2io PROBLEMS IN WILD LIFE CONSERVATION 



of Montana, Judge Kerigan and Judge St. Sure of California, 

 have each in turn when information of a similar character have 

 been presented to them for permission to file, refused leave of 

 the United States Attorneys so to do. 



In support of his contention that after all the violation 

 was a petty one, he went on to point out that when a case 

 of this kind was taken to court, 



The Judge imposes sentence upon the criminal, generally a 

 fine of $i, sometimes $10, but never more than $25. The recoil 

 upon those in the courtroom who witness it is either indignation 

 or amusement or both. Indignation because a respected citizen 

 has been so greatly discommoded and humiliated for an infraction 

 which the government, through the Judges, pronounces trivial. 



He pointed out that the defendants lived about three hun- 

 dred miles from the court in which they would be tried and 

 that the costs of the United States marshal's going to arrest 

 them would be more than $70. Apparently he made no 

 attempt to summon them into court without sending the 

 marshal to make the arrest. 



The Solicitor for the Department of Agriculture, upon 

 instructions from the Biological Survey replied, (i) it was 

 necessary for the birds to have a feeding period undisturbed 

 by hunters, (2) the hunting in question did occur after 

 sunset, (3) the law had been broken, (4) petty though the 

 point might seem it was considered important enough to be 

 included in the Migratory Bird Treaty between Britain 

 and the United States, (5) true this single offence taken 

 alone was not so important but its successful prosecution 

 would stop others and that was important, and finally (6) 

 the fact that the defendants were prominent men with con- 

 siderable political influence in their vicinity and were still 

 punished for breaking the law would have a tremendous 

 effect in preventing future violations. 



