State v. Miles

• Decision Date: 05 September 1940
• Docket Number: 27968.
• Citation: 105 P.2d 51,5 Wn.2d 322
• Parties: STATE v. MILES.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

105 P.2d 51

5 Wn.2d 322

STATE v. MILES.

No. 27968.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 5, 1940

Department 2.

Beryl S. Miles was charged by information with the crime of offering a reward for display of game animals in violation of a regulation prescribed by the State Game Commission, and from an order sustaining a demurrer to the information and dismissing the action the State appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; D. F. Wright, judge.

Smith Troy and John S. Lynch, Jr., both of Olympia, for appellant.

Wallace G. Mills, of Olympia, for respondent.

STEINERT Justice.

The prosecuting attorney for Thurston county filed an information charging defendant with 'the crime of offering a reward for display of a game animal, * * * to-wit: a deer.' The alleged illegality of defendant's act was based on a regulation prescribed by the state game commission. Defendant's demurrer to the information was sustained and, the state having elected to stand on its pleading, the court entered an order dismissing the action. The state has appealed.

According to the briefs, this controversy arose out of the following facts: Respondent, Beryl S. Miles, is engaged in the operation of a sporting goods store located in the city of Olympia. He and his father, now deceased, had operated this store over a long period of time, and for several years had regularly offered a ten-dollar cash prize to the person displaying the largest deer at their store during the open season for hunting such game animals. Following that custom respondent, on October 9, 1939, made a similar offer in writing, and for that act he was charged with the alleged offense. The prosecution was based on regulation No. 382 promulgated by the state game commission on April 23, 1939, and reading as follows: 'Resolved: That it shall be unlawful to offer, pay or receive any reward, prize or compensation for the hunting, pursuing, taking killing or displaying of any game animal, game bird or game fish or any part thereof.' (Italics supplied.)

The regulation was adopted by the state game commission under the rule-making power granted to it by Rem.Rev.Stat. (Sup.), § 5855-6, which, so far as pertinent here, reads: 'The state game commission shall have the power and it shall be its duty from time to time to adopt, promulgate, amend and/or repeal, and enforce reasonable rules and regulations governing and/or prohibiting the taking of the various classes of game * * *.' (Italics supplied.)

We have no statute in this state which expressly prohibits the displaying of game of the kind involved in the present action. Further, it is to be noted that Rem.Rev.Stat. (Sup.), § 5855-6, quoted above, does not of itself prohibit the display of game, whether lawfully or unlawfully taken; nor does that statute, in turn, expressly authorize the adoption of rules or regulations prohibiting such display. Whether or not a statute which either contained a direct prohibition of that character, or else authorized such a rule would be a valid exercise of legislative authority does not concern us here, for no such question is now presented. It will also be observed that, in its full implication, the 'regulation' promulgated by the state game commission makes it unlawful to display any such game animal, or any part thereof, no matter where, when, by whom, or under what circumstances the animal was taken. Whether or not such a regulation is reasonable, aside from any question of authority for its adoption, we are likewise not here called upon to decide, for that question also has not been raised. The sole question presented to us for decision is whether or not the state game commission had authority to promulgate and enforce the regulation on which the information herein was based, or, more precisely, as applied to the present situation, whether or not the power to 'promulgate * * * and enforce reasonable rules and regulations governing * * * the taking of * * * game' includes the power to promulgate and enforce a rule relative to the offering of prizes for the display of game.

It is well settle that the legislature may, under proper circumstances, delegate to executive or administrative officers and boards authority to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out an express legislative purpose, or to effect the operation and enforcement of a law. The general principle governing the conditions under which such power may be delegated has been succinctly stated in 11 Am.Jur. 955, § 240, as follows: 'A legislature, in enacting a law complete in itself and designed to accomplish the regulation of particular matters falling within its jurisdiction, may expressly authorize an administrative commission, within definite valid limits, to provide rules and regulations for the complete operation and enforcement of the law within its expressed general purpose.'

Many authorities are cited to support that statement. Our own decisions are in full accord with the principle there announced. State ex rel. Criswell v. Board of Trustees of Fireman's Relief & Pension Fund, 93 Wash. 468, 161 P. 361; State ex rel. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v Public Service...