54 DIGEST OF GAME LAWS P^OR UK)1. 
denied. In rendcrin*,^ this doc-ision tlio court cited the case of Geer v. 
Connecticut.' and disposed of the question as follows: 
Tlu' decision [(ieer r. Connecticut] is l)ase<l upon the fundamental distinction that 
exists between the <iuaiitied ownershij) in ;;anie and the perfect nature of ownership 
in other projxirty . I f ^anie when reduced to possession became an article of property, 
in the ordinary sense of the word, it would belong to connnerce; otherwise, it is a 
8u])ject of control by the State, in the exercise of its police power. There is, in my 
opinion, no room to distinjiuish l)etween the ri^jht to take game out of the State and 
the right to bring it witiiin the State. Interstate traffic is affected as much in one 
case a^ in the other. It is not material that in one ca.se the killing of game is dis- 
couraged by the limitation which the law jmts upon its use, by i)rohibiting its expor- 
tation, while in the other the enforcement of the law against the taking of game is 
rondere<l i)racticable by making its possession for sale unlawful. The ultimate object 
sought in each erase is the same, and the law in each case is a legitimate exercise of 
the police power of the State. 
Illinois specitically 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 he sold at any time. 
Missouri, New Mexico, and renns3dvania restrict prohibitions against 
sale of game to that taken within the State. Ne})raska permits the 
storage but not the sale of imported game during the close season in the 
Stiite for similar game. In a few instances prohibitions against the sale 
of certain game are so general as to afford protection over a considera})le 
area. Thus ruffed grouse can not Ije sold in New Brunswick, Ontario, 
Manitoba, ^Nlaine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mich- 
igan, or Minnesota. Antelope can not now be shipped from any State, 
although they may still be killed in Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, Ore- 
gon, Washington, and Wyoming. Practically every State in which 
prairie chickens occur has now^ prohibited their sale or export. Hence 
the exposure for sale of these l)irds in any State where they do not 
occur, as in any city east of Indianapolis, is strong indication of viola- 
tion of law. 
The following ta})le is intended to show two very distinct things: 
(1) The species which each State and Province prohibits from sale 
at all sea.sons. (iJ) The extension of time beyond the limits of the 
regular open season allowed dealers in some States, to ena})le them to 
dispose of game on hand which can be lawfidly sold within the State. 
The two lists have little in conunon except that the}* both come under 
the head of restrictions on sale of game. 
'In which the Supremi^ Court of the United States ui)held the constitutionality of 
the nonexport law of Connecticut. 
