376 BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. [Pub. Doc. 



Effective bird protection cannot stop at State lines, and there- 

 fore efforts have been directed toward the enactment of Federal 

 legislation. In my last annual report (1913) a brief account 

 was given of the final enactment of the McLean- Weeks' law 

 for the protection of migratory birds and the passage of the 

 plumage amendment to the tariff bill. It was asserted in that 

 report that all that had been accomplished was a mere beginning, 

 and that a fight would have to be made to retain this legislation 

 on the statute books and secure appropriations for the enforce- 

 ment of the Federal law. This prediction has been verified. 

 No sooner was the McLean-Weeks' bill passed, and the regula- 

 tions under it promulgated, than a movement was begun to 

 organize spring shooters, market hunters, game dealers, saloon 

 and restaurant keepers, and other interests that thrive in a com- 

 mercial way by the slaughter of game, with the following objects 

 in view: (1) to support people in breaking and defying the law 

 for the protection of migratory birds; (2) to test the constitu- 

 tionality of the law; (3) to defeat appropriations for its en- 

 forcement. These associations were formed chiefly in the mid- 

 dle west and south. They raised considerable sums of money 

 for carrying out their purposes and already have secured some 

 results. The motive which underlies all this opposition is not 

 far to seek. 



A man named Hardy, who buys birds from the gunners of 

 Aikansas, is credited by Arthur D. Holthaus, deputy game 

 commissioner of Missouri, with the assertion that he made 

 $1,800 in one day in buying and selling wild fowl, and that his 

 profits were never less than $100 a day as long as the stream of 

 birds slaughtered by wholesale continued.^ 



On May 28, 1914, Judge Trieber, in the United States Dis- 

 trict Court, at Little Rock, Arkansas, rendered an opinion ad- 

 verse to the Federal law, but in other cases the law has been 

 upheld and the fines paid. The test case, however, will be 

 brought before the United States Supreme Court probably some 

 time in 1915. 



Strong concerted efforts were made to prevent any appropria- 

 tion of money by Congress for the enforcement of the law. In 

 the early part of 1914 the United States Department of Agri- 



1 See Bulletin American Game Protective Association, Vol. 2, No. 6, October 15, 1914, page 6. 



