266 visio Bied- Lore 
Some time after the passage of this law, certain of the large millinery 
interests, through their attorney, requested the attorney of the Forest, Fish 
and_Game Department to advise them regarding what plumage of birds they 
could use in their business in future, and what was prohibited. They sent 
with this request about one hundred specimens for examination. The depart- 
ment employed as expert ornithologist, Mr. Waldron DeWitt Miller, of the 
American Museum of Natural History, to pass on the material forwarded. 
It was found that, excluding duplicates, the plumage of seventy-nine birds 
which are today used in the millinery trade in New York had been submitted. 
Mr. Miller reported that, under the provisions of the law, forty-three species of 
birds were represented the plumage of which could not legally be sold. Among 
these were the Green Heron, two species of Night Heron, the Screech Owl, Sky- 
lark, Sooty, Noddy and White Terns, Pelican, Scarlet Ibis, Snow-Bunting, 
Bohemian Wax-wing, Swift, Magpie, Condor and Jay. Among the thirty-six 
species which he found that could be legally handled, were the Kingfisher, 
certain of the Sandpipers, Plovers, Paroquet, Partridge, Fruit Pigeon, Pheas- 
ants, Grouse, Oriole (Oriolus), Blue-backed Manakin, Black-Cock, Caper- 
cailzie, Rhea, Snowy Owl, Trogon, Macaws and the Glossy Starling. 
A bill similar to the one passed in New York was introduced, at the instance 
of the Audubon Society,in the Legislature of New Jersey. It passed the House 
but was defeated in the Senate; owing, in part, to lack of crystallization of 
effort on the part of the bird protectors of that state, and in part to active 
opposition by the millinery interests. 
A bill for the establishment of a Game Commission, supported by a resident 
hunter’s license tax, likewise failed in Georgia, after having passed the House. 
This Association was represented there by Mr. Shepard Bryan, of Atlanta. 
In Louisiana, by the strenuous efforts of Mr. Frank M. Miller, President of 
the Game Commission and formerly President of the Louisiana Audubon 
Society, the fierce attacks made with a view of destroying the Game Com- 
mission were defeated, and his department enlarged to include the fish and 
shell-fish interests of the state. Very unfortunately, however, the legislature, 
"in spite of the efforts of this Association, amended the existing Audubon law 
by providing an open season for killing Robins. The statute, however, limits 
the number which a person may have in possession at one time, which virtually 
prohibits the sale and, therefore, greatly restricts the killing. 
The legislative situation in New England was much strengthened. The 
changes made in the laws were of beneficial character. Bird legislation tends 
to oscillate. The protectionists make a gain one year, and then frequently 
their opponents organize the succeeding year, and unless strenuous efforts 
are made to retain the law the pendulum of legislation swings back. The ene- 
mies of bird protection in Massachusetts are now better organized than ever 
before, and have put the Association on the defensive. For this reason, more 
time and energy than usual were expended the past year in maintaining the 
