1 86 



Bird -Lore 



of the need for Federal control, take the case 

 of wild-fowl laws in the states of New York 

 and New Jersey. During the northward 

 migration, wild fowl can be killed in the 

 latter state, but cannot be in the former, 

 although the two great wild-fowl resorts of 

 Barnegat Bay (N. J.) and Great South Bay 

 (N. Y.) are only a few miles apart. It is a 

 manifest injustice to the citizens of New 

 York that New Jersey permits the killing of 

 wild fowl during the spring, and it is a still 

 greater injustice to the citizens of the whole 

 country that on one side of an arbitrary 

 geographical line migratory birds may 

 legally be killed, while on the other side of 

 the line they may not be. The only remedy 

 for this inconsistency is to place all migratory 

 birds under Federal control. Several feeble 

 attempts were made to pass local bills per- 

 mitting spring shooting of wild fowl and 

 snipe, but they were successfully combated. 

 However, were it not for the vigilance of 

 the National Association in all legislative 

 matters, a flood of such bills would be 

 passed each session. 



Very early in the session foreign-game- 

 sale bills were introduced in both branches 

 of the Legislature. The Committeesto which 

 they were referred were seen at once and an 

 agreement was obtained from the Chairman 

 that before the bills were reported the 

 National Association should have a hearing, 

 when it could present reasons why the bills 

 were undesirable and a formal protest 

 against their passage. A hearing was not 

 called for, and it was supposed that the 

 advocates of the bills had abandoned them. 

 In the Assembly in this state, about ten 

 days prior to the close of the session, all un- 

 finished legislation is taken from the hands 

 of Committees and is placed in charge of 

 the Rules Committee and thereafter no hear- 

 ings are held. Much to the surprise of the 

 executive of the Association a bill to amend 

 Section 33 of the Game Law was introduced 

 by a member of the Rules Committee. This 

 amendment was the old Foreign Game Sale 

 Bill in another form, but with all its vicious 

 features. This necessitated another trip to 

 Albany ; a stay was obtained for a few days 

 to enable the Association to prepare a brief , 

 showing why the proposed amendment was 



undesirable legislation. To prepare such a 

 brief necessitated a trip to Washington to 

 consult experts on the subject. A copy was 

 sent to Governor Hughes, and also to many 

 of the most prominent and influential mem- 

 bers of both the Senate and Assembly. 

 Nothing further was heard of the bill. 

 The brief was as follows: 



Brief on Assembly Bill No. 2769, Entitled 

 An Act To Amend Section 33 of the 

 Forest, Fish and Game Law Relating 

 to Certain Varieties of European Birds. 



This bill proposes to authorize, in any' 

 city of the state having a population of 

 more than a million, the sale during Dec- 

 ember, January, February, March and 

 April, of five species of foreign game birds, 

 namely, Egyptian Quail, Red-leg, Lapwing, 

 Russian Grouse, and Rebhiihner; attempts 

 to impose a tax of one cent on each bird 

 imported; and provides for the appoint- 

 ment of at least two special officers at a 

 salary of $1,500 and an allowance of $1,000 

 each for traveling expenses — a total annual 

 expense of at least $5,000 — for carrying out 

 the provisions of the Act. 



This bill (i) contains provisions in direct 

 conflict with the constitutions of New York 

 and of the United States; and is also (2) 

 defective in title; (3) bad in form; (4) bad 

 in policy; (5) class legislation. 



(i) Bill Unconstitutional. In so far as 

 the bill provides for imposing a tax on birds 

 imported, it is clearly in conflict both with 

 the Constitution of the State of New York 

 and the Constitution of the United States. 

 On p. 4, line i, occurs the provisions: 



A person, firm or corporation importing 

 said game shall, upon the arrival of said 

 game into the port of New York, pay a tax 

 of one cent per bird to the Forest, Fish and 

 Game Commission, to be paid by said Com- 

 mission into the treasury of the state of 

 New York in the same way as other moneys 

 are received and transmitted into said treas- 

 ury by said Commission. 



No statement is made as to the reasons 

 for or objects of the tax and the bill is, 

 therefore, clearly in conflict with the provis- 

 ion in Section 48 of the State Constitution, 

 which declares: 



Every law which imposes, continues or 



