281 



York State, but it grew until delegates were asked from all the Provinces and 

 States around the great lakes. In view of this object, the more I think of it the 

 more I am impressed with the importance of our agreeing on a uniform set of 

 Fish and Game laws. With reference to this resolution, I do ijot think there is 

 another point with which I wish to find fault in that code of New York State, but I 

 do not think the clause referred to should be found in a code which evinces so 

 much advanced thought on the subject. 



The Chairman : If you would put that in the form of an exception I think 

 it would be preferable. After the meeting at Rochester in reference to the 

 codification bill, I came to the conclusion that at this meeting, provided Mr. 

 Roosevelt, Mr. Whitaker, and General Sherman were present, I would submit 

 this idea in a discussion of the bill : Last winter when the bill was before the 

 House, many adjournments were had on account of the same objections taken by 

 Dr. MacCallum. Would it not be to the advantage of both Provinces and New 

 York State if the bill as now proposed be modified so that the clauses referring 

 to the preservation and propagation of fish should be separated from those refer- 

 ring to the game. While all parties agreed substantially in regard to the fish, 

 last year I deemed it of paramount importance to that of game. 1 venture the 

 assertion that the bill was lost in its present form, in consequence of the repeated 

 adjournments which were had by those interested in the game sections. 



Mr. Whitaker : I think you are right. The same thing happened with us. 



The Chairman : My friend from Michigan states that the same thing 

 occurred in his State. In New York our representatives considered the food fish 

 question as paramount in importance, much more than that of birds, but a fight 

 took place over the game clauses, strong delegations came up to Albany of men 

 interested in shooting small birds on Long Island, and blocked the whole thing 

 with discussions on those points. If the two were separate, then we would know 

 what we had to provide for, but if you join the two interests the bill is sure to 

 meet with this discussion, and the whole thing will be lost. I do not care to have this 

 considered except as a suggestion ; I thought I would bring it to your attention 

 if Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Whitaker were present. The objection raised by Dr. 

 MacCallum brought home very strongly to my mind the idea that if I was held 

 responsible for the passing of the bill I would separate the game from the fish 

 sections. The great number of sections referring to fish as compared with the 

 few referring to birds naturally suggests that it would be unfortunate if the bill 

 was lost in New York or in the Provinces in a discussion as to when birds or 

 game should be shot. 



Dr. MacCallum : It is certain that appointees of the Province of Ontario 

 have not the right to discuss this question, as it is a Dominion issue. We have 

 not authority to do it yet, but I understand that negotiations are in progress by 

 which the Dominion Government will hand over to the different Provinces the 

 control of their inland fisheries. It is on the strength of that we are talking. 



Mr. Whitaker : Is it different in regard to game ? 



Dr. MacCallum : Yes, the Provinces make their own laws in regard to game. 

 Each Province should have control of its fisheries too. 



Mr. WiLMOTT : So far as the Dominion and Provincial Governments are con- 

 cerned the two bodies cannot agree with each other. The Provincial Govern- 

 ment prevents netting in inland waters, while the Dominion Government grants 

 licenses for it. 



Mr. Whitaker : Does the Dominion Government allow netting at the 

 mouths of streams ? It is the most remarkable proposition I ever heard of. 



