42 GAME COMMISSIONS AND WARDENS. 



In a few States the game protection fund,^ which, as commonly 

 understood, includes such moneys as are derived from enforcement 

 of the game laws, is limited in whole or in part Irr constitutional 

 provisions. 



A provision in the constitution of Nebraska requires the proceeds 

 from all licenses and fines arising under criminal laws to be paid into 

 the school fund, thus effectually preventing the moneys from being 

 used for game protection. Similarly, in Missouri and Nevada, consti- 

 tutional provisions require proceeds from fines to be paid into the 

 school fund. In Florida fines for violation of the game laws are paid 

 into the fine and forfeiture fund of the county, and are not available 

 for payment of wardens, although the game law attempts to make 

 them so. A somewhat similar provision in the constitution of West 

 Virginia requires the clear proceeds of fines to be paid into the gen- 

 eral fund of the State. So far it has been customary in this State to 

 pa}^ such fines to the game wardens, in compensation for their services, 

 and the legality of such pa} T ment is now before the supreme court of 

 the State. In this connection it may be noted that Wisconsin has a 

 constitutional provision directing that the 'clear proceeds' of all fines 

 be paid into the school fund, but the supreme court of that State has 

 held, in State v. De Lano (49 N. W., 808), that 'clear proceeds' means 

 only the amount remaining after all lawful deductions in the case have 

 been made, including a two-thirds for informers. 



During the present year a disposition has been manifested in certain 

 States to restrict the game protection fund or to legislate it out of 

 existence. Wyoming has practically abolished its game protection 

 fund and replaced it with an appropriation of $4,450 for the mainte- 

 nance of the department during the next two years. Such a change 

 by making the appropriation hard and fast, has the disadvantage of 

 removing from the department the incentive to increase its income by 

 sale of licenses or better enforcement of the law. In this case it has 

 materially reduced the amount available for game protection, the 

 amount collected from hunting licenses in 1905 having been about 

 $12,000, whereas the sum available for 1907 will be but $2,225. Such 

 action also renders the department more exposed to restrictions or 

 adverse legislation. 



