86 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND 



attorneys of the indicted men filed demurrers for each de- 

 fendant, claiming that the migratory bird treaty violates 

 the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 

 States, that while within Missouri "the wild fowl and game 

 is the absolute property of the State," and that "the sub- 

 ject of the Convention [i. e., the Treaty] is one over which 

 the several states have exclusive jurisdiction." 



On April 21 and 22, 1919, an application brought by the 

 State of Missouri for an injunction to prevent United 

 States game wardens from arresting violators of the Federal 

 game laws in Missouri was argued before Judge A. S. Van 

 Valkenburgh in the U. S. District Court at Kansas City, 

 Mo. The brief submitted by U. S. Attorney Francis M. Wil- 

 son was a most able and convincing document. It struck a 

 new and very human note in the legal defense of wild 

 life, and constitutes a powerful argument. 



On July 2, 1919, Judge Van Valkenburgh rendered a 

 sweeping decision, which completely upheld the constitu- 

 tionality of the Treaty act, whereupon the Missourians ap- 

 pealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States. 



In addition to the very gratifying decision of Judge Van 

 Valkenburgh, another decision of similar import is now on 

 record. On June 4, 1919, Judge Jacob Trieber, of the U. S. 

 Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas pronounced the 

 Bird Treaty constitutional. 



Another test case, of a very amusing character, came be- 

 fore the United States Supreme Court. It concerns no less 

 a personage than the Attorney-General of the state of Mis- 

 souri (always Missouri!) and a Federal Game Warden, 

 backed by the United States of America. 



A short time after Samples and DeLapp were indicted, 

 Attorney-General Frank W. McAllister so far forgot his 

 oath of office, his duties as a citizen and his own future as to 

 go out duck-shooting on the grounds of a Missouri club that 



