10 GAME REFUGES. 



In my State there are places where by the nearest route of travel 

 you would have to go several hundred miles to reach a Federal court 

 to try a man for, let us say, killing a jack rabbit on one of these 

 reserves or shooting at one with an attempt to kill it, or a mischievous 

 small boy for robbing a bird's nest. 



These Federal courts in Western States are frequently hundreds 

 of miles from the areas that would be designated as game refuges 

 and the citizen would constantly run the risk of being hauled away 

 to a Federal court for some trifling infraction of a rule or regulation 

 of the Secretary, while pursuing game in accordance with State laws, 

 if we give the Secretary, as is proposed, full authority to prescribe 

 what act shall constitute a misdemeanor or crime, punishable as 

 provided in the bill. 



The provisions of the bill with regard to fishing are even more 

 clearly unconstitutional than those with regard to hunting, because 

 they might not involve a complete prohibition, but a regulation of 

 the fishing privilege — there is no doubt about that being the exclu- 

 sive province of the State — it would afford even greater opportunity 

 for friction and conflict between State and Federal jurisdiction. 



The rules and regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture might 

 subject a citizen to the extreme penalty of the bill for the most 

 trifling act of carelessness or inadvertence, and yet it is proposed to 

 give the Secretary full authority to thus declare and punish what he 

 is pleased to designate offenses. 



Mr. Lesher. Is not that regulated by law, the crime or the mis- 

 demeanor ? 



Mr. Mondell. The bill provides that any violation of the rules 

 and regulations promulgated by the Secretary shall be subject to a 

 fine not to exceed $500 and imprisonment not to exceed six months, 

 and the Secretary, under that authority, could fine a man the maxi- 

 mum penalty for the destruction of a bird's nest, the taking of a 

 trout, or the killing of a chipmunk. Perhaps he would not go that 

 far, but he would have complete and unquestioned authority to do 

 so. If legislation of this kind were enacted, and unless or until the 

 courts set it aside, because the courts have decided that rules and 

 regulations may be promulgated which will have the force of law. 

 If they relate to subjects over which Congress has control, they 

 went far afield when they so held, but they did. 



Mr. Sisson. That grew out of the regulations of the Postmaster 

 General ? 



Mr. Mondell. Yes, sir. There are some cases where it seems 

 to be necessary, but it is a very dangerous power. 



STATES HAVE FULL POWER. 



I have stated that I was opposed to this legislation, because the 

 States affected have full, complete, and unquestioned authority to 

 do all that the bill proposes to have done and to fully and completely 

 protect the game anywhere within their borders. The migratory- 

 bird law was passed on the theory and under the claim that the 

 States, acting independently, were practically powerless to ade- 

 quately protect migratory birds. The advocates of that law urged 

 its necessity, because the Federal Government could alone, it was 

 said, furnish the needed protection. No such claim is made on 



