12 



THE GAME BREEDER 



a chicken if she sells it. To say the 

 .least, that reasoning is childish. And 

 equally puerile is friend Huntington's 

 statement, "We should remember that 

 the game breeding history in America is 

 young," and the conclusion on that ac- 

 count that the law should require every- 

 body who wants to raise game to get a 

 permit. The idea of leading a moral 

 Christian life is also young to some peo- 

 ple and therefore, according to Hunt- 

 ington's reasoning, one should get per- 

 mission from the Game Commissioner 

 before he permits himself to get religion. 

 Brother Huntington says men who like 

 to eat game are quite ready to pay the 

 extra price which one must add if he has 

 to pay for a State license. Where did 

 you get that idea, Brother Huntington? 

 Your trouble is that the pheasants raised 

 by you are raised with ink on the top 

 floor of a New York office building. Prac- 

 tical pheasant raisers who really rear and 

 sell pheasants that go to the table tO' be 

 eaten know that no man willingly pays 

 more than necessary for anything. And 

 therefore your statement that men will 

 be willing to pay more for a game bird to 

 A because he is required to buy a license 

 from the State than they must pay to B 

 who pays no license, on your own sober 

 second thought I am certain you will 

 withdraw. You also say if the breeder 

 can get an excellent insurance against 

 theft by paying a few dollars for a hand- 

 ful of tags, he is not damaged much. 

 Where does the breeder get that insur- 

 ance? The tag does not prevent theft. 

 The tag does not discourage theft. The 

 State does not indemnify the breeder 

 who buys a tag if his game is stolen. 

 Your argument that it is more difficult 

 to secure a really proper law that will 

 permit the rearing of game without any 

 license, permission or tagging could just 

 as well be applied against the argument 

 that man should lead a clean life. Ac- 

 cording to your reasoning it would be 

 much better for doctors to suggest to 

 people that they be only cleanly one day 

 a month because it requires less effort to 

 be cleanly one day a month than it does 

 to keep clean all the month. You say 

 in the same article, "It is an outrage to 



charge $25.00 a year for a game raiser's 

 license as they do in California." If it 

 is wrong to charge $25.00, why is it right 

 to charge a cent? This is not a matter 

 of degrees or amount; it is a matter of 

 principle. The difficulty is that you have 

 departed from first principles; you have 

 failed to note the conclusions of great 

 economists. Bishop, the great law writ- 

 er, once said, "The principles that under- 

 lie all legal reasoning are comparatively 

 few, but the instances that depend on 

 them are numberless. Therefore the 

 careful lawyer will learn the rules and 

 how to apply them and let the instances 

 take care of themselves. Conforming to 

 Bishop, I refer Brother Huntington to 

 the "Wealth of Nations," written by the 

 great economist, Adam Smith, more than 

 a century ago. He said: "The natural 

 effort of every individual to better his 

 own condition, when suffered to exert it- 

 self with freedom and security, is so 

 powerful a principle, that it is, alone, 

 and without any assistance, not only ca- 

 pable of carrying on society to wealth 

 and prosperity, but of surmounting a 

 hundred impertinent obstructions with 

 which the folly of human laws too often 

 encumbers its operations." 



More About "In Captivity." 



Mr. Talbot says we do not understand 

 the meaning of the words, "in captivity." 

 We think we do. 



It is decided in the slave case, relied i 

 upon by Mr. Talbot, that the ownership] 

 of the slave continued even when the[ 

 slave was far from the immediate control 

 of his master. 



For the benefit of the non-legal read- 

 er I may say that the writ of replevin j 

 issues when anyone files an affidavit 

 stating the ownership of personal prop- 

 erty of any kind and the object is to se-l 

 cure the immediate possession of one's! 

 property before the suit is tried. The] 

 plaintiff is required to give a bond loj 

 satisfy the possessor of the property inj 

 the event that the suit is decided in hisj 

 favor or that the claim of ownership is] 

 not sustained. 



Because a slave in the time of slavery 

 or a horse, cow or any personal property 



