278 DIARY OF A SPORTSMAN NATURALIST 



be a pure game-eater and rarely if ever touches a cow (and 

 there are numbers of such) is beyond comprehension. 

 Sportsmen wiU not slack off if the rewards are withdrawn. 

 Many a District official would be only too delighted if they 

 would ! Once a man-eater or a noted cattle-lifter is pro- 

 claimed, then make it worth the sportsmen's while to collect 

 to tackle him by giving straight off a large reward com- 

 mencing at R. 200 and going rapidly up to R. 500. It would 

 be a far more satisfactory way of working the reward system 

 both from the point of view of the cultivator, the man who 

 lives on the soil, and that of the sportsman ; and, I think, 

 would probably be less costly to Government. 



" Or rewards might be offered only for tigers in a district 

 or parts of a district where a noted man-eater or cattle-lifter 

 has made his home. For every tiger killed in this area a 

 suitable reward might be given, say, R. 50, with the larger 

 reward to be paid to the sportsman who bagged the par- 

 ticular man-eater or cattle-lifter proscribed. This would 

 probably be the best method, since it would tempt sports- 

 men to have a try for the man-eater, knowing that they 

 would receive a certain reward for each tiger killed, even if 

 they should not be lucky enough to kill the proscribed 

 beast." 



Lastly, the New Act omits all special mention of separate 

 rules with respect to the pursuit, killing or capture of game 

 by non-commissioned officers or soldiers of the Army. Only 

 the Supreme Government possesses the necessary authority 

 and power to grapple with such a question. No Local 

 Administration has power to override military regulations 

 or permits granted to the Military by the Supreme Govern- 

 ment, nor can such non-commissioned officers and men be 

 brought within the jurisdiction of the civil courts as long as 

 they are in the enjoyment of special privileges, such, e.g., as 

 those enjoyed by the Gurkha Regiments. True the Act 

 section 4 (i) applies the penalties to everyone, but in the 

 absence of any direct clause this cannot obviously be made 

 to apply to military individuals safeguarded by special 

 privileges. How are such privileges to be reconciled with 

 the 1912 Act ? On this subject I made the following remarks 

 in my paper and they appear to be still applicable : — 



" Allowing that it is necessary to make separate rules 

 for the Army (' this was the case in the draft Act ; the Act 

 as passed omitted all mention of such rules ') I think that 



