Maritime Packers v. Carpenter

• Decision Date: 19 May 1954
• Citation: 99 N.H. 73,105 A.2d 38
• Parties: MARITIME PACKERS, Limited, et al. v. CARPENTER et al.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 38

105 A.2d 38

99 N.H. 73

MARITIME PACKERS, Limited, et al. v. CARPENTER et al.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Argued March 5, 1954.

Decided May 19, 1954.

Charles F. Hartnett, Dover, for plaintiffs.

Louis C. Wyman, Atty. Gen., Warren E. Waters, Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendants.

GOODNOW, Justice.

The lobster tails packed in Canada and shipped into this state in metal cans by the plaintiff, Maritime Packers, Ltd., and sold and offered for sale here by the plaintiff, Roussel, do not meet the requirements of R.L. c. 245, § 47, as amended by Laws 1950, Sp.Sess., c. 12, § 8 which makes it unlawful to ship, transport, carry, buy, give away, sell or expose for sale 'lobster meat after the same shall have been taken from the shell without the tail meat being whole and intact, and of a length of less than four and one-quarter inches when laid out straight and measured from end to end'. While the language of this section is not artfully phrased it is clear that its obvious purpose is to prohibit the sale of meat from lobsters, the tail meat of which is less than four and one-quarter inches in length. Section 47-b, Laws 1951, c. 231, § 1, provides that 'No person, firm or corporation shall transport, possess or offer for sale lobster meat from sources outside the jurisdiction of this state unless such meat shall comply with section 47 of this chapter. The inclusion of any such meat of less than the prescribed legal length within any container, package, receptacle or tray shall subject all such meat * * * to be forfeited and the possessor of such meat shall be subject to the penalty imposed for violation of section 47.'

It appears significant to us that in its first adoption of section 47-b, Laws 1951, c. 200, § 3, the Legislature made lobster meat from sources outside the jurisdiction of this state subject to the minimum length requirements of section 47 in the language quoted above but added a provision which excluded from the operation of the statute any 'lobster meat processed outside the jurisdiction of this state and shipped directly in interstate or foreign commerce to a person * * * duly licensed to sell said lobster meat within this state.' Twenty-eight days after this first adoption of section 47-b, the 1951 Legislature amended the section, Laws 1951, c. 231, § 1, to eliminate this exclusion but leave intact the requirement that lobster meat from sources outside the jurisdiction of this state comply with the minimum length provisions of section 47 and the provisions concerning forfeiture and prosecution if meat of less than the prescribed length is included in any container.

The purpose of the language used in section 47-b as finally adopted, Laws 1951, c. 231, § 1 is too plain to admit of more than one meaning. Trustees of the Phillips-Exeter Academy v. Exeter, 92 N.H. 473, 478, 33 A.2d 665. The rule that statutory language is to be read to avoid unconstitutional results is not applicable where it is not susceptible of such a reading. Opinion of the Justices, 88 N.H. 511, 512, 192 A. 494. Furthermore, the circumstance of the statute's amendment clearly declares the present policy of the state to be to prohibit the transportation, possession or offering for sale of lobster meat the tail meat of which is less than four and one-quarter inches in length, whether secured from sources within or outside the jurisdiction of this state and however packaged.

The answer to the first question is in the affirmative.

The first legislation establishing a legal minimum length for lobsters was adopted in this state in 1874 and was entitled an 'Act for the better protection of lobsters in the waters of New Hampshire'. Laws 1874, c. 5, § 1. The length provisions of this statute and the subsequent amendments to it applied only to the shell of the lobster until 1937 when provisions concerning lobster meat after its removal from the shell were added to those prescribing the legal shell length. These provisions required that the tail meat be kept whole and intact and of a certain minimum length. Laws 1937, c. 168, § 33-b. Since then, the requirements as to the legal length of lobster, both before and after the removal of the meat from the shell, have been contained in one section of the statutes and now appear in R.L. c. 245, § 47, as amended by Laws 1950, Sp.Sess., c. 12, § 8. It is apparent that the minimum length standards established by section 47 were adopted with a view to protecting the lobster supply of this state. The right of the state to exercise its police power in the accomplishment of such a purpose cannot be doubted. State v. Dow, 70 N.H. 286, 287, 47 A. 734, 53 L.R.A. 314; Silz v. Hesterberg, 211 U.S. 31, 39, 29 S.Ct. 10, 53 L.Ed. 75; Bayside Fish Flour Co. v. Gentry, 297 U.S. 422, 426, 56 S.Ct. 513, 80 L.Ed. 772.

On the basis of the Trial Court's finding that lobsters do not migrate and its observation that 'no evidence was offered that said sections are an aid to conservation of lobsters in New Hampshire waters', the plaintiffs contend that in enacting section 47-b, Laws 1951, c. 231, § 1, whereby lobster meat from sources outside the jurisdiction of this state was first required to comply with the provisions of section 47 when brought into this state, the 1951 Legislature sought the accomplishment of some purpose other than the protection of this state's lobster supply. With this contention we cannot agree. It is apparent from the record in this case that the appearance of lobster meat furnishes no indication of the waters from which the lobster has been taken. Under such circumstances, a requirement applicable to all lobsters or any other specie of fish within a state, whatever their source, has long been a recognized means of regulating the supply in local waters. Commonwealth v. Savage, 155 Mass. 278, 279, 29 N.E. 468; People v. Lassen, 142 Mich. 597, 599, 106 N.W. 143; Bayside Fish Flour Co. v. Gentry, 297 U.S. 422, 426, 56 S.Ct. 513. The plain purpose of section 47-b, in extending the application of the minimum length requirements of section 47 to include all lobster meat within the state, is the protection of the supply of lobsters in the waters of this state. Such a provision 'operates as a shield against the covert depletion of the local supply, and thus tends to effectuate the policy of the law by rendering evasion of it less easy.' Bayside Fish Flour Co. v. Gentry, supra, 297 U.S. at page 426, 56 S.Ct. at page 515.

The plaintiffs, however, insist that there is no legal justification for the imposition of the requirements of section 47 upon Canadian lobster meat when packaged in metal cans such as were used in this case and that the statute, if deemed to apply to such meat, is an unreasonable exercise of the police power of the state and unconstitutional. It is not disputed that legislation enacted for the purpose of protecting the lobster supply in the waters of this state, as is the legislation here in question, is directed to 'the benefit and welfare of this state,' Const. of N.H. Part II, art. 5, and is a proper subject for the exercise of the police power. Such legislation 'will not be declared unconstitutional merely...