ILLINOIS AUDUBON SOCIETY 9 



The Attack on the Federal Bird Law 



There were stirring times for Audubonites during the recent session 

 of Congress, the story of which should be interesting reading. It might 

 be styled a "thriller" with a happy ending. It is summed up in the single 

 statement that certain organizations conducted both in the House and the 

 Senate a vigorous campaign against the enforcement of the Weeks- McLean 

 Federal Migratory Bird Law, and lost their campaign, and that a treaty 

 negotiated between the United States and Canada and signed by President 

 Wilson, which virtually embodies the chief feature of the Weeks-McLean 

 bill, was ratified by the Senate with only eight dissenting votes. Some of 

 the details of these contests are set forth below and their significance 

 noted. It is hoped that all our readers will follow the story through, for it 

 suggests much work yet to be done in Illinois. 



The Weeks-McLean Law. 



It should be remembered that the so-called Weeks- McLean Bill passed 

 through Congress in the closing days of the session ending March 4, 1913. 

 and that President Taft signed the measure only a few hours before he 

 retired from office. The struggle for the passage of this bill is said to 

 have been the most gigantic single campaign ever waged for a bird pro- 

 tective bill. In this Federal Migratory Bird Law, as it now became known, 

 the government of the United States assumed custody and protection of 

 all migratory game and insectivorous birds and empowered the Agricultural 

 Department to adopt and enforce regulations governing the "destroying 

 or taking" of such birds. Under this provision of this law 7 the United 

 States Biological Survey representing the Agricultural Department has 

 issued each year "regulations prescribing and fixing closed seasons, having 

 due regard to the zones of temperature, breeding habits, and times and 

 lines of migration, flight, etc." 



Questioning the Constitutionality of the Law t . 

 From the very outset these regulations have met with strong opposition 

 from some of the sportsmen in the middlewest area centering about St. 

 Louis and Kansas City, and the constitutionality of the law has been 

 attacked in several instances. In tw r o of the federal districts, those of 

 Arkansas and Kansas, and in the Supreme Court of Maine, decisions 

 adverse to the law have been made. An appeal from the decision made 

 in Arkansas has been pending for two years in the United States Supreme 

 Court. Last spring when a declaration was expected the court ordered 

 a re-argument of the case, much to the surprise of some of the friends of 

 the law who supposed this to be evidence of an even division of the eight 

 members of the court. It now appears that the action was due to a wish 

 to have a full bench consider the matter because of its great importance. 



Opposition to the Regulations of the Survey. 

 Meanwhile the law has been operative, and law-abiding and conscien- 

 tious citizens all over the country "have accepted and observed both the 

 letter and the spirit of the law." However the disaffected element, an 



