40 MAJOR JOHN F. LACEY 



wildfowl as food — then as a means of sport. Later they began 

 to use them as articles of commerce. 



For two entire generations we have sought to put over on the 

 American public the impossible doctrine that a man can reap in- 

 definitely without sowing at all. We treated our wild-fowl as 

 we would a mine, not as we would a farm — on the basis of 

 amortization and not of renewal. The man in the city felt that 

 he was an American citizen, and had as good a right as anybody 

 to eat wild-fowl if he had the price to pay for it. 



There sprang up a large class of professional game killers who 

 encouraged him in that belief. They kept on reaping — but no- 

 body sowed. We did our best to increase our poultry supply, 

 our supply of beef and mutton and pork ; but, even when we did 

 our best at such increase, we saw the cost of all these items go up 

 with great rapidity. 



What, then, could be expected of a commodity that was treated 

 not as a domestic article of trade but on the basis of a mine ? — 

 to be used until exhausted. We treated our wild-fowl as a mine. 

 We applied state rights to this wealth, which beyond all other 

 commodities was, itself, inherently and fundamentally interstate 

 wealth. 



We framed a multitude of state laws, based on local whims, 

 local ignorance, and local selfishness, with no uniformity even as 

 between states in practically the same geographical situation. 

 We followed out our ancient right of personal privilege — until 

 we faced game fields suddenly gone barren. For half a genera- 

 tion thinking men have known that the game of America was 

 doomed. 



It was not until a dozen years ago that John F. Lacey, a con- 

 gressman from Iowa, conceived the idea that game shipped across 

 the state line became subject to the watchful care of the nation 

 itself. The Lacey act may be called the first step toward na- 

 tional intelligence in the preservation of our wild game. Of 

 course its effect was for the good not only of wild-fowl but of 

 upland or localized game. 



The Lacey act did not prevent the marketing of many thou- 

 sands of tons of wild game, shipped legally or illegally; but it 

 did prevent the marketing of yet other thousands of tons that 



