Forest and Stream. 



A Weekly Journal of the Rod and Gun. 



Terms, U a Year. 10 Ots. a Copt, t 

 Six Months, $2. f 



NEW YORK, DECEMBER 24, 1891. 



( VOL. XXXVII.-No. 33, 

 I No. 318 Broadway, New ^ork. 



For Prospectus and Advertising Rates see Page 459. 



GEOBaE B. QBINNELL, 

 4 FTER a brief illness, developing into pneumonia, 

 George B. Grinnell passed away from earth, on the 

 morning of Saturday, Dec. 19, at his home in Audubon 

 Park. His age was 68. 



Born in Greenfield, Mass., in 1823, Mr. Grinnell came 

 of an old New England family, and from it he inherited 

 those high traits of character which in after years won for 

 him the regard of the commercial world. He was a resi- 

 dent of New York city for nearly fifty years, and was for 

 a long period one of its prominent merchants. In 1873 

 he retired from active business life to his home in Audubon 

 Park, in this city. 



Mr. Grinnell was one of the trustees of the Forest and 

 Stream Publishing Company, of which his son, George 

 Bird Grinnell, is president. He had a warm interest in 

 this journal and its prosperity. The sense of their loss 

 felt by his associates may not be told in words; but with 

 the tender sorrow they feel will always be mingled the 

 grateful memory of the rare personal qualities which 

 endeared him to them. 



OVB BOYHOOD NUMBEB. 



THE FOKEST AND Steeam of Jan. 7 (the first issue of 

 the enlarged paper) will be the Boyhood Number. 

 A generous proportion of its pages will be filled with 

 reminiscent chat and story by men whose souls have not 

 been soured by age nor their sunny memories of youth- 

 ful days with rod and gun obliterated by the passing 

 years. Here is a partial list of the papers, and ac in- 

 viting one it is: 

 Episodes in tlie Life of a Bad Boy— Podgebs. 

 Cleaning the Old Gun— Eowland E. Robinson. 

 A Snap-Shot— A Senioe Snapper. 

 "Us Boys"— H. P. Ufpoed. ^ 

 Nights with the Coons— L. S. Eddins. 

 My First Repeater— Nutmeg. 

 Long Wash— Chaeles H. Shinn. 

 Ill Old Times— Sakdpath. 

 Was It Bewitched 2— Oein Belknap. 

 Old Times and New— Didymtjs. 

 My First Deer Hunt— Myeon Cooley. 

 Angling Annals- S. C. C. 

 The Trout I Lost— Hunter. 

 Trout Cunning— B. F. Henley. 

 A Boy's Tronhles— G. L. 

 My First Wild Turkey— C. C. R. 

 Ill the Fifties— Nutmeg. 

 A Reminiscence- Once a Boy, 

 My First Shooting Lesson— W. Townsejjd. 



WINTEB ■ VOICES, 



OUT of her sleep nature yet gives forth voices betok- 

 ening that life abides beneath the semblance of 

 death, that her warm heart still beats under the white 

 shroud that enfolds her rigid breast. 



A smothered tinkle as of muffled bells comes up from 

 the streams through their double roofing of snow and ice, 

 and the frozen pulse of the trees complain of its thrall- 

 dom with a resonant twang as of a strained cord snapped 

 asunder. 



Beneath their frozen plains, the lakes bewail their im- 

 prisonment with hollow moans that awaken a wild and 

 mournful chorus of echoes from sleeping shores that 

 answer now no caress of ripples nor angry stroke of 

 waves nor dip and splash of oar and paddle. 



The breeze stirs leafless trees and shaggy evergreens to 

 a murmur that is sweet, if sadder than they gave it, in 

 the leafy days of summer, when it bore the perfume of 

 flowers ailfl the odor of green fields, and one may imagine 

 the spirit of springtime and summer lingers among the 

 naked boughs, voicing memory and hope. 



Amid all the desolation of their woodland haunts the 

 squirrels chatter their delight in windless days of sun- 

 shine and scoff at biting cold and wintry blasts. The 

 nuthatch winds his tiny trumpet, the titmouse pipes his 

 cheery note, the jay tries the innumerable tricks of his 

 uumusical voice, and from their rollicking flight athwart 



the wavering slant of snowflakes drifts the creaking 

 twitter of buntings. 



The sharp, resonant strokes of the woodmaus* axe and 

 the groaning downfall of the monarchs that it lays low, 

 the shouts of teamsters, the occasional report of a gun, 

 the various sounds of distant farmstead life, the jangle 

 of sleigh bells on far-off highways, the rumbling roar of 

 a railroad train rushing and panting along its iron path, 

 and the bellowing of its far-echoed signals, all proclaim 

 how busily affairs of life and pleasure still go on while 

 the summer-wearied earth lies wrapped in her winter 



Night, stealing upon her in dusky pallor, under cloudy 

 skies, or silvering her face with moonbeams and starlight, 

 brings other and wilder voices. Solemnly the unearthly 

 trumpet of the owl resounds from his woodland hermi- 

 tage, the foxes' gasping bark, wild and uncanny, marks 

 at intervals his wayward course across the frozen fields 

 on some errand of love or freebooting, and swelling and 

 falling with puff and lapse of the night wind, as mourn- 

 ful and lonesome as the voice of a vagrant spirit, comes 

 from the mountain ridges the baying of a hound, hunt- 

 ing alone and unheeded, while his master basks in the 

 comfort of his fireside. 



JUBISDICTION OVEB THE LAKES. 



WE publish here the opinion of the Supreme Court of 

 Pennsylvania, delivered by Mr. Justice Gordon, 

 March 30, 1885, in the case brought to test the extent of 

 jurisdiction of the State of Pennsylvania over the waters 

 of Lake Erie. In 1884 the strife between the gill-net and 

 pound-net fishermen led to prohibitive legislation, first 

 against the pound-nets, which were operated along the 

 shore, while the gill-nets which were set at a greater 

 distance than three miles from the land were allowed to 

 continue their vocation. The pound-net fishermen then 

 secured legislation against gill-netting beyond the three- 

 mile limit, and in the suit which followed, the authority 

 of the State over the waters of Lake Erie to the treaty 

 line was aflirmed by the Court of Quarter Sessions. The 

 case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, where the 

 decision of the lower court was sustained. 



The only rights which the States have surrendered to 

 the general Government extend to admiralty and mari- 

 time cases. The fishery is regulated by the State. We 

 have, therefore, along the chain of Great Lakes a body 

 of waters controlled to their middle line by the States, 

 while the other half is under the jurisdiction of Canada; 

 but concurrent legislation in the interests of the fisheries 

 cannot originate between the States and Canada jointly, 

 for no agreement would be binding upon the latter 

 government as against a commonwealth, which has not 

 the treaty-making power. This is the present cause of 

 serious difficulty in the establishment and operation by 

 the United States of a fish hatchery in the State of New 

 York to stock the waters of Lake Ontario. In the reso- 

 lution of Congress carrying an appropriation for such a 

 hatchery the stipulation was made that the U. S. Fish 

 Commissioner must first be satisfied that "New York has 

 taken efficient measures for the regulation of periods for 

 fishing and for proper protection of fish in the spawning 

 season in the waters of northern New York." Just how 

 New York or any other State is to arrive at concerted 

 action with Canada, except through the intervention of 

 the general Government, is hard to see; but there exists 

 a strong and perfectly natural public sentiment in most 

 of the States bordering on the Lakes against surrender- 

 ing to the Government such control of the fishery as may 

 be thought necessary for the success of artificial stocking 

 of the waters. The alternative is to prevail upon the 

 Canadian Government to give up to the Provinces control 

 of the Lake waters ceded to them and place them on the 

 same footing in fishery matters as the States. At the 

 present time there is conflict between the provincial and 

 the federal laws in some of the Canadian provinces, and 

 until this is reconciled there is little hope of arriving at 

 a satisfactory basis for flsh protective legislation. 



DUNLAP VS. THE COMMONWEALTH. 



Me. Justicb Gokdon delivered the opinion of the court March 

 30, 1885, as follows: 



The only question in this case is one of jurisdiction, for the 40th 

 section of the Act of June 3, 1878, in express terms provides that 

 its provisions shall not apply to any stream forming the boundary 

 liije between this State and any other having a concurrent juris- 

 diction over such stream, nor any lake partly -within the boundary 

 thereof. Hence, without troubling ourselves about the question 

 of repeal by implication, we conclude with the learned judge of 



the lower court, that the local Act of May 16, 1878, is operative if 

 the State of Pennsylvania has jurisdiction over any part of Lake 

 Erie. But on this subject we have no doubt whatever; we are, 

 indeed, surprised that snch a question should have been raised in 

 the lower court, and have been thought worthy of discussion in 

 this court. 



When the Government of the United States ceded to Pennsyl- 

 vaula the triangular tract on Lake Erie it retained nothing, and 

 in 1he resolution of cession it was expressly declared that the laws 

 and public acts of the said State should extend to every part of 

 said tract, to all interests and intents and purposes as if the same 

 had been within the charter bounds of the said State. But had it 

 been originally within the charter bounds of the State there could 

 be no doubt about its jurisdiction over the adjacent waters of the 

 lake. It was only after the Act of Congress of Feb. 26, 1815, that 

 even an admiralty jurisdiction was claimed for the United States 

 over the waters of the Lakes, and the constitutionality of that 

 Act was seriously doubted until it was settled in 1851 by the 

 »Supre"me Court in the ease of the propeller Genesee Chief vs. 

 Fitzhugh, 12 How., 443. Previously to this time the doctrine was 

 held, as established by the case of Thomas Jefferson, 10 Wheat., 

 138, and the steamboat Orleans vs. Phoebus, 11 Pet., 175, that 

 the jurisdiction did not extend beyond tidewatei'. It is, therefor'e, 

 obvious that previous to the Act of 1845 the courts of the States 

 bordering on the Great Lakes must, ex nscet^sltate, have had juris- 

 diction over them to the treaty line, for it could not be that they 

 were altogether without law, and that crimes of every character 

 could be committed thereon with impunity. 



Indeed we must regard the decision in the two leases last above 

 cited as declarative of the exclusive jurisdiction of the States, 

 while the case of the Genesee Chief vs. Fitzhugh put the juris- 

 diction of those States bordering on or having in them navigable 

 rivers or lakes on precisely the same footing as those bordering 

 on the seaboard. But the general jurisdiction of these over their 

 adjacent tidewaters has never been doubted. There is not now, 

 and never has been, any room for such doubt. The States, im- 

 mediately before the adoption of the Federal Constitution, were 

 independent sovereignties, and as such had right over the seas of 

 their coasts to the extent of a marine league from the shores. 

 Upon the adoption of that Constitution there was a partial 

 surrender of that right. Fin that it was provided the judicial 

 power of the Federal Courts should extend to all admiralty and 

 maritime cases. Nevertheless, as was said by Mr. Chief Justice 

 Marshall in the case of the United ^States v, Bevans, 3 Wheat, 

 336, "The general jurisdiction over the place, subject to this grant 

 ot power, adheres to the territory as a portion of sovereignty not 

 yet given away." 



Hence, in the case cited, it was held that where a homicide had 

 been committed by a marine on board a United States ship of 

 war anchored in the Boston harbor, the courts of Massachusetts 

 had power to arrest and try the offender, and this not because 

 Congress had not the power by its legislation to bring a crime thus 

 committed within the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, but 

 because it had not so legislated. As an illustration of the power 

 of a State to enforce its laws over its tidewaters, notwithstanding 

 the maritime jurisdiction of the United States, the learned Chief 

 Justice asks the question: If two citizens of Massachusetts should 

 step into the shallow water, when the tide flows, and fight a duel, 

 are they not within the jurisdiction and punishable by the laws of 

 that Sta<e? There can, of course, be but one answer to a question 

 of this kind. Yet this question may be just as pertinently put 

 with reference to the waters of Lake Erie. In support of this line 

 of argument may be cited the language of Mr. Chief Justice Taney 

 in the case of Martin ef al. vs. The Lessee of Waddell, 16 Pet., 

 367. that when the revolution took place the Slates themselves 

 became sovereign, and as such possessed the absolute right over 

 all their navigable waters and the soils under them, and that they 

 are, even now, so held subject to the rights surrendered by the 

 Constitution to the General Government. The case of Dunham 

 vs. Lamphere, 3 Gray, 368, though not of equal authority as the 

 cases above cited, is undoubtedly sound law, and direct in point 

 It was there held by an act regulating the time and manner of 

 taking fish in the sea, within a mile of the shore is within the 

 aiithority of the State Legislature and binding on the citizens of 

 other States and on vessels enrolled and licensed as fishing ves- 

 sels under the laws of the United States. One of the authorities 

 cited in support of this ruling is Bennett vs. Boggs, Bald., 60, 

 where it was held that a law of Delaware prohibiting the use of a 

 gilling net In tide waters within the limits of the State was valid, 

 and that the Legislature had power to regulate the fisheries in the 

 Delaware by the prohibition of a common law right. 



Thus, from what has been shown, it follows: (1) By the act of 

 cession the jurisdiction of Pennsylvania over the waters of Lake 

 Erie, adjacent to the ceded territory, is the same as though that 

 territory had been embraced in the original charter to William 

 Penn. (3) That the legislative powers of this Commonwealth 

 over these waters are absolute, except so far as they may be 

 restrained by Congress for the purpose of carrying into effect the 

 admiralty and maritime laws of the United States; and (3), the 

 consequent of the above propositions, the jurisdiction of the Com- 

 monwealth to regulate fisheries in these waters, in the absence ot 

 any Act of the Federal Legislaiure abridging it, is plenary and 

 cannot be called in question by any other power short of the 

 Government of the United States. The judgment of the Court 

 of Quarter Sessions Is affirmed. 



If all deer hunters blew their horns as loudly in the 

 woods as some of them do after coming out, fewer of 

 them would be shot by their fellow men who take them 

 for game. 



The enlarged Forest and Steeam will be a better 

 paper in all the departments, for we shall have more 

 room for discussing the several phases of our special field. 



