## Facts

- Washington’s 1913 “Game Code” created state and county game authorities, including county game commissions, to regulate game protection and propagation.
- A Skagit County game commission designated certain lands as a game preserve, including land leased by members of a gun club and land owned by intervening lessors.
- The gun club had leased the land for years as a shooting preserve and had spent money on facilities and equipment.
- Within the designated preserve, taking game birds, animals, and fish was prohibited, preventing hunting on the leased and owned lands.
- The gun club members and landowning interveners sued in equity to enjoin enforcement of the preserve order, alleging the statute authorizing preserves was unconstitutional.
- The trial court denied an injunction and entered judgment for the officials charged with enforcing the game laws.

## Issues

1. Whether the Game Code’s title satisfied the state constitutional requirement that an act’s subject be expressed in its title, as applied to a provision authorizing county-designated game preserves.
2. Whether designating private lands as a game preserve unconstitutionally deprived landowners/lessees of property rights or hunting privileges without due process, or constituted unequal or class legislation.
3. Whether authorizing county game commissions to select lands for preserves was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
4. Whether the statute conferred arbitrary and unlimited power on commissions, or whether the commission acted arbitrarily in selecting the preserve at issue.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the judgment denying injunctive relief.
- The Game Code’s title was broad enough to cover creation of game preserves as germane to game protection and propagation.
- The statute did not unlawfully take property or vested hunting rights; wildlife is subject to state control, and restrictions applied on an equal basis to similarly situated persons and lands.
- The statute was not an improper delegation because the legislature enacted a complete regulatory scheme and left local bodies to determine factual conditions for its local operation.
- Properly construed, the commission’s authority was limited to selecting lands adapted to serve as refuges and breeding grounds, and the record did not show arbitrary action.

## Legal Principles

- A statute’s title gives notice of provisions germane to the subject expressed; a comprehensive “game code” title can encompass provisions creating game preserves.
- Wildlife is held under the state’s sovereign authority for public benefit; private ownership or occupancy of land does not create an absolute right to take game contrary to regulatory restrictions.
- Police-power regulation of hunting may prohibit taking game on designated lands without creating a compensable deprivation of property or a vested hunting privilege.
- Conditional legislation is permissible when the legislature sets the governing rule and delegates to local officials only the task of finding facts or conditions that trigger the rule’s application.
- Administrative authority must be read in light of statutory purpose; courts will not enjoin good-faith enforcement absent proof of arbitrary or abusive exercise.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the statutory authorization for county-created game preserves, rejecting challenges based on title requirements, due process and unequal treatment, and improper delegation, and found no arbitrary exercise warranting an injunction against enforcement.


Cawsey v. Brickey, 82 Wash. 653, 144 P. 938 (Wash. 1914)