426 
left the fence, and I presently saw hip lying on, ^ liiti§ 
beech liikib not half so thiot aa his , bp^y. He ,waS^ 
atretched at full length, his tail hanging dow,n,i and his 
bafking was of the quiet, laay sort that denotes a fnll 
Stomach and a nice, comfortable morning. The foot of 
the tfee was hidden by bUshes, and as I tried to get 
tteafef he fan down the ti?ee atid Was aeen no more. So 
1 etfolied tbi'otigh the woods toward the buggy, not car- 
ing ^ery rhuCh whether abf mote wefe Seen of not, for I 
Was a bit la^y arid had thfefe aS niee yoUng equirrels as 
evf f climbfed tfeeS. Seech nUts impaft a flmef flavor to 
Fquirrel flesh than any dthef food does, and th^se fellows 
had had abundance of these nuts aha. but little else for 
six weeks past. We found them "complete f^atin'," 
It was 10 o'clock when I got home. Old Joe stood 
f oiund and gfowled at the waiting cats while I skinned 
tfce squirrels. If they Came tod eloSe, he would make a 
s^Vagfe Itinge at them and they would fetfeat) but they 
kiiew hfe woutd not hUft theffi< dnd wefe back almost as 
§Q'p'n 38 hfe ^^s, In cool M^eathef be lies oh the gf aeS, and 
tihe,^at8 get op. ioP qf him. and lie tttete to gSt ihe warmth 
from hie hO|dy, and l^e ^iid they drtnfe new milk together 
firom thp same pan twice*a day,, f&i n6oil We haid dinnef. 
Fried squirrel, bread and butter - that wqB^Ueye^ excelled y 
svyeet potatoes, and boiled apple dumplings with ihiSp: 
cceam ^'dip." There may be better dinners, I know there 
are, worse, but the man not satisfied with this one is hard 
to please. After dinner we went to the post ofiice, and 
from there Mrs. H. drove me to a ,,patch of woods that 
has lots of squirrels in it, but the brush is so thick it's no 
use to hunt them; have just to sit down and kee^ qUiet. 
If one comes along you get him. If he doesn't come along 
you don't get him, I sat there three hours and saw a 
dczen or more, and got five of them, O. H. Hampton. 
WHO OWNS THE GUIDE'S GAMEf 
When a sportsman hires a guide, and the guide takes 
part in the shooting or the fishing, to whom does the 
game or the fish secured by the guide belong? The ques- 
tion has just come up in a case related by a correspondent 
who returned last week from a ruffed grouse shooting trip. 
He tells U9 that he cut short his intended stay, although 
birds wefe abundant, because of a misunderstanding 
Respecting the disposition of the birds killed by his guide 
Vhen in company with him in the field. The guide being 
in his pm^jloymeijt afld being paid by him, he had assumed 
ihat in 9onfo:^mity w,ith ^he^ unvafyihg Custom followed 
Elsewhere throughout hip shooting experiepfie of thifty 
years the birds killed by the guide would belong to th§ 
employer. It appears, however, that this was not the lin- 
derstanding held by the host, who advised his guests tha^ 
the birds killed by the guides belonged to the house and 
^ould be sold at so much a pair if the sportsmen wished 
to, retain any, ,of them for taking home. — Fdresi and 
Stream, Nov. 14. 
Editor Forest and Stream: , 
In my opinion a man who hires a guide to help hittt 
shoot rufted grouse with the intention of gobbling up and 
counting as his own all the birds they both, kill is not en- 
titled to call himself a sportsman at all. A man who has 
been shooting for "thirty years" ought to have learned 
that hiring a inarket-hUnter guide to do his shooting, or 
any part of it, is outside of genuine sportsmanship, I 
fcelong to two first-class shooting clubs, and a rule in each, 
rigidly enforced, is that guides shall r^ot be allowed to 
Shoot at all except at wounded birds. In one of them a 
prominent member, who persistently refused to obey the 
rule, finally resigned to avoid expulsion. Shaganoss, 
TlTSBSnsa, Pa. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
Seeing an article in Forest and Stbeam of Nov, 14 
where certain guides claimed that game killed by them 
(when in the employ of sportsmen) belonged to the guides 
reminds nile of a dodge which guides in some parts of the 
Adirondacks tried to work aoniie twenty years ago on my 
first trip to the Adirondack region. Our party learned that 
the guides in that section from where we went into the 
■i^oods Claimed that all game, whether killed by them or 
theif ediployers, belonged to the guides. Fortunately 
one of oUr party had been on quite a number of similar 
hunting trips, and he cautioned us to make no agfeement 
with our guides as to any game we might kill. 
We were in the woods something over a month, and 
each one of the party had a guide. Wheix we left the 
woods we were some three days' journey from where we 
Went in. We had killed five deer, and when we settled 
with our guides we allowed so many days extra to allow 
them to get back to our starting point. We used our 
guides well and paid them well, and they all said it was 
the best trip they ever made. We made them each a few 
presents of clothing, hunting knives, etc. , and said : "Now 
everything is settled." The oldest guide began to wriggle 
about (we expected what was coming) and said: "There is 
one thing we have not settled. You men have killed five 
deer while we were with you, and you have the skins. 
Now, those skins belong to the guides, and if you want to 
take them home you must give us $3 for each skin." 
I said at once, "I have one deer skin in my pack, which 
is the only deer I shot at on this trip; and if my guide 
thinks he has not been paid enough for his time he can 
go home thinking so." The rest of the party said the 
same; and when the guides found it would not work they 
dropped it, and we parted good friends. 
While on this trip I met a young man in camp who 
-was expecting to spend two or three months in the 
woods, and had a guide engaged for the whole time. 
The guide had an easy time of it, and he had impressed 
upon his employer that all game belonged to the guide 
and was to be paid for when settling. Now this guide 
was getting the regular guide's wages, but his employer 
thought that what the guide said about game was the 
regular thing, and that all hunting partips did the same. 
I told him he could if he liked to be imposed upon, but 
that our party did not agree to any such arrangement. 
Some years later, while in Florida, I went out with a 
party after deer. We hired a guide who furnished a 
pack of hounds and a horse for each member of the 
party. As we were starting, something was said about 
the deer we expected to kill, and the guide said, "All the 
deer belong to me," Now as we were each paying him a 
pretty good price I objected to his arrangement, saying 
that should I kill a deer it belonged to me. As it hap- 
pened, I killed the only deer of the day. That night I 
told the guide he could have it, bijt m§,de him under* 
Siaiid it Was because I had no use for it and not because I 
Coflsideftd he had any claim. 
The instances 1 haf e mentioned happened a number of 
;:^eafs ago,, aind t did not suppose that anything of the 
kind would pe tf ied by guides of the present time. The 
MJicm^c Indiaus' of the ftoVinces will " work a sucker" for 
all they can when tbCy get a chance, but I never heard of 
any of them trying to claim|^ thq.gam'e that was killed by 
parties that they worked for. Possibly siich a thing never 
occurred to them. . . 
For my part, I do not believe in a guide's carrying a 
rifle or doing any shooting while in a sportsman's Em- 
ploy. When I have hired a guide, it was to find the 
fame; if there was to be any shootine: I proposed doing it. 
.Cannot Sep why a man calling himself a sportsman 
should go a'ftef gSDirie. and hire a guide to shooi it for 
him. It wou'ld be friljy as satisfactory to me to stay at 
home and write aing engage sL guide to kUl a certain 
amount of game, and io gif e me the credit of it. 
G. M. mAm, 
DtJNDARTON, N. H. 
SHOOTING TRESPASS AND LOW" 
WATER MARK. 
WE find in the, Vermont Fish and Game Commission 
report ihe ic±t of, the d«^.c!i8ion in the case of Obarles Mc- 
Burney et aZvs. James 't'oung for trespass. The question 
of trespass turned upion the meaning of the term low 
water mark in its application to Lake Champlain. We 
q'uote: 
, The plaintiff was the owner of mafsh lands Upon the 
border of imke Obamplain, and had posted notii^es ujiOn 
such lands prohibiting shooting, trapping or fishing on 
said lands, in accordance Wifh No. 79, Acts of 1884. The 
defendant Young was camping upon the shores of Lake 
Champlain, and was at the time in question in a boat in 
company' with McOarty for the purpose of shooting and 
fishing. McCartv was rowing the boat and the defendant 
Young^hot at a flock of dueks flying over his head. The 
plaintiff claimed |;hat the t)1ace where the boat was when 
the shot was fired was u^'on His lafid, while the defendant 
Young contended that it was i!ip61ti the waters of Lake 
Champlain, and this was the question. 
The rpferee reported that the water at that ^bfnt was 
about 8in. deep at the time; that the bottom underneath 
the boat was a firm mud bottom; that the bottom at that 
point was at all times of the year covered with water to a 
depth of at least 6 or Sin. in ordinary seasons, and that 
therefore it Was below ordinary low water mark; that in 
the Season of 18'82', which was an exceptionally dry one, 
the watef So far receded that the bottom of the lake at 
this point -vyaS Uh'dovefed. and that therefore the point 
was above low water mark in exceptionally dry seasons; 
that the iSlaintiff had sowed wild oats and wild rice in 
that vicinity, upon which fowls, both tame and wild, and 
tne cattle pasttiring upon the adjacent lands fed to some 
extent, , i 
The referee found that the plaintiff was entitled to re- 
6t>^ei of the defendants, if anything, thpi penalty of |10 
and homiflal damages, which he assessed at & cents. 
The case wefit to the Supreme Court on appeal. 
Young's counsel contended that Lake Champlain is a pub- 
lic water, and the title to the land below low water mark 
is in the public and is not subject to private ownership. 
By "low water mark" is meant the ordinary low Water 
mark (Am. and Eng. Enc). For the plaintiff it was 
argued that "low water mark" means the lowest point to 
which the water recedes!. 
Thompson, J, — The plaintiff's land bounded by the 
waters of Lake Champlain. Both parties concede that by 
the law of this State the plaintiff's land does not extend 
beyofld the low water mark. Such is the law of this 
State, "fhe contention is over the meaning of the term 
"low water malfk** aS used by the courts and law writers. 
The plaintiff insists that it means the lowest point to 
which the water has ever receded. The defendant says 
that it means ordinary low water matk. 
By the common law, all that portion of land on tide 
waters between high and low water marks, technically 
known as the shore, originally belonged to the crown, 
and was held in trust by the king for public uses, and 
was not subject to private uses without a special patent or 
grant. In Maine the common law was changed by an 
ordinance of 1641, which declares that proprietor of land 
adjacent to the tide waters "shall have propriety to the 
low water mark, where the sea doth not ebb above a hun- 
dred rods, and not more wheresoever it ebbs further." 
In Gfef ish -Vs. Proprietors of Union Wharf, the court was 
called upon to define the meaning of low water mark 
as used in that ordinance, and in passing upon the ques- 
tion said: 
"It evidently contemplates and refers to a mark which could be 
readily ascertained and established; and that to which the tide on ita 
ebb usually flows out would be of that description. That place to 
which the tide might ebb under an extraordinary combination ot 
influences and of favoring winds, a few times during one generation, 
could not form such a boundary as would enable the owner of flats to 
ascertain satisfactorily the extent to which he could build upon them. 
Much leas would other persons employed in the business of commerce 
and navigation be able to ascertain with ease and accuracy whether 
they were encroaching upon pi ivate rights or not by sinking a pier 
or placing a monument. It would seem to be reasonable that high 
and low water marks should be ascertained by the same rule. The 
place to which tides ordinarily flow at high water becomes thereby a 
well defined line or mark, which at all times can be ascertained 
without difficulty. If the title of the owner of the adjoining land 
were to be regarded as extending, without the aid of the ordinance, 
to the place to which the lowest neap tides flowed, there would be 
formed no certain mark or boundary by which its extent could be 
determined. The result would be the same if his title were to be 
limited to the place to which the highest spring tides might be found 
to flow. 
"It is still necessary to ascertain his boundary at high water mark 
in all these places where the tide ebbs and flows more than 100 rods 
for the purpose of ascertaining; the extent of his title toward low 
water mark. It is only by considering the ordinance as having refer- 
ence to the ordinary high and low water marks that a line of 
boundary at low water mark becomes known, which can be satisfac- 
torily proved, and which having been once ascertained will remain 
permanently established." 
Sir Mathew Hale in his treatise De Jure Maris, c. 4, says 
"the shore is that ground that is between the ordinary 
high and low water mark." He remarks also: 
. "It is certain that that which the sea overflows, either at 
high spring tidea or at extraordinary low tides, comes not 
as to this purpose under the denomination of littus maris, 
and consequently the king's title is not of that large 
extent, but only to land that is usually overflowed at ordi- 
nary tides." 
This treatise has been received by j udicial tribunals and 
by distinguished ^uriats, both during the earlier and 
i^tet years of the law, with unqualified ap'pi'obation and 
commendation. The authorship of this work has been 
questioned, hWi it has often been recognized in thi'^ country 
by the courts, andf hm become a text-book. HoUcfc &w 
Rivers, s. 30, 
In Storer vs. Freenaan, G Mass. 435, 4 Am. Dao, 155; it 
was in effect held that low water mark as applied to the: 
seashore is ordinary low water mark. 
In Canal Corns, vs. People, 5 Wpind. 423, cited in G-ould 
on "Waters, s, 82, Chancellor Walworth, while holding 
that the common law rule was applicable to-the navigable- 
fresh fivers of New York, said: 
"The principle itself does not appear to be sufliciently 
broad to" embrace our large fresh- water lakes, or inland^ 
seas, which afe wholly unprovided for by the common 
law of England, As to these there is neither flow of tide 
or thread of stream, and our local law appears to have 
assigned the shores down to the ordinary low water mark 
to the riparian owners, and the beds of the lakes with the 
islands therein to the public " 
In Sloan vs, Bienviller, 34 Ohio St, 492, low water maife 
is defined to be ordinary low water mark; and in Seaman 
^8, Smith, 34 III, 531, it is said to be the line where water 
u6*Ually stands when unaffected by any disturbing ca\3!se. 
The qtteation of what is meant by low water mark as a. 
terminus of boundary was discussed and passed upon in 
Stover vs. Jack, 60 Pa. St. 889, 100 Am. Dsc. 566, and it 
was held to be the ordinary low water mark. While the 
opinion of the court disclaicned the application of any law 
except that of Pennsylvania to the question, the reason- 
ing of the court is very satisfactory. It said : 
"To adopt any other rule than low water mark, unaf- 
fected by drought, as the limit of title, would carry the 
rights of riparian owners far beyond boundaries consist- 
ent with the ititerests and policy of the State, and would 
confer title where heretofore none has been supposed to 
exist, * ^ * Ordinary high water and ordinary low 
water each has its reasonably well defined marks, so 
nearly certain that there is not much diflBLculty in ascer- 
taining it. The ordinary rise and fall of the stream 
usually finds nearly the same limits. But to bound title 
by a mark Which is set by an extraordinary flood, or an 
extreme drought, would do injustice and contravene the 
common understanding of the people." 
The suggestions as well as the others quoted apply 
with' great pertinency to the case at the bar. Like Oham- 
piaifl ie a public, navigable water. It does not appear 
that at any other time in its history its waters have re- 
ceded to the point to which they did in the exceptionally 
dry season of 1883. We think that upon reason and 
authority low water mark as a terminus of boundary 
must be held to mean ordinary low water mark. This 
being so, defendant Young did not enter upon the prem- 
ises of the plaintiffs, as the referee finds that Young's 
boat, from which he flred at the ducks passing overhead, 
at the time of such firing was at a place in the lake below 
ordinary low water mark. To dispose of the case it i» 
not necessary for us to determine what right, if any, the 
public has to sail over lands bordering Lake Champlain 
between ordinary high and ordinary low water marks^ 
when such lands are covered with water; nor is it neces- 
sary to decide in respect to the right of the inhabitants of 
this State under ch. 11, s, 40, of our State constitution, in 
seasonable times, "to hunt and fowl on the lands they 
hold and on other lands not inclosed," nor in respect to 
the constitutionality of St, 1884, No, 79, and we do not 
consider either of these questions. 
Judgment reversed as to defendant Young, and judg- 
ment that he recover his costs. 
WATER KILLING DEER. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
"Most deer killed in the Adirondacks are killed by 
hounding. The same is true of Maine, And yet in both 
regions tne game is on the increase," 
The above is a verbatim quotation from Deerslayer s 
last letter. He also says no arguments have been offered 
to show why the Legislature should forbid the hounding 
of deer in the Adirondacks, advancing the assertion that 
game is on the increase there in support of his arguments. 
Any fair-minded sportsman will at once concede the 
falsity of his position in regard to hounding deer in 
Maine, and if the increase in the Adirondacks is from the 
same causes as that in Maine that fact of itself is argu- 
ment enough why hounding should be forbidden, as 
hounding in Maine is a thing of the misty past, as is well 
known by all who are conversant with the state of affairs 
there. Bad luck to skin butchers and pot-hunters, 
Camperout. 
Havkbhili., Mass., Nov, 20, 
Cleveland, O,, Nov, 21— Editor Forest and Stream: 
In your issue of this date the individual who calls himself 
Daerslayer, but who should be named Deerbutcher, refers 
to the fact that I took with me into the Rocky Mountains 
on my trip recently described 300 cartridges, and seems to 
regard this as in some way an argument in his favor. 
I did take 300 cartridges on a journey into the moun- 
tains which lasted three weeks, and to a camp which was 
at least two days' journey from any source of supply. I 
used many of these cartridges in sighting my new rifle, 
target shooting, trying to cut the heads off of grouse, etc., 
and brought back 125 of them unused. 
The chorus of reprobation and denunciation which this 
person's original letter has aroused is trifling compared 
with the general abhorrence which it created. His sec- 
ond letter shows him to be so ignorant of the feelings of 
a sportsman and so bigoted in his ignorance that discus- 
sions with him would only be wasted. We can only hope 
that his "good old 10-gauge" may shortly burst and blow 
his head off, or that some one of his gang in the "half a 
dozen boats heading for the same deer" will providentially 
put his charge of buckshot where it will do the most good. 
Certainly the possibilities of accident in D.'s expeditions 
are extremely gratifying to all true woodsmen. 
A, St, J. Newbbkry. 
What Happened. 
The pack of hounds were soon on the trail of a "cotton- 
tail," who wearied shortly after the cbaae, and hied him- 
self to the depths of Smithfield soil. When the hunters 
came up a ferret was brought into requisition and the 
rabbit was soon ensconced in the depths of a hunting- 
jacket pocket, — Providence Journal, 
In other words: The dogs holed a hare, the ferret drov© 
jt out, and the hunter put; it into his poeket, 
