EDITOR'S CORNER. 



A HIGH COURT ENDORSES RECREATION. 



Harry Winters, of Helena, Mont., 

 whom the local papers, of course, men- 

 tion as a "prominent business man," 

 was arrested some time ago by State 

 Game Warden W. F. Scott, charged 

 with dynamiting fish. Winters plead- 

 ed not guilty and prepared to fight, 

 but after taking more time to think it 

 over, he went into court with his at- 

 torney, withdrew that plea and en- 

 tered one of guilty. His attorney 

 made a brief argument in Winters' 

 behalf, asking the court to be lenient 

 with the prisoner. Judge Henry C. 

 Smith, who was presiding in the Dis- 

 trict Court, told Winters what he 

 thought of him in words and figures 

 as follows : 



What your counsel has stated is true. 

 You are a man who has been in business 

 in this community, an intelligent man, a 

 man who, I understand, has been fairly suc- 

 cessful in your pursuits. Of course in 

 dynamiting fish you must have acted ad- 

 visedly. I am informed by the game war- 

 den that you were well posted as to the 

 penalties for dynamiting fish and thorough- 

 ly understood the difference in penalty be- 

 tween seining them and dynamiting. I re- 

 gard dynamiting fish as a serious offense; 

 it is an unnatural offense. 



A man who will dynamite fish must be 

 absolutely devoid of sportsmanlike quali- 

 ties. People who dynamite fish have been 

 characterized in journals relating to out- 

 door sports as hogs ; and that is an appro- 

 priate designation. One man is limited by 

 law to catching fish with a hook and line ; 

 another man comes along, clandestinely 

 drops a stick of dynamite into a hole and 

 kills, not only the large fishes that are 

 good to eat, but every fish that is in the 

 hole, and the fish food besides. Not only 

 that, but the fish are mutilated and some 

 of them rendered unfit for food. 



In passing sentence on you, Mr. Winters, 

 I desire to act in such a way that others 

 may thoroughly understand the situation. 

 I do not care to impose a penalty that may 

 be thought too severe. At the same time I 

 believe the Legislature must have thor- 

 oughly recognized the heinousness of this 

 offense, in placing the minimum penalty at 

 $200. 



I do not wish to make a martyr of you, 

 yet I wish to punish you, and to deter 



478 



others from doing what you have done. 

 My private information is that there is a 

 good deal of dynamiting in the streams of 

 this State. I shall impose a fine on you, 

 but I serve notice that the next man who 

 comes here charged with the offense you 

 are charged with, if found guilty and I am 

 here, I shall certainly send to the peniten- 

 tiary. 



I have known you a number of years, and 

 it is not an agreeable duty to pass sentence 

 on you, but I am bound, to punish you for 

 what you have done. I am surprised that 

 a man of your intelligence and standing in 

 the community should do such a thing. 

 You knew it was against the law ; it is the 

 worst possible infringement of the game 

 law, in my judgement. There is no excuse 

 for it, whatever. 



The sentence of the court is that you pay 

 a fine of $400, and that you stand commit- 

 ted to the^ custody of the sheriff until that 

 fine is paid. 



I call special attention to Judge 

 Smith's statement that, "People who 

 dynamite fish have been characterized 

 in journals relating to outdoor sports 

 as hogs ; and that is an appropriate 

 designation." 



This remark proves conclusively 

 that Judge Smith is a reader of Rec- 

 reation, for this is the only journal 

 devoted to outdoor sports that calls 

 any man, no matter what he may do, 

 a fish hog or a game hog. Nearly all 

 the other sportsmen's journals have 

 criticised Recreation for calling peo- 

 ple "names," because they slaughter 

 game or fish. I further emphasize 

 Judge Smith's expression, in which he 

 pronounces the term "fish hog" an ap- 

 propriate designation for a man who 

 dynamites fish. { , 



I have been condemned by thous- 

 ands of good people for the use of the 

 terms "fish hog" and "game hog;" 

 but here is a judge of a high court 

 who approves my course, and who 

 freely expresses his contempt for a 

 man who destroys fish in this way, by 

 inflicting a fine of $400 on him. 



This should settle the question as 

 to the justice of my method of dealing 



