Cl)e ^utiubon ^ociette^ 



" i'ou cannot with a scalpel Jind the poet's soul, 

 Nor yet the wild bird's song." 



Edited by Mrs. Mabel Osgood Wright (President of the Audubon Society of the State of 

 Connecticut), Fairfield, Conn., to whom all communications relating to the work of the Audubon 

 and other Bird Protective Societies should be addressed. Reports, etc., designed for this depart- 

 ment should be sent at least one month prior to the date of publication. 



DIRECTORY OF STATE AUDUBON SOCIETIES 



With names and addresses of their Secretaries 



New Hamphire Mrs. F. W. Batchelder, Manchester. 



Massachusetts Miss Harriet E. Richards, care Boston Society of Natural History, Boston. 



Rhode Island Mrs. H. T. Grant, Jr., 187 Bowen street, Providence. 



Connecticut Mrs. William Brown Glover, Fairfield. 



New York Miss Emma H. Lockwood, 243 West Seventy-fifth street, New York City. 



New Jersey Miss Anna Haviland, 53 Sandford Ave., Plainfield, N.J. 



Pennsylvania Mrs. Edward Robins, 114 South Twenty-first street, Philadelphia. 



District of Columbia Mrs. John Dewhurst Patten, 3033 P street, Washington. 



Maryland Miss Anne Weston Whitney, 715 St. Paul Street, Baltimore. 



Wheeling, W. Va. (branch of Pa. Society) Elizabeth I. Cummins, 1314 Chapline street. Wheeling. 



Qj^JQ Miss Clara Russell, 903 Paradrome street, Cincinnati. 



Indiana Amos W. Butler, State House, Indianapolis. 



Illinois Miss Mary Drummond, Wheaton. 



\iyifia. Miss Nellie S. Board, Keokuk. 



Wisconsin ■ Mrs. George W. Pkckham, 646 Marshall street, Milwaukee. 



Minnesota Mrs. J. P. Elmer, 314 West Third street, St. Paul. 



Tennessee Mrs. C. C. Conner, Ripley. 



<j.g3jjis Miss Cecile Seixas, 2008 Thirty-ninth street, Galveston. 



California Mrs. George S. Gay, Redlands. 



Wanted— The Truth 



During the past year there has been a 

 distinct general advance in the bird-pro- 

 tective movement which would be very en- 

 couraging to us if it had not been marred 

 by a most unaccountable and unexpected 

 epidemic of the bird-and-feather-wearing 

 habit. 



A year ago we felt that this habit of wear- 

 ing prohibited feathers was waning, that 

 we were perhaps harping too persistently 

 on one string, and that some of our pro- 

 tection orators would better turn their at- 

 tention to the marauding Italian, the small 

 boy, and others ; in short, improve the law 

 and leave the lady alone for a time, to re- 

 adjust her conscience and headgear ac- 

 cording to the bright light the Audubon 

 Societies had shed upon the faults of the 

 last-named article. 



A wide-spread interest in birds and the 

 pros and cons of protection ensued. Many 

 women who had really worn egrets and 

 other prohibited feathers, through lack of 



knowledge, abandoned them, and even 

 those who did not choose to be considerate 

 could no longer plead ignorance as an ex- 

 cuse. 



The effects of the crusade against the 

 killing of song birds could be plainly seen 

 even amid the feather-heaped windows of 

 the past six months. In early autumn, 

 however. Terns, Gulls, whole or in part. 

 Grebes made into bandeaux, crowns or 

 brim facings, as well as made trimmings 

 of portions of other birds, were startlingly 

 conspicuous. These feathers, however, 

 were easily recognized, and therefore 

 avoidable. But, alas, a new pitfall en- 

 snared the same "moderates" that went 

 astray on the quill question, and that pitfall 

 was and is the so-called "made trim- 

 mings. " 



There has been some newspaper agita- 

 tion upon this subject, but rather wide of 

 the mark and not expressed in a way to 

 win credence. All statements concerning 

 the statistics for and against feather-wear- 



(32) 



