156 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND 



DEFENDERS OF THE BIRD LAW. 



Henry F. Ashurst, Arizona Blair Lee, Maryland 



James H. Brady, Idaho Harry Lane, Oregon 



Frank B. Brandegee, Connecticut Porter J. McCumber, N. Dakota 



Joseph L. Bristow, Kansas George P. McLean, Connecticut 



Edwin C. Burleigh, Maine James E. Martine, New Jersey 



Thomas E. Burtox, Ohio George W. Norris, Nebraska 



George E. Chamberlain, Oregon George T. Oliver, Pennsylvania 



Moses E. Clapp, Minnesota Robert L. Owex, Oklahoma 



Clarexce D. Clark, Wyoming Carroll, S. Page, Vermont 



LeBarox B. Colt, Rhode Island George C. Perkixs, California 



Albert B. Cummins, Vermont Miles Poindexter, Washington 



William P. Dillingham, Vermont Morris Sheppard, Texas 



Henry A. DuPont, Delaware Lawrence Y. Sherman, Illinois 



Jacob H. Gallinger, N. H. Benjamin F. Shively, Indiana 



Asle J. Gronna, North Dakota Marcus A. Smith, Arizona 



Gilbert M. Hitchcock, Nebraska Reed Smoot, Utah 



Henry F. Hollis, New Hampshire Tho3ias Sterling, South Dakota 



William Hughes, New Jersey William H. Thompson, Kansas 



Charles F. Johnson, Maine John R. Thornton, Louisiana 



Wesley L. Jones, Washington Charles E. Townsend, Michigan 



William S. Kenyon, Iowa John W. Weeks, Massachusetts 



Robert M. LaFollette, Wisconsin John S. Williams, Mississippi 

 John D. Works, California 



THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE MIGRATORY BIRD 



LAW 



About six months ago, pessimism regarding the consti- 

 tutionality of this law reached its lowest ebb. Even some 

 of the friends of the law hedged by predicting its over- 

 throw by the Supreme Court; and by some the chances 

 against it were estimated as high as 4 to 1. 



Evidence of an even division of the eight members of 

 the Supreme Court, in the form of notice of a rehearing 

 of the case, caused much surprise. It appeared that the 

 unconstitutional features were not nearly so conspicuous, 

 nor so overwhelming, as the wise ones had believed, and 

 announced as facts! The whole complexion of federal 

 bird protection instantly changed. Now it is realized that 

 the law has more than an even chance for continued 

 existence; and we hold to our former estimate of 2 to 1 

 in its favor. The new aspect seems to be well recognized, 

 everywhere, and some of the men who joyously violated 



