
FROM THE GAME FIELDS. 
ployee for 35 years. Morrison is a man 
who can not be relied on to do much. If 
he saw a poacher he would go home and 
leave him to do his poaching. This, I 
know from reliable men. In fact, old 
poachers themselves say they are safe if 
they see Morrison coming. If they see 
one of the other scouts they have to run. 
Ic is the poachers --ho seem to have it in 
for Whittaker. He is too strict to suit 
them. He will arrest a man on mere sus- 
picion. Last November 2 men went hunt- 
ing from Gardiner and Whittaker caught 
them shooting some antelope. It was a 
little after dark, so he could not see to 
shoot, but the 2 men told me, themselves, 
that he shot at them and that bullets were 
whistling mighty close to their heads. 
Whittaker is a personal enemy. of mine, 
but I believe he is the best scout that has 
ever been in the park. I know he has ar- 
rested more men since he has been on the 
force than all the others. In fact, he ar- 
rested me once. I tried to bribe him with 
money and whiskey, but could not induce. 
him to let me go. 
Burgess is'a good scout and no doubt 
will always do his duty. I understand 
Whittaker is going to leave the park. 
When he does go, the park will.lose a 
good scout. There was but little poach- 
ing done in the park last winter, owing 
a great deal to the work of Whittaker and 
‘Burgess. Every morning at 5:30 I could 
see Whittaker patroling the North line of 
the park, and he kept at it all day long, 
with Sergeant M. J. Wall, of the 4th Cav- 
alry, another-man who puts fear in the 
hearts of the poachers. 
C. D. J., Gardiner, Mont: 

NO EXCUSE. 
One Hurst, writing from Glendive, 
Mont., indirectly accuses me of using a 
hound when hunting deer in the Yellow- 
stone valley, in 1896. This is both true 
and untrue. We had a hali-bred hound 
-at our camp and on one occasion I used 
him. One of our party had shot a deer 
through the intestines, inflicting a fatal 
wound. There was no snow; the wound 
stopped bleeding, as such wounds com-- 
monly do; we hunted for the deer a full 
half day and finally lost the trail. We 
then went to camp, got the hound and in 
about Io minutes found and killed the 
_deer. 
No doubt this was technically a violation 
of the law; but I would sooner violate the 
strict letter of the law than have a wound- 
ed deer die a lingering death. I have 
never shot at a deer running before a dog. 
nor at bay in the water. I kill all my 
deer in the good, old-fashioned way—by 
still hunting; but I don’t intend to leave 
193 
a wounded deer to die by inches because 
some legislature enacts a law requiring it. 
As to the charge of shipping venison 
out of the state of Montana: I did ship one 
saddle to my home, and [| ate it. When a 
man has killed a deer it becomes venison. 
This is an article of commerce—and as 
such, its shipment from one state to an- 
other is a matter of inter-state commerce, 
and not subject to regulation by state leg- 
islatures. It comes within the exclusive 
power of congress. I have no doubt such 
laws are absolutely unconstitutional, and 
whether they are or not, I have no re- 
spect for a law which allows me to kill a 
deer, but refuses me permission to use it. 
If I kill a deer in Montana I can not camp 
by it, Indian fashion, and eat it up; so I 
take it home and eat it at my leisure. And, 
say, Coquina, it was good, and don’t you 
forget it. If Hurst don’t watch out I 
shall very likely do it again. If Hurst will 
watch some of his friends and neighbors | 
who constantly hunt in the close season, 
and with hounds too, he won’t have much 
time to watch 
A. A. C., Minneapolis, Minn. 
ANSWER. 
The fact that you do not approve of a 
law is no reason why you should violate it. 
The horse thief does not approve of the 
law which prohibits the stealing of horses. 
The burglar does not approve of the law 
which prohibits him from breaking into 
his neighbor’s house. The bank cashier 
does not approve of the law which pro- 
hibits him from helping himself to the 
money deposited in the bank. The man 
who likes to hunt and fish on Sunday 
does not approve of the law which says he 
shall not do so. The courts have de- 
cided repeatedly that the game in any state 
belongs to the people of that state and that 
they may legally prohibit the shipment of 
it out of the state. In a decision on a 
case of this kind the court held that:. 
“The state holds the ownership of game 
in trust for all the people of the state, 
but not in trust for all the people of the 
United States. This trust existed before 
the United States was formed and there is 
nothing in the constitution compelling one 
state to allow citizens of other states to 
enter its limits, kill its game and transport 
the 
True, such a law seems unjust from the 
standpoint of the man who is unfavorably 
affected by it; but not from the standpoint 
of the people who are favorably affected 
by it. 
I trust my good friend, A. A. C., will 
never again ship game out of any state, in 
violation of the laws thereof, simply be- 
cause he deems the law unjust to him- 
sell. EDITOR, 

