18 GAME -REFUGES. 



your argument solely to the proposition of how the Federal Govern- 

 ment can control this matter and make these sanctuaries^ a success. 



Mr. Williams. I will do that. First, however, let me premise by 

 saying that this is not novel legislation. Congress has previously 

 enacted laws for special game sanctuaries in the national forests. 

 For instance, the Wichita game refuge was established by Congress 

 January 24, 1905. (33 Stat., 614.) The language of that act is very 

 similar to the language of the bill now pending before the committee. 

 It authorized the President of the United States to designate such 

 areas in the Wichita Forest Reserve as should, in his opinion, be set 

 aside for the protection of game animals and birds and be recognized 

 as a breeding place therefor. The act then gives power to the Secre- 

 tary of Agriculture to make regulations to carry out the objects and 

 purposes of the act. Similarly the Grand Canyon game refuge was 

 created by act of June 29, 1906. (34 Stat., 607.) That act follows the 

 Wichita game refuge act almost literally. Then there is the act of 

 June 28, 1906. The President of the United States having previously 

 withdrawn areas of public lands for the use of the Department of 

 Agriculture as breeding grounds for native birds, Congress passed this 

 act, the act of June 28, 1906. (34 Stat., 536.) It is now section 84 

 of the Penal Code. That act, in substance, is this : 



That it shall be unlawful for any person to hunt, trap, capture, willfully disturb, or 

 kill any bird of any kind whatever or take the eggs of such birds on any lands of the 

 United States which have been set apart or reserved as breeding grounds for birds by 

 any law, proclamation, or Executive order, except under such rules and regulations as 

 may be prescribed from time to time by the Secretary of Agriculture. 



Then follows section 2 that provides the penalties for any killing of 

 birds and the taking of their eggs on those reservations that were 

 created by Executive order of the President, Congress by this act of 

 1906 recognizing the right of the President to withdraw public lands 

 for a public purpose, namely, the protection of game and birds. 

 There may be some doubt in the minds of some people as to whether 

 the protection of game and birds is a public purpose, but Congress 

 has dealt with it as such for so long a time that I doubt very much 

 if you could ever presuade any court that it is not now a public 

 purpose. 



Mr. Jacoway. Have any of these acts ever been tested in the 

 courts ? 



Mr. Williams. No, sir; but they have been enforced. The act of 

 June 28, 1906, prohibiting the killing of birds on reservations has 

 been enforced, and that question has not been raised. 



The issue on this bill is not who owns the birds or the game. It is 

 a mooted question whether migratory birds belong to the State or 

 to the United States, and the migratory bird law is founded upon an 

 entirely different theory from this bill before the committee. The 

 Supreme Court, as Mr. Mondell has said, has set the migratory bird 

 case for rehearing, after having had it under consideration since 

 October 16, last, but a decision upon the migratory bird law, I ven- 

 ture to say, will throw no light upon the issue involved in this bill 

 before the committee. The bill before the committee is predicated 

 not upon the power of the Federal Government to protect game as 

 such, but upon the power of the Federal Government to dispose of 

 and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory 

 and other property belonging to the United States. That is the con- 



