THE GAME BEEEDER 



87 



to be good statesmanship to have a careful 

 investigation made before turning over the 

 handling of this food supply to a small band 

 of enthusiasts who profit largely by their 

 game saving industry, but who have not pro- 

 duced any game. 



We respectfully suggest to our Congress- 

 men that such an investigation be made be- 

 fore any action on the bill be taken. 



We have a National Bureau of Fisheries, 

 highly creditable to the nation. We beheve 

 if the question of our game as a food supply 

 can be carefully considered the result may 

 be the creation of a bureau of game con- 

 ducted on the lines of the Bureau of Fish- 

 eries. Such a bureau of game easily could 

 provide stock birds and eggs for those who 

 would multiply them with scientific advice 

 as to propagation, just as the Bureau of Fish- 

 eries supplies fry and fingerlings to those who 

 wish to breed fish. Why not create a Bu- 

 reau of Game. It will become a great monu- 

 ment to the one who secures such legislation. 



We ^''^e had a Bureau of Game Law ex- 

 perts which has not supplied the people with 

 game for food. It has provided and advo- 

 cated many state laws which have prevented 

 a food producing industry which well might be 

 encouraged and not prohibited. The area for 

 public shooting in America is tremendous, 

 larger than the entire area of many coun- 

 tries which have game in abundance. 



The American sportsmen rapidly have 

 adopted our idea that game breeding on cul- 

 tivated farms where shooting is now pro- 

 hibited is beneficial to their interests and not 

 harmful. 



If it be true, as it is, that there are more 

 pheasants produced in America today than 

 in any country in the world and that this 

 is so because the restrictions favored by 

 those who seek the present enactment have 

 been mitigated so as to make it not criminal 

 to produce and sell this food : If it be true, 

 as it is, that there are more wild ducks in 

 .America than in many countries which have 

 ducks for food it would seem that there is 

 no reason for haste in turning over to those 

 who have recently been opposed to food pro- 

 ducinrr and to the taking of birds for breed- 

 ing purposes the right to make more restric- 

 tions similar to those which have destroyed 

 the game market in many states. 



Many sportsmen who entertain this opinion 

 are away. We would respectfully urge Con- 

 srress to fully consider the pronosed measure 

 before enacting it. We would like to see the 

 bill referred to the judiciary committee for 

 an opinion as to the propriety and constitu- 

 tionality of turning over the crime making 

 powc""; of Congress to those who seek to 

 exercise it. 



We believe this constitutional question is 

 pending in the Supreme Court of the United 

 States. When the first migratorv bill was 

 enac^pA and the cou'-t was asked to consider 

 it. t'-" hte JiKl'^e Beam^n. of Colorado, a 

 well k"own sportsman. a«ked leave to appear 



and file a brief in the Supreme Court urging 

 that criminal laws should be statutes and not 

 regulations. It would seem advisable to defer 

 action in Congress until the court shall render 

 a decision. 



Certainly there is no need for haste unless 

 it be true, as a man who is on the inside 

 recently informed us that a big political deal 

 is being played in Washington. A sorry 

 time to play politics with a food question ! 

 If it be true it might be well, to inquire what 

 are the politics of those who seek the right 

 to say what others may do. 



That game is not vanishing under a new 

 style of state legislation quite different from 

 that proposed soon will be amply demon- 

 strated. We believe our Game Conservation 

 Society will keep the hospitals full of game, 

 without cost during the continuance of the 

 war. This would have been impossible had 

 we not been able to have some of the laws 

 secured by those who are behind the present 

 measure amended. 



We respectfully ask our Congressmen not 

 to act hastily; not to be stampeded, but to 

 give the bill a careful consideration. Is it 

 a proper bill from a legal standpoint? Does 

 it provide for a regulated sale of desirable 

 food such as has been provided for recently 

 in many states? 



Should it not be amended so as to provide 

 that nothing in the act shall be held to apply 

 to birds owned by breeders until they de- 

 part and become migratory? 



We believe the bill should provide that 

 the new lawmakers shall issue permits to 

 take stock birds for breeding purposes. 



In many states they have secured laws per- 

 mitting the destruction of 50 birds per diem, 

 or some other number, but have prevented 

 any one from taking a single bird for breed- 

 ing purposes. Since those who propose to 

 make and execute the new restrictions re- 

 cently have refused permits to bring in stock 

 birds purchased in Mexico we have a right 

 to our opinion that they are not friendly to 

 production and that an important food in- 

 dustry which is popular and prospering in 

 many states should not be governed and regu- 

 lated by those who opnose it. 



Why should not food producers have the 

 opportunity to take their chances with United 

 States marshals and special deputies respon- 

 sible to them, instead of being regulated by 

 a special force practically responsible to no 

 one. 



We believe food producers .should be treated 

 as fairly and leniently as moonshiners, smug- 

 glers and violators of the postal laws are. 

 Their offences often will be found, as they 

 have been under state laws, to be due to 

 mistake, and the offences in no case will be 

 found to contain the element of moral turpi- 

 tude usually present in other national of- 

 fences. America rapidly is becoming the 

 biegest game producimr country in the world, 

 but this i-; due to a mitigation of the restric- 

 tions in state laws which were similar to the 



