In the case of Garland v. State of Washington, 1913, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law that prohibited non-residents from fishing in its waters violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV or Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The plaintiff, Mr. Garland, an Oregon resident who had been arrested for violating this law by fishing in Washington's Columbia River without a license, argued that it did on both counts. However, after careful consideration and review of previous cases dealing with similar issues such as McCready v Virginia (1876) and Geer v Connecticut (1896), the court ruled against him unanimously. The justices held that fish are owned by states until caught; therefore they can regulate their taking within reasonable bounds without infringing upon federal authority over interstate commerce or discriminating against citizens from other states under privileges and immunities clause. They also noted that while these clauses do protect certain fundamental rights like pursuing livelihoods across state lines - they don't guarantee unrestricted access to all resources within them including fish stocks which belong collectively to people living there rather than entire nation at large.

In the dissenting opinion for Garland v. State of Washington, Justice Holmes argued that the state law in question did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause as it applied to all individuals equally and was within a state's rights to regulate its own fisheries. He contended that there was no discrimination against non-residents since they were allowed to fish using other methods besides purse seines, which were restricted due to their potential overuse and depletion of fish stocks. Furthermore, he asserted that states have an inherent right under police power regulations to protect their natural resources from exploitation or destruction by any means necessary including limiting certain fishing practices. Therefore, according to him, this case should be viewed as a matter of conservation rather than one involving constitutional rights violations.