OTHER OFFICERS. 33 



tion to the provisions of the law by which they were constituted ex-officio game and 

 fish wardens and charged with the same duties and liabilities as commissioned game 

 wardens, respectfully invoking their aid and cooperation in game and fish protection. 



Like letters to those sent justices of the peace and constaljles, with copies of the 

 game and fish laws, were addressed to sheriffs of the various counties, asking them 

 to instruct their deputies of their added duties under the law, and especially asking 

 them, as the chief executive officers of the counties, to give this provision special 

 attention. 



We regret to say that for some reason we have not received from this source the 

 aid that we anticipated or had a right to expect. Strange to say, that of the many 

 violations of the law that must have occurred throughout the State, and of the many 

 prosecutions that have been begun, very few have been originated by the activity 

 or vigilance of ex-officio game and fish wardens. (Rept. State Game and Fish 

 Warden of Missouri for 1905, pp. 24-25. ) 



Much the same results have been experienced in other States. The 

 general consensus of opinion is that local officers elected by the peo- 

 ple can not be expected to perform successfully the duties of game 

 wardens, but such work must ])e done by officers appointed by a State 

 official or board, who are not dependent upon local favor to hold their 

 positions, and who, by serving at a distance from their place of resi- 

 dence, are free from local influence. 



