Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

THE DECISIONS

OF THE

Supreme Court of the United States

AT

OCTOBER TERM, 1928

[1] FOSTER-FOUNTAIN PACKING COM- to satisfy local demands, or because they PANY, Inc., and Sea Food Company, Appts.,

V.

are needed by the people of the state.
Game, § 1 state power over.

5. The state owns, and has power to

E. J. HAYDEL, Fred Schouest, L. R. Ca- control, the game and fish within its borbriac, et al.

[blocks in formation]

power of state over

ders, not absolutely, or as proprietor, or for its own use and benefit, but in its sovereign capacity as representative of the people.

[blocks in formation]

7. One whose business will suffer great and irremediable loss by the enforcement of a statute which is alleged to be unconstitutional is entitled to a temporary injunction against the enforcement of the act, pending a suit to test its constitutionality. [No. 68.]

Commerce, § 181 private property. 4. A state is without power to prevent privately owned articles of trade from being shipped and sold in interstate com- Argued April 18, 1928. Decided October merce, on the ground that they are required

15, 1928.

Note.-On power of state to prohibit | 678; and Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennor restrict exportation of natural re-sylvania, 29 L. ed. U. S. 158. sources-see annotation to West v. Kan- On right to enjoin acts under an unsas Natural Gas Co. 35 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1193; and Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 32 A.L.R. 331.

On state regulation of interstate or foreign commerce-see annotation to Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Com. 13 L.R.A. 107; Brown v. Maryland, 6 L. ed. U. S.

constitutional statute as affected by other remedies in case such acts are donesee annotation to Harley v. Lindemann, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 124.

As to injunction to restrain acts of public officers-see annotation to Mississippi v. Johnson, 18 L. ed. U. S. 437.

Mr. William H. Watkins, of Jackson, Mississippi, and Mr. W. Lee Guice, of New Orleans, Louisiana, argued the cause, and, with Mr. Gustave Lemle, of Biloxi, Mississippi, filed a brief for appellants:

[ocr errors]

Sections 13 and 19, Act No. 103, passed by the Louisiana legislature, approved July 8, 1926, known as the "Shrimp Act," and §§ 3, 23, and 24, Act No. 258, approved July 14, 1926, known as the "Oyster Act," contravene and are in violation of ¶ 3, subd. 8, article 1, of the Constitution of the United States, conferring upon the Congress of the United States exclusive power to regulate commerce.

PPEAL by complainants from a de- | Sup. Ct. Rep. 213; Voight v. Wright, cree of the District Court of the 141 U. S. 262, 35 L. ed. 638, 11 Sup. Ct. United States for the Eastern District of Rep. 855; Brennan v. Titusville, 153 U. Louisiana dismissing a bill to enjoin the S. 289, 38 L. ed. 719, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. enforcement of a state statute. Reversed. 658, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829; West v. KanThe facts are stated in the opinion. sas Natural Gas Co. 221 U. S. 229, 55 L. ed. 716, 35 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1193, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 564; Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U. S. 553, 67 L. ed. 1117, 32 A.L.R. 300, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 658; New York ex rel. Kennedy v. Becker, 241 U. S. 556, 60 L. ed. 1166, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 705; Lacoste v. Department of Conservation, 263 U. S. 545, 68 L. ed. 437, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 186; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 38 L. ed. 385, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499; D. E. Foote & Co. v. Stanley, 232 U. S. 494, 58 L. ed. 698, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 377; Sanitary Dist. v. United States, 266 U. S. 405, 69 L. ed. 352, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 176; Real Silk Hosiery Mills v. Portland, 268 U. S. 325, 69 L. ed. 982, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 525; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313, 322, 34 L. ed. 455, 459, 3 Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. Inters. Com. Rep. 185, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 23; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 420, 862; Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 6 L. ed. 678; Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. 49 L. ed. 937, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 539, 3 S. 519, 40 L. ed. 793, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. Ann. Cas. 1133; Adair v. United States, 600; State v. Rodman, 58 Minn. 393, 59 208 U. S. 161, 52 L. ed. 436, 28 Sup. Ct. N. W. 1098; Magner v. People, 97 Ill. Rep. 277, 13 Ann. Cas. 764; Hammer v. 320; Spring Valley Waterworks v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251, 62 L. ed. Schottler, 110 U. S. 374, 28 L. ed. 183, 1101, 3 A.L.R. 649, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 529, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 48; State v. Saunders, 19 Ann. Cas. 1918E, 724; Schollenberger v. Kan. 127, 27 Am. Rep. 98; Welton v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. 1, 43 L. ed. 49, Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, 282, 23 L. ed. 347, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 757; Houston & T. C. 350; United States v. Holt State Bank, R. Co. v. Mayes, 201 U. S. 321, 50 L. ed. 270 U. S. 49, 70 L. ed. 465, 46 Sup. Ct. 772, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 491; United States Rep. 197; State v. Ferrandau, 130 La. v. É. C. Knight Co. 156 U. S. 1, 39 L. 1035, 58 So. 870, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1170; ed. 325, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 249; Arkansas Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U. S. 78, 34 v. Kansas & T. Coal Co. 183 U. S. 185, L. ed. 862, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 485, 11| 46 L. ed. 144, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 47; MisSup. Ct. Rep. 213; Lacoste v. Department of Conservation, 263 U. S. 545, 68 L. ed. 437, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 186; 15 C. J. p. 927; Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 485, 24 L. ed. 547; Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 344, 26 L. ed. 565; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Ohio, 173 U. S. 285, 43 L. ed. 702, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 465; Missouri v. Kansas Natural Gas Co. 265 U. S. 298, 68 L. ed. 1027, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 544; Ozark Pipe Line Corp. v. Monier, 266 U. S. 555, 69 L. ed. 439, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 184; Michigan Pub. Utilities Commission v. Duke, 266 U. S. 570, 69 L. ed. 445, 36 A. L. R. 1105, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 191; Di Santo v. Pennsylvania, 273 U. S. 34, 71 L. ed. 524, 47 Sup. Ct. Rep. 267. The legislature of a state cannot, under the guise of exercising its police power, directly interfere with interstate

commerce.

Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U. S. 78, 34 L. ed. 862, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 485, 11

sissippi R. Commission v. Illinois C. R. Co. 203 U. S. 335, 51 L. ed. 209, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 90; Collins v. New Hampshire, 171 U. S. 30, 43 L. ed. 60, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 768; Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 24 L. ed. 527.

The acts in question were passed solely and only for the purpose of regulating the place where the respective commodities should be manufactured, and in so doing a direct burden is placed upon interstate commerce, which is prohibited.

Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co. 270 U. S. 402, 70 L. ed. 654, 46 Sup. Ct. Rep. 320; United States v. Katz, 271 U. S. 354, 70 L. ed. 986, 46 Sup. Ct. Rep. 513; Frost & F. Trucking Co. v. Railroad Commission, 271 U. S. 583, 70 L. ed. 1101, 47 A.L.R. 457, 46 Sup. Ct. Rep. 605; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 54 L. ed. 355, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Missouri ex rel. Burnes Nat. Bank v. Duncan, 265 U. S. 17, 68 L. ed. 881, 44

Sup. Ct. Rep. 427; Hanover F. Ins. Co. | Rep. 168; Alabama & V. R. Co. v. Jackv. Harding (Hanover F. Ins. Co. v. son & E. R. Co. 271 U. S. 244, 70 L. ed. Carr) 272 U. S. 494, 506, 71 L. ed. 372, 928, 46 Sup. Ct. Rep. 535; Kansas City 379, 49 A.L.R. 713, 47 Sup. Ct. Rep. 179; Structural Steel Co. v. Arkansas, 269 Sioux Remedy Co. v. Cope, 235 U. S. 197, U. S. 148, 70 L. ed. 204, 46 Sup. Ct. Rep. 59 L. ed. 193, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 57. 59; LaCoste v. Department of Conservation, 263 U. S. 545, 68 L. ed. 437, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 186.

Interstate commerce comprises not only the shipment of property from one state to another, but also protects the dealings, negotiations, and contracts in respect thereto.

Dahnke-Walker Mill. Co. v. Bondurant, 257 U. S. 282, 66 L. ed. 239, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 106; Lemke v. Farmers' Grain Co. 258 U. S. 50, 66 L. ed. 458, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 244; Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U. S. 495, 66 L. ed. 735, 23 A.L.R. 229, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 397; Flanagan v. Federal Coal Co. 267 U. S. 222, 69 L. ed. 583, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 233; Shafer v. Farmers Grain Co. 268 U. S. 189, 69 L. ed. 909, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 481; Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517, 29 L. ed. 715, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 475; Robbins v. Taxing Dist. 120 U. S. 489, 30 L. ed. 694, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 45, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 592; Ozark Pipe Line Corp. v. Monier, 266 U. S. 555, 69 L. ed. 439, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 184; Thornton v. United States, 271 U. S. 414, 70 L. ed. 1013, 46 Sup. Ct. Rep. 585; Davis v. Farmers Co-op. Equity Co. 262 U. S. 312, 67 L. ed. 996, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 556; A. G. Spalding & Bros. v. Edwards, 262 U. S. 66, 67 L. ed. 865, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 485; Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251, 62 L. ed. 1101, 3 A.L.R. 649, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 529, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 724; United States v. Hill, 248 U. S. 420, 67 L. ed. 337, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 143; Blumenstock Bros. Adv. Agency v. Curtis Pub. Co. 252 U. S. 436, 64 L. ed. 649, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 385; Weeks v. United States, 245 U. S. 618, 62 L. ed. 513, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 219; Brooks v. United States, 267 U. S. 432, 69 L. ed. 699, 37 A.L.R. 1407, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 345; Thornton v. United States, 271 U. S. 414, 70 L. ed. 1013, 46 Sup. Ct. Rep. 585; Real Silk Hosiery Mills v. Portland, 268 U. S. 325, 69 L. ed. 982, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 525; Federal Trade Commission v. Pacific States Paper Trade Asso. 273 U. S. 52, 71 L. ed. 534, 47 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255; International Textbook Co. v. Pigg, 217 U. S. 91, 54 L. ed. 678, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 493, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 481, 18 Ann. Cas. 1103; Binderup v. Pathe Exch. 263 U. S. 291, 68 L. ed. 308, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 96.

This court will investigate the record and determine for itself whether or not appellants have been deprived of a constitutional right.

Interstate Amusement Co. v. Albert, 239 U. S. 560, 60 L. ed. 439, 36 Sup. Ct.

Sections 13 and 19 of the Shrimp Act, and §§ 3, 23, and 24 of the Oyster Act, as enforced and construed, violate the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States.

State v. Ferrandau, 130 La. 1035, 58 So. 870, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1170.

Equity has jurisdiction by injunction to prevent irreparable injury and damage.

Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 60 L. ed. 131, L.R.A.1916D, 545, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 7, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 283; Kennington v. Palmer, 255 U. S. 100, 65 L. ed. 528, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 303; Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197, 68 L. ed. 255, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 15; Packard v. Banton, 264 U. S. 140, 68 L. ed. 596, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 257; National Prohibition Cases (Rhode Island v. Palmer) 253 U. S. 350, 64 L. ed. 946, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 486; Greene v. Frasier, 253 U. S. 233, 64 L. ed. 878, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499; Ft. Smith & W. R. Co. v. Mills, 253 U. S. 206, 64 L. ed. 862, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 526; Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251, 62 L. ed. 1101, 3 A.L.R. 649, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 529, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 724; Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332, 61 L. ed. 755, L.R.A.1917E, 938, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 1024; Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 159, 52 L. ed. 728, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 932, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 441, 14 Ann. Cas. 764; Gegiow v. Uhl, 239 U. S. 3, 60 L. ed. 114, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2; Waite v. Macy, 246 U. S. 606, 62 L. ed. 892, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 395; American School v. McAnnulty, 187 U. S. 94, 47 L. ed. 90, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 33; Morrill v. Jones, 106 U. S. 466, 27 L. ed. 267, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 423; Bacon v. Rutland R. Co. 232 U. S. 134, 58 L. ed. 538, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 283; Detroit Creamery Co. v. Kinnane (D. C.) 264 Fed. 851; Sante Fe P. R. Co. v. Lane, 244 U. S. 492, 498, 61 L. ed. 1275, 1280, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 714; Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S. 605, 56 L. ed. 570, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 340; Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 60 L. ed. 131, L.R.A.1916D, 545, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 7, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 283; Rast v. Van Deman & L. Co. 240 U. S. 342, 60 L. ed. 679, L.R.A.1917A, 421, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 370; Tanner v. Little, 240 U. S. 369, 60 L. ed. 691, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 379; Pitney v. Washington, 240 U. S. 387, 60 L. ed. 703, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep.

[ocr errors]

State v. Harrub, 95 Ala. 176, 15 L.R.A. 765, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 99, 36 Am. St. Rep. 195, 10 So. 752; Turner v. Maryland, 107 U. S. 38, 27 L. el. 370, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 44.

385; Crane v. Johnson, 242 U. S. 339,, Federal Constitution or any other part 61 L. ed. 350, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 176, Ann. of the 14th Amendment to the Federal Cas. 1917B, 796; McNaughton v. John Constitution, nor does it violate the son, 242 U. S. 344, 61 L. ed. 352, 37 Sup. Bill of Rights or any article of the ConCt. Rep. 178, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 801; Hy- stitution of the state of Louisiana. grade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U. S. 497, 69 L. ed. 402, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 141; Banton v. Belt Line R. Corp. 268 U. S. 413, 69 L. ed. 1020, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 534; Cline v. Frink Dairy Co. 274 U. S. 445, 71 L. ed. 1146, 47 Sup. Ct. Rep. 681; Hammond v. Schappi Bus Line, 275 U. S. 164, 72 L. ed. 218, 48 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66; Fordson Coal Co. Maggard (C. C. A. 6th) 2 F. (2d) 708; Council Bluffs v. Omaha & C. B. Street R. Co. (C. C. A. 8th) 9 F. (2d) 246; Continuous Glass Press Co. v. Schmertz Wire Glass Co. 82 C. C. A. 587, 153 Fed. 577; Buskirk v. King, 18 C. C. A. 418, 25 U. S. App. 607, 72 Fed. 22; Samson & M. Co. v. Seaver-Radford Co. (C. C.) 129 Fed. 761; Wilmington City R. Co. v. Taylor (D. C.) 198 Fed. 159.

V.

Messrs. Michael M. Irwin and John Dymond, Jr., argued the cause, and, with Mr. Percy Saint, Attorney General of Louisiana, and Messrs. Peyton R. Sandoz and Leander H. Perez, all of New Orleans, Louisiana, filed a brief for appellees:

No natural resource, until it is reduced to private possession, can become the subject of commerce; and since shrimp and oysters, in Louisiana, can only be come private property under certain specified conditions established by statute, no one has a right to complain that the provisions of the statute interfere with interstate commerce until he has first shown that he has reduced the shrimp and oysters to private possession. 12 C. J. § 74, p. 61; McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 391, 24 L. ed. 248; Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71, 15 L. ed. 269; State v. Harrub, 95 Ala. 176, 15 L.R.A. 761, 36 Am. St. Rep. 195, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 99, 10 So. 752; State v. Medbury, 3 R. I. 138; Organ v. State, 56 Ark. 267, 19 S. W. 840; State v. Northern Pacific Exp. Co. 58 Minn. 403, 59 N. W. 1100; Territory v. Evans, 2 Idaho, 658, 7 L.R.A. 288, 23 Pac. 115; Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, 40 L. ed. 793, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 600; Lacoste v. Depart ment of Conservation, 151 La. 909, 92 So. 381, affirmed in 263 U. S. 545, 68 L. ed. 437, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 186.

The state has absolute power and authority, through its legislature, to enact such law, which in no sense violates the interstate commerce clause of the

vided by § 19 of Act 103 of 1926 for the The imposition of the penalties proseizure of vessels, their tackle and apsalt-water shrimp from the waters of paratus, used in the illegal taking of this state, can in no sense be construed as imposing a burden upon interstate of that section be construed as creating commerce; much less can the provisions a monopoly in favor of Louisianians engaged in the shrimp industry.

Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71, 15 L. ed. 269; Freund, Pol. Power, p. 561, § 528; Schwartz v. State, 119 La. 295, 121 Am. St. Rep. 516, 44 So. 20; State v. Jackson, 152 La. 656, 94 So. 150; Samuels v. McCurdy, 267 U. S. 188, 69 L. ed. 568, 37 A.L.R. 1378, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 264; North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 U. S. 306, 53 L. ed. 193, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 101, 15 Ann. Cas. 276; New Orleans v. Charouleau, 121 La. 890, 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 368, 126 Am. St. Rep. 332, 46 So. 911, 15 Ann. Cas. 46; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 38 L. ed. 385, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499; Bittenhaus v. Johnson, 92 Wis. 588, 32 L.R.A. 380, 66

N. W. 805.

Messrs. John Dymond, Jr., and A. Giflen Levy, both of New Orleans, Louisiana, filed a separate brief for appellee, Department of Conservation of Louisiana :

A statute prohibiting oysters and shrimp from being exported from the state until the hulls and shells have been removed is not unconstitutional as a regulation of interstate commerce; and the question is not affected by the fact that it is contemplated that such shelled oysters and shrimp, as well as the hulls and shells, will ultimately move in interstate commerce.

Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, 40 L. ed. 793, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 600; Lacoste v. Department of Conservation, 263 U. S. 545, 68 L. ed. 437, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 186; State v. Harrub, 95 Ala. 176, 15 L.R.A. 761, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 99, 36 Am. St. Rep. 195; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 38 L. ed. 385, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499.

[ocr errors]

the Judicial Code, U. S. C. title 28, § 380; it set aside the restraining order and denied the injunction. Then the court allowed this appeal, found that the plaintiffs will sustain irreparable harm and damage, and stayed the enforcement of the act pending determination here.

Mr. Justice Butler delivered the opin-, rary injunction. There was a hearing ion of the court: before the court, consisting of three Appellants, plaintiffs below, are en-judges, organized as required by § 266 of gaged in the business of catching and canning shrimp for shipment and sale in interstate commerce. Appellees, defendants below, are public officers in Louisiana charged with the duty of enforcing Act No. 103, known as the "Shrimp Act,' passed in July, 1926; so far as material here, it is printed in the margin.1 Plaintiffs sued to enjoin enforcement of certain [6] of its provisions on the ground, among others, that they violate the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. The district judge granted a restraining order pending application for a tempo

1"An Act

"To Declare All Shrimp and Parts Thereof in the Waters of the State to be the Property of the State of Louisiana, and to Provide the Manner and Extent of Their Reduction to Private Ownership; to Encourage, Protect, Conserve, Regulate and Develop the Shrimp Industry of the State of Louisiana.

The case has not been tried and the sole question is whether, having regard to the particular facts and circumstances, the lower court's refusal to grant a temporary injunction was contrary to some rule of equity or the result [7] of improvident exercise of judicial discretion.

Any

"In order that all of the inhabitants of the state of Louisiana may enjoy the state's natural food product, it shall be lawful to ship unshelled shrimp from any point in the state of Louisiana to any other point in the state of Louisiana for edible consumption, subject to such regulations and restrictions as may be imposed by the department of conservation. "Section 1. That all salt water person, firm or corporation of this state shrimp existing in the waters of this state, who shall lawfully take any shrimp from and the hulls and all parts of said salt wa- any of the waters of the state, or lawfully ter shrimp shall be and are hereby de- acquire the same, shall have a qualified inclared to be the property of the state; un-terest or property in the shrimp so taken til the title thereto shall be devested in the manner and form herein authorized and shall be under the exclusive control of the department of conservation of the state of Louisiana, until the right of private ownership shall vest therein as herein provided, and that no person, firm or corporation shall catch or have in their possession, living or dead, any salt water shrimp, or parts thereof, or purchase, sell or offer for sale, any such shrimp or parts thereof, after same have been caught except as otherwise permitted herein.

"Section 4. That the right to take salt water shrimp from the waters of this state and the right to can, pack or dry the said shrimp when caught are hereby granted to any resident of this state, to any firm or association composed of residents of this state, or to any corporation domiciled in or organized under the laws of this state, operating a canning or packing factory or drying platform in this state. These rights shall be confined to such persons and corporations and are granted subject to the further conditions hereinafter stipulated.

"Section 13. All salt water shrimp and the shells or hulls and heads of all salt water shrimp are hereby declared to be the property of the state, and the shells or hulls and heads to be valuable for use as a natural resource of the state as a fertilizer in the state; and it shall therefore and reafter be unlawful to export from the sate of Louisiana any salt water shrimp from which the shell or hull and head shall not have been removed.

or acquired in the shells, which qualified interest may be sold or transferred to any other person, firm or corporation within the limits of the state; and after the edible portions of the abdomen popularly called tail meat of said shrimp shall have been removed from the shell, within the state of Louisiana, such lawful taker or possessor, his heirs or assigns, as the case may be, shall be vested with all of the rights and property of the state in and to said shrimp tail meat and shall have the right to sell such shrimp tail meat or ship the same beyond the limit of the state, without restriction or reservation.

"It shall be the duty of all licensees operating under the department of conservation in the shrimp industry in this state to conserve for fertilizer purposes all shells or hulls and heads of salt water shrimp and to report monthly, on blanks to be furnished by the department of conservation, the quantity thereof on hand, to the department of conservation. It shall be unlawful to export from the state of Louisiana any raw shells or hulls and heads of salt water shrimp as they are required to be manufactured into fertilizer or used for an element in chicken feed. When the shrimp hulls or shells and heads shall have been conserved for the purposes herein stated, the right of property therein theretofore existing in the state shall pass to the lawful taker or the possessor thereof. Any person, firm or corporation violating the provisions of this section shall be liable to the penalties hereinafter imposed." [Laws 1926, p. 152.]

« ForrigeFortsett »