upholding law that prohibited "fixed gear in fishing for salmon in the Columbia River" because state has "right *** to regulate and even to prohibit the capture of fish in navigable waters within its borders" and the "facts tend to show that there is a reasonable basis for discrimination against fixed-gear fishing"
How later courts described this case
- upholding law that prohibited "fixed gear in fishing for salmon in the Columbia River" because state has "right *** to regulate and even to prohibit the capture of fish in navigable waters within its borders" and the "facts tend to show that there is a reasonable basis for discrimination against fixed-gear fishing"
- recognizing that the state may regulate the capture of wildlife “either in the exercise of its police power, or in its sovereign capacity in trust for its people”
- “On the whole, in view of the jealous regard of the people for the initiative process and of the opportuni- ties which exist for the voters to acquaint themselves with the background and merits of a proposed initiative measure, we are of the opinion that, in the construction of such mea- sures, the courts should indulge the same presumption as to the knowledge of historical facts on the part of the people, as they indulge with reference to acts passed by the leg- islature.”
- “If earlier and later statutes are in irreconcilable conflict, then the earlier must yield to the later by implied repeal.” (citations omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
On Petition eor Rehearing
Before Lusk, Chief Justice, and Brand, Belt, * Rossman, Hat, and Latourette, Justices.
Denied.
*505 HAY, J.
The plaintiffs, who are appellants and cross respondents, have filed a petition for rehearing in this case based upon the asserted grounds (1) that the court erred in holding that there was evidence that fish traps take not only salmon but smaller fish which are usually not taken in gill-netting operations, and, (2) that we erred in holding that the evidence does not conclusively show that the initiative act fails to meet the test of reasonableness, and that, therefore, the presumption in favor of reasonableness should prevail.
Although no brief accompanied the petition, we have re-examined our opinion in these respects, and are satisfied that the petition is not well-founded. It is therefore denied.
In our opinion in this case we said that the cause would be remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent therewith. Upon further consideration we have concluded, in the state of the record, that a remand for further proceedings would be inappropriate. The cause will therefore be remanded with directions that it be dismissed.