Witness against Himself.- No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. Amendment V.

Jury Trial. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. Amendment VII.

Powers Reserved. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Amendment X.

Due Process of Law.- No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Amendment XIV.

The courts have construed these provisions of the organic law in connection with the various acts of Congress relating to interstate commerce and State legislation with regard to domestic commerce. Decisions bearing directly upon the statute will be found under the appropriate section of the act under which the discussion arose. Decisions which relate generally to the powers of Congress or the States, affecting commercial questions, and which do not relate to any particular clause of a Federal or State statute involving the power to regulate commerce, are, for convenience, grouped in this chapter.

The Police Power. The people in framing the Federal Constitution did not delegate to Congress power to regulate the internal policy of a State, with respect to public health, public morals, or public order, within its borders. The power of the State to legislate as it sees

fit, in regard to these matters, is supreme. This power cannot be impaired or diminished by an act of Congress, even though its exercise may operate indirectly upon, or incidentally affect, interstate commerce. This rule is illustrated by the following authorities:

Police Power-State Legislation - Prohibiting Sale of Game and Fish.— A State may in the exercise of its police power prohibit the sale of trout within its borders, although such trout were lawfully caught in another State. A law making it a penal offense for a person to have such trout in his possession for sale is valid and not an unlawful interference with interstate commerce. In re Deininger, 108 Fed. Rep. 623 (April, 1901, C. C. Ore.); Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, followed.

Petitioner, who was convicted under the Oregon statute, applied for writ of habeas corpus and an order directing the sheriff to show cause why the writ should not be granted. Petitioner was manager of Cholpeck Fishing Co. at Portland, Ore., where it conducted a retail fish market. Trout were purchased in Seattle, Wash., where they were lawfully caught and shipped to petitioner to sell. Petitioner contended that the Oregon statute making possession of trout for sale, lawfully caught in another State, a penal offense, was invalid, as being in restraint of interstate commerce. The court denied the petition, and held that game brought from one State into another the moment it reaches the State of its destination, becomes part of the property within its borders, and subject to the control of the State in the exercise of its police powers, and that the statute complained of was a lawful exercise of such police power and was valid, and not an infringe

ment upon the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act. Ib.

State Game Laws

Consent of Congress to Enforcement of. With a view to allowing full force to the game laws of the several States, designed to protect wild game, and to prohibit the killing of certain birds and animals during particular seasons, Congress passed a law known as the Lacy Act, approved May 25, 1900 (Stat. 1900, chap. 553). This law was intended to make effective State game laws, in the same manner that the Wilson Act (Approved August 8, 1890) was intended to give force and effect to the sumptuary laws of the several States, with respect to the purchase and sale of intoxicating liquors. The Lacy Act provides as follows:

Section 3.- That it shall be unlawful for any person or persons to deliver to any common carrier, or for any common carrier to transport from one State or Territory to another State or Territory, or from the District of Columbia or Alaska to any State or Territory, or from any State or Territory to the District of Columbia or Alaska, any foreign animals or birds the importation of which is prohibited, or the dead bodies or parts thereof of any wild animals or birds, where such animals or birds have been killed in violation of the laws of the State, Territory, or District in which the same were killed:

Provided, That nothing herein shall prevent the transportation of any dead birds or animals killed during the season when the same may be lawfully captured, and the export of which is not prohibited by law in the State, Territory, or District in which the same are killed.

That all packages containing such dead animals, birds, or parts thereof, when shipped by interstate commerce, as provided in section one of this Act, shall be plainly and clearly marked, so that the name and address of the shipper and the nature of the contents may be readily ascertained on inspection of the outside of such packages. For each evasion or violation of this Act the shipper shall, upon conviction, pay a fine of not exceeding two hundred dollars; and the consignee knowingly receiving such

FEDERAL STATUTE GAME LAWS.

7

articles so shipped and transported in violation of this Act shall, upon conviction, pay a fine of not exceeding two hundred dollars; and the carrier knowingly carrying or transporting the same shall, upon conviction, pay a fine of not exceding two hundred

dollars.

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 transported into any State or Territory, or remaining 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 Territory 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 Territory, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein iu original packages or otherwise.

This Act shall not prevent the importation, transportation, or sale of birds or bird plumage manufactured from the feathers of barnyard fowl. (Statutes 1900, chap. 553, approved May 25, 1900; 31 Stat. at L. 187.)

Interesting questions have arisen under the game laws of the States, based upon the proposition that game is property, and that neither the State nor Federal Legislature can, by statute, deprive any person of property without due process of law. This elementary rule, however, is subject to the exercise of the police power, which authorizes the Legislature to prohibit the sale of articles of food which would be injurious to the public health. These statutes for the protection of game frequently make it a crime to "catch, kill, or be possessed of " game or fish in the close season. Possession of birds in the forbidden season, in violation of a State statute, is prima facie evidence that the possessor has violated the law. The burden is then on the party possessing to show that his possession is legal. He may show that he purchased the game in another State, at a time when it was law

ful to kill and possess it in his own State; that he brought it into his own State, when it was lawful for him to possess it there; that after importing it he kept the merchandise in storage, and had it for sale, thereafter, and during the forbidden season, when by the statute his possession of it was declared unlawful. In such cases, assuming the game is wholesome and fit for food, the question arises whether the Legislature can make the purchase and possession of property a crime.

For State authorities construing laws of this character, see People v. Bootman, N. Y. Sup. Ct., First Dept., App. Div., June, 1904; Foster v. Scott, 136 N. Y. 577; People v. Buffalo Fish Co., 164 N. Y. 93; State v. Bixman, 162 Mo. 1; State v. Intoxicating Liquors, 9 Me. 140; Starace v. Rossie, 69 Vt. 303; Commonwealth v. Savage, 155 Mass. 278; Manger v. People, 97 Ill. 320; Roth v. State, 51 Ohio St. 209; People v. O'Neill, 110 Mich. 324; State v. Rodman, 58 Minn. 393; Ex parte Maier, 103 Cal. 476; Price v. Bradley, 16 Q. B. Div. 148.

Police Power Sunday Trains. Statutes enacted by the Legislature of a State for the orderly observance of the Sabbath day are within the police power. It is within their province to pass any law having for its object the protection of the health and morals of its people, and to promote their welfare and happiness. It may, by proper statutory regulations, prescribe a rule of civic duty, applicable to its own citizens, and to those who enter or sojourn within its borders, on the Sabbath. The State of Georgia passed an act regulating the running of freight trains within the State on Sunday (Code 1882, § 4578), which forbade the moving of freight trains on that day, except as pre