Edwards v. Leaver, Civ. A. No. 1277.

• Decision Date: 30 January 1952
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 1277.
• Parties: EDWARDS et al. v. LEAVER, Director of Agriculture and Conservation of Rhode Island et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island

102 F. Supp. 698

EDWARDS et al. v. LEAVER, Director of Agriculture and Conservation of Rhode Island et al.

Civ. A. No. 1277.

United States District Court D. Rhode Island.

January 30, 1952.

Gerald W. Harrington, Providence, R. I., with whom Charles W. Bartlett, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for plaintiffs.

Robert A. Coogan, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Rhode Island, with whom William E. Powers, Atty. Gen. of Rhode Island, was on brief, for defendants.

Before HARTIGAN, Circuit Judge, and McCARTHY and LEAHY, District Judges.

HARTIGAN, Circuit Judge.

This is a civil action brought by three individuals, Norman C. Edwards, H. Kenneth Payne and Kenneth S. Edwards, who are citizens of the United States and of the State of New York, a New York corporation (The Smith Meal Company of New York) and a Massachusetts corporation (Smith Meal Company of Massachusetts), against Francis S. Leaver, Director of Agriculture and Conservation of the State of Rhode Island, and Edward C. Hayes, Jr., Administrator of Fish and Game of Rhode Island, to enjoin the enforcement of a certain menhaden fishing statute of the State upon the ground that it violates several provisions of the Constitution of the United States.

Jurisdiction is alleged to be based upon diversity of citizenship and a federal question under the provisions of Title 28, U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332.

This special district court was duly constituted in conformity with Title 28, U.S.C. § 2284.

The complaint as amended charges, among other things, that the statute, Chapter 2120,¹ Public Laws of Rhode Island, 1948, and the threatened enforcement thereof by the defendants, violate the rights of the plaintiffs under the Constitution of the United States and the Amendments thereto in the following particulars:

"(a) They deprive both the individual and corporate Plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws, in violation of the provisions of Article XIV, Section 1, of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States;

"(b) They deprive both the individual and corporate Plaintiffs of liberty or property without due process of law, in violation of the provisions of Article XIV, Section 1, of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States;

"(c) They abridge the privileges or immunities of the individual Plaintiffs, who are citizens of the United States, in violation of Article XIV, Section 1, of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States;

"(d) They deprive the individual Plaintiffs, citizens of the State of New York, of privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, in violation of Article IV, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States;

"(e) That said statute imposes an unreasonable burden upon interstate commerce and violates the so-called Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States."

The complaint concludes with a demand for judgment and prays that the defendants be restrained and enjoined from enforcing the statute and that this court enter a declaratory judgment in accordance with the provisions of Title 28, U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, declaring the statute null and void and of no effect, as being in contravention of the Constitution of the United States and Amendments thereto. The plaintiffs also prayed for an interlocutory injunction, for a restraining order and for the convening of a three-judge court to hear the matter.

A temporary restraining order was entered on July 25, 1951, and it was stipulated by the parties that it should remain in full force and effect until final hearing of the matter.

The parties entered into the following stipulation:

"1. That defendant Francis S. Leaver is Director of Agriculture and Conservation of the State of Rhode Island and is a citizen of said State.

"2. That defendant Edward C. Hayes, Jr., is Administrator of Fish and Game of said State of Rhode Island, and is also a citizen of said State and is a subordinate official under the direction of Francis S. Leaver, said Director of Agriculture and Conservation as aforesaid.

"3. That the defendants are charged with the enforcement of Rhode Island laws concerning fish and the control of rights to fish.

"4. That without defendants' admitting the existence of such a right on the part of the plaintiffs, the right to fish in Rhode Island waters within and north of the line prescribed in Rhode Island Public Laws of 1948, Chapter 2120, is a right of great value. Said plaintiffs are being prevented from fishing in said waters by reason of the provisions of Rhode Island Public Laws of 1948, Chapter 2120, and by the threatened and intended action of the defendants in enforcing the provisions of said statute.

"5. That the defendant, Edward C. Hayes, Jr., is in direct charge of the operations of the personnel of the state enforcement boats.

"6. That both defendants have threatened to enforce the provisions of Rhode Island Public Laws of 1948, Chapter 2120, and to arrest the captain and crews of all vessels found fishing in violation of the terms of purported statutes within the waters north of the line defined therein.

"7. That the individual plaintiffs prior to the existence of the said statute, namely, Rhode Island Public Laws of 1948, Chapter 2120, and the defendants' threats to enforce it, were permitted to fish for Menhaden in the waters north of and within the line defined in said statute.

"8. That the defendants, acting pursuant to said statute, which plaintiffs claim is unconstitutional and which defendants claim is lawful, have issued licenses to two individual Rhode Island residents to fish for Menhaden within and north of the line defined in said Public Laws of 1948, Chapter 2120. The names and addresses of these individuals are as follows:

"Clarence Winstead, Warwick, Rhode Island,

"Harold Loftes, Wakefield, Rhode Island.

"9. That said licensees have, in fact, fished for and caught Menhaden during the summer of 1951 within and north of the line defined in said statute; that said Menhaden have been sold on their behalf to a fish processing plant located within the State of Rhode Island at Galilee and operated by a Rhode Island corporation, Point Judith Dehydrating Process Co.

"10. That from said Menhaden so caught, said corporation has produced Menhaden oil and fish meal, both of which have been shipped to purchasers outside of the State of Rhode Island.

"11. That none of the plaintiffs have applied to either of the defendants for a license to catch Menhaden north of and within the line defined in said statute.

"12. That had any of the plaintiffs so applied for such a license or licenses, their applications would have been denied, although the plaintiffs were at all times ready, willing and able to pay the fees required by said statute.

"13. That the plaintiffs and each of them, in the event that said statute is enforced, will suffer irreparable injury which is clear and imminent by reason of the fact that the loss of a season's fishing cannot be restored, and the State of Rhode Island provides no means for recovering damages in money to compensate for such loss.

"14. That Menhaden are used for the manufacture of Menhaden oil and fish meal and that said Menhaden are not food fit for human consumption.

"15. That the plaintiffs were ineligible to apply for a license under the terms of said Rhode Island Public Laws of 1948, Chapter 2120, for the following reasons:

"(a) Because the individual plaintiffs were residents and citizens of the State of New York;

"(b) Because the corporate plaintiffs were both organized under the laws of States other than the State of Rhode Island;

"(c) Because more than 51% of the members of the crews of the boats owned by the corporate plaintiff, Smith Meal Company of Massachusetts, are residents of States other than the State of Rhode Island."

The Smith Meal Company of New York processes menhaden at its Long Island, N. Y., plant and is in competition with other such firms, many of which are in other states. It buys menhaden from the individual plaintiffs who operate fishing vessels and it manufactures fish meal, oil and solubles therefrom which are shipped to various states. The Smith Meal Company of Massachusetts owns fishing vessels which it charters to the individual plaintiffs here, who are boat captains.

The captains reap a reward in proportion to the fish they catch and the right to fish for menhaden is valuable to them and to both corporations. More than 51% of the vessels' crews come from outside Rhode Island and they are on a share basis. It appears that more than $3,000, exclusive of interests and costs, is involved. The president of the New York corporation testified that he knew of no federal regulations relating to menhaden and none has been called to our attention.

The Massachusetts corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the New York corporation. The captains decide where to fish and the fishing season is roughly from June 15 to September 15.

The menhaden swim north along the Atlantic coast in the spring and school in Narragansett Bay about the first part of June. The vessels follow the menhaden and the fish are caught in purse nets. The vessels have operated in Narragansett Bay in the State of Rhode Island and have done so for years on a profitable basis.

H. Kenneth Payne testified that the Rhode Island statute has prevented him from obtaining large catches and that he has not fished in Rhode Island waters since the 1948 statute because he did not have a license. He catches menhaden by use of a purse net since it is not practical to catch them with a hand line. According to his testimony the amount of game fish caught is small but occasionally he catches a bucket of blue fish in his menhaden nets during a day of fishing. It was his experience that menhaden and other fish usually do not mix together in any quantity.

Samuel S. Edwards, the father of Norman and Kenneth, testified as to his experience with menhaden. His experience was...