The Audubon Societies 



185 



"love for the bird." Outside the harbor, 

 where we boarded the "Vigiiancia" four 

 members of the young men's club bade us 

 "God speed," with a cheery promise "/o 

 look after our bir (is. "—Alice M. Boynton 



Legislation. 



New Jersey. — In April Bird-Lore the 

 passage by the House of an anti-spring 

 shooting bill for wild fowl and shore-birds 

 was reported. When the bill reached the 

 Senate, it was referred to the Committee on 

 Game, consisting of three members, one 

 each from Bergen, Monmouth and Ocean 

 counties At the hearing in the Senate 

 Chamber, the professional gunners and 

 those interested in the preservation of shoot- 

 ing, but not of the birds, were out in full 

 force. They had no arguments to advance 

 of a scientific or economic nature, but their 

 strong plea was that they had always shot 

 birds in the spring and still wished to do so 

 and that it did no harm, and their gain and 

 pleasure should not be interfered with by 

 sentimentalists. One of the advocates of 

 spring shooting was a clergyman and some 

 of his ornithological statements were of such 

 a remarkable character and so entirely new 

 to all of the scientists present that one was 

 led to wonder whether his ecclesiastical lore 

 might not have been obtained in the same 

 school. The bill was never reported out by 

 the Game Committee and consequently the 

 lack of wild fowl and shore-bird law still 

 exists in New Jersey. Without exception 

 this Commonwealth has the most barbaric 

 law regarding wild fowl and shore-birds 

 that now is extant in any part of the conti- 

 nent of North America. Further, it is decep- 

 tive and misleading, for it seemingly pro- 

 vides a close season for ducks and snipe, but 

 it is so carefully arranged that the period 

 that is closed by law is only when there are 

 no wild fowl or shore-birds in the state. 

 Repeated visits to Trenton were made by 

 those interested in the passage of the anti- 

 spring-shooting bill to urge on the Game 

 Committee to let the bill be passed upon by 

 the Senate as a whole, and not to have the 

 Committee decide a question which was of 

 interest to the entire state. Every possible 



argument and legitimate influence was 

 brought to bear on the Committee, but with- 

 out avail. The bill was killed in Committee 

 by a vote of tivo to one. And thus the 

 people of the state of New Jersey were 

 deprived of their unalienable right to have a 

 voice in the making of the laws that they 

 are subject to. Legislative committees, as 

 death-traps for bills, are far too prevalent 

 at the present time. This is death to states- 

 manship, for a legislator is now valued far 

 more for his ability to steer a bill to Com- 

 mittee and there advance or kill it, than for 

 ability to expound to his fellow legislators, in 

 public debate on the floor of the chamber, 

 the worth of a measure or explain why it 

 should be defeated. In the present case the 

 whole state of New Jersey was disfranchised 

 by the action of two men, and yet not another 

 legislator raised his voice in protest. Is not 

 government by the people a farce in such 

 cases ? However, it is, after all, the fault of 

 the people themselves for not taking enough 

 interest in legislation to keep in touch with 

 the work of their representatives and when 

 they do or do not approve of measures to 

 speak plainly and forcefully. 



New^ York. — In April Bird-Lore atten- 

 tion was called to the bills to prevent sale of 

 wild fowl after the close season and also to 

 stop the cold storage of any birds or game. 

 The Legislature was in session almost six 

 months, yet these bills were never reported 

 out by the committees in charge, although 

 persistent effort to that end was made by 

 repeated visits to Albany, by letters and by 

 all other legitimate means. The lack of this 

 legislation is a serious defect in the game 

 laws of New York. This is another case 

 where the criticism made of legislation in New 

 Jersey will apply with equal force. All of 

 this emphasizes the urgent need for Federal 

 control of all migratory birds. So long a» 

 there is divided control over creatures that 

 are in one state one day and in another the 

 next, satisfactory protection cannot be given 

 them. It is practically impossible to get the 

 legislatures of all the states to look at the 

 matter in the same light. It is a serious sub- 

 ject and one that deserves the closest atten- 

 tion from the public. As a marked example 



