49° 



RECRFA TTOX. 



\\. H. Longdon, Bridgeport. Conn. Sportsmen's 



goods. 

 New York Condensed Milk Co. 71 Hudson Street, 



New York City. Condensed products. 

 < >neida Community, Kenwood, N. Y. Traps. 

 Metz & Schloerb, Oshkosh, Wis. Moccasins, hunting 



shoes, etc. 

 Novelty Cutlery Co., Canton, O. Pocket cutlery, ink 



crsscrs* etc* 

 M. A. Shipley. 432 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 



Fishing tackle. 

 Willis Arms & Cycle Co., Kansas City, Mo. Bicycles, 



athletic and sportsmen's goods. 



SOME LEGISLATORS WHOM LEAGUE 

 MEMBERS SHOULD WATCH. 



Boston, Mass. 



Editor Recreation: I regret to ad- 

 vise you of the death, in the Com- 

 mittee on Fisheries and Game, of 

 House bill 572. The purpose of this bill 

 was to stop the sale of quail during Janu- 

 ary, February, March and April, the season 

 for shooting in this state closing January 1. 

 The law as it now stands allows of such 

 sale provided the birds are not taken or 

 killed contrary to the laws of this common- 

 wealth. In other words, while not allowing 

 them to be killed here our state says to her 

 citizens they may violate precisely similar 

 laws of any sister state and find a market 

 here. The commission of the act is neither 

 immoral nor criminal, as being against the 

 established law of any community. If it 

 was would she encourage it? It is only 

 a question of geography and state lines, yet 

 I presume our state expects her citizens to 

 respect her laws. 



But they are not respected as the follow- 

 ing incident will show. We were coming 

 from a hearing one day when one of the 

 market men said to me: 



"I haven't much respect for these game 

 laws, anyway." "No," I answered, "you 

 have so long violated with impunity the 

 laws of other states that you have ceased to 

 have any respect for the laws of your 

 own." 



It is unnecessary to say the conversation 

 was not continued. In fact, we proved by 

 the Chairman of the Fish and Game Com- 

 mittee of this State (Mr. Brackett) that he 

 examined quails in a market in Boston the 

 day before the hearing (in March) and 

 found them fresh birds which had never 

 been in cold storage. As the season for 

 shooting in this State closed January 1st it 

 is easy to see where the pot hunter finds his 

 market. 



At the hearing before the committee 

 above mentioned there was a large turnout 

 of market and cold storage men to oppose 

 us, and while some members of the commit- 

 tee were fair others were quite the opposite. 

 Charles P. Mills, member of the house 

 from Newburyport, and house chairman of 

 the committee, was one of the latter. He 

 lost no opportunity to show his opposi- 

 tion to us and to help the market men. 



In the early part of the proceedings he was 

 going to drive us out of the hearing, but 

 he remained away when our side of the 

 case was presented. Possibly he thought 

 his acts would be more consistent with a 

 knowledge of but one side of the case. An- 

 other hostile member was W. S. Swift, of 

 Tisbury, secretary of the committee. He 

 endeavored to keep out of the hearing all 

 references to where the birds might come 

 from, or whether transported into the State 

 contrary to the laws of the State whence 

 they came. When I argued that the busi- 

 ness was immoral in that it encouraged 

 and even invited the violation of the laws 

 of other states, he said he did not see as 

 that had anything to do with the question. 

 I then asked him whether, if a bill were in- 

 troduced to allow the sale of stolen proper- 

 ty in this State provided it was. stolen in 

 some other State, he would not think the 

 moral issue entered into the question. This 

 question he declined to answer. 



After the market men had occupied 2 

 days Mr. George H. Mackay rose to speak 

 on our side of the question and Secretary 

 Swift moved that Mr. Mackay be limited 

 to 4 minutes! This plainly indicates the 

 narrowness and the prejudice of this man's 

 mind. His motion was not entertained by 

 the chairman. (The senate chairman was 

 presiding at this time). 



On the question of principle I cited 

 Graves vs. Johnson, 156 Mass. 211. This 

 was an action brought to recover the price 

 of intoxicating liquors sold lawfully in 

 this state to a man from Maine, but for the 

 purpose of being resold in Maine contrary 

 to the law of that State. The question 

 raised was whether our courts should 

 take cognizance of the laws of a sister state, 

 the breach of whose laws the contract con- 

 templated. The court said: 



"Of course it would be possible for an 

 independent State to enforce all contracts 

 made and to be performed within its ter- 

 ritory, without regard to how much they 

 might contravene the policy of its neigh- 

 bor's laws; but in fact no state pursues such 

 a course of barbarous isolation." 



I argued that the enactment of a law, or 

 the allowing of a law to stand, which put 

 a premium on violations of the laws of a 

 sister State stood on the same plane ; and 

 I asked the committee, in view of the fact 

 that our Supreme Court had refused to ad- 

 judicate this Commonwealth into a state of 

 "barbarous isolation," that they should re- 

 fuse to legislate the Commonwealth into 

 the same position. But all to no purpose. 

 A majority of the committee had evidently 

 determined to stand by the game dealers 

 and it was impossible to shake them. 



The market men did not dare to tell 

 where their birds came from — not even 

 the state, though it was apparent they knew. 

 In fact, one of these men told me they knew 



