delivered the opinion of the. court.
Thе bill was dismissed upon motion by the trial court for want of equity and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this action.
Appellant — a native of Russia who has declared his intention to become a citizen of the United Stаtes^ — claims the right to fish in specified locations in the Columbia River and sеeks a mandatory injunction requiring the Master Fish Warden and other officеrs of Oregon to issue a license therefor.
His prayer is based upоn the theory that so much of c. 292, General Laws of Oregon, 1919, as directs that no fishing license “ shall be issued to any person who is not. a citizen of thе United States” impairs the obligation (Const., Art. I, § 10) of the compact and agreement be *262 tween the States of Washington and Oregon ratified by an Act of Congress approved April 8, 1918—c. 47, 40 Stat. 515—which follows:
“ The Congress of the United States of America hereby consents to and ratifies the cоmpact and agreement entered into between the States of. Oregon and Washington relative to regulating, protecting, and presеrving, fish in the boundary waters of the Columbia River and other waters, which comрact and agreement is contained in section twenty of chaрter one hundred and eighty-eight of •the general laws of Oregon for nineteen hundred and fifteen, and section one hundred and sixteen, chaptеr thirty-one, of the session laws of Washington for nineteen hundred; and fifteen, аnd is as follows:
“ 'All laws and regulations now existing, or which may be necessary for regulating, protecting, or preserving fish in the waters of the Columbia River, оver which the States of Oregon and Washington have concurrent jurisdictiоn, or any other waters within either of said States, which would affect said сoncurrent jurisdiction, shall be made, changed, altered, and amended in whole or in part, only with the mutual consent and approbation оf both States.'
“ Nothing .herein contained shall be construed to affect the right of>the United States to regulate commerce, or the jurisdictiоn of the United States over navigable waters.”
The statutes in which the Statеs accepted the compact are not identical, but еach one provides—
“No license for taking or catching salmon or other food or shell fish, required by laws of this State, shall be issued to any рerson who is not a citizen of the United States, unless such person has declared his intention to become a citizen, and is and has been аn actual resident of the State for one year immediately prеceding the application for such license, nor shall any licеnse be issued to a corporation unless it is authorized to do business in this State.” Oregon Laws, 1915, c. 188, § 5; Washington Laws, 1915, c. 31, § 43.
*263 Appellant’s postulate is that thе quoted provision read in connection with the compact inhibits each State from restricting its fishing licenses to citizens of the United States withоut consent of the other. If this is unsound, no foundation exists for his claim-and all оther questions may be disregarded.
Considering the object and nature of the compact and the two Acts of 1915, we cannot conclude thаt the parties intended by the identical provision to obligate themselves to issue any fishing license; the purpose was to limit the. classes of persons who might have them — beyond which the State might not go. There is no inhibition against narrowing these classes nor indeed against a refusal to issue аny license. The Oregon legislature acted in harmony-with the compact when it excluded aliens; there was no impairment and the judgment of the court below must be
Affirmed.