Aug. 18, 1894.] 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
139 
in a single day. Shame on such sport! ! There is no 
manliness nor true sport connected with it. I hope an- 
other article of the kind may never appear in "our paper," 
except to condemn it, as it should be. 
This screed is not written because the writer is, or ex- 
pects to be a sufferer from the greed of the "trout bog," 
"nett' r," market-shooter" or "pot-hunter;" for his shoot- 
ing days are back numbers. Although he has done a 
fair amount of tramping and shooting — in the past sixty- 
five years — he is consoled with the fact that never but 
once has he been guilty of spring shooting, and that more 
than twenty years ago — when but three ducks fell before 
his gun, and one of them was carried off by an eagle 
before he could retrieve it. 
With the killing of game of all kinds strictly prohibited, 
and stopped during the mating, rearing and close season, 
in a few years there will be enough for all, of fur, fin and 
feather. Let the good begun work go on! J. H. D. 
Poughompsie, August, 1894. 
MOOSE HUNTING AND MOOSE HUNTERS 
As the open Reason for large game draws near, sports- 
men are looking forward to hunting trips. Many of them 
have tried unsuccessfully season after season to kill a bull 
moose. Some of them hesitate on account of the pros- 
pective hard work such a trip entails. Others in the pres- 
ent financial condition of business are deterred on account 
of the expense. 
My two first hunting trips after moose were most de- 
cided failures. I worked hard and hunted faithfully, over 
large tracts of unbroken wildernpss, which had been 
represented to me as being the home of the moose. When 
I had hunted for six weeks, most of the time on good 
tracking snow, and failed even to see a single track of the 
game I wanted, I thought it time to try a different locality. 
For three seasons in succession I was successful, killing a 
moose each, year, and having chances to kill more. 
It is well sometimes not to believe all you hear about 
the abundance of moose in certain regions. Interested 
parties axe apt to exaggerate. During the rutting season 
in October a bull moose will travel a great deal, and his 
tracks will remain. Where fresh tracks at this season are 
seen on a bog in a region where a moose is seldom seen or 
killed, it is hardly a proof that it is a good place to hunt 
for such game. The tracks are positive evidence that he 
has been there, but when you see them he is very likely 
to be ten miles or more away, and still traveling. On a 
certain trail between two lakes, which is traveled over by 
numerous parties, the tracts of a large moose are seen 
every season. In fact, they are there with such unfailing 
regularity that it suggests they were purposely made. 
Almost any one could take the foot of a moose and in a 
few moments make a good many tracks. 
I am not interested in any hunting camp or guide in 
any pecuniary sense, but I know that in certain localities 
and with certain guides the chances of rinding the de- 
sired game are pretty good, I do not expect to kill 
another moose. I do not want one enough to pay for the 
time, trouble and expense of going where I should expect 
to find one. To the sportsman who has never killed the 
moose he longs for, the satisfaction of seeing his game 
fall, perhaps at the first shot, should fully compensate 
him for the previous hard work and disappointments. A 
friend who had worked hard for a number of seasons to 
kill a large bull, and who finally shot a fine one, wrote 
me, saying, "I cannot describe the feeling of satisfaction 
I experienced when my moose went down. It fully re- 
paid me for all my former disappointments. Should I 
kill half a dozen more even larger than this one, I could 
not feel the same." Often when looking at quite a large 
moose head I have, I say, "Well, I worked hard to get 
you, but you are worth it." 
Now, if I wanted to kill a moose I should try and do it 
as soon as possible and not put it off from year to year. 
Notwithstanding the protection of the game laws I hardly 
think moose are increasing, unless in some very remote 
place, which is hard to reach. The army of sportsmen is 
surely not growing less each year. Grounds which here- 
tofore have been little hunted are becoming better known 
and the moose will grow scarcer each year. We often 
read accounts (usually taken from local papers) of how 
moose are increasing, two or three having been recently 
seen in localities where there have been none for years. 
In my opinion the moose seen in such places are some 
which have been driven out of regions further back in 
the woods. A guide cruising about far back in the woods 
may find moose signs numerous, and either by hunting 
them himself or taking parties of sportsmen there, starts 
a good many of them, and as the moose have to go some- 
where and have the reputation of traveling long distances 
when started, it is not unlikely that some of them should 
stray into a region which for some years had been prac- 
tically without moose. I think that this will account for 
their presence in such places fully as well as the theory 
that they are increasing so fast that the woods are getting 
full of them. 
I have heard sportsmen say, "It is too expensive to go 
after moose; the guides charge too much; and very often 
we do not get anything except hard work for the money 
we spend." Now, there are guides and guides. I know 
of some I would not go with if I could hire them for fifty 
cents a day. Not that they are lacking in woodcraft, but 
because they have deliberately charged very high prices, 
with no intention whatever of trying to find game. 
Nearly all guides (good or otherwise) are poor men; and 
as there are sportsmen who go to the woods who are 
wealthy men and willing to spend money freely, it is only 
human nature that the guides love such parties. I have 
been with quite a number of guides, both white men and 
Indians, and never had trouble but once. This was on my 
first trip to the Adirondack Woods. After being out 
some three weeks, our three guides tried to play it on us, 
and refused to do what they had promised to do before 
starting. It took about five minutes to settle it; and their 
Iittle game was a complete failure. 
I know of an instance where a first-rate guide in every 
way had a man calling himself a sportsman, who kept 
saying, "I haven't much time, and want to do it all in a 
few days." He worked his guide for three days about as 
follows: He made him carry a very heavy pack from 
camp to camp, often many miles apart. Reaching a 
camp late in the afternoon, he would say, "Now I am 
tired and will take a nap. You cut some wood and get 
something for me to eat, and when it is ready wake me 
up. We will then take the boat and try the trout, and 
also take a jacklight and after dark try and get a deer." 
Then they would be out the greater part of the night. 
The guide, telling me about it afterward, said, "Any one 
who knows me knows I am willing to work, and do all I 
can for a man. I never worked as hard in my life; and 
on the afternoon of the third day I said to my man, 'Mr. 
— , we will pack up your things and to-morrow I will 
take you down the river.' 'I don't want to go,' was the 
reply. But as it was either go or stay alone in camp, he 
went." 
I always use my guides well and pay them well; and 
those I have been with always wanted me to go again 
with them. 
It is often asked: Why should a guide get so much per 
day for guiding hunting parties, when he will perhaps 
work in a lumber camp or chop cord wood for about half 
of what he charges for guiding? Often a guide will hear 
from several parties who all want his services at the same 
time, and as he can only go with one party at a time'the 
others do not go at all or engage some one else. Again, 
as it happened last year, parties will engage a guide many 
months in advance for the best part of the hunting sea- 
son : and perhaps a few weeks before it is time to start, 
something unforeseen will happen and they cannot make 
the trip. In the meantime the guide engaged has de- 
clined to engage with other parties who are able to go; 
and the result is that he gets nothing to do during the 
best part of the season. 
A guide I know got six moose, all bulls, last season, and 
spent only five days hunting them. The first bull he 
killed himself. Starting in the morning from where he 
lives, he reached his camp at night, hunted and killed 
the moose on the second day and on the third brought 
out the head and part of the meat. I saw the head and 
it was a fine one, the horns spreading 56in. with (as I re- 
member) 26 points. Now, had he taken a sportsman on 
such a trip, his wages would have amounted to $7.50 for 
the three days; yet he sold the head unmounted for $50. 
The guides also do a good deal of hard work, which is 
not considered by parties who engage them, fitting up 
camps, packing in grub and blankets, etc.; and often 
preparations are made taking two or three days of hard 
work for a party who fail to come. 
I often hear a man say, "I would like to kill a moose 
very much, and were I sure of getting one I would go 
almost anywhere and pay well for it." I know a guide 
who will, I think, guarantee you a chance; he has done 
so, and successfully, too. That is, he will warrant you a 
fair shot at a bull, if you will agree to pay him a certain 
sum and go where he wants you to and hunt for a reason- 
able length of time. Should he fail to give you the chance 
he will charge nothing for his services. Of couse he will 
not warrant that you will kill a moose, even if you get a 
very easy shot. He will give you the chance and you 
must do the rest. Some men would get so rattled at the 
sight of a bull that they could not hit a barn, much less a 
moose at 50yds. I stood once on the exact spot where a 
certain sportsman shot three times at a large bull standing 
broadside less than 40yds. away, and missed every shot. 
When any one gets such a chance as this and fails he 
might as well give it up; his case is hopeless. 
Dumbarton, N. H. C. M. STARK. 
THE MINNESOTA LAW UPHELD. 
From ihe St. Paul Pioneer-Press. 
Judge Collins yesterday handed down several de- 
cisions, among which were those in the celebrated game 
cases of the State against C. W. Rodman and R. E. Cobb, 
the commission men, and against the Northern Pacific 
Express Company. The decision affirms the orders of 
the lower court and remands the cases for judgment. He 
affirms also the constitutionality of the amended game 
laws. 
The defendants, Rodman and Cobb, were indicted for 
having in their possession more than five days after the 
end of the open season venison contrary to the provisions 
of G. L. 1891, Chapter 9, Sec. 11 as amended, G. L. 1898, 
Chapter 124, Sec. 9. Under the law the season for deer is 
only open from Nov. 1 to Nov. 20. The penalty for hav- 
ing deer meat in possession after the lapse of five days 
after the beginning of the closed season is not less than 
$50 nor more than $100, or not less than sixty days or more 
than ninety days' imprisonment for every animal had in 
possession. Upon the argument of demurrers to the in- 
dictments before Judge Willis in the District Court, it was 
admitted by the prosecution that the deer had been killed 
in the open season. The court having overruled the de- 
murrers, certified to the Supreme Court the following 
questions of law as having been raised on the argument 
and decided in favor of the State: 
"1. That Chapter 124 of the General Laws of 1893 is un- 
constitutional and void; 
"2. That the Legislature had not the power to make it 
an offense to have in possession birds, animals or fish dur- 
ing the closed season, which had been killed and reduced 
to possession during the open season; 
"3. That if the Legislature has this power it has not 
exercised it, and that this act does not make it an offense 
to have in possession during the closed season, birds ani- 
mals or fish which have been killed and reduced to pos- 
session during the open season; 
"4. That the act is void by reason of the excessive fine 
imposed by it; 
"5. That the indictment does not state a public offense." 
In the opinion Judge Collins points out that the same 
question is practically raised by the third and fifth proposi- 
tions, which go merely to the construction of the act. 
The contention of the defendant was that the act should 
be construed as prohibiting only the possession during 
the closed season of game unlawfully caught or killed. 
On this point Judge Collins holds that the language of 
the act is so clear as to leave no room for any such con- 
struction. 
He then points out that in the other three propositions 
the validity of the act is raised. The points made against 
the validity of the act by the defense were (1) that the 
Legislature has no power to make it an offense to have in 
possession during the closed season game lawfully killed 
and reduced to possession during the open season, especi- 
ally for the reason that it deprives a person of his prop- 
erty without due process of law. (2) The act violates the 
constitutional requirement that no law shall contain more 
than one subject which shall be expressed in its title. 
(3) That so far as it relates to punishment for having 
game in possession, the act is in violation of the Bill of 
Rights (State constitution Act 1, Sec. 5.), declaring that 
excessive fines shall not be imposed. 
The defense also declared that the act proceeds upon 
the plan of declaring all game and fish within the bound- 
aries to be its absolute property and providing, upon 
that basis, under what limitations persons may acquire a 
qualified right of property in it from the State. The de- 
fense contended that the State had no proprietary right 
in animals ferce natures and can acquire none by legisla- 
tion. 
Judge Collins holds that point raised is immaterial, as 
it is not necessary to resort to any such doctrine. He 
points out that it is the doctrine in this State that the 
ownership of wild animals is in the State not as proprie- 
tor, but m its sovereign capacity as the representative for 
the benefit of all its people in common. The preservation 
of such animals as are adapted to food pui-poses or other 
useful ends is a matter of public interest and is within 
the police power of the State, and to that end it may adopt 
any reasonable regulations, not only as to time and man- 
ner in which, such game may be taken or killed, but also 
imposing limitations upon the right of property in such 
game after it has been reduced to possession. Such limi- 
tations-deprive no person of his property except under 
the limitations imposed. The object of the act is to pre- 
serve the game from extinction, and the Legislature can 
pass reasonable laws to effect that end. 
All game laws proceed upon this principle, and their 
constitutionality has never been successfully assailed. 
Judge Collins also maintains that no court would be 
justified in declaring unreasonable the provisions limit- 
ing the time to five days after the commencement of the 
closed season, during which a person may lawfully re- 
tain possession of game lawfully obtained, and points out 
that if no limitation was imposed, frequent violations, 
without any probability of discovery, would be the result. 
The court also fails to discover any merit in the point 
that the subject of the amendatory act is not expressed in 
its title. 
In regard to the question of the imposition of excessive 
punishments the court points out the constitutional pro- 
vision was directed not so much against the amount or 
duration of the punishment as against the character of 
them. Moreover, our game law is not more severe in its 
penalties than those of other States, and their validity has 
rarely, if ever, been questioned. 
In the case against the Northern Pacific Express Com- 
pany the only point raised not covered in the other two 
cases was that the Legislature has not the power to pro- 
hibit, during the open season, the receiving by a common 
carrier for the purpose of transportation of fish which 
have been legally caught within the State. In other 
words, the claim is made that the act unlawfully inter- 
feres with interstate commerce. Judge Collins points out 
that the complete answer is that the fish had never become 
articles of commerce within the meaning contended for 
by the defense. Under the laws of the State they had, it 
is true, become private property, but of a limited charac- 
ter, one limitation being that they should not be shipped 
out of the State — i, e., should not become subject to inter- 
state commerce. The purpose is to prevent the depletion 
of game. 
The syllabi in the cases are as follows: 
Syllabi of the Cases. 
State of Minnesota, plaintiff, vs. C. W. Rodman, defend- 
ant, and State of Minnesota, plaintiff, vs. R. E. Cobb, 
defendant (two cases). Syllabus: 
1. General Laws 1891, Chap. 9, Sec. 11, as amended by 
General Laws 1893, Chap. 124, Stc. 9, construed as pro- 
hibiting the having in possession more than five days after 
the commencement of the closed season certain kinds of 
game, although lawfully taken or killed during the open 
season. 
2. Held, that this statute is a proper exercise of the 
police power of the State to protect and preserve wild 
game, because reasonably tending to prevent the unlawfu 
killing of such game during the closed season. 
3. It is within the police power of the State to enact 
such laws as will preserve from extermination or undue 
depletion wild game adapted to consumption as food or to 
other useful purpose, and to that end may adopt any 
reasonable regulations, not only as to time or manner of 
taking or killing such game, but also imposing such limi- 
tations or restrictions upon its use or the right of property 
in it, after it is taken or killed, as will tend to prevent 
such extermination or depletion. 
4. Held f that the subject of the amendatory act of 1893 
is sufficiently expressed in its title. 
5. The provisions of Sec. 11 of the act as amended are 
not obnoxious to that part of the constitution which pro- 
hibits the imposition of excessive fines. Collins, J. 
Against the Express Company. 
State of Minnesota, plaintiff, vs. Northern Pacific Express 
Company, defendant. Syllabus: 
1. State vs. Rodman and State vs. Cobb followed, hold- 
ing that certain provisions of General Laws 1891, Chapter 
9, as amended by General Laws 1893, Chapter 124, entitled 
"An act for the preservation * * * of the game and 
fish of the State of Minnesota," are valid. 
2. The provision of the act prohibiting tbeshipmen i 
out of the State of certain kinds of fish caught within the 
State is not an unlawful interference with interstate com- 
merce. 
3. State vs. Byrud, 23 Minn., 30, followed to the effect 
that when a criminal case is certified to this court we wil 
only consider such questions as appear from the certifi- 
cation to have been raised and passed on in the cour 
below. Orders affirmed and causes remanded. Collins, J. 
A Sportsmen's Exposition. 
The following firms have united in a call for a meeting 
to consider the practicability of a sportsmen's exhibition, 
and, if desirable, to arrange such matters as are necessary 
to provide for its success: Hartley & Graham, Union 
Metallic Cartridge Co., Winchester Repeating Arms Co., 
Laflin & Rand Powder Co., E. I. Du Pont de Nemour 
& Co. , Schoverling, Daly & Gales, Marlin Fire Arms Co. 
Von Lengerke & Detmold, Charles J. Godfrey, A. G. 
Spalding & Bros., United States Net and Twine Co., 
Tatham Bros., Fred Sauter, the W. Fred Quimby Co., 
Empire Target Co., Hunter Arms Co. The meeting will 
be held Aug. 27, at 2 o'clock P. M. , in the rooms of the 
Hardware Club, Postal Telegraph Building, Broadway and 
Murray street, New York, and all houses in the trade are 
earnestly requested to have a representative present, 
