GAME LA W ENFORCEMENT 2 1 1 



Notwithstanding these arguments the United States dis- 

 trict attorney later informed the Department of Justice that 

 he would not push the prosecution and several months later 

 allowed the case to drop. An interesting bit of side-play 

 took the form of an extremely indignant letter from the 

 defendants to the United States protector who made the 

 arrest demanding that their guns be returned under threat 

 of immediate action in the courts. 



This case brings to light a number of interesting prob- 

 lems. It is not the fact that political influence with local 

 officials did succeed in stopping prosecution that is so im- 

 portant as the fact that headquarters officials in Washington 

 were willing and able to resist strong pressure brought to 

 bear upon them to drop the case. So long as United States 

 district attorneys are appointed from the district in which 

 the office is located it must be expected that they will prove 

 amenable to local political influence. 



Indeed the district attorney did have some strong argu- 

 ments on his side. Three hundred miles is a long way to 

 ask an individual to travel to answer for a petty offence. 

 This points to the need for new arrangements for the trial 

 of federal misdemeanors, possibly through the extension of 

 the powers of the United States commissioners. 



An even more fundamental question is raised in consider- 

 ing whether federal district courts should be required to try 

 these petty misdemeanors at all. The question boils down 

 to this is the business of the federal district court of such 

 nature as to be seriously handicapped by the trial of viola- 

 tions of federal fish and game laws? 



The Business of the Federal District Court: The juris- 

 diction of the federal district court is that of a court of first 

 instance for cases involving a wide variety of federal stat- 

 utes. Today it may be testing the constitutionality of the 



