GAME REFUGES. 9 



When we come to analyze these fine-spun theories whereby it is 

 sought to invade the authority of the State, it will be seen that they 

 are all part of an attempt to secure by indirection a control and 

 jurisdiction that everyone admits could not be secured directly. 

 If there is any one form of Federal encroachment upon the people's 

 reserved sovereignty that is more dangerous than another, it is that 

 form of encroachment which seeks the extension of Federal authority 

 by indirect, roundabout, and underground means. 



EVILS AS COMPARED TO BENEFITS CLAIMED. 



So much for the legal aspect of the situation. I have said that 

 I was opposed to this legislation, because if it were within the power 

 of Congress to enact such legislation it would not be wise to do so; 

 because the evils that would attend and follow it would far outweigh 

 any good that it may be claimed would flow from it. It is claimed, 

 on behalf of this legislation, that the wild game of the western country 

 is rapidly decreasing, that it is highly important that it should be 

 increased in numbers, and that these game sanctuaries scattered 

 around throughout the forest reserves would give the wild game an 

 opportunity to increase. As a matter of fact, it is not true that 

 wild game of all kinds is rapidly and continuously decreasing in 

 numbers at this time. In some parts of the West it has been very 

 well protected and is on the increase. But assuming that this plan 

 would increase the wild game, but not admitting that it is the only 

 way to increase it, at what a loss to the dignity of the States, at 

 what a cost of money and peace of mind to their citizens, at what a 

 certainty of continual conflict between the Federal and local author- 

 ities, would the possible benefits be secured. Nobody knows how 

 many of these reserves might be created, how large a territory in the 

 aggregate they might include. The last section of the bill states 

 that it is the purpose of the bill to establish sanctuaries of medium 

 size rather than large preserves, and it is not the purpose to estab- 

 lish sanctuaries or preserves to embrace all the hunting grounds of 

 any given region. Anyone familiar with legislation knows that such 

 an expression of intent on the part of the law-making body still 

 leaves almost unlimited latitude for action. The bill provides that 

 these preserves shall be established upon the recommendation of the 

 Secretary of Agriculture. I presume they would not be otherwise 

 established. It also provides that they shall have the approval of 

 the governors of the States, though it is doubtful whether such an 

 approval would be an essential under the bill. 



It has never seemed to me, however, that it would help the matter 

 any to provide that the governor shall be the medium through which 

 the sovereignty of the State is attempted to be reduced. 



Assume the preserves were created in numbers in various parts of 

 the mountain forest reserves. In few cases could their boundaries, 

 except at great expense, be very clearly marked if they are to be 

 numerous and small as proposed. The hunter on the forest reserve 

 pursuing game in season under the State law would constantly be 

 in danger or be tempted to follow game onto the game refuge, or to 

 shoot game on the game refuge from adjoining territory, whereupon 

 the jurisdiction over his act would pass from a State to a Federal 

 court. 



