Ctje Audubon ^ociet(e0 



EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT 



Edited by WILLIAM DUTCHER 



Address all correspondence, and send all remittances for dues and contributions, to 

 the National Association of Audubon Societies, 141 Broadway, New York City 



Notice 



Members of the National Association 

 of Audubon Societies are requested to 

 send notice of any change in address to 

 141 Broadway, in order to insure receipt 

 of Bird-Lore. Second-class mail matter 

 will not be forwarded by postmasters 

 unless additional postage is paid. To 

 obviate this, Bird-Lore will be sent to 

 summer addresses when they are furnished 

 by members. 



Legislation in New York 



New York. — The legislature adjourned 

 late in April without taking action on the 

 Francis Plumage Bill (Assembly No. 65), 

 preliminary reports of which were given 

 in the February and April numbers of 

 Bird-Lore. The history of this bill is an 

 excellent commentary on the present con- 

 dition of politics in New York State. 



The bill in question was an economic 

 measure of the greatest importance to the 

 agricultural and forestry interests of the 

 state. It had the backing of representative 

 organizations, as well as of the press and 

 the great mass of the citizens, and yet it 

 was impossible, notwithstanding that 

 every legitimate effort was made, to get 

 this bill out of committee, owing to the 

 political pressure that was brought to 

 prevent the bill being acted upon. 



The chairman of the Law Committee 

 of the Audubon Society of New York 

 made four visits to Albany, appearing 

 before the Fish and Game Committee, 

 to which the bill had been referred; he 

 also urged the members of said committee 

 individually to act upon the bill, but with- 

 out any results whatever. In addition, 

 thousands of copies of a circular explain- 



ing the bill and with strong endorsements, 

 were sent broadcast throughout the state. 



Readers of Bird-Lore are familiar 

 with the text of the circular, therefore it is 

 unnecessary to repeat it here; but the 

 weakness in numbers of the opposition 

 to this bill, which was the wholesale 

 millinery trade, was shown in the circular. 

 The feather dealers were astute enough 

 to employ a lawyer who had great in- 

 fluence with the dominant political party, 

 and this influence was presumably used 

 to prevent any open consideration of the 

 bill on the floor of either branch of the 

 legislature. 



After the first hearing on the bill in 

 March, a vote was taken in the Assembly 

 Fish and Game Committee. This com- 

 mittee consisted of thirteen members, 

 three of whom were not present; six of 

 the members voted to advance the bill 

 and four, including the chairman, voted 

 against its advancement. As the bill did 

 not have a majority vote of the entire 

 committee, namely seven, it could not be 

 advanced, and thereafter no vote was 

 taken upon it, and no subsequent effort 

 was successful in having it advanced. 



Assemblyman William B. Reed, of 

 Cayuga county, previously had introduced 

 a bill amending section 98 of the law, as 

 follows: 



" Feathers or plumage commonly known 

 as aigrettes, or the feathers or plumage of 

 any species of the Heron family, whether 

 obtained within or without the state, shall 

 not be bought, sold, offered or exposed 

 for sale at any time." 



The Audubon Society was heartily in 

 favor of the passage of this bill, although 

 it covered only one family of birds instead 

 of all of the birds of the state, as the Francis 

 Bill did. Mr. Reed was a member of the 



(141; 



