SALE. 53 
dealers are licen.sed. 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 greatl}^ sim- 
plified b}^ the passage by Congress of the Lacey Act; and in this con- 
nection attention may again be called to section 5 of that act, which 
provides that all game imported into any State becomes sul)ject 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, Xew Hampshire, 
North and South Dakota, and Quebec. 
In Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, and Nevada the 
sale of all game protected b}^ the State law is prohibited. In Massa- 
chusetts and New Hampshire the sale of ruffed grouse or partridge, 
and woodcock is forbidden; in South Dakota, big game; in Minnesota, 
quail, ruffed grouse, shai*p-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 da3\s are allowed in which to dispose of game. Such provisions 
prevail in Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, 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 hotl}^ 
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 jxirte Maier, 103 Cal. 476), the 
District of Columbia (Javins v. U. S., 11 App. D. C. 347), Illinois 
(Magner c. People, 97 111. 320), Maryland (Stevens v. State, 89 Md. 
669), :Michigan (People c. O'Neil, 68 N. W. Rep. 227), Missouri (State 
V. Judy, 7 Mo. App. 521), New York (Phelps v. 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 b}^ the State of selling, contrary to the 
law of Oregon, certain trout purchased in Seattle, Wash. He was fined, 
and in default of pa3^ment was imprisoned. Application was there- 
upon made to the Federal court for a writ of habeas corpus, which was 
' In re Deininger, circuit court, district of Oregon, April 17, 1901, 
5037— No. 16—01 5 
