Summer Meeting. 



WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THE BIRD LAW? 

 (Hon. N. M. Bradley, Warrensburg, Mo.) 



On the 28th day of April, 1893, I was requested by your Secretary 

 to prepare a paper upon the subject, "What is the Matter with the Bird 

 Law ?" 



Why I should be asked to treat this question, I am at a loss to un- 

 derstand ; however, I am satisfied that the idea originated from our mutual 

 friend, Prof. C H. Dutcher, who is, by the way, your 'second Vice Pres- 

 ident. He, knowing that I was a member of the last Senate which has be- 

 come famous in the history of Missouri Senates, and whose experience 

 will probably tend to drive thousand dollar bills from the channels of 

 circulation, possibly thought that if I were induced to say a few words 

 upon the subject suggested, the missing link in the history of the late 

 game law — now being so earnestly sought by Mr. Folk and the St. Louis 

 grand jury — would possibly be supplied. I have been induced to say a 

 few words upon this subject, but in the outset, I want to inform you 

 that I have constitutional rights and propose to stand upon them. 



If by the question assigned me you desire that I discuss the game law 

 that was before the last Senate and tell if possible why it failed to pass 

 and become a law, then I must suggest that the subject assigned me is 

 hardly broad enough. The subject assigned me inquires only, what is 

 the matter with the bird law ; while the bill before the last Senate sought 

 to regulate the killing not only of birds, but of animals all the way from 

 deer to raccoons. The first section in that law referring to the animals 

 protected, reads as follows: 



No person shall catch, take or kill, or attempt to catch, take or kill, 

 by means of steel traps, traps or pits or other device of any kind, any 

 raccoon, mink, otter, beaver or muskrat between the first day of February 

 and the first day of November of each year, etc. 



This section of course interests the trapper. The next section seeks 

 to regulate the killing of squirrels, and of course interests every country 

 bov and grav-haired nimrod who handles a rifle. The next section seeks 

 to regulate the killing of deer and has a clause in it which reads like this : 

 "It is further declared unlawful to make use of a dog or dogs in hunt- 

 ing, pursuing or killing deer." This part of this section is very dis- 

 tasteful to the owner of old Buck and Drive, who say that they can have 

 more sport and kill fewer deer than the city sport who chooses to resort 

 to lead propelled by smokeless powder. It was this clause that kindled 



