124 



THE OSPREY 



Dr. Goues' Column. 



IF the history of what used to be called the " Spar- 

 row war " could be written it would make inter- 

 esting reading. It ought to be, lest that interest- 

 ing episode should fade from mind. The recent 

 publication of the Agricultural Department at Wash- 

 ington reads as if the writers did not know that any- 

 thing had been done before on the subject, though 

 its literature was already very extensive, and almost 

 everything which that article proved had been proved 

 before by many others besides myself, who for years 

 had conducted the Sparrow war to a victorious con- 

 clusion. The publication simply restated known facts, 

 which had ceased to be disputed. The whole case 

 was put in a nutshell in my article entitled "The 

 Ineligibility of the European House Sparrow in 

 America," published in the American Naluralisl of 

 August, 1878, pp. 499-505; and the suggestion I there 

 made, viz.; to examine stomachs enough to find out 

 exactly what the Sparrows eat, was ably acted on by 

 the employes of the Agricultural Department, ampli- 

 fying the facts upon which I had based my action, 

 and confirming the conclusion I had reached many 

 years before. Yet the publication in mention took on 

 an innocent and ingenuous air of novelty and origin- 

 ality, by the usual method of suppressing the names 

 of those who had fought and won the war, and ignor- 

 ing their contributions the result. How numerous 

 were these warriors may be seen by the article I pub- 

 lished in the Bulletin U. S. Geological Sun'ey, 

 September 6, 1879, pp. 179-196, almost entirely occu- 

 pied with a bibliography of the subject for the period 

 1867-79, and the writings there catalogued are, of 

 course, only a fraction of the whole literature which 

 the belated writers of the Agricultural document 

 might have used had they known where to find it and 

 been not disposed to ignore it. 



Dr. C. Pickering, of Boston, was among the first 

 to show the Sparrow up in his true light, as early as 

 1867. I took it up in my Key, 1872, and the war was 

 fairly on in 1874, when Dr. Brewer, whose ignorance 

 was only equaled by his obstinacy and general can- 

 tankerousness, undertook to champion the side fore- 

 doomed to defeat. Not an ornithologist of note sided 

 with Dr. Brewer, though Professor Baird was for a 

 while coaxed by Dr. Brewer to do so. Prof. Baird's 

 relations with Dr. Brewer and myself were such in 

 1874 that he must have felt "between the devil and 

 the dark blue sea." The controversy had become 

 between Dr. Brewer and myself a personal feud, with 

 the usual accompaniments in the way of sweetness 

 and light. His wrath knew no bounds when the 

 Nuttall Ornithological Club took up the subject, and 

 decided against him. This was one of the spiciest 

 incidents in the whole business. Everybody took a 

 hand, and Dr. Brewer consequently quarreled with 

 them all. Then Mr. T. G. Gentry wrote a whole 

 book about the Sparrow, in 1878, making a clear 

 case, identical with that which the Agricultural De- 

 partment exploited so many years afterward. 



The most distinguished opponents I ever had were 

 not ornithologists, and never pretended to be such. I 

 recollect two of them —Henry Ward Beecher and 

 Henry Bergh. The latter, the founder of the noble 

 Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 

 published a tirade against me, in which he called me 

 a ' ' murderer, " and all sorts of dreadful things besides. 

 Baird told me he thought it the finest piece of pure 

 invective he ever read. Many years afterward I met 

 Mr. Bergh for the first time, and became impressed 

 with the same profound respect for his personal char- 

 acter that I had always felt for his humane life-work. 



I have sometimes wondered if chagrin at defeat in 

 the Sparrow war did not hasten Dr. Brewer's demise 

 (January 23, 1880). The war practically ended with 

 his death, though it was long before sentimentalists 

 ceased to exhibit hysteria. I naturally lost all active 

 interest in the subject when I had proven my case to 

 the satisfaction of the public, and the Sparrow had 

 proven his case — which was. that he had come to stay. 

 I could whip all my featherless foes, but the Sparrows 

 proved too many for me, by a large majority, and I 

 retired from the unequal contest some years ago. I 

 hardly think it was worth while for the Agricultural 

 Department to take it up again, there being nothing 

 to prove that had not been proved years before, and 

 nobody left to fight against. Such make-believe war 

 is harmless child's-play in comparison with what went 

 on in grim reality during the years we were "making 

 history " on the subject, as anybody may see by con- 

 sulting my bibliography above named ; but it seems 

 to have served the good purpose of keeping govern- 

 ment employes employed. ^E. C. 



NOTES ON "FLYCATCHER NOTES." 



1SEE by the last Osprey that Mr. Peabody rather 

 severely criticizes my recent article on Minnesota 

 Flycatchers. 



In the first place, I still assert that the ai'erage nest- 

 ing height of the Kingbird is fifteen feet, as there are 

 plenty of nests placed twenty-five to forty feet up, to 

 counteract the four-feet nests of which Mr. Peabody 

 speaks. In this locality the average is at least twenty 

 feet. 



Mr Peabody says I should have said "perhaps" 

 about thirty per cent of Phoebe's eggs are spotted. 

 I accept the amendment, but in the hundreds of 

 Phoebe's eggs I have seen and collected, the average 

 as stated is correct, although very varied in different 

 collections no doubt. 



Mr. Peabody doubts my assertion of the Olive- 

 sided Flycatcher nesting in the state. I can refer 

 him to Mr. John C. Knox, of Jackson, Minn., who 

 took a set of four with nest in June, last year, (1896), 

 and has them in his collection at present. 



As to the variety of E. traillii alnoniiii in the State, 

 I must accept Mr. Peabody's statements although I 

 have never met with the species here. I have never (a 

 dangerous word to use as Mr. P. says) found the 

 Least Flycatcher's nest saddled, but always placed 

 in an upright crutch ; and Mr. Peabody should re- 

 member I am speaking from my own observations, 

 through his notes are quite interesting to me and, no 

 doubt, to other observers in the State. 



I am glad to have proper corrections and additions 

 made, but I fear Mr. Peabody criticizes a little too 

 sharply. Walton Mitchell, 



April 28, 1897. St. Paul, Minn. 



Mr. Ora W. Knight, of Bangor, Vice President of 

 the United Ornithologists of Maine, has recently 

 been appointed commissioner to take birds, their 

 nests and eggs for scientific purposes, within the 

 limits of the state. As only ten such appointments 

 are allowed by law to exist at one time, they are 

 naturally sought for by our ornithologists, especially 

 on account of the great privileges allowed their pos- 

 sessors. These appointments are made by the gov- 

 ernor upon the recommendation of the fish and game 

 commissioners, and candidates for appointments 

 must submit good evidence of their reliability. — 

 The Maine Sportsman. 



New Orleans is incubating a plan to honor the 

 memory of its distinguished son, J. J. Audubon. 



