TRANSACTIONS OF GALESBURG HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 295 



quently our discussion on this subject was of a less positive character than 

 it has been when the members supposed they knew what they were talking 

 about. The general sentiment, however, was against its introduction. It 

 was feared the rapid increase and pugnacity of tiie English sparrow would 

 have a tendency to drive away our native birds. Such was supposed to 

 have been the result in other cities where it had been introduced ; and it 

 was thought its greed for insects and worms ought to be very great, and 

 its appetite for fruit and grain proportionately small, before consent would 

 be given to exchange the music and loving dispositions of the one for the 

 incessant chirping and quarrelsomeness of the other. His character was 

 said to stand higli in Baltimore and Washington, but his recommend 

 from those places was not indorsed by our Society. Collaterally to this 

 question came the discussion of the destruction of birds in general that 

 commit depredations on our fruits. This subject had been alluded to 

 on previous occasions, and the relative positions of our speech-making 

 members seemed to be well understood beforehand. The discussion was 

 therefore entered upon with a zeal worthy of a more intricate subject. 

 On one side were Messrs. Hale, Beatty and Standish, with their religion 

 of love, entering the plea of " enough and to spare," and on the other 

 side were Mr. Hunt and Judge Kitchell, taking the more orthodox 

 ground of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," contending that 

 retributive justice demanded a wise discrimination in the treatment of 

 the feathered tribes. 



Mr. Hale said he was strenuously opposed to the indiscriminate 

 destruction of birds ; and although it had become a question whether we 

 shall have birds or fruit, he preferred to be deprived of a portion of our 

 fruit than our song birds. The law protects birds only by prohibiting 

 the shooting of our neighbor's birds ; but it appears brutal to shoot them 

 when they can be seen rearing their young. 



Mr. Hunt said that the bird question was interesting to all, and it 

 would seem that the author of the statute protecting birds loved them, and 

 nothing else. The robin, cat-bird, sparrow, and some others, ought not 

 to be protected. He took the ground, in regard to birds that destroy our 

 fruits, that they should be shot when they are committing their depreda- 

 tions, and he felt he was right. He could find no writer recommending 

 any particular bird to destroy the insects that injure our fruits. He had 

 never seen a bird that would eat cucumber bugs, and he had come to the 

 conclusion that it is not every bird that is beneficial to man, and we ought 

 to shoot those that we know are thieves and robbers. 



