66 First Annual Report of the 



INTERPRETATION BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF 



SECTION 98 OF THE FOREST, FISH AND 



GAME LAW. 



In May, 1910, chapter 256 of trie Laws of 1910, providing for 

 the protection of wild birds in this State, was enacted. This is 

 section 98 of the Forest, Fish and Game Law, the provisions of 

 which were to take effect July 1, 1911. Sciama & Company, a 

 corporation engaged in importing and dealing in birds' plumage, 

 brought an action in the United States Circuit Court, Southern 

 District of New York, for an injunction restraining Attorney- 

 General Carmody and Forest, Fish and Game Commissioner 

 Fleming from enforcing its provisions upon the ground that it was 

 unconstitutional because it deprived this corporation of its prop- 

 erty without due process of law and denied it the equal protection 

 of the law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the 

 Constitution of the United States. It was alleged that at the 

 time the act became a law Sciama & Company had on hand for 

 sale $60,000 worth of plumage and feathers prohibited by the 

 statutes and that between the time it became a law on May 7th, 



1910, and the date when it took effect on July 1st, 1911, it had 

 not had time to dispose of the $60,000 worth of plumage, and 

 that the statute violates the Constitution in depriving it of the 

 right of disposing of the balance. The direct attack upon the law 

 was that the Legislature had no right to classify birds' into fam- 

 ilies for no such classification had ever 'been universally agreed 

 upon and dealers could not tell whether they were or were not 

 violating the law. 



The Attorney-General presented to the court a number of affi- 

 davits of world-famed ornithologists to show that the attack on the 

 law was unjustified and that the Legislature adopted a correct 

 standard in classifying birds by way of families. 



The case was argued before Hon. Henry W. Ward of the 

 United States Circuit Court in New York City, September 29, 



1911. The attorneys for the complainant were Mayer and Gil- 

 bert and Hon. Julius Mayer argued the case for complainant. 



Judge Ward, before whom the case was argued, held that the 

 law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment and denied the 

 motion. 



