17 
tion of the power of the legislature in all of the cases enumerated refers to matters of a 
ee nature, and among them is the protection of fish, which was regarded so impor- 
ant to the public that the legislature was restricted and prevented from granting, by 
special or local law, any privileges or exemption from a general law. It was esteemed 
too important a public interest to permit any person, even with the consent of the legis- 
rare: to escape from conforming to any general law which should be passed on the 
subject. 
All must admit that from the remotest times game has been the subject of protection 
by legislation in Great Britain, and in this country since its settlement; nor has any one, 
until recently, questioned the constitutional power to adopt such laws, and our consti- 
tution places both the preservation of game and: fish on the same basis and equality. 
There is no question that more concerns the public than an abundant supply of cheap 
and healthy foou. In a densely populated country it is the all absorbing question that 
engages the attention of its people and the government. It is the basis of the happiness, 
Beye ority. and contentment of all peoples. And with our unparalleled increase of popu- 
ation, vast as is our domain, in a generation more it will become the all absorbing eco- 
nomical question for the government to solve. Even now, in some portions of the 
Union, it is taxing the energy of the people and the wisdom of statesmen, to a high de- 
gree, to provide against pinching want; and it must be obvious to all that the question of 
the increase of the supply of food, and the preservation of the sources of its supply, are 
matters of the highest public concern. There are few, if any, questions that should at- 
tract the attention of the law-makers to a greater extent, because of its public impor- 
tance. All will concede the vast importance of the commercial and manufacturing inter- 
ests of the country, and in recognition of their importance these interests have received 
aid and protection from the government; but no one can say they are of paramount im- 
portance more than an abundant supply of cheap food for the people, nor should the 
sources of such a supply be sacrificed to either or both of the other great interests. 
Commerce, manufactures and trade concern the opulent or persons in easy circum- 
stances. but the supply of food vitally concerns the struggling masses, upon whose labor 
the other interests are wholly dependent. Their labor is indispensable to the very exist- 
énce of commerce, manufactures and trade, and their interests and wants are of as essen- 
tial importance, and are as worthy of the protection of Government, as the others. The 
interests of an owner of a mill or factory do not require the sacrifice of this great public 
interest by strained construction or refined distinctions. Its regulation is manifestly as 
public in its character as many others that have always been under legislative control, 
and never challenged or even questioned. 
_ We now come to the consideration of the effects and consequences of holding that 
private individuals may acquire prescriptive rights against the public. If such adoctrine 
were to obtain, it would amount to a repeal of this law. All the riparian owners on every 
stream in the State, and many others, could prove that they and their ancestors had, for 
more than twenty years, maintained weirs, and used seines, nets and other prohibited 
devices for the destruction of fish. If the claim of such prescriptive rights should be 
sustained, then all the fish in our streams would soon be destroyed. and the production 
of food decreased perhaps millions of dollars annually, and other food enhanced in price, 
So as to become oppressive to the poor and struggling masses,—and the question, for 
these reasons, will annually grow in importance with our unparalleled increase of popu- 
lation. No one has questioned the power of government to protect cattle, sheep and hogs 
from disease, or the power to pass and enforce restrictions for their preservation for food 
for the great mass of the people. This may not be soimportant an interest as either of 
the others, but there is no doubt it is of great public concern. The legislature has the 
power, and is charged with the duty, of passing all laws for the preservation of the liberties 
of the people and their morals, and to adopt all measures for the general welfare, and this 
aw is eminently adapted to produce such results. At the ancient common law it was re- 
zarded as within legislative power to prevent the forestalling, regrating and engrossing 
of food, and they were prohibited by statute, for the protection of the people against 
imjust exactions in the price of food. If such were objects of legislation, then the preser- 
vation and increase of this article of food must necessarily be of great public, as con- 
‘radistinguished from private, interest. 
The act of 1857 does not possess a single ingredient of a charter for acorporation. it 
loes not, in the remotest degree, refer to a corporation, or confer the slightest corporate 
20Wers or franchises, or anything which can be tortured into a grant of such franchises. 
ff the courts may torture that act into a charter, or hold that plaintiff in error is a corpor- 
ition, then it might be held that almost any law onthe statute book is a charter, and 
xreates a corporation. To so holdin this case would be to disregard all definitions, dis- 
‘inctions and relation of things. It surely is not expected that this or any other court 
sould so hold. It isso palpable that the act is nota charter, itis useless to search for 
wuthorities, as no one before, we presume, ever conceived such an idea. 
On thorough examination and earnest reflection, we are impelled to the conclusion 
hat the General Assembly exercised legitimate and constitutional power in the adoption 
of the act of 1879, and did not thereby deprive plaintiff in error of any right of property or 
»rivilege, Nor did or could he acquire a prescriptive right against the public. We, for 
hese reasons, conclude that this is one of the great purposes for which the State govern- 
nent was brought into existence, and the legislature has no competent authority to per- 
nanently grant or barter it away. That it may suspend the right, and license persons to 
‘reate such nuisances, none can deny; but the license may be revoked at will, as the 
icensee acquires no vested rights under the license. This power can only be destroyed 
rr withheld by the people when framing and adopting a constitution. 
Perceiving no error in the record, the judgment of the court below is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
ya) 
