Corfield v Coryell (p. 439)

Here is how one commentator sets the scene for Corfield:

 Corfield is best understood as presenting a “tragedy-of-the-commons” problem. In1820, New Jersey enacted a statute restricting the harvesting of oysters within state waters to prevent exhaustion of a natural resource. Oyster harvesting was barred from May until September, and during the rest of the year only state residents were allowed to take oysters from state waters. The plaintiff in Corfield, who was not a New Jersey resident, was the owner of a vessel that conducted oyster harvesting in state waters and was manned by crew who were also not state residents.

Under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, may state A restrict Oyster harvesting in the state to State A residents? Or must State A allow citizens of State B to harvest Oysters in State A? What might happen to the Oysters of New Jersey if all comers were allowed to harvest them during the season? Is this what the commentator means when he calls this case a "tragedy-of-the-commons" situation?

What are the Privileges and Immunities protected by Article IV? How did the Court define them?

See casebook page 439-440.