102 



Bird Notes and News 



PROHIBITION OF IMPORTA- 

 TION INTO UNITED STATES. 



The plumage clause in the Tariff Bill 

 of the United States has been adopted. 

 This prohibits all importation of the 

 feathers of wild birds into the United 

 States, and practically renders the trade 

 illegal throughout the States. The only 

 exception is in favour of Ostrich feathers 

 and those of domestic fowls. 



This clause was framed by the New 

 York Zoological Society, and supported 

 by Dr. Hornaday of the Zoological Park, 

 and by the National Association of 

 Audubon Societies. It is a signal triumph 

 for Bird Protectors, and the greatest blow 

 yet given to the traffic in bird skins and 

 plumage. The people of the States are 

 nearer the scene of action of the plume- 

 hunters than are the Enghsh, and they 

 know for themselves what the traffic has 

 meant in the southern States, and how 

 much credit is to be given to the evasive 

 stories set afloat by the dealers. They 

 therefore appropriately lead the way in 

 complete prohibition. 



Needless to say, the feather-merchants 

 fought the clause tooth and nail. An 

 effort was made at the last moment to 

 exempt the " feathers of birds commonly 

 regarded as edible or pestiferous " ; but 

 it was easily seen that this loose definition 

 was intended to destroy the effect of 

 the measure. Press and pubHc united 

 in protest, and the Senate restored the 

 original clause untouched. 



Among the supporters of the clause was 

 the American Flower and Feather Com- 

 pany. They wrote to the New York 



Times : — 



" We never were and never will be in 

 favour of this kind of business, which at the 

 best is controlled by very few houses here, 

 and which the millinery business can well 

 afford to do A\ithout. We are under the 

 firm belief that the proposed new law will 

 be a positive benefit to the millinery business 

 in general, as it will make flowers, etc., a 

 staple line of goods, which at the present 

 time they are not." 



The New York Times itself commented 

 (June 2nd) : — 



" Presumably it is the enormous difference 

 between the wholesale and the retail prices 

 of feathers used for decorative purposes 

 that explains the persistence and energy 

 with which ' the trade,' through its carefully 

 selected spokesmen, fights every effort to 

 save the birds threatened with extermination 

 by this Avretched business. It also accounts, 

 perhaps, for the desperation which so often 

 leads said spokesmen to make the most 

 dangerous kind of arguments — arguments, 

 that is, which have plausibility only for the 

 thoughtless and the uninformed. 



" The ' dropped plume ' myth, formerly 

 presented with moving gravity, has been 

 contradicted so often that it has had to be 

 abandoned, and even the pathetic tale of 

 innumerable poor but honest girls who 

 would starve if the Egrets and the Paradise 

 birds were protected has lost its force 

 because of the frequency with which folks 

 have been reminded that even when feathers 

 are not in style the trimming of hats 

 continues," 



No American paper spoke out more 

 strongly than the Jewish Warheit : — 



" There are two groups of men struggling 

 now at Washington before Congress. 



" One group is the old organisation 

 of importers and traders of feathers and 

 plumes, who have made millions from the 

 destruction and the slaughter of the birds 



of the country There is another 



group of men, scientists, explorers, naturalists, 



