BIRD NOTES AND NEWS. 



33 



end of the term of shooting ? — No ; when a mail 

 once gets his licence he can go and shoot as many 

 as lie can find. 



Colonel Ryan : In British New Guinea there 

 is a continuous close season, but a good number of 

 permits, in fact too many, I think, are given by 

 the Government. But 1 feel quite satisfied that 

 pressure could be brought to bear on the Common- 

 wealth Government, which has jurisdiction over 

 New Guinea, to stop the practice of the destruction 

 of Birds of Paradise. I am perfectly certain that 

 the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Deakin, would 

 do everything that he possibly could to stop their 

 further destruction. 



If we were to show our desire in Great Britain 

 for the preservation of these birds by passing some 

 legislation of the character now before the Com- 

 mittee, do you think it would influence the 

 Government of the Commonwealth ? — I am quite 

 sure that it would, and I am epiite sure it would 

 be an inestimable boon to Australia. 



THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



Mr. Downham : No legislation exists in the State 

 of New York. I have sufficient evidence of that 

 when I can prove to you that the goods are being 

 admitted into the State of New York. — But the law 

 may be evaded ? — No, there is no law evaded. I 

 have made all possible enquiries on the point, and 

 I have been satisfied that there is no law whatever 

 which prohibits the importation into the State of 

 New York of these wild plumages. 

 \ 3 Mr. Dunstall : American State laws and general 

 laws only concern themselves with native birds 

 of the United States. The Paradise Bird, not 

 being a native of the States at all, is not mentioned 

 in any of those laws. There are — there were, 

 rather — a few Egrets in Texas and Florida, but in 

 nearly all the States you can deal in foreign Egret 

 feathers. 



Mr. Barratt : There has been legislation 

 throughout the United States since 1886 on the 

 subject of the importation of plumage birds and 

 non-game birds and plumage itself. In 1886 the 

 American Ornithologists' Union formulated a Bill 

 designed to protect such birds. It is a Bill which 

 has been known as what i- called the Model Law. 

 It was adopted by the States of New York and 

 Massachusetts in 1886, and since that time it has 

 been adopted by about four-fifths of the States in 

 the Union. Under the Federal Act you might 

 have importation of plumage or birds into the 

 United States ; but the moment they come within 

 the State of New York or the State of Louisiana 

 they come under the provisions of the State Law, 

 and if that State Law forbids any dealing in them, 



or possession of them, anyone transgressing the law- 

 may be prosecuted under the terms of that State 

 Act. 



And the object of these law- i-. fir | of .'ll. to 

 ie tli" birds within the country, and then, 

 secondly, to prevent the United Stat"- being made 

 a market tor birds which have been killed in other 

 countries? Yes, it is so. . . . We had, in the 

 Louisiana case, a prosecution and conviction for 

 the possession of Egrets which had been imported 

 from a foreign country, allowed under the Federal 

 law, and their possession forbidden under thi 

 law. ... It was only in l!i<)2 that they added this 

 Latter part of the section, including "plumage, 

 skin or body." Prior to that it simply said li wild 

 birds"; and t<> make the statute plain, and 

 obviously to cover cases of that kind, they added 

 that further section. 



THE HOME MARKET. 



Chairman: You consider that the passing of 

 this Bill would very much reduce the use of these 

 plumes in English hats ? 



Mi:. Hennegtjy : As far as the feathers dealt 

 with by this Bill are concerned, it would entirely 

 destroy the trade. ... It would entirely shift the 

 market from London to other European places. 



Then, I ask you, would the ladies abroad wear 

 more feathers ? — Not that I know of, b> 

 they wear plenty now. 



If the English ladies wore less, an I foreign hi Lies 

 did not wear more, it would diminish the number of 

 feathers used ? — It would have the effect, very likely, 

 of making feathers cheaper on tic Continent, and 

 of therefore making them more popular, and there- 

 fore there might be more sold. 



If a lady is prevented, as you told the Couunittee 

 she would be prevented by this Bill, from we 

 Egrets in her hat, she must wear something else ? 

 — A certain number of ladies would naturally be 

 debarred from wearing Egrets ; but most of the 

 people who wear these expensive feathers would 

 undoubtedly go abroad for them. 



.Mi;. Mosbaoher, : These bright birds' feathers 

 are as a rule much dearer than feathers that are not 

 bo bright, ami, therefore, it is only the better class 

 of people who can afford to buy these higher-priced 

 goods. If we stop the importation of these, all our 

 ladies who can afford better prices will go to the 

 other countries and buy these trimmings. . . . We 

 use the barn-yard plumages to complete articles of 

 greater value ; ami it is the better trade which is 

 concerned, which ultimately will be entirely lost ; 

 if France and other countries are able to use these 

 brighter feathers and we are not allowed to use 

 them, our trade will be taken away. 



