APPENDIX III. 325 



as evidence of illegal killing, but is now made an offence punish- 

 able by fine in several States. The right of a State to make 

 laws regarding birds imported from other States has been vigor- 

 ously contested and has been variously decided by the courts, 

 but the question has now been practically set at rest by the 

 passage of the Lacey Act. Some States have hesitated to en- 

 croach upon the rights of the individual, as shown by the excep- 

 tion in favor of land-owners in the section of the Delaware law 

 relating to insectivorous birds, and also by the provisions in the 

 laws of Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, and South 

 Carolina which permit a person to kill birds found destroying 

 fruit on his own premises. On the other hand, Massachusetts 

 declares that game artificially reared shall be the exclusive prop- 

 erty of the person raising it, but forbids the owner to sell it for 

 food during close seasons. Illinois exacts a ten-dollar hunting 

 license from non-residents, even though they lease or own a 

 game preserve within the State, and Wyoming, in the famous 

 "Eace Horse case," carried up to the Supreme Court in 1896, 

 has successfully maintained her right to compel Indians to obey 

 her game laws (163 U. S., 504). 



During the last fifty years the sentiment in favor of bird pro- 

 tection has developed rapidly. Many laws have been enacted, 

 amended, and sustained by the courts. That these laws are still 

 imperfect is partly the result of carelessness and partly of strong 

 opposition due to ignorance or selfishness. Our game laws, un- 

 like those of Europe, are maintained for the good of the people 

 as a whole, not for the benefit of any one class, and their enforce- 

 ment depends very largely on a general appreciation of the prin- 

 ciples upon which they are based. — Bird Lore, vol. iii., pages 

 79-81. 



