The seizure of the 
(■property provided for by this section is evidently in- 
)lended not only to put it out of the power of the of- 
■ending person to carry on the destruction of game by 
Mepriving him of the implement of destruction, but also 
jfflQ operate as a penalty or punishment for an unlawful 
Bet committed by him. It is of the nature of a com- 
Bion-law forfeiture of goods upon conviction of a crime. 
■ In leek vs. Anerson, 57 Cal. 251, it appeared that the 
[plaintiff had rented certain boats and nets to a Chinese 
taisherman, and that the property was used in violation 
if a statute of the State which provided that "all nets, 
Beines, fishing tackle, boats and other implements used 
«i catching or taking fish in violation of the provisions 
twit this chapter" shall be forfeited or may be seized by 
m peace offcer of the county or his assistant and may 
Be by him destroyed or sold at public auction, upon 
Botice posted in the county for five days. The court 
■eld that so much of the statute as authorized the 
property to be sold without judicial proceedings was 
wnconstitutional and void. It will be noticed that boats 
/ere included which were susceptible of a lawful use. 
I Varden vs. Mount, 78 Ky. 86, 39 Am. Rep. 208, was 
Bn action is conversion to recover the value of certain 
®ogs. The town ordinance provided that it was the 
*uty of the town marshal to take up the hogs running 
It large upon the streets, to advertise them for three 
,&fays, and to offer them at public sale to the highest 
Jpidder, and, after paying the expenses thereof, to pay 
Bver to the rightful owner the balance, if any. The 
rtpurt held "the right to forfeit should not be extended 
paeyond impounding the hogs. When that is done the 
■lecessity for summary and precipitate action ceases, 
1 nd judicial proceedings looking to forfeiture may then 
properly begin, and that the ordinance was uncon- 
. titutional." 
I Lowry vs. Reinwater, 70 Mo. 152, was an action to 
cecover the value of a dining table. The defendant 
)pleaded that he was a member of the Board of Police 
Commissioners of the city of St. Louis, and that under 
2 she statute it was his duty, when he had knowledge that 
■here was a prohibited gaming table kept or used in 
) he city of St. Louis, to issue a warrant directing some 
ifficer of the police force to seize and bring before him 
Hjuch gaming table, and made it his duty to cause the 
iisame to be publicly destroyed by burning or otherwise. 
2. ?hese provisions were held unconstitutional and void. 
( In Lawton vs. Steele, 119 N. Y. 226, the Supreme 
■pourt of New York was of the opinion that it was only 
Because the nets found in the water were a public nuis- 
ftnee that they might be destroyed, and that if the de- 
struction of the nets was intended as a penalty it was 
ojinconstitutional, and also that nets not actually found 
!i|n the water could not be seized. "But," says the 
■ourt, "the Legislature could not go further. It could 
1 iot decree the destruction or forfeiture of property, 
tised so as to constitute a nuisance, as a punishment of 
■hp wrong, nor even, we think, to prevent a future il- 
legal use of the property, it not being a nuisannce per 
Re, and appoint officers to execute its mandate. The 
■lain reason is that due process of law requires a hear- 
Big and trial before punishment, or before forfeiture 
fajif property can be adjudged for the owner's miscon- 
duct. Such legislation would be a plain usurpation by 
■he Legislature of judicial powers, and, under guise 
Bf exercising the power of summary abatement of 
puisances, the Legislature cannot take into its own 
Bands the enforcement of the criminal or quasi crim- 
inal law." When the same case reached the Supreme 
Court of the United States, while the majority of the 
court held that the law in question was a valid exer- 
cise of the police power, Chief Justice Fuller, with 
whom concurred Mr. Justice Brown and Mr. Justice 
Field, filed a dissenting opinion, in which he says: .''The 
police power rests upon necessity and the right of self- 
protection; but private property cannot be arbitrarily 
invaded under the mere guise of police regulation, nor 
forfeited for the alleged violation of law by its owner, 
nor destroyed by way of penalty inflicted upon him, 
without opportunity to be heard." 
In Sentell vs. New Orleans & Carrollton Railroad 
Com., 166 U. S. 698, it is said by Justice Brown: "But 
in determining what is due process of law, we are bound 
to consider the nature of the property, the necessity 
for its sacrifice, and the extent to which it has here- 
tofore been regarded as within the police power. So 
far as property is inoffensive or harmless, it can only 
be condemned or destroyed by legal proceedings, with 
due notice to the owner; but so far as it is dangerous 
to the safety or health of the community, due process 
of law may authorize its summary destruction." 
In Colon vs. Lisk, 153 N. Y. 188, a later case than 
Lawton vs. Steele, a statute providing that every vessel 
unlawfully used in interfering with oysters planted in 
the waters of the State may be seized by the game 
protectors, and upon six days' notice a justice might 
take evidence, and, if found to be so engaged, the 
vessel should be ordered sold, and the proceeds paid 
to the Commissioners of Fisheries, Game and Forestry, 
was held unconstitutional, the court saying: "It is to 
be observed, in passing, that the use for which vessels 
and fixtures may be forfeited under this act does not 
constitute a nuisance, either at common law or» under 
this or any other statute. Nor is the property itself a 
nuisance. Hence it is obvious that the validity of this 
act cannot be maintained upon the ground that either 
the act or the property is a public nuisance, and, con- 
sequently, that the Legislature had the power to 
authorize its abatement." 
In C, B. & Q. R. Co. vs. State, 47 Neb. 549, this 
court held: "The Legislature cannot, under the guise 
of a police regulation, arbitrarily invade private prop- 
erty or personal rights, but it must appear to the court, 
when such regulation is called in question, that there 
is a clear and real connection between the assumed pur- 
pose of the law and its actual provisions." 
There is a clear and marked distinction between that 
species of property which can only be used for an 
illegal purpose, and which therefore may be declared 
a nuisance and summarily abated, and that which is in- 
nocent in its ordinary and proper use, and which only 
becomes illegal when used for an unlawful purpose. We 
know of no principle of law which justifies the seizure 
of property, innocent in itself, its forfeiture, and the 
transfer of the right of property in the same from one 
person to another as a punishment for crime, without 
the right of a hearing upon the guilt or innocence of 
the person charged before the forfeiture takes effect. 
If the property seized by a game keeper or warden were 
a public nuisance, such as provided for in Section 1, 
he had the right under the duties of his office at com- 
mon law to abate the same without judicial process or 
proceeding, and the great weight of authority is to the 
effect that such common-law rights have not been 
abrogated or set aside by the provisions of the Con- 
stitution; but if the property is of such a nature that, 
though innocent in itself and susceptible of a beneficial 
use, it has been perverted to an unlawful use, and is 
subject to forfeiture to the State as a penalty, no person 
has a right to deprive the owner of his property sum- 
marily, without affording opportunity for a hearing 
and without due process of law. The usual course of 
proceedings in such case has been either, as an ad- 
miralty and revenue proceedings, to seize the property, 
libel the same in a court of competent jurisdiction, and 
have it condemned by that court, or, as in criminal 
matters, to arrest the offender, and to provide that 
upon his conviction the forfeiture of the property to 
which the offender's guilt has been imputed, and to 
which the penalty attaches, should take place. These 
have been the methods of procedure for centuries. No 
other has been pointed out to us in the brief of the 
plaintiff in error. We are therefore constrained to the 
opinion that, in so far as the section under considera- 
tion provides for the seizure, forfeiture, and transfer of 
title to property without a hearing upon the guilt or 
innocence of its owner, it violates the constitutional 
provisions. Whether or not a forfeiture can be pro- 
vided for as a punishment for crime under our Con- 
stitution is a question not raised or decided in this case. 
We recommend that the judgment of the district 
court be affirmed. 
Nova Scotia as a Game Country. 
South Brookfield, Queens County, Nova Scotia, July 
20. — Editor Forest and Stream: In looking over and 
reading different sporting magazines and papers pub- 
lished both in the United States and Canada, I often see 
long articles and stories about the hunting of big game 
in Maine, New Brunswick, and parts of Canada, but 
very seldom anything about what is done in Nova Scotia, 
where there is plenty of game and lots of it got by your 
American sportsmen . who visit those parts where the 
game is. 
The only reason that I can account for it is that those 
who do come here and have such good luck are afraid to 
say anything about it for fear it would encourage too 
many others to come (as they expect to come here 
again), and are afraid it might interfere with them in 
having a good time. We have plenty of big game here, 
and the counties of Lunenburg, Queens, Shelburne, Yar- 
mouth, and Digby are noted f®r their good sporting 
grounds. Moose are often seen quite near the farmers' 
homes, and occasionally you will see one feeding on the 
meadows as you are passing along on the train. We have 
plenty and as good guides as can be found in any part of 
the Province. I wish to give you the names of a few 
close at hand: W. S. Crooker, James B. McLeod, Her- 
bert L. Spidle, and I. Pitman Smith, all of whom are 
th 0 roughly acquainted with the hunting grounds for big 
game. 
We have good railway facilities, so that a sportsman 
can almost be landed in a moose yard. However, it is 
only a matter of a few hours after leaving the train when 
his guide can have him on the hunting grounds, almost 
surrounded with good' game. In addition to the moose, 
we have bears, quite plenty some seasons; wildcats we 
have in abundance; foxes are also quite numerous. The 
license fee now is only $30 for moose, and includes any 
of the game named above, and the sportsman can take 
the heads, antlers, and as much of the meat as he likes 
home* with him. 
The trout and salmon fishing has been extra good this 
season. Trout especially have been very plenty. I hope, 
after the season opens, to be able to give you a good ac- 
count of the work so as to let your readers know what is 
to be had in regard to game here, as there are now quite 
a number of sportsmen trying to engage guides, and I 
expect to see good results. George Seaman. 
A Turkey Story. 
There are turkey stories as well as fish stories, if any- 
one should ask you, and N. P. Bullock (Dock) tells the 
following, and vows that it is true: 
A few days ago he was not far from Doehead, near 
the old race track back of the Sessum field, when he saw 
ahead of him two wild turkey gobblers fighting. Mr. 
Bullock stepped out into the bushes and crept along till 
he was opposite the fighting fowls. So intent were they 
in their contest that he was not heard. With a stealthy 
step he advanced till he was almost upon them, and then 
he made a spring and caught the two by the neck, one in 
each hand. 
Then ensued a battle between man and bird. With 
wings and feet the latter fought, scratching Mr. Bulllock's 
arms and tearing his clothing. With much difficulty one 
bird was carried to the ground, where its head was 
crushed by the man's foot, while the other maintained its 
desperate scratching with feet and striking with wing. 
The first one disposed of the other soon fell an easy 
victim. 
Mr. Bullock says that he had no idea how strong a 
turkey was before. The two turkeys were grown gob- 
blers with beards nearly three inches long.- — Tarboro (N. 
C.) Southerner. 
"Watch Compass. 
Adelphia, N. J. — Get the number of hours from mid- 
night, divide by two and point the hour at the sun so that 
the shadow of a match or lead pencil falls directly across 
the center of the watch ; 12 o'clock will be north, 6 south, 
9 west, and 3 east. Suppose it is 9 A. M. ; number of 
hours from midnight is 9; one-half is 4^2 ; point 4:30 at 
the sun so the shadow of a match or lead pencil fall 
across center of watch, and 12 is north, 6 south, 3 east, 
and 9 west. Suppose it is 6 P. M. ; number of hours 
from midnight, 18; one-half, 9; point 9 at sun and 12 is 
north, 6 south, 3 east, and 9 west. 
Also when the sun is hidden on a cloudy day, take a 
lead pencil or stick that is well sharpened and place it on 
the thumb nail. By looking closely you will see a faint 
shadow which Will give you a very good idea of the 
direction of the sun, and may be useful to one lost on a 
cloudy day. C. L. Berge. 
July Woodcock. 
Sayre, Pa. — So far as reports are concerned, one may 
accept the fact that fewer woodcock have been shot dur- 
ing July than for some years past. The same old grounds 
have been worked out, and the usual conditions have pre- 
vailed, but the birds have simply failed to exist. It is a 
great pity that Pennsylvania should permit the infant 
woodcock to be destroyed at a season when the fledge- 
lings should have the ample protection required. 
M. Chill. 
100 Sportsmen's finds. 
Some of the Queer Discoveries Made fay Those Who Are 
Looking for Game or Fish. 
J00 
Fort Lauderdale, July 4. — About ten miles out from 
Fort Lauderdale the dead body of a man was found by 
L. H. Bryan and W. H. Brantly, while out hunting in 
the Everglades on the second. '. 
The skeleton showed that the man had been dead about 
two years, as he had two guns with him, one a shotgun, 
the other a rifle, both of which were rusty. 
It is supposed that he was a hunter who went out in the 
glades to hunt alligators or otters, but either got sick 
and started to walk in or was bitten by a snake and died 
there alone. 
There have been several panthers seen in and around 
there, and some think that he might have been caught by 
one, but as all/his clothes were gone and seemingly no 
bones broken, it is very difficult to determine what was 
the cause of his death. 
As no one has been missed from here, it is impossible 
for anyone to tell who> the victim was. — Florida Times- 
Union. 
Not long since, in a Mississippi court, a colored man 
sued a neighbor for damages for killing his dog. Col. M., 
defendant's lawyer, called "Sam" Parker, a negro, to 
prove that the dog was a worthless cur for whose destruc- 
tion no damage ought to be recovered. 
"Sam, did you ever know this dog?" Col. M. asked. 
"Yes, sah, I wer' pussonally acquainted wid dat dog." 
"Well, tell the jury what sort of dog he was," said 
Col. M. 
"He wer* a big yaller dog." 
"What was he good for?" Col. M. asked. 
"Well, he wouldn't hunt ; he wouldn't do gyard duty ; 
he jes' lay 'round an' eat. Dat make 'em call him w'at 
dey did." 
"Well, sir, what did they call him?" asked Col. M. 
"Dey called him 'Lawyer,' sah."^-Philadelphia Public 
Ledger. 
