Nicoulin v. Brien
| Decision Date | 09 December 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 113,113 |
| Citation | 248 U.S. 113,39 S.Ct. 23,63 L.Ed. 155 |
| Parties | NICOULIN v. O'BRIEN |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Augustus E. Willson, of Louisville, Ky., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. David A. Sachs, of Louisville, Ky., for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error was adjudged guilty of violating the prohibition of a Kentucky statute by seining for fish in the Ohio river south of low-water mark on the Indiana side. 172 Ky. 473, 189 S. W. 724. We are asked to hold that by reason of the Virginia Compact (13 Hening's St. at Large, c. 14, pp. 17, 19) Kentucky had no power to regulate fishing in the river at that point without Indiana's concurrence. The provision relied upon is this:
'Seventh, that the use and navigation of the river Ohio, so far as the territory of the proposed state, or the territory which shall remain within the limits of this commonwealth lies thereon, shall be free and common to the citizens of the United States, and the respective jurisdictions of this commonwealth and of the proposed state on the river as aforesaid, shall be concurrent only with the states which may possess the opposite shores of the said river.'
The territorial limits of Kentucky extend across the river to low-water mark on the northerly shore. Indiana v. Kentucky, 136 U. S. 479, 519, 10 Sup. Ct. 1051, 34 L. Ed. 329. And we think it clear that no limitation upon the power of that commonwealth to protect fish within her own boundaries by proper legislation resulted from the mere establishment of concurrent jurisdiction by the Virginia Compact. See Wedding v. Meyler, 192 U. S. 573, 24 Sup. Ct. 322, 48 L. Ed. 570, 66 L. R. A. 833; Central R. R. Co. v. Jersey City, 209 U. S. 473, 28 Sup. Ct. 592, 52 L. Ed. 896; Nielsen v. Oregon, 212 U. S. 315, 29 Sup. Ct. 383, 53 L. Ed. 528; McGowan v. Columbia River Packers' Ass'n, 245 U. S. 352, 38 Sup. Ct. 129, 62 L. Ed. 342.
The judgment below is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Nickerson
...of two powers over one and the same place. There is no reason to give an unusual meaning to the phrase.’' Nicoulin v, O'Brien, 248 U. S. 113, 39 Sup. Ct. 23, 63 L. Ed. 155. The result of this kind of grant of power to two different states is that, while one may legislate effectively over th......
-
Commonwealth v. Nickerson
...the jurisdiction of two powers over one and the same place. There is no reason to give an unusual meaning to the phrase.'" Nicoulin v. O'Brien, 248 U.S. 113. The result this kind of grant of power to two different States is that while one may legislate effectively over the entire river in t......
-
Ohio v. Kentucky
...middle of the river); Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson City, 173 U.S. 592, 19 S.Ct. 553, 43 L.Ed. 823 (1899);3 Nicoulin v. O'Brien, 248 U.S. 113, 39 S.Ct. 23, 63 L.Ed. 155 (1918). It has been explicitly recognized by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Booth v. Shepherd, 8 Ohio St. 243, 247—248 (......
-
Ampro Fisheries, Inc. v. Yaskin
...its territorial waters, to regulate the taking and catching of fish in the river. N.J.S.A. 52:28-38. See Nicoulin v. O'Brien, 248 U.S. 113, 39 S.Ct. 23, 63 L.Ed. 155 (1918) (Kentucky was not prohibited from legislating to protect the fish within its boundaries simply because it had entered ......