Page:Bird-lore Vol 08.djvu/97

 The Audubon Societies 73 Grouse shall not be taken or possessed from January ist to October 31st, nor Plover from January ist to July 15th. By Section 141. of the statute, the inhibition enacted by the other sections of the statute are made to apply to fish, game or flesh coming from without the state as well as to that taken within the state." "We shall not discuss at any length the claim of the relator that the statute con- travenes the constitution of this state as depriving the relator of his property without due process of law. That question has been settled adversely to that claim by the decision of this Court in Phelps vs. Racey (60 N. Y. 10) and People vs. Bootman ( 180 N. Y. 1), in which it was held within the power of the legislature, in order to effect the preservation of game within the state, to enact not only a close season during which the possession of such game should be un- lawful, but further to enact that the posses- sion in the state, during such season, of game taken without the state should be equally unlawful." "To the argument that the exclusion of foreign game in no way tends to the preser- vation of domestic game, it is sufficient to say that, substantially, the uniform belief of legislature and people is to the contrary, and that both in England and many of the states in this country, legislation prohibiting the possession of foreign game during the close season has been upheld as being neces- sary to the protection of domestic game. The Act of Congress, passed May 25, 1900, commonly termed the ' Lacey Act,' empowered the state to enact the legislation before us (Sec. 141)." "That Congress can authorize an exercise of the police power by a state, which, with- out such authority, would be an unconstitu- tional interference with commerce, has been expressly decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in Matter of Rahrer ( 140 U.S. 545). The question before us is merely the interpretation of the Lacey Act which the learned counsel for the respond- ents contend applies solely to interstate ship- ments and not to importations from foreign countries. The Act is entitled: 'An Act to enlarge the powers of the Department of Agriculture, prohibit the transportation by interstate commerce of game killed in viola- tion of local laws, and for other purposes.' " The fifth section deals with the transpor- tation into any state of animals killed with- out the state. It is as follows: ' That all dead bodies, or parts thereof, of any foreign game animals, or game- or song-birds, the importation of which is prohibited, or the dead bodies, or parts thereof, of any wild game animals, or game- or song-birds trans- ported into any state or territory, or remain- ing therein for use, consumption, sale or storage therein, shall upon arrival in such state or territory be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such state or terri- tory enacted in the exercise of its police powers, to the same extent and in the same manner as though such animals or birds had been produced in such state or terri- tory, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in origi- nal packages or otherwise. This act shall not prevent the importation, transportation, or sale of birds or bird plumage, manufac- tured from feathers of barn-yard fowl.'" " It is contended that the title of the statute tends to show that the operation of Section 5 is confined to shipment from other states, and not to importation from foreign coun- tries. If the title of an act could limit its effect, which it cannot (Potter's ' Dwarrison Statutes,' p. 102), still this claim is without foundation. The fifth section, which is the one before us, deals with an entirely differ- ent matter, — transportation into a state, not out of a state, —and is embraced in the title of the statute only under the designation ' and for other purposes.' As to this sub- ject, therefore, the title in no respect tends to limit the effect of the act. It is difficult to see any season why Congress should have sought to discriminate between bodies of • game, song-birds or wild animals brought into a state from other states and those brought from foreign countries. The object of the legislation was to enable the states, by their local law, to exercise a power over the sub- ject of the preservation of game- and song- birds, which without that legislation they could not exert." "Every consideration that led Congress to