76 



Bird - Lore 



The Silz Case 



Probably the most gigantic attempt to 

 defraud the state of New York in the 

 matter of violating the game laws was the 

 one for which the Franco-American 

 Poultry Company has just paid the State 

 Conservation Commission the sum of 

 $20,000 in settlement, rather than risk 

 trial and a heavier punishment. This is 

 the largest penalty ever paid in this 

 country for breaking a game-i>rotccti\-e 

 measure. 



The Bayne Law in New York State, 

 which makes it illegal to sell American 

 game-birds, provides, however, that any 

 one who will secure a breeder's license from 

 the State Conservation Commission may 

 raise Mallard and Black Ducks, and cer- 

 tain other game, and market the same. 

 Late in 191 2, A. Silz, of New York City, 

 America's largest dealer in game, secured 

 such a permit for the Franco-American 

 Poultry farm at Goshen, New York. To 

 this farm he then had shipped between 

 3,000 and 4,000 wild Ducks, trapped for 

 him along the coast of Virginia. At 

 (ioshen they were promptly killed, and 

 rcshipped to the markets of New York 

 City, presumably as Ducks raised and 

 sold under the Game Breeders' permit. 



Few cases of game law violations have 

 contained for the writer so many exciting 

 and interesting phases as did this one. 

 For several months Mr. C. E. Brewster, 

 game-law expert for the United States 

 Department of Agriculture, made this 

 ofl&ce his headquarters while in the city, 

 ferreting out the necessary evidence to 

 bring a prosecution. There were puzzling 

 turns and bewildering complications in 

 the trail of guilt, for the transactions of 

 the Franco-American Poultry Company 

 had been most skilfully covered. 



A full story of how this case was worked 

 out by Mr. Brewster and the Hon. George 

 Van Kennen, Chairman of the State 

 Conservation Commission, would fill a 

 volume of considerable size. Long con- 

 ferences were held in the offices of the 

 National Association, in which wejwent 

 over with the utmost detail every point 



as the case developed. The Secretary 

 also accompanied Mr. Brewster to the 

 Poultry Company's farm at Goshen, 

 where we secured much damaging infor- 

 mation. 



Although kind letters have been received 

 from both Mr. Brewster and Mr. Van 

 Kennen, thanking the Association for 

 our assistance, in a perfectly truthful 

 statement of the case it must be admitted 

 that these energetic and resourceful 

 officials received no very substantial or 

 necessary aid from any outside source. 



England's Plumage Bill 



The bill now pending in the British 

 Parliament to prohibit the importation 

 of the plumage of wild birds into the 

 United Kingdom, the full text of which 

 appeared in Bird-Lore for September- 

 October, 1913, is being fought with great 

 desperation and fierceness. The millinery 

 wholesalers and importers, after witness- 

 ing the crash and devastation wrought 

 among their fellows of the feather-looting 

 fraternity in America, when our general 

 plumage law went into effect, are strug- 

 gling in a frenzied manner to stem the 

 rising tide of English public opinion. 



On the other hand, the workers of the 

 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds 

 and their associates are equally alive to 

 the situation, and the English press is ring- 

 ing with their presentations. There is no 

 one in England better qualified to speak 

 on this subject, or who has been more 

 active in the support of the bill, than that 

 resourceful, energetic, and individual 

 worker, Mr. James Buckland. 



The following quotations are from one 

 of his recent vivid and forceful addresses 

 on the subject: "Owing to the red death 

 billow which the plumage trade was 

 rolling through India, in utter disregard 

 of the Wild Birds' Protection Act of 1887, 

 the Government, in 1902, prohibited the 

 export from British India of the plumage 

 of all wild birds. Replying to the London 

 Chamber of Commerce, which sought on 

 behalf of its plumage section to obtain a 

 repeal of this law, the Bombay Chamber 



