; York State, but it srew 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 not 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. 
i Mr. WHITAKER: I think you are right. The same thing happened with us, 
The CHAtRMAN: 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. MacCatuum: 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. Wuiraker: Is it different in regard to game ? 
. Dr. MacCatuum: Yes, the Provinces make their own laws in regard to game, 
_ Each Province should have control of its fisheries too. 
Mr. Witmott: 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. 
al 
' pi 
