4 M a s s a chu s ett s A uduh n S ciety 



■inquiries and testimonials which have been received, many of these 

 coming from distant places. 



The enthusiasm of our guests in their appreciation of the excellent 

 opportunities offered here for nature-study, the interest shown in the 

 educational value of such work, and the many expressions of hope that 

 it might be made permanent, are also worthy of mention here, and serve 

 to make the results of our efforts seem well worth while. 



MISSOURI DECIDES 



Now that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, putting in force the 

 Treaty with Great Britain and Canada, is in full swing, giving both 

 birds and citizens adequate protection against pot-hunters and others, 

 it should be noted that two Western judges who decided that the old 

 migratory bird treaty law was unconstitutional have just reversed these 

 decisions as regards the Treaty Act. Concerning this the "Bulletin of 

 the American Game Protective Association" says in part: — 



"The duck shooters of the country who have fought federal pro- 

 tection for migratory birds in an effort to defeat the law so that they 

 might continue the destructive practice of spring shooting of waterfowl, 

 have been decisively beaten on two occasions lately in the United States 

 District Courts. This fact is made more interesting because on both 

 occasions those opposing the law^ felt certain they would win. Their 

 array of counsel was the best they could obtain. They chose their 

 cases with due regard to decisions made in the past and with all respect 

 to the local sentiment in the district where the trial was held. In fact, 

 they left no stone unturned that would aid them in their fight to defeat 

 the law, and still they lost. The sportsmen of the country should feel 

 highly pleased over their victory, for surely the law is valid or the or- 

 ganized fight against it would have met with at least some slight success. 



"On May 23, 1914, United States District Judge Jacob Trieber, of 

 the Eastern District of Arkansas, held that the original migratory bird 

 law of 1913 was unconstitutional. Because of this fact, those favoring 

 spring shooting pinned their faith to Judge Trieber, but their confidence 

 was not justified, for on June 4, 1914, this judge handed down a very 

 sweeping decision upholding the new law. It might be well to state that 

 the attorney who secured the first decision against the migratory bird 

 law was present also on the second occasion. This was the first jolt 

 received by the spring shooters, but the knockout blow came later at 

 Kansas City, Missouri, when Judge Arba S. Van Valkenburgh, on July 

 2, 1919, upheld the law in a decision so sweeping that a fitting compari- 

 son is Dempsey's decision over Willard a few days later. 



"Those opposing the law, both organizations and individuals, re- 

 ferred to the Kansas City case as the 'test case' and the men arrested were 



