US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Subject to constitutional limitations, the legislature of a state may pass measures for the protection of the people in the exercise of the police power and is the judge of their necessity and expediency.

It is within the police power of a state to prohibit possession of game during the closed season even if brought from without the state.

A police measure otherwise within the constitutional power of the state will not be held unconstitutional under the commerce clause of the federal Constitution because it incidentally and remotely affects interstate commerce. Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461, followed; Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. 1, distinguished.

The sections of the Forest, Fish and Game Law of the New York which prohibit possession of game during the closed season are a valid exercise of the police power of the state, and are not in conflict with the Constitution of the United States either as depriving persons importing game of their property without due process of law or as an interference with, or a regulation of, interstate commerce. Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519.

Independently of the Lacey Act of May 25, 1900, c. 553, 31 Stat. 187, relating to transportation of game in interstate commerce, the provisions of the New York Forest, Fish and Game Law prohibiting possession of game in closed season is a valid exercise of the police power of the state, and quaere, but not decided, whether the New York law is not also validated by such act of Congress. [Footnote 1]

184 N.Y. 126 affirmed.

The facts which involve the constitutionality of the sections of the Forest, Fish and Game Law of the State of New York of 1900, relating to the possession of game or fish during the closed season, are stated in the opinion. chanrobles.com-red

Page 211 U. S. 35