Forest and Stream 
A Weekly Journal of the Rod and Gun. 
Terms, $i a Tear. 10 da. a Copt. 
Six Months, $2. 
NEW YORK, FEBRUARY 16, 1895. 
{ VOL. XLIY.— NO. 5. 
i No. 318 Broadway, New York. 
For Subscription and Advertising Rates see Pagre ill. 
THE MARKETS AND THE GAME. 
Whatever may have been the motive of Game Warden 
Blow, of Illinois, in preparing a bill to open the Chicago 
market for traffic in venison and grouse and quail and 
ducks, the year around, it is certain that the measure 
flies in the face of the growing conviction, held by all 
who are interested in preserving game, that legislation 
worth striving for must be in the direction of limiting 
the sale in market. 
The markets are consuming the game of the land. To 
that consumption must be credited the destruction which 
has made barren of fur and feather most of the depleted 
wild game districts of this Continent. 
Inordinate slaughter by sportsmen— or by butchers so 
miscalled— is without excuse; no right-minded person 
would think of presuming to defend it. "Wanton killing 
is wicked and inhuman. But when the score has been 
made up, when "sport" has been charged with the ut- 
most tittle that belongs to it, the sum is so inconsidera- 
ble as to count for nothing, when compared with the 
steady, consuming, and tremendous machinery of market 
hunting. 
This is a principle perfectly well understood by all of* us 
who have known the conditions and studied the facts; 
and because we are familiar with these conditions of the 
game supply, we are also, most of us, agreed that suc- 
cessful achievement in protection lies in the direction of 
shutting off the markets. 
It is the province, the duty, the right, and the privilege 
of representative journalism,to be ahead of and not behind 
public opinion. The Forest and Stream's "Platform 
Plank"— The sale of game should be forbidden at all sea- 
sons—is perhaps far in advance of the unanimous public 
conviction of the day. But if so, then rightly so. That 
is as it should be. The platform is not ahead of the con- 
victions of the leaders in game protection. It is not in 
advance of sound common sense and good public policy. 
It is, no doubt, beyond present practicability of attain- 
ment as to many sections of the country. But it is not 
beyond what we must come to— and some day will come 
to— if the game destructive agencies now working shall 
go on unchecked. 
Meanwhile, here and there, advances are making to- 
ward the absolute prohibition of market killing. We 
suspect that an analysis of what has already been ac- 
complished in this direction by one State, and another 
would excite astonishment. We shall give such an an- 
alysis in an early issue. 
As was suggested on this page last week, the prompters 
and promoters of game laws in this country are now and 
always have been the sportsmen. If they had not pro- 
vided protection, there would have been none. But if 
any one shall assume from this fact that game protective 
laws are devised in the interest of a class, or that they 
operate to the advantage, of one class, and not of all 
classes, he falls into grave error. For sportsmen are not 
a class, set off from the rest of the community. They 
are made up of all classes, and of every class, high and 
low, rich and poor, breadwinners and spendthrifts, the 
horny-handed wage-earner and the dude who never 
earned an honest dollar in his life. It is worthy of note 
as a curious 'fact that some people seem determined to 
discuss this question of game protection with the dude 
ever in the foreground; they refuse to consider the wage- 
earner. Good game laws are for the advantage of sports- 
men; but that is only another way of saying that they 
are for the benefit of the community at large. 
\ Individuals who seek to secure game legislation op- 
posed to the sportsman's interest may possibly be sincere 
in believing that they are working for the public good; 
but they are not. They are on the wrong track. Game 
laws can benefit the community only as, and in such de- 
gree as, they are in the interest of sportsmen. It fol- 
lows, then, that any advocate of a game bill, who should 
sneer at sportsman's interests, as, for example, Game 
Warden Blow has sneered at the Illinois Association, 
should be closely watched, not only by sportsmen, but by 
the public at large; for it would almost certainly be 
found that his measure was opposed to the interests it 
purported to defend. In this particular case the Spring- 
field bill, whose sponsor has such a fine scorn for sports- 
men, turns out to have the backing of the Chicago game 
dealers; and the main end to be attained by it is disclosed 
to be the unrestricted sale of game. However efficient 
Warden Blow may be in detecting and punishing offend- 
ers in the rural districts, he is an unsafe counsellor at 
Springfield, and his attitude toward the Chicago market 
is such as to demonstrate that to some one else should be 
entrusted the duty of enforcing the law in South Water 
street. 
TWENTY YEARS FROM NOW. 
Twenty years from now a student of international 
yachting history might repair to the Mercantile Library 
of St. Louis, and by courtesy of Librarian Horace Kep- 
hart be permitted to consult the files of the New York 
Sun and of the Forest and Stream for the year 1895. 
In the Sun of Feb. 8 he would find a cartoon from the 
English Vanity Fair, and in connection with it some 
very interesting paragraphs of personal gossip of the 
members of the Royal Yacht Squadron. Then, turning 
to the Forest and Stream of Feb. 9, he would find there 
the cartoon and the same biographical notes word for 
word. Comparing the dates of the two papers, Feb. 8 
and Feb. 9, he would naturally conclude that the Forest 
and Stream of Feb. 9 must have stolen the material from 
the Sun of Feb. 8. 
He would be mistaken. The article was stolen, but it 
was the Sun that stole. The Forest and Stream of Feb. 
9 was issued on Feb. 6; its yachting article was stolen by 
the Sun on the 7th, and printed on the 8th. 
We explain this for the instruction of the St. Louis 
Mercantile Library reader of 1915; and to show him that 
figures may sometimes lie, and date lines be unreliable 
when one is fixing responsibility for literary theft. He 
will find frequent and extensive identity of articles in 
the Sun and the Forest and Stream; we ask him to be- 
lieve that whatever the date lines may appear to show, 
the original publication was with the Forest and Stream. 
CONCERNING CHINESE WALLS, 
Hon. J. M. Rose, of Little Rock, resents our having 
said in a recent issue that he ever drew a non-resident 
game law for Arkansas. He repudiates the notion in 
toto, and appeals to us to say that as for himself individ- 
ually, and as for the sportsmen of Arkansas, they wel- 
come their fellows from other States to shoot and to fish, 
and to make test of Southwestern hospitality. The quail 
in the 'old fields," the bears in the canebrake, the shovel- 
nosed catfish in the muddy rivers— all these and more too 
are free to the stranger from other parts; and Heaven 
forbid that the country blazed by the axe of Davy Crock- 
ett should now prove churlish and play the dog-in-the- 
manger. So much for Arkansas and the hands of her 
sportsmen outstretched to grasp in welcome the hands 
of those from other States. 
Another story comes from Michigan, Nebraska, the 
Dakotas, and other States in the West, and from Maine 
in the East, where they are proposing to adopt the 
Chinese wall system of forbidding non-residents to hunt 
without first having paid a fee and taken out a license. 
We have said so much in an endeavor to point out the 
un-American and unpatriotic character of legislation of 
this brand, that it is gratifying to receive from another 
such an incisive and well put presentation of the case as 
that which is printed on another page, from the ever 
pithy and pointed pen of George Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy 
writes from Missouri. As a Missourian he claims 
brotherhood with the Nebraskan in a common country. 
He makes a lofty and patriotic plea for a recognition of 
that brotherhood. He describes such non-resident dis- 
criminations as "un-American, Ghinese, selfish, brutally 
discourteous," and calculated to check the growth of 
co-operative game legislation. All of which is true, 
every word of it. And no whit the less true because the 
prophet who proclaims it lifts up his voice in the good 
old State of Missouri. 
But "come now, you Nebraska, we mean Omaha, fel- 
lers," we will whisper to you, confidentially, just what 
retort you shall make to this Missouri man, and you shall 
constrain him forever after to hold his peace, and never 
again to use the Forest and Stream as a telephone to 
shout into your ears his reproaches and exhortations con- 
cerning your non-resident discriminations. Just you 
say to him: "Come now, you Missourians, we mean you 
St. Louis feller, you have slapped all outsiders in the 
face, and we have come back at you. For read your own 
non-resident discrimination as contained in Sec. 3905 of 
your law, given in the Game Laws in Brief: 
"If any person, being; a non-resident of this State, shall 
kill any deer, fawn, wild turkey, pinnated grouse, ruffed 
grouse, quail, woodcock, goose, brant, duck or snipe, 
coon, mink, otter, beaver, bear, muskrat, or other furred 
animals, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor." 
"If any of our game laws deserve to be written in 
Chinese characters, how would it do, Mr. Kennedy, to 
make a beginning light down where you live?" _ 
May it, perhaps, be said in explanation of this Mis* 
souri man's crying from behind his own Chinese wall to 
builders of other walls, that the Missouri structure has so 
fallen into decay and crumbled to dust, that its very ex* 
istence has been forgotten? Certainly, no vision so clear, 
no sentiments so broad and so patrotic could have been 
his who was consciously walled in by this section of the 
Missouri Revised Statutes of 1889. 
Or, to employ another figure, shall we regard these non- 
resident shooting laws as Chinese torpedoes of the vari- 
ety described in the New York Times last Monday as 
planted for the defense of Taku. The steamship Tie- 
Ching in crossing the bar ran into one of the torpedoes, 
and damaged it so severely that complaint was made by 
the authorities against the steamship company for hav- 
ing injured their torpedo defenses. 
FIELD A NDRO MANIACS. 
Dr. Parkhurst has written for a woman's journal a 
paper about "Andromaniacs," by which term he design 
nates women who aspire to be mannish. 
A woman who joins in the field sports of the rod and 
the gun is not by reason of that participation inevitably 
an andromaniac. She may make her part in such pur* 
suits so distinctively feminine, and in them so show forth 
her womanly qualities,that as a sportswoman she shall be 
more than ever attractive and lovable — witness the hus- 
bands, and fathers, and brothers, who have from time to 
time set forth in these columns the satisfaction they have 
found in feminine comradeship in the field. 
But if we are to have multiplying hosts of sports 
women and fisherwomen, it is not to be expected that 
there will be no andromaniacs among them — women 
moved by an unworthy aspiration to outdo the braggart 
feats of masculine but unmanly killers for count. Indeed, 
the field andromaniacs are already with us. The Florida 
newspapers have of lafe busied themselves with the story 
of a Philadelphia woman and her husband who in the 
western part of that State recently scored 629 quail and 
other birds in four days, and a total of more than a thou- 
sand in nineteen days. The item has been copied exten- 
sively, and in some instances clearly at paid rates as an 
advertisement of the hotel where the bags were scored; 
and the hotel people and the parties immediately con- 
cerned appear to think that this feat of outdoing all pre- 
vious records is one which should be heralded to the en- 
tire civilized world. So it should, and to the uncivilized 
world as well. 
DUCK EGGS. 
During the consideration recently of the Sundry Civil 
Service appropriation bill in the Senate, Mr. Mitchell, of 
Oregon, introduced an amendment appropriating the 
sum of $5,000 to investigate the supposed destruction of 
wild fowl eggs in Alaska for commercial purposes, about 
which much has been written. In his speech, however, 
Senator Mitchell indulged in glittering generalities only 
and gave no hint that he had definite information on this 
subject. Five thousand dollars would certainly be ample 
to pay the expenses of a special agent to Alaska, and 
would enable him to spend a delightful summer studying 
the fauna of that region, but before such a junketing trip 
is set on foot, it would seem that some evidence ought to 
be presented to show that there is a basis of fact for Mr. 
Mitchell's statements. No one questions that our wild fowl 
are each year less numerous than they were the year, be- 
fore, but it is not necessary to go to Alaska nesting 
grounds to discover the cause of this decrease. It is to 
be found between the parallel of 49 degrees and the Gulf 
of Mexico at any time between September and May in 
any year. Our snooting season for wild fowl is too long 
and too many birds are shot, and until some reform in 
this respect takes place the fowl will continue to decrease* 
