VALUABLE WILD LIFE 31 



neither of which is at all likely ever to occur. At 

 least twenty-five competent lawyers carefully 

 studied the McLean bill before it became a law, and 

 became convinced that what it proposed would be 

 entirely constitutional. 



We mention this case in some detail for two rea- 

 sons. The first is to make it clear that the absurd 

 performance of New York's chief law officer has 

 not even made a dent in the armor of the McLean 

 law, and that the law is everywhere an existing fact, 

 pending action by a federal court of last resort. 1 



The second reason is to point out the fact that 

 the friends and champions of wild life must be con- 

 stantly on the alert and ready to fight, and some- 

 times must undertake the painful duty of chastis- 

 ing their own friends when those friends go wrong, 

 and attack the cause of protection on academic 

 grounds. 



The sale of game has already been mentioned as 

 one of the most powerful agencies employed in the 



i The first decision on the status of the migratory law was that 

 rendered in South Dakota on April 18, 1914, by Judge J. D. Elliott 

 of the Federal Court, who decided, in the case of A. M. Shaw, that 

 the law is constitutional. Mr. Shaw pleaded guilty, and was fined 

 $100, which was paid. 



In the eastern district of Arkansas, at Jonesboro, on May 27, in 

 the United States District Court, the case of the United States against 

 Harvey C. Schauver, for a violation of the federal migratory bird law, 

 was heard by Judge Jacob Trieber, who decided that "the law is uncon- 

 stitutional." Of course the United States will carry the case up 

 until it finally reaches the United States Supreme Court, where, with 

 extra expedition, a decision may be expected in about eighteen 

 months. - The Arkansas decision affects only the eastern district of 

 that state, and elsewhere the law will be strictly enforced. 



