The Audubon Societies 



187 



revives a tax shall distinctly state the tax 

 and the object to which it shall be applied, 

 and it shall not be sufficient to refer to any 

 other law to fix such tax or object. 



The bill is also clearly in violation of 

 Art. I, Sec. 10 of the Constitution of the 

 United States relating to import duties. 

 The Supreme Court of the United States in 

 passing upon a provision enacted by the 

 state of Maryland in 1821, almost identical 

 with the tax provision of this bill, held in 

 Brown v. Maryland (12 Wheat. 419) that: 



An act of a state legislature, requiring all 

 importers of foreign goods by the bale or 

 package, etc., ... to take out a license, 

 for which they shall pay $50 and, in case of 

 neglect or refusal to take out such license, 

 subjecting them to certain forfeitures and 

 penalties, is repugnant to that provision of 

 the Constitution of the United States which 

 declares that "no state shall, without the 

 consent of Congress, lay any impost, or 

 duty on imports or exports, except what may 

 be absolutely necessary for executing its 

 inspection laws;" and to that which declares 

 that Congress shall have power "to regulate 

 commerce with foreign nations, among the 

 several states and with the Indian tribes." 



The principles here laid down have been 

 applied, reiterated and relied upon by the 

 same court in subsequent decisions so often 

 that this decision is now generally regarded 

 as a leading case for the guidance of courts 

 in the interpretation of this section of the 

 Constitution. 



(2) Title defecti've. The title is defective: 

 (a) In purporting "to amend Section 33 

 of the Forest, Fish and Game Law relating 

 to certain varieties of European birds." Sec- 

 tion 33 of said law relates primarily to the 

 protection of non-game birds native to the 

 state of New York, not of European birds, 

 or of game birds. It therefore attempts to 

 , amend a section which in reality has no 

 I existence as there is no "Section 33 relating 



I to certain varieties of European birds." 



■ {h) The bill attempts to amend Section 33 

 i by deliberately inserting two subjects, each 

 f separate and distinct from the subject-matter 

 i of the original section ( i ) the sale of certain 



II game birds imported from Europe, and (2) 

 |i the imposition of an import tax. 



{c) The bill is manifestly a local measure 

 in that it applies only to cities which have 

 a population of more than a million, that is, 

 to the city of New York, and as such, itg 

 title is in violation of that provision of the 

 Constitution of New York (Sec. 40), which 

 declares that "No private or local bill . . 

 . shall embrace more than one subject and 

 that shall be expressed in the title." 



(3) Bill Bad in Form. The subject- 

 matter of the Forest, Fish and Game Law is 

 arranged in an orderly manner, and to 

 facilitate reference to the various topics, each 

 special subject is placed in a separate sec- 

 tion which is given a distinctive number. 

 The amendments proposed in this bill have 

 no relation to the subject-matter of Sec. 

 33, but relate primarily to the sale of 

 Grouse and Quail, and as such, should be 

 given a distinctive number following either 

 Sections 28 or 29. 



The bill is ambiguous, {a) In author- 

 izing sale of European game but allowing 

 importation oi Egyptian Quail ; {b) in allow- 

 ing sale of Red-leg without specifying 

 whether the birds intended are Red-legged 

 Partridges, Red-legged Sandpipers or Red- 

 legged Ducks; (c) in permitting sale of 

 Russian Grouse which may cover a number 

 of species, some of which are indistinguish- 

 able from native birds; (d) in permitting 

 sale of 'Rebhiiher,' which is not a recog- 

 nized name in this country of any game bird, 

 but merely a German name that should be 

 translated into the common English equiv- 

 alent of 'Gray Partridge'. 



(4) Bill Bad in Policy, {a) The bill is 

 opposed to the general policy of the state in 

 breaking up the practically uniform close 

 season for the sale of game under existing 

 law. 



{b) It is opposed to the policy of the state 

 in making a distinction between imported 

 and native game. 



{c) It is a direct reversal of the policy of 

 the state maintained at considerable expense 

 to the taxpayers and upheld by the Court of 

 Appeals in the cases of People ex rel Hill 

 v. Hesterberg, Sheriff (1906), and People v. 

 Waldorf Astoria Hotel Co. (1907). 



{d) The bill is bad in policy in attempt- 

 ing to amend Section 33, a section which 



