Bird Notes and News 



trade that the sale of forbidden plumage should 

 cease altogether, and no longer bring odium 

 upon honest men. When the tariff law went 

 into effect in 1913 the feather importers of 

 New York promptly accepted the situation, 

 and elected to be good citizens by living up to 

 both the letter and the spirit of the law. The 

 men who had fought us hardest while the 

 feather war was on, invited us to help them 

 get everything in line for the full observance 

 of the law without unjust or unnecessary hard- 

 ships. We accepted the novel role of inter- 

 mediary between the U.S. Treasury Department 

 and the millinery trade, and the results seem 

 to have been rather satisfactory to both sides. 



To-day the U.S. Millinery Chamber of Com- 

 merce is strongly opposed to the sale by the 

 Government of any seized plumage, and on 



two occasions there has been witnessed the 

 novel spectacle of the former importers of 

 feathers being joined by the bird defenders in 

 appearing in Washington to argue against 

 certain " requested " sales of seized " paradise." 

 On both occasions the opposition made good, 

 and the Treasury Department refused to permit 

 the sales that had been urged upon it by parties 

 who wished to buy the plumage " for 

 exportation." 



The United States Government, the Millinery 

 Chamber of Commerce, and the bird protectors 

 are working together in perfect harmony ; and 

 the Chamber of Commerce recently has issued 

 to all its members a circular call, strongly 

 exhorting them to drop the sale of remnant 

 forbidden plumage, for the reputation of the 

 trade. 



The Plumage Bill. 



In view of the fact that the Government showed 

 no signs of promptly bringing in the Bill to 

 Prohibit Importation of Plumage, promised by 

 Sir Auckland Geddes (then President of the 

 Board of Trade), a Bill was brought in by 

 Colonel Yate, M.P., and read a first time on 

 February 13th, 1920. It is backed by Mr. 

 Acland, Viscountess Astor_. Mr. Brace, Sir John 

 Butcher, Brig. -General Page-Croft (Member of 

 Council, Eoyal Society for the Protection of 

 Birds), Lieut. -Commander Dean, Mr. F. Green, 

 Major Oscar Guest, Lieut. -Colonel Arthur 

 Murray, Sir Beville Stanier, and Mr. Cathcart 

 Wason, representing all parties in the House. 

 The Second Beading is down for April 30th. 



Meantime a similar measure has been intro- 

 duced in the House of Lords by the Marquess of 

 Aberdeen, and was read a second time on 

 March 25th, when Lord Somerleyton stated 

 that the Bill had the approval of the Govern- 

 ment. The Duke of Eutland (Vice-President, 

 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds), 

 supported it. The third reading was carried 

 without opposition on March 29th, Lord Aber- 

 deen pointing out that the Bill had the hearty 

 support of the Trustees of the British Museum, 

 undoubtedly on the expert advice of the 

 Natural History Department, of the Royal 

 Society for the Protection of Birds, the 

 R.S.P.C.A., the Plumage Bill Group, the Inter- 

 national Council of Women, and other bodies. 

 The Bill was then ordered to be sent to the 

 Commons. 



The Bill proposes to place " the plumage of 

 any bird " in the list of prohibitions named 

 in Section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 

 1876 ; with the exception of birds named in the 

 schedule to the Act, birds imported alive, and 

 birds ordinarily used for food in the United 

 Kingdom ; and with exemptions in the case of 

 plumage " imported in the baggage or as part 

 of the wearing ajDparel of a passenger, if, in 

 the opinion of the Commissioners of Customs 

 and Excise, that plumage is bona fide intended 

 and is reasonably required for the personal use 

 of the passenger " ; and plumage imported by 

 licence for scientific or other special purpose. 

 The birds scheduled are, as in 1914, Ostriches 

 and Eider Ducks, with power to the Board of 

 Trade to add or remove names. 



The opposition to the measure, so far as 

 it is openly set forth, is contained mainly in 

 half-hearted letters from Professor Maxwell 

 Lefroy (a member of the committee for the 

 " economic preservation " of birds which 

 opposed the Bill of 1914), and Dr.J.E. Duerden. 

 They suggest the well-worn theories that the 

 building up and development of plumage 

 industries by means of egret " farms," etc., 

 might be better for trade than restriction ; 

 that the Bill " protects nothing," because it 

 would only send the business to France or 

 Holland ; that the Bill is sentimental ; that 

 the trade involves many workers besides the 

 ostrich-farmers ; and that a full knowledge of 

 facts might show them to be " less damning 



