in vain) to achieve self-consciousness, reason, imperishable affection, and all 

 those God-like attributes which must inhere in the very nature of creative power, 

 then are we dealing with objects and examples instead of powers, with mechan- 

 isms instead of persons, — with mechanisms, moreover, which at best are but a 

 little more intricate and wonderful than the mechanism of the oyster, the star- 

 fish, the flower, the crystal, yea, even the molecule or the atom itself. Or, if 

 we try to distinguish the living from the inert, we shall only find that all things 

 live and move and have a sort of being; that is, that they are subjects of incessant 

 vibration, more or less complicated. Mere complexity of organization, although 

 it does lend greatly to our interest in an object, does not serve to differentiate it 

 in value as a self-end from a creature of the feeblest organization. For unless 

 we introduce into our conception, or concede to an animate object, such as a bird, 

 a spiritual organization, an abiding and imperishable significance, an ability to 

 reflect or to reciprocate the divine approach through the eternal ages, we have 

 - nothing after all but a mechanism a little more cunningly contrived, an assem- 

 blage of vibrant atoms temporarily associated, and liable at any moment to ab- 

 solute and irreparable dissolution. Some people affect to believe that a human 

 being is also such an ob;ect. For such we have, of course, no word. Our value 

 concepts he too far apart for profitable discussion. But for those who do accept 

 a spiritistic hypothesis upon any basis whatever, for those who do admit "a 

 transcendental order," or who are capable of expressing value concepts, for such 

 we have a plain message. You believe that worth inheres in spiritual qualities 

 and abiding relationships. Good! They do. But where will you find these 

 values, save in man? Where else do self-consciousness, or better still, God- 

 consciousness and the sense of imperishable relationship exist? If you believe 

 that they exist in the bird, you are bound to respect that bird's personality. 

 You are bound forever after to defend that bird's right to life, liberty and the 

 pursuit of happiness. You are bound to defend its rights of possession, including 

 that of a nest. You are bound to regard such a right as inalienable, indefeasible, 

 inviolable, and constitutionally inherent, and you will respect that right as unto 

 a neighbor whom you expect to meet "on Heaven's shore." For our part, and 

 speaking by and large on behalf of the oological craft, we recognize no such right, 

 and confess no obligations in regard to the bird world save those which are de- 

 rived from their service or interest or value to human kind. 



These last-named obligations are, of course, very real, and we are prepared 

 to discuss them with the utmost candor. But the discussion is one of human 

 rights, and not of bird rights. Speaking philosophically and strictly, there is 

 no such thing as an obligation owed to a bird, any more than there is an obligation 

 owed to a lizard or a lobster, a tree or a thistle, or, for the matter of that, a clod 

 or a pebble. A cruel doctrine this? Not necessarily; especially if it happens to 

 be true. 



Shall we, then, destroy life wantonly or recklessly? or shall we appropri- 

 ate its treasures without compunction? That does not follow. Above all, 

 shall we allow ourselves to torture animate objects, or to rob them of food, shelter, 

 or offspring under circumstances which suggest or foster cruelty? Ah, this is a 

 vastly different matter. Let us examine it. And let us translate the discussion 

 immediately into terms of our own interest. Quite apart now from economic or 

 scientific considerations, which we shall take up elsewhere, the question is, shall 

 we encourage our boys to rob birds' nests in disregard of the manifest anxieties of 

 the parent birds. Emphatically, Nol But why not, if, as we claim, the bird is 

 not an end in itself, and if its joys and sorrows have no absolute or imperishable 

 significance? Well, if the bird is not an end in itself, the boy is. The indis- 

 criminate or uninstructed robbing of birds' nests is a cruel practice. Its pursuit 

 will develop in the boy a certain degree of recklessness, a disregard for apparent 

 rights, which is liable to develop into a disregard of real rights, viz., human 

 rights. For it is quite true that the display of a regard for evident (apparent) 

 rights, as exhibited in the solicitude of a mother bird for her nest or of a mother 

 mouse for her shivering brood, is an excellent school and discipline for the ap- 

 preciation and display of real regards. But, be it clearly understood, this dis- 



