Feb. 26, 1898.] 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
167 
section 249 of our present code of laws. It reads: 
"And for the better Conviction of the Offenders in all 
or any the Cases ahovesaid Bcc it Enacted by the 
Authority aforesaid That whatsoever person or persons 
with whom shall be found or Shall Expose to Sale any 
green Deer Skins, ffresh Venison or Deers fflesh. Wild 
Turkeys, heath-hens. Partridges or Quailes, their Eggs 
or young Ones, at any other time of the year than what 
is before Excepted, shall be held. Deemed and Judged 
Guilty of said offence, and be therefore Convict, unlesS' 
he or they shall prosecute and Convict some other person 
to have done tlie same; and that the same green Deer 
skins, ffresh Venison or Deers flflesh, Wild Turkeys, 
Heath-hens, Partridges or Quailes, their Eggs or young 
Ones, so found as aforesaid, or any other probable Cir- 
cumstance, at the Discretion of the Justice before whom 
such offence shall be tryed, shall be held to be good 
Evidence in the Offences aforesaid." 
Early attention was also given to protecting fish from 
waste. In .1714 it was enacted that Garrett de Graeuw 
and his assigns should be singly and alone entitled "to 
the Fishery of Porpoises during the term of seven 
years." Here, too, was perhaps the first legislation in 
this country for the protection of an invention, a patent 
law, as it were. De Graeuw invented some kind of a 
contrivance for taking porpoises which was deemed both 
valuable to the inventor and profitable to the colony, 
in that it would save fish from waste; so the exclusive 
use of it was given to him, and "any person who shall 
undertake to carry on the said Fishery, by the Inventions 
of the said Garret De Graeuw, contrary to and Frustrat- 
ing the true intent and meaning of this Act, he or they 
shall forfeit and pay the sum of one hundred Pounds 
Current Money." 
In 1730 "an act for the preservation of oysters" was 
passed, and in 1733 a law was enacted for the preserva- 
tion of the English pheasants. 
If this article were not already too long, attention 
might be called to many instances of the frugality shown 
by the colony. Wastefulness of all kinds was abhorred. 
Think as we will, as we look backward from our pinnacle 
of civilization, there was much in the habits and customs 
of those "old colonial times" which, if they could but 
enter into the lives of the people of to-day, would make 
our boasted civilization still better. D. H. B. 
Syracuse, N. Y., February, 1S9S. 
An Old Single-Trigger. 
"There is nothing new under the sun." 
As we grow older we realize more fully that the saying 
is not far from the literal truth, and that whatever we are 
tempted to call new has been aforetime in the bygone 
and forgotten days of the olden and long-vanished years 
of the past. 
The columns of Forest and Stream have latelj^ con- 
tained numerous allusions to the fact that the different 
gun manufacturers are each trying to bring out a single- 
triggered double-barreled shotgun, and some of the 
articles have tacitly hinted that such a thing is a matter 
of difficulty, and requires much study and careful thought 
in order to succeed. 
When I saw the first of these allusions I smiled to 
myself; when I saw another I laughed; and as they 
grew more numerous I Avondered where the difficulty 
lay, and even went so far as to call my boy's attention 
to the matter, and to tell him that I had seen and shot 
such a gun nearly thirty years ago, and that it had done 
good work, but that I had seen but the one. 
I heard of that gun in the winter of 1859-60, but I 
didn't see it until in the spring of 1869. My uncle lived 
in Missouri, and came in to Pennsylvania in the winter 
named to see his parents — my grand-parents — who were 
growing old, and I remember of hearing him tell his 
father of his gun, and that he had rigged it up so that 
it had but a single trigger. Grandfather had been a 
mighty hunter in his day, and took great interest in all 
that related to sport and to sporting materials, and I can 
remember how interested he seemed in the one-triggered 
gun that uncle told him of. 
In '69 I went out to Missouri to yisit my uncle. I 
inquired about his gun. He brought it out and showed 
:it to me, and told me that he had got it up himself; 
that the trigger was a broad one inside the locks of the 
gun. I afterward took off the locks and examined the 
mechanism. The trigger w^as in the slot that had orig- 
inally held the trigger for the right lock, the sear-spring 
of the right lock was much weaker than that of the left, 
and he told me that he had made it so on purpose; the 
slot that had held the left trigger he had filled up with 
a piece of steel inserted while the trigger plate had been 
hot, and then filed down in a workmanlike manner. On 
the left side of this single trigger was a plate making the 
trigger broad enough to reach and raise the sear 
of the left lock of the gun. In firing, the trigger first 
raised the right sear, and thus the right barrel of the gun 
was discharged. If the pull was continued the right 
sear was still further raised, and the plate above men- 
tioned coming in contact with the left sear raised it 
and discharged the left barrel of the gun. The trigger 
pull of this gun, I should saj--, was for the right barrel 
about 3lbs., and for the left barrel did not exceed 4lbs. 
Of course the gun was a muzzleloader, but the barrels 
were fine Damascus, and it was a great shooter. Uncle 
told me that he had paid $75 for it in St. Louis. I asked 
him why he had changed it, and he said that he didn't 
like the two triggers; that they had sometimes fooled 
him, and that when he bought the gun he had tried to have 
the dealer change it to a single-triggered gun, but'had 
been_ told that it could not be done, or that if it could 
that it would not give satisfaction. He had come home, 
taken a piece of steel, and after annealing it had made 
the trigger as I saw it with a file and a small drill. .That 
he then had taken the sear springs out of the locks and 
had adjusted them so that the trigger pull suited him, 
had placed all in position, and had never had any further 
trouble with the gun, except that he had taken it apart 
and oiled it whenever there seemed to be need for it. 
He had killed much game and many deer with this gun, 
and every one of his neighbors knew or knew of his gun! 
I have often fired it, but did not like the single trigger. 
Both barrels could be discharged verj^ nearly together, 
but there was a perceptible difference in the trigger pull 
of the two barrels, and I think such must always be the. 
case. 
I have not seen any of the recent productions of single- 
triggered double guns that have come out of tiie manu- 
factories, but I think that the same objections that ex- 
isted to uncle's gun may be found in them. A single 
trigger, however, is a step in advance; whatever les- 
sens the number of motions requisite for the handling 
of a gun, as a gun, necessarily adds to the efficiency and 
ease of use of the weapon. Amateur. 
The Ohio Ducking Law. 
From the Cleveland Leader. 
In another column we republish an article which ap- 
peared in the Leader of Sept. 13, 1896, giving a history 
of the restrictions placed upon shooting ducks and wild- 
fowl on Monday and Tuesday of each week. The re- 
strictions as to these days should be repealed. 
It is decidedly unfair to prohibit shooting wildfowl 
on Mondays and Tuesdays on the marshes contiguous 
to Lake Erie (if they should happen to be little bays and 
estuaries) and not in like manner prohibit shooting 
w'ildfowl on marshes which are not estuaries of the lake 
or upon other parts of the State. Almost all sports- 
men who have expressed their views upon- this subject 
for the past ten j-^ears, since the restriction was first 
introduced into the game laws of Ohio, maintain that 
the limitation, if enforced, would not aid in protecting 
game. It is claimed that bunching the shooting into 
the last four days of the week leads to more destruction 
of game and careless shooting than if hunting were al- 
lowed on the six days of the week. And the law has not 
been enforced and cannot be. In the opinion of many 
the better wav would be to shorten the open season and 
omit all restrictions as to week days. If wildfowl need 
further protection, make the open season commence 
Sept. IS instead of Sept. i, as now. But the injustice of 
the present condition must be apparent to all members 
of the Legislature. Some of the Lake Erie marshes 
are bays and estuaries, others are not; and as the law 
stands the members of one club can hunt and at least 
shoot at ducks six days in the week, while others 
within a short distance cannot do so on Mondays and 
Tuesdays. In addition, it is a constant menace to honest 
sportsmen who will try to obey it, while some will ignore 
it entirely, knowing that the game wardens cannot en- 
force it. Any attempt to prevent the shooting of ducks 
on Mondays and Tuesdays and permit the shooting of 
other marsh game on such days is absurd. To make 
such a law effective as to wild ducks the restriction 
should also apply to all wading and swimming birds, 
.such as coot, rail, snipe, plover, etc. But the idea is 
absurd, and all restrictions as to Mondays and Tuesdays 
should be eliminated from the game law. 
Fro7n the Leader^ SeJ>t. 13, 18»6. 
One of the most trying subjects for the average legis- 
lator to understand seems to be the proper protection 
of game and fish. Other States have the same trouble 
in this matter that has existed in Ohio, for the incon- 
gruities of almost all of the game laws of the various 
States are notorious. But the experience of the Ohio 
Legislatute in trying to prohibit the hunting of ducks 
and wildfowl on Monday's and Tuesdaj^s of each week 
so as to strengthen the law against Sunday shooting 
is ridiculous in the extreme. 
In March, 1887, the Legislature passed a game law 
which made an attempt of this kind for the first time, and 
it was published correctly in the book of laws for that 
year. For several j^ears previous the farmers living in 
the neighborhood of St. Mary's reservoir and other in- 
land lakes had been greatly annoyed by the hunters 
from the cities flocking to these places to shoot ducks 
and other game on Sunday. When on these trips a great 
manj' depredations were committed. The Legislature 
was finally appealed to, and in March, 1887, passed a 
game law which provided for the seasons in which 
game should be killed, and after prohibiting the destruc- 
tion of nests and eggs of game birds and wildfowl the 
following complete sentence was added: 
Excepting in the waters of Lake Erie and the estu- 
aries and bays thereof, no person shall, in any place, 
catch, kill or injure, or pursue with such intent, any 
blue-winged teal, mallard, wood duck, or any other duck, 
on Sunday, Monday or Tuesday of any week, between 
the 1st day of September and the ist day of April of 'Any 
3'ear. 
The prohibition of Sunday shooting was thus made 
a part of the game laws of Ohio, and in order to aid 
in its enforcement the hunting of ducks and wildfowl 
was also prohibited on Mondays and Tuesdays of each 
week excepting in Lake Erie and the contiguous 
marshes, the latter being owned largely by clubs which 
do not hunt on Sunday. 
At the legislative session of 1888 some member of the 
Legislature had another amendment to make to the 
game law, and as is usual in such cases cut out the old 
law, and after putting in his amendment or addition 
had it printed and passed. The printer, however, made 
a mistake, and the words "excepting in the waters of 
Lake Erie and the bays and estuaries thereof" were 
added to the clause prohibiting the destruction of eggs 
or nests of ducks and wildfowl, the law appearing as 
follows: 
No person shall destroy or disturb the eggs or nests 
of any birds named in this section, excepting in the 
waters of Lake Erie and the estuaries and bays thereof; 
no person shall in any place catch or kill oj injure or 
pursue with such intent any wild ducks on Sunday, Mon- 
day or Tuesday of any week between the ist day of Sep- 
tember and the isth day of December of any year. 
In eft'ect then it was unlawful to destroy the eggs 
and nests of any ducks or game birds excepting on 
Lake Erie and contiguous marshes. This gave the 
people of Toledo and other small towns in the marshy 
district an unfair advantage, or it was a reflection upon 
their methods of supplying material for their omelette. 
The members of the Legislature and the clerks of that 
body from 1888 to 1894 ought to have found out that 
the laying and nesting season with wildfowl is in the 
spring and not the fall. The Leader frequently called 
attention to this blunder, but no attention was paid to 
it, and the law in its bungled form appears in the re- 
vised statutes for 1890. In 1894 some member of the 
Legislature had an amend"-'«nt to make in the game laws, 
and after adding his amendment had it again passed 
without, however, correcting the blunder made in r888. 
So that up to 1S96 any evil-disposed person on Lake 
Erie could destroy game birds, nests and eggs with im- 
punity if he so desired. But all sportsmen throughout 
the State knew what the law was intended to mean, 
and we believe it was fairly observed. Those living on 
the shores of Lake Erie and the members of contiguous 
clubs continued to hunt on Mondays and Tuesdays as 
before, as there had never been any objection to it. 
Diiring the last session of the Legislature (spring of 
1896), however, some new member saw a point in the 
game law that he thought needed amending. After 
making the desired amendment he came across the 
peculiar combination of blunders dating back as far 
as r888. He was an intelligent and well-meaning man, 
and saw that it was not exactly proper or fair to permit 
residents on the shores of Lake Erie to destroy eggs and 
nests of ducks and wildfowl without permitting other 
residents of the State to do the same. He did not, how- 
ever, examine the history of the affair far enough back 
to see that the clause "excepting Lake Erie and its bays 
and estuaries" 'was inserted in the law so as to permit 
hunting on Mondays and Tuesdays in that locality, 
while the intention was to prohibit such hunting in 
other parts of the State. He therefore rewrote a part 
of the section, and after the usual prohibition regarding 
the destruction of eggs and nests the new law says: 
"No person shall kill any wild ducks on Sunday, 
Monday or Tuesday of any week on any of the reservoirs 
belonging to the State of Ohio or in or upon the waters 
of Lake Erie and the estuaries and bays thereof/' 
As the law reads now it is unlawful to hunt on Mon- 
days or Tuesdays on the reservoirs of the State or upon 
Lake Erie and adjacent marshes if they are considered 
estuaries of Lake Erie, but nothing is said about other 
parts of the State, or of marshes on the shores of Lake 
Erie which are not bays or estuaries of the lake. In 
reality therefore as great a blunder is made by this new 
law as was made in 1888, because the inland lakes, rivers 
and creeks needed this restriction. In all probability the 
Legislature intended to only correct the blunder in punc- 
tuation in the old law and restore the part relating to 
Monday and Tuesday hunting as it was in 1887, and it 
is likely that residents and members of clubs along 
Lake Erie marshes will continue to hunt on those days 
as usual. It is very singular, however, that some one 
cannot be found in our Legislatures who can frame an 
intelligent and just game law. 
A Friendly Deer. 
Dr. Willett Kidd, the fish and game protector, 
visited Cooley, a small hamlet in Sullivan county, on 
Saturday at the request of a man named Melvin Carley, 
who had a wild deer confined in his barn, and was un- 
certain as to what disposition to make of the animal. 
On Wednesday evening, Feb. 2, while Mr. A. G. 
Welsh, a resident of Cooley, was eating his supper, a 
large deer bounded into the dooryard. The surprised 
farmer hurried to the door to get a better view when 
the deer stepped up on the stoop and tried to enter 
the house. Mr. Welsh closed the door on the unex- 
pected visitor, and the deer, having made unsuccessful 
efforts to get in, looked into the window at Mr. Welsh 
as if seeking protection. Mr. Welsh had no particular 
use for the pretty creature, and it finally departed. The 
deer was breathing hard and was very tired, apparently 
it had been chased a long distance. 
Not having found friends at Mr. Welsh's home, the 
deer continued her journey, and next called at the home 
of Mr. Carley who lives near the first named. At Mr. 
Carley's house the fugitive made her presence known 
in a somewhat startling manner. Mr. Carley was within, 
when he heard a slight noise at the window. Glancing 
up, he saw the deer looking longingly inside. Mr. Carley 
took compassion on the gentle, soft-eyed creature, and 
easily got it to follow him to the barn, where he locked 
it up. The deer had been run nearly to death by lawless 
hunters, and had also been shot in the back near the 
spine. The wound slightly affected its traveling. 
Having rescued the animal from butchers, Mr. Carley 
was at a loss to know what to do with it, as it is a viola- 
tion of the game laws to have deer in the possession. 
On the other hand, if he turned the deer away it would 
fall an easy prey to some conscienceless pot-hunter. 
Therefore Mr. Carley took the wisest course and notified 
Dr. Kidd. 
The game protector and Mr, Carley went down to 
the barn, and when the door was opened the prisoner, 
a large and handsome doe, bounded down to meet 
them. Mr. Carley had made a great pet of the animal, 
and directly it began to sniff around in the pockets of 
Dr. Kidd's overcoat for apples, of which it is very fond. 
Dr. Kidd examined the wound in the back and found that 
it had probably been made with buckshot. There was 
another hurt in the leg, which looked like a gunshot 
wound, but which might have been made by a wire 
fence barb. The deer was sleek and fat and was rapidly 
recovering from its wounds. Mr. Carley is a good- 
hearted man, and had given his pet plenty to eat, and 
had cared for its injuries. 
The tameness of the animal is surprising, for it is with- 
out doubt a wild deer. However, instances have been 
known Avhere wild deer which have been wounded and 
chased nearly to death by dogs and cold-blooded hunt- 
ers have sought human beings for protection. A while 
ago the Sun gave an instance wdiere a tired fawn had 
dashed into a little town in Maine and put itself in care 
of a lad, who led it safely to his home. 
Under the circumstances, it seemed best to allow Mr. 
Carley to keep his pet, and when the game protector 
gave such a decision Mr. Carley was well pleased. The 
people for miles around come to see the pretty prisoner, 
for while the residents of that particular community see 
many dead deer brought in by hunters they have about 
as few chances to see live ones as do Newburghers. 
Many residents in and about Cooley conduct board- 
ing houses during the summer, and there is probably 
not one of them but would gladly give $100 for the pet, 
as it would be a rare attraction for the city folk who 
spend the warm months in rugged Sullivan. No amount 
of money, however, could buy that particular deer. It 
is significant too that Mr. Carley has put a strong lock 
on his barn door. — Nezvburgh Journal, Feb. i^. 
