From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. McLaughlin

U.S.
Apr 14, 1930
281 U.S. 261 (1930)

Summary

In Miller v. McLaughlin, 281 U.S. 261, 50 S.Ct. 296, 297, 74 L.Ed. 840, the United States Supreme Court held valid an act of the state legislature of Nebraska which not only prohibited the taking of fish from the waters of the state with nets, traps or seines, but made the bare possession of such equipment unlawful.

Summary of this case from Mirkovich v. Milnor

Opinion

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA.

No. 261.

Argued February 28, March 3, 1930. Decided April 14 1930.

Iowa and Nebraska are bounded by the middle of the main channel of the Missouri River. The Act of Congress admitting Iowa into the Union gave her "concurrent jurisdiction on" the river. An Iowa statute made it lawful for any person to take fish with nets and seines from the river, within the jurisdiction of the State, upon procuring a license. A Nebraska statute forbade the taking of fish with nets and seines from the waters within the State and prohibited the possession of nets and seines. This suit was brought by a resident of Nebraska to enjoin enforcement of the Nebraska statute. Held: 1. That the two statutes as applied to the Missouri River, though not concurrent, are not inconsistent, each relating only to the part of the river within the jurisdiction of the State enacting it, and that the Nebraska prohibition is valid at least as against residents of Nebraska. P. 263. 2. That a State may regulate or prohibit fishing within its waters, and, for the proper enforcement of such statutes, may prohibit the possession within its borders of the special instruments of violation, regardless of the time of acquisition or the protestations of lawful intentions on the part of a particular possessor. P. 264. 118 Neb. 174, affirmed.

CERTIORARI, 280 U.S. 541, to review a decree of the Supreme Court of Nebraska which reversed a decree of injunction and ordered that the bill be dismissed, in a suit to prevent the enforcement of a Nebraska statute against fishing with nets, etc.

Messrs. A. Henry Walter and Seymour L. Smith for petitioner.

Mr. C.A. Sorensen, Attorney General of Nebraska, with whom Mr. George W. Ayres, Assistant Attorney General, was on the brief, for respondents.


The middle of the channel of the Missouri River is the boundary line between the States of Nebraska and Iowa. Act of April 19, 1864, c. 59, § 2, 13 Stat. 47; Act of August 4, 1846, c. 82, 9 Stat. 52. A Nebraska statute, prohibits the taking of "any fish except minnows from the waters within the state of Nebraska with nets, traps or seines," and made the possession of these unlawful "except as authorized by the Department of Agriculture." Laws of Nebraska (1927), c. 126, § 10, pp. 343-4. An Iowa statute provides: "It shall be lawful for any person to take from the Mississippi or Missouri rivers within the jurisdiction of this state any fish with nets or seines upon procuring from the state game warden an annual license for the use of such nets and seines." Code of Iowa (1927), § 1747.

Miller, a resident of Nebraska, brought this suit in a court of that State, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, to enjoin the enforcement of the Nebraska statute. Its Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Chief Game Warden were joined as defendants. Miller alleges that he has in his possession nets, traps and seines purchased by him prior to the enactment of the law; that they are used exclusively in taking fish from the Missouri River; that he plans to use them on the Iowa side; and that the defendants are threatening to prevent their use by enforcing the statute. He claims that, in the absence of concurrence by Iowa, Nebraska is powerless to prohibit the fishing, even in that part of the Missouri River which is within its own boundaries, because, on admitting Iowa into the Union, Congress had granted it "concurrent jurisdiction on . . . every . . . river bordering on the said State of Iowa, so far as the said river[s] shall form a common boundary to said State, and any other State . . ." Act of March 3, 1845, c. 48, § 3, 5 Stat. 742, 743. He asserts that, in any event, the prohibition of the mere possession of innocuous traps, nets and seines violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court issued an injunction. The Supreme Court of the State reversed the decree and directed that the bill be dismissed, 118 Neb. 174. This Court granted a writ of certiorari, 280 U.S. 541.

The grant of concurrent jurisdiction to Iowa does not deprive Nebraska of power to legislate with respect to its own residents within its own territorial limits, Nicoulin v. O'Brien, 248 U.S. 113; compare McGowan v. Columbia River Packers' Assn., 245 U.S. 352. While the two States have not concurred in this legislation, there is no conflict between them. Each has legislated only as to that part of the river which is within its own territorial limits. It is unnecessary to consider the questions which might arise if Nebraska undertook to prohibit the fishing on Iowa's part of the river, or if Miller were a citizen of Iowa and fished under an Iowa license. Compare Nielsen v. Oregon, 212 U.S. 315. Neither Miller, nor any of the persons in whose behalf he brought the suit, have licenses from Iowa; nor does it appear that they could obtain them.

The claim under the Fourteenth Amendment is also groundless. A State may regulate or prohibit fishing within its waters, Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U.S. 240; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133; Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519; and, for the proper enforcement of such statutes, may prohibit the possession within its borders of the special instruments of violation, regardless of the time of acquisition or the protestations of lawful intentions on the part of a particular possessor, Barbour v. Georgia, 249 U.S. 454; Samuels v. McCurdy, 267 U.S. 188; compare Lawton v. Steele, supra; Silz v. Hesterberg, 211 U.S. 31; Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Miller v. McLaughlin

U.S.
Apr 14, 1930
281 U.S. 261 (1930)

In Miller v. McLaughlin, 281 U.S. 261, 50 S.Ct. 296, 297, 74 L.Ed. 840, the United States Supreme Court held valid an act of the state legislature of Nebraska which not only prohibited the taking of fish from the waters of the state with nets, traps or seines, but made the bare possession of such equipment unlawful.

Summary of this case from Mirkovich v. Milnor

In Miller v. McLaughlin, 281 U.S. 261, 50 S.Ct. 296, 297, 74 L.Ed. 840, the United States Supreme Court held valid an act of the state legislature of Nebraska which not only prohibited the taking of fish from the waters of the state with nets, traps or seines, but made the bare possession of such equipment unlawful.

Summary of this case from Santa Cruz Oil Corp. v. Milnor

In Miller v. McLaughlin, supra, the Supreme Court of the United States was dealing with the concurrent jurisdiction of Nebraska and Iowa over the Missouri river. Miller, a resident of Nebraska, undertook to enjoin the enforcement of the Nebraska statute, which denounces the possession of nets except as authorized by certain officers of that state. He claimed that, while he possessed nets, he planned to use them on the Iowa side only, and further claimed that the concurrent jurisdiction of the two states required concurrent legislation to prohibit fishing on that stream.

Summary of this case from State v. Pyles
Case details for

Miller v. McLaughlin

Case Details

Full title:MILLER v . McLAUGHLIN, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OF…

Court:U.S.

Date published: Apr 14, 1930

Citations

281 U.S. 261 (1930)

Citing Cases

Williams v. State

A state may regulate or prohibit fishing within its waters. Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U.S. 240, 11…

Thomson v. Dana

For, in the enforcement of statutes looking toward the conservation of the food fish in a particular state,…