Report of Secretary 335 



did many local women's organizations. The press was also appealed to, 

 and it wielded its mighty influence in favor of the birds. A pronounced pub- 

 lic awakening resulted. Following the introduction of the Levy Anti-plumage 

 Bill, the legislators were deluged with protests. One Assemblyman stated 

 early in the contest that he had received over two hundred letters of pro- 

 test from his constituents. 



The campaign grew to large proportions, and for weeks the working abil- 

 ity of the office force of the Association was taxed to its utmost; for we were 

 fighting enormous financial interests, supposed to have much poUtical influence. 



When, late in the session of the Legislature, a vote was called on the bill, 

 the dominating political party drew the lines tightly o\'er the members; but 

 even the whip of the bosses failed to rally enough votes, and it was lost. The 

 New York Plumage Law, therefore, went into effect July i, 191 1. 



Now the series of contests in the courts has begun. On June 30, 191 1, 

 a millinery firm, Sciama & Company, filed a petition in the United States 

 Circuit Court of the Southern District of New York, asking for an injunction, 

 restraining Thomas Carmody, Attorney-General of the State, and James W. 

 Fleming, Commissioner of Forest, Fish and Game, from enforcing the plu- 

 mage law. The arguments why this should be granted were presented in a 

 pamphlet of fifty-nine pages. The Association was invited by the Attorney- 

 General to assist in his efforts to combat it. On October 13, 191 1, Judge 

 Ward refused to grant the injunction, and another battle was won in the 

 fight for the preservation of our bird life. 



The Association took a prominent part in the campaign which ended in 

 the passage of the Bayne Bill, prohibiting the sale of native wild game in 

 New York state. We also aided in the work which resulted in the defeat of 

 the Long Island Duck Bill, intended to lengthen the season for kiUing wild 

 fowl. The non-sale law is undoubtedly the most important statute for game 

 protection which has been enacted in the United States for many years, for 

 the restrictions it imposes take away the incentive for wholesale slaughter 

 of game birds and animals, and encourages the rearing of the same. 



In New Jersey, w^e cooperated with the State Society in a vigorous, suc- 

 cessful fight for the enactment of a statute similar to the New York Plumage 

 Law. Had the bill failed of passage, the Broadway miUinery firms could 

 easily have transferred their stock across the river to Jersey City, and gone 

 peacefully on with scarcely an interruption in their business. 



In Georgia, the past summer, our five years' campaign ended in the estab- 

 lishment of a State Game Warden force, supported by a hunter's license. 

 One not famihar with the general lack of sentiment in that state in regard 

 to bird protection can scarcely form an adequate idea of the tremendous 

 importance of this step which has at last been taken in the Georgia Legis- 

 lature. 



In Oregon, the efforts of the State Audubon Society are largely responsible 



