228 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



j April 7, 1887. 



bled over into the water with a chug. After recovering 

 the frog, upon examination no wound or bullet marks 

 could be found. Here was a mystery. It was discov- 

 ered, as the frog was held by the hind legs with head 

 down, something was dropping from his mouth. Inspec- 

 tion developed the fact that in the frog's stomach there 

 were fifty or sixty Flobert bullets. It appears that when 

 our Nimrod would shoot near the frog, the frog, taking 

 the ball for a fly, took it in. The spasmodic motion at 

 each discharge of the gun was simply the act of catching 

 flies. The bullets were too much for the frog ; they over- 

 loaded his stomach and tumbled him off the stump, and 

 our hunter got a frog. The only reason there was no 

 post mortem held on the woodcock was that it might 

 develop some unpleasant facts, for every one of the 

 fifteen men that shot of course declared that he hit him; 

 not only this, but it would have been no credit to the man 

 that finally bagged him had Iris body been found stuffed 

 with two and a half pounds of shot. The incident pro- 

 duced quite a good deal of merriment. In fact, these 

 meetiuo-s were all attended with much genuine sport. 

 There are doubts whether the subsequent meetings under 

 perfect organization are attended with as much genuine 



B *As'a result of these meetings the Columbia Shooting 

 Club was organized and successfully run for a number of 

 years under the leadership of Dr. William Shepard as 

 president, and C. H. Damsel as secretary. At first the 

 meetings were very largely attended by many of the best- 

 citizens as lookers on; often as many as two or three hun- 

 dred spectators were in attendance. Glass-ball shooting, 

 as conducted, was lively, and the contest often quite ex- 

 citing. About the time that glass-ball shooting was at 

 the highest pitch, the Ligowsky clay-pigeon was intro- 

 duced. The pigeon was thick and very hard to break 

 when fairly hit; the trap worked badly and the sport ap- 

 peared to lose life and activity. From the introduction 

 of the clay-pigeon the date of the gradual decline of 

 interest in the club shoots commenced. The flight of the 

 clay device more nearly resembled the flight of living 

 birds, but the uncertainty of breaking when hit, together 

 with the indifferent working of the traps, was the trouble. 

 However, the decline and lack of interest is not all to be 

 attributed to the introduction of the new target, but to 

 the fact that most all organizations of a similar nature 

 appear to have spasmodic periods of ups and downs. The 

 inU-oductiou of the new target in its yet imperfect form 

 occurred about the time of one of the natural ebbs of the 

 organization, and did much to hasten the decline. About 

 two or three years ago the club was again reorganized 

 under very favorable" auspices and has flourished ever 

 since. The Ligowsky clay-pigeon trap has been much 

 improved, others have been introduced, the American 

 clay bird and the blue rock, also quite a number of others, 

 all of which are good and successful targets. The pros- 

 perity of the club has been wonderful, in fact, it carries 

 on the rolls the largest membership of any shooting club 

 in the State. 



In conclusion. I am proud to say that one of the grand- 

 est acts of the club was the tribute of honor paid to one 

 of the originators of the club, who has sometime since 

 gone to the happy hunting ground. It certainly was a 

 befitting tribute to the memory of our deceased noble 

 comrade, Josiah Sherman, that 'the club was named in 

 his honor the Sherman Gun Club. 



THE MAINE COMMISSIONER CHARGES. 



Specially Reported for Forest and Stream. 

 ^THE die is cast. The hearing of the charges against 

 X the Maine, fish and game commissioners is ovar, and 

 from all that can be. learned a greater farce was never 

 foisted upon the attention of the Governor of a State, 

 The enemies of Messrs. Stilwell and Stanley gathered in 

 a body at the State House at Augusta, March 29. There 

 was a large delegation from North Franklin present, and 

 even the merchants of Boston and Portland were repre- 

 sented, as well as a delegate or two from New Haven. 

 Mr. Harmon's friends were present, but from the begin- 

 ning of the hearing before the Governor and Council it 

 was evident that the case of the complainants rested on 

 Mr. Harmon and his grievances. The opening was made 

 by Lawyer Spear, aided by Lawyer Timberlake. He 

 labored hard to make out a case, but it was evident, after 

 he had tried over an hour and a half, that he felt that he 

 had no case. He brought great stress on the annual re- 

 ports of the commissioners, and endeavored to make out, 

 by reading detached paragraphs, that those gentlemen 

 were usurping authority and trying to stimulate wrong- 

 ful legislation. In his opening, Lawyer Spear proposed 

 that in years past — way back in the seventies — this thing 

 or that thing had been done. But here Mr. "Vose, of the 

 law firm of Barker, Vose & Barker, objected, and desired 

 to know just how far back this hearing was to extend; 

 since these commissioners had several times been reap- 

 pointed, once each within a year or two, and that if the 

 eminent counsel on the other side proposed to try Stilwell 

 and Stanley of goneby days, then the defense were pre- 

 pared to show that they were not the same officers in the 

 eye of the law as when ffust appointed. If the hearing was 

 to go back to Adam, then the counsel for the defense 

 would like to know it. He would ask His Excellency and 

 the members of the Council to decide how far back such 

 a hearing could go. Mr. Vose thought it should not go 

 back of a reappointment, certainly not back of the statute 

 of limitations. Here was a point for which evidently the 

 accusation was not prepared. The Governor and Council 

 withdrew for deliberation and came in with the decision 

 that they could not hear charges back of the statute of 

 limitation — six years. This disarmed the accusation of 

 a great proportion of its charges, but the grievances of 

 Gen. Harmon were left, and it was attempted to make 

 all possible capital out of this part of the case. Gen. Har- 

 mon was sworn and put upon the stand. He testified in the 

 direct examination to the killing of the deer on that Sun- 

 day morning, precisely as has so many times been gone over 

 in the papers. In the cross-examination he admitted the 

 packing up of the deer and taking it out of the State— a 

 direct violation of the non-transportation law. He also 

 admitted all the features of the case out of which so much 

 discussion has grown. His counsel attempted to put in 

 articles from the Forest and Stream and other papers, 

 and before it could be stopped the first account of the 

 killing of the deer ever published in that paper was read. 

 But His Excellency decided that the case was not to be 

 tried on the merits of newspaper statements or reports. 

 A Mr. Hewey, from Rangeley, with his eon, were put 



upon the stand to testify to the wrongful shipment of 

 trout eggs to New York. Mr. Hewey had been employed 

 by Commissioner Stanley to take charge of the hatching 

 house at Rangeley Lake. But before the trial was over 

 it was shownconclusively that the State did not own the 

 hatching house nor the trout eggs which it was expected 

 to show that Mr. Stanley had unlawfully sold out of the 

 State, It came out that the landlocked salmon eggs 

 which did belong to the State had been more liberally 

 distributed in the Rangeley Lake than in any other 

 waters; in fact, that a very large proportion of all the eggs 

 of that description ever hatched by the State had been 

 turned loose in those waters. Hence the charge that the 

 Commissioners had failed to properly restock the great 

 Rangeley waters fell to the ground. 



The charge of an attempt to suborn a witness by Mr. 

 Stanley was the gravest one of the whole list, and yet it 

 proved to be the most harmless in point of fact. The 

 letter which Mr, Stanley wrote to his cousin, Mr. Page, 

 was produced, and the force of it appeared in the clos- 

 ing arguments of Mr. Barker. 



The opening for the defense was made by the Hon. G. 

 D. Bisbee, of Buckfield, the same gentleman who de- 

 fended Mr. Stilwell iu the celebrated trial at Bangor, 

 where Mr. Harmon succeeded in getting a verdict of $1.25 

 worth of grievance. By the way, the charge of Judge 

 Peters, the Chief Justice of Maine, to that jury is a docu- 

 ment worthy of publication in the Forest and Stream 

 as a part of the history of fish and game protection in 

 this country. Mr. Bisbee's argument, as will appear from 

 the abstract below, laid out the case in its full light. It 

 showed the animus of the prosecution against those faith- 

 ful officers, the Fish and Game Commissioners. Ja<"k 

 Darling was there in the council chamber. Mr. Bisbee 

 dared them to put him on the stand. Darling spoke up 

 and asked them to put him on the stand, but they did not 

 do it. 



We give the gist of the arguments from the official 

 stenographer's reports specially transcribed for the Forest 

 and Stream. Mr. Bisbee said: 



It is our conviction that, as the testimony now stands, (lie 

 complainant has not made out a case, and if we were in a 

 court of law we should move for a non-suit. But when we 

 consider the importance of this matter to the commissioners 

 on fish and game, and to the great interests which they have 

 been selected to guard, we feel that perhaps we should fail 

 in our duty did we neglect to make an explanation of some 

 of the matters which nave been introduced. The State of 

 Maine to-day occupies a prominent position in this country 

 as a summer resort. It may not be egotism in me, a native 

 bora citizen of the Commonwealth, to say that there, is no 

 State in this whole country which surpasses this iu the ex- 

 cellence of its seu coast, its mountains, its great ponds and 

 lakes, and its inland fisheries, and from my knowledge of 

 the history of the law and the fish and game interests of the 

 State i feel that in this movement there is something beyond 

 the mere removal from ol!lce of these two gentlemen. We 

 feel that there is an animus in this proceeding. We under- 

 stand that certain wealthy gentlemen from abroad have 

 been in the habit of violating our fish and game law, and I 

 might properly term them poachers, though I do not wish to 

 use that term in any offensive sense. Hut it, is very natural 

 that they should desire to carry away with them a trophy, 

 and they do not allow a fine of §40 to interfere with the kill- 

 ing of a deer at the first opportunity. Take this very associa- 

 tion of gentlemen who occupy Lake Point Cottage, rep- 

 resenting, as I understand, more than half a million of 

 dollars, and I don't know but that I slander them when 1 

 place it below five or six millions. Now what is the mere 

 pittance of £40 to one of those gentlemen who wants to carry 

 Jiome a deer? if is this interest that is behind this prosccu- 

 tion. They are afraid of the commissioners, who are bent 

 upon a rigid enforcement of the law, and their desire is to 

 get riil of them, and so I say that the great interests of fish 

 and game would suffer far beyond the results of the immed- 

 iate present. 



The. case we are called upon to meet is a most novel one. 

 We find charges preferred against our fish commissioners by 

 one George M. Harmon of New Haven, Conn. We find that 

 these commissioners have occupied their respective positions 

 twel ve or fourteen years, and the citizens of Maine are so 

 w ell s.aislied with the manner in which the duties of those 

 gentlemen has been performed that no resident of the State 

 comes forward to prefer a charge. A man comes from abroad 

 and asks you to dismiss these faithful officers and turn them 

 out in disgrace. Without any desire to abuse Mr. Harmon 

 in any manner, I wish to review briefly his case before we 

 are called upon to put in any testimony. The statute pro- 

 hibits the killing, hunting or destroying of any deer between 

 the first days of January and October under a penalty of 

 §40. Mr. Harmon attempts to justify his conscience 'and 

 square his testimony by the oath he has taken by the fact 

 that he did not kill a deer. But I submit to you gentlemen 

 that the hunting of deer is prohibited, and further, when he 

 got into that boat on that Sabbath morning, as he says at 

 the instance of the man Thresher, to go in pursuit of that 

 animal, whether he was not hunting a deer, ft is too late 

 for him to raise that question, for it has been before the 

 court and we shall show you what the law is as laid down 

 by the Chief Justice. Harmon took his guide and went out 

 on to that lake, and he says he had his thoughts about him. 

 fie undertakes to make his guide the scapegoat by saying 

 he did not want to go, but finally wont at the urgent solici- 

 tation of that gentleman, lie says they started in company 

 with some eight or ten other boats from the Mountain View 

 House, and, iu substauce, that the powerful arms of 

 Thresher shot his boat ahead and that he arrived at the 

 deer first, and, in substance, he, undertakes to make you 

 believe, gentlemen, that without a moment's warning 

 fbresher took bis oar ami struck thai deer over the 

 head before he knew what was g.iug on. Now, I do 

 not, think he means to tell a lie, because if he 

 did he would tell one that would be believed: but 

 I think he got mixed up and excited about it and didn't 

 know exactly what he was telling. It is unreasonable to 

 suppose that, in that wild race, of ttie eight or ten boats that 

 participated, this boat going at a speed from the powerful 

 stroke of George Thresher, which outstripped all the rest, 

 the oarsman could suddeuly stop, raise his oar and strike so 

 quickly over th<! head the swiftly swimming deer that the 

 man managing the boat didn't know what was going on. 

 Yet that is the way Mr. Harmon wouldhave you und' rat and 

 it occurred. If he went out there to take that deer alive why 

 didn't lie throw the anchor rope over his head ami take him 

 without injury? He didn't do that. It seems that some- 

 thing else was operating in their minds. Thresher dealt the 

 animal such a blow that Harmon, as he says, was satisfied 

 that it was disabled and would probably die; and what did 

 this gentle, kind-hearted Harmon do but advise Thresher to 

 cut its throat, and it was done. It has been said that a 

 guilty conscience needs no accuser. What did Harmon do? 

 The instant the throat of that deer was cut he t aimed round 

 and saw tho steamer, and it occurred to him that the killing 

 of a Maine deer on Sunday was a thing for which Connecti- 

 cut money could atone, and so he held up his hand and the 

 boat stopped, lie gave to the captain §40, and told him to 

 go up to the house of Huntoon, who ho thought was a 

 warden, and tell him, "Here's §10 to pay for killing a deer 

 out in Rangeley Lake." And he wanted the captain to im- 



press upon the warden the idea that that was going to settle 

 this matter against him and Mr. Thresher. Now, thatis not 

 t he way we do business down here in Maine. It is true that 

 Harmon had surh an influence over that justice that he did 

 do business that way, as is evidenced by the record which is 

 in substance that Harmon plead guilty, and being satisfied 

 thatjie had paid over $£0 to Huntoon, he discharged him. 

 What business had he to do that? He should have adjudged 

 him guilty and sentenced him to a payment of the fine and 

 costs. Did Harmon pay §10 and costs? Not at all; and we 

 shall show you by an inspection cf the record that there was 

 in fact no judgment. 



Now, gentlemen, up to this time Harmon had never seen 

 Mr. Stilwell and I do not think he had ever seen Mr. Stan- 

 ley. That is the state of affairs as we find them up to that 

 time. Now what further? Either Harmon or this steam- 

 boat captain attempted to perpetrate a fraud on the warden, 

 for they paid him only §20, and the law is that §20 shall go 

 to the State, ami *2u to the complainant. Whether they were 

 going to cheat Huntoon or the State I do not know: hut all 

 the money that went into the hands of the warden when they 

 attempted to settle up was §20. Now they have put on the 

 stand hi re the old gentleman Hewey who has testified that 

 he with Stephen Lowell, in the employ of Harmon, dressed 

 the deer and put it in Harmon's ice house, and that they 

 afterward boxed it up and put it with Harmon's baggEge. 

 It appears from the testimony of Harmon himself thatitwas 

 carried out of the State, a part being left in Boston and the 

 remainder carried to New Haven. Now they say that they 

 supposed they had a right to carry this deer away because 

 they had paid* a penalty for its destruction. But the statutes 

 provide a penalty of §40 for transporting deer from place to 

 place in close time: that was another violation of law by Mr. 

 Harmon. In addition to these offenses of killing and trans- 

 porting a deer in close time he had violated the statute 

 which prohibits the hunting or killing of game on the Sab 

 bath. Now the fact of these violations of the law was com- 

 municated to the commissioners, and it, was also represented 

 to them that, a fine of only §40 had been paid. No costs had 

 beBn paid in t he case which an attempt was made to settle, 

 and Mr. Stiiv.cll felt, as his letter states [B.], that while 

 Harmon was a total stranger to him, yet if he, a rich and in- 

 fluential man. had voluntarily and deliberately broken the 

 laws of the State, and had se easily put his hand into his 

 pocket, taken out $40, sent §20 of it to the warden and left 

 the other in the hands of the messenger, that the penalty in 

 that case as paid was not adequate punishment, and that 

 such a way of doing business in Maine ought not to be toler- 

 ated. You can readily see that it was an improper enforce- 

 ment of the law. 



We do not issue licenses to kill our deer. We say: "You 

 shall not kill them during certain seasons of the year, aud 

 if you do it you shall be liable to a penalty. If you transport 

 deer you shall be liable to a penalty for that." Then there 

 is another section that has never been construed by the 

 court, which provides that if one kills any game on Sunday 

 be shall be liable for the same penalty that he would be for 

 killing at any other time. Mr. Stilwell examined the law, 

 and looking at it carefully, came to the conclusion that Har- 

 mon was guilty of three offenses under the game laws. In 

 the meantime Harmon had heard of the intention to prose- 

 cute him .and he wrote the warden. Just think of it, gentle- 

 men, a man in Connecticut — 1 don't care whether he had 

 been Adjutant>General of that State or what other position 

 he held— writing down here to a man appointed by the Gov- 

 ernor and Council to guard the fish and game of the State of 

 Maine, and threatening him as we shall show by the "letter 

 which we shall put into the case, telling him that he had con- 

 sulted his couusel and saying in substance, "If you dare to 

 lay hands on me again I will take care of you," This Mr. 

 Harmon in that same letter dared to write a warden of this 

 State that if they proceeded against him he would find means 

 to get even with Stilwell through the next Legislature. 

 Now I want you to examine the letter [A.] carefully and see 

 whether Stilwell is persecuting Harmon or Harmon is fol- 

 lowing Stilwell. I tell you, gentlemen, the audacity of that 

 man Harmon was never equalled in this State— threatening 

 the men appointed to enforce our fish and game laws that if 

 they did their duty he would come in here through his 

 acquaintances and his money and break these men down 

 and get, even with them through the next Legislature. And 

 that is how this case comes here. 



Now Huntoon took that letter and sentit to Stilwell with 

 his indorsement on it and asking what he should do. Stil- 

 well wrote back the letters you have read, and I submit to 

 you whether they show malice. Hegoeson deliberately and 

 says he is not acquainted with Harmon, but that he has no 

 doubt that gentleman was as much interested to have the 

 law enforced as any man, and, in substance, however rich he 

 might be, he should be made to pay the penalties to which 

 he had become liable just as much as the humblest citizen 

 of the state. And Mr. Stillwell therein pointed out to Hun- 

 toon just what he understood the law to be; that Harmon 

 was guilty of three offenses, one for hunting deer in close 

 time, one for transporting deer from place to place and 

 another for killing a deer on Sunday. And then he suggests 

 in that letter to Huntoon t hat if Harmon submits himself to 

 prosecution and pays the penalty for killing the deer on 

 Sunday that perhaps they had better let up on the one for 

 t transportation. And still they call that malicious and go 

 on to charge that the Commissioners are partial and mali- 

 cious in the enforcement of the laws. He had parted with 

 §40 for the destruction of the deer, was discharged by the 

 magistrate on the charge of killing a deer on Sunday and 

 never was arrested for transporting the animal, and as he 

 now admits, did not know until recently that a warrant was 

 ever issued against him for the last offense. So it seems 

 to me this disposesof thecharge of malieeiu connection with 

 these prosecutions of Harmon. The evidence all goes to 

 show that Mr. Stilwell in these prosecutions acted for the 

 best interests of the State, and in accordance with the law 

 as he understood it, 



And here the matter would have ended but for the malice 

 of Harmon. He turns round and sues both Stilwell and 

 Huntoon for $1,000 for malicious prosecution, the Chief 

 . Justice of the State presiding at the trial in Penobscot 

 county. Harmon set out in his writ great injury to his 

 feelings and character, but the result was a verdict of one 

 dollar, which entitled him to twenty-five cents costs. We 

 believed f hat verdict wrong, and you will see by the charge 

 of the judge which we shall put into the case, that it was 

 wrong." We believed that we could get. it set aside, but so 

 far as dollars and cents were concerned thought it better to 

 pay the §1*25, which Mr. Stilwell did. Now,"here again the 

 toattsr would have stopped, but Harmon was not satisfied, 

 lie was the persecutor anil not Stilwell. You will find in 

 one of the depositions here as good evideuec of this that he 

 stated to Huntoon that he had no hard feelings against him 

 and di<l not w ish to do anything to his injury, but he was 

 going to punish "that old cuss Stilwell." He. wanted to 

 yet at him some way. He did get at "that old cuss Stil- 

 well" down in Penobscot county and obtained a verdict tor 

 t he munificent sum of one dollar, which carried for him 

 twenty-five cents cost. 



Then what did this gentleman, so anxious to comply with 

 i he law, do? He sued those gentlemen to recover back that 

 §40, §20 of which had already been paid into the State 

 treasury. Now, if he was so willing to abide by our law as 

 he would have you believe, why did he bring back that suit 

 to get back that penaltv? He sued those gentlemen among 

 a people who, it is said, are terribly incensed against these 

 wardens, and as the record shows, there was a verdict in 

 favor of Stilwell, but against Huntoon, owing to some in- 

 firmity in the original prosecution. Now, gentlemen, in my 

 opinion that disposes of this part of the case. 



