April ai, 1900.I 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
30? 
enjoy very much reading an article from Mr. Lee's 
pen, and his experience with the different rifles on large 
gfme, and I am sure that every reader of your valuable 
paper would also be interested, as well aS benefited, 
thereby. C. F. PeRIOLOt. 
The Massachusetts Bill. 
No. 5 Park Square, Boston, April 12.— Editor Forest 
and Stream: Herewith you will find a list of the mem- 
bers of the Executive Board of the Massachusetts Central 
Committee for Protection of Fish and Game, organized 
Jan. 4, 1900, at a delegate convention of sportsmen's and 
farmers' clubs held in Boston. 
Whatever may be the fate of our bill, H. 549, which has 
been recommitted to the Committee on Fisheries and 
Game, and reporter favorably by that committee, the 
members of the Executive Committee have all worked with 
great zeal in attending meetings and hearings, circulating 
petitions, etc., and they are entitled to great praise for 
their earnest efforts to stop the sale of woodcock and 
partridges, and to shorten the open season. Great credit 
is also due the various sportsmen's clubs represented in 
the Central Committee. 
If the same spirit of harmony shall continue, it will be 
but a few years at the longest before the Massachusetts 
sportsmen will be granted anything of a reasonable nature 
which they may ask of the Legislature. 
A. B. F. Kinney, Worcester Sportsmen's Association. 
Geo. H, Palmer, New Bedford, S. Massachusetts Fish 
and Game League. 
, Heman S. Fay, Marlboro, League of American Sports- 
men. 
Dr. J. T. Herrick, Springfield, Springfield Sportsmen's 
Club. 
William B. Finney, Lynn, Lynn Fish and Game .Pro- 
tective Association. 
John S. Bleakie, Falmouth, Old Colony Club. 
H. A. Estabrook, Fitchburg, Fitchburg Rifle and Gun 
Club. 
J. E. Tweedy, North Attleboro, North Attleboro Fish 
and Game Association. 
Joseph H. Wood, Pittsfield, Pittsfield Rod and Gun 
Club. 
Herbert E. Tuck, Haverhill, Haverhill Gun Club. 
Henry Hanson, Fall River, Fall River Fish and Game 
Protective Association. 
• A. M. Lyman, Montague, Hampshire Agricultural So- 
ciety. 
Henry H. Kimball, Massachusetts Fish and Game Pro- 
tective Association. 
I desire to mention the name of Representative H. D. 
Hunt, of North Attleboro, a member of the committee, 
who has been most active in promoting our interests from 
the first. He is a member of the Sportsmen's Club re- 
cently organized, and which is doing a great deal for tha 
cause. Representatives Hancock, Sprague and Collins are 
entitled to much credit for the stand they have taken in 
the committee. It has been a busy winter for the com- 
mittee, more than thirty different bills having been re- 
ferred to it. Whether successful in securing our bill or 
not, no pains have been spared, and a vast amount of 
labor has been performed by the Executive Committee of 
the Central Committee, and the seed sown this winter 
can hardly fail of bearing fruit for the better protection of 
our birds and other game. 
I inclose the argument made by Heman S. Fay, Esq., 
before the Legislative Committee on Fisheries and Game, 
in favor of House Bill No. S49. reported favorably by 
said committee after recommitment, with some changes, as 
House Bill No. 1203. 
Many bills Avere presented to the Legislature from 
different sections of the State for the purpose of greater 
protection of the game birds. One of these provided a 
prohibition of shooting for a period of ten years; another 
for five years, and still another for three years. The 
sentiment that very stringent measures and much greater 
restrictions must be adopted to save the remnant of quail, 
woodcock and ruffed grouse is universal among sports- 
men and others who are accustomed to study the existing 
conditions, and who are, without exception, in a state of 
mind bordering on alarm at the great scarcity of game 
birds reported from nearly all parts of the State during 
the past year. 
The Massachusetts Central Committee, composed of 
delegates from forty different sportsmen's and farmers' 
clubs, together with members of the Legislative Com- 
mittee of the Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange, after 
several conferences, recognizing the great scarcity of birds, 
especially the partridges, were unanirnous in recommend- 
ing an open season of not more than two months, and 
prohibition of the sale of woodcock and ruffed grouse at 
all seasons. Absolute prohibition of shooting they believe 
to be unnecessary, provided snaring and market gunning 
can be stopped, and to accomplish this they recognize the 
necessity of prohibiting the sale; that only by taking 
away the market can market-hunting be brought to an 
end. 
It is becoming more and more a recognized fact that 
the market is the key to the situation. The writer has 
often heard the late John A, Loring say, "A market being 
provided, either for game birds or game fish, there will 
always be found men who will do the rest." 
The Central Committee favor this bill because they 
think it will be adequate to restock our covers, and be- 
cause they regard it as a measure that can be easily 
enforced. 
_ In supporting the bill, sportsmen of the western coun- 
ties willingly sacrifice early woodcock shooting, from 
a desire to promote the general good, and from the same 
motive right-thinking and broad-minded citizens who 
are not sportsmen consent to forego the eating of wood- 
cock and partridge, unless provided by friends who are 
sportsmen. Henry H. Kimball, Sec'y. 
Boston, April 14. — Editor Forest and Stream: During 
the past week a bill to change the legal limit in the length 
of lobsters from to 9 inches was substituted for the 
one reported by the Committee on Fisheries and Game 
Which favored retaining the law as at present. The vote 
was 68 in favor to 67 against, and shows so small a margin 
that the friends of the ioy^<-inch law hope that at the next 
stage (which will be the second reading of the bill) they 
will be able to effect a change. It has been the contention 
of the lobster-catchers of the southeastern section of the 
State that their business suffers great injury from the 
present restriction. A score or more of them appeared at 
the hearing before the committee in behalf of a g-inch 
law. 
Lobster fishermen frpm pther sections of the State and 
the dealers are divided, some favoring the change and 
others desiring the law to be continued as now. It is 
understood that our Commissioners are opposed to any re- 
duction in the legal length, and many people believe the 
day is not far distant when the remnant of Massachu- 
setts lobsters can be preserved only by several years of 
close time. 
I inclose herewith a copy of the bird bill of the Central 
Committee, No. 549. The bill reported by the committee 
differs from ours in three particulars: (1) A change of 
the opening of the season for shooting quail, woodcock and 
partridges from Oct. i to Oct, 10. (2) The bill reported 
by the committee limits its application to a period of three 
years. (3) The committee shortens the shooting season 
for "wood or summer duck, black duck or teal" by closing 
it on March i instead of April 15. The change last men- 
tioned is acceptable to our committee, and I believe will 
meet the approbation of all unselfish believers in pro- 
tection, for the reason that spring shooting is universally 
acknowledged to be very destructive. 
In fixing on Oct. i as the date of opening, the Executive 
Committee took into consideration that in giving up the 
last half of September the woodcock shooters, especially 
in the western counties, were making quite a sacrifice. 
Some members of the Legislative Committee probably 
were not aware of that fact, and as one merrlber was 
opposed to opening on quail earlier than Oct. 15 as at 
present, an agreement was reached by the committee to 
compromise on Oct. 10 as the opening on the three birds. 
Senator Leach and Representative Mills opposed the bill. 
I will now speak of some amendments that have been 
offered in the House. Representative Mills, the clergyman 
from Newburyport — an opponent of the bill, it will be 
observed — gave notice of an amendment to prohibit the 
killing or having in possession for three years. 
The friends of the measure in the House feel confident 
that this amendment will not be adopted. 
Representative Feiker, of IsTorthampton, has given no- 
tice of an amendment to provide for opening the season 
on woodcock in Berkshire, Franklin and Hampden coun- 
ties on Sept. 15. 
In all probability the latter amendment would not have 
been brought forward had the committee's bill fixed on 
Oct. I as the opening instead of Oct. 10. 
The sportsmen in the western counties have always 
claimed that many of the woodcock took flight southward 
before they have been allowed to shoot them, and naturally 
enough they regard Oct. 10 as too late for the opening. 
But in a letter from one of the leading sportsmen of 
Pittsfield — Mr. J. M. Stevenson, a former member of 
the Legislative Committee on Fisheries and Game— I am 
informed that this subject was discussed in a recent meet- 
ing of the Rod and Gun Club there, and while consider- 
able disappointment was expressed, it was the sentiment of 
the meeting that if an attempt to change the date (Oct. 10) 
would eiidanger the passage of the bill, it should be 
allowed to stand as reported by the committee. 
This, I believe, is the spirit which animates sports- 
men generally throughout the State. Our friends in 
the southeastern part were reluctant to have the month of 
December cut off. With them that is the favorate time 
for hunting. The urgent need of decisive action is 
recognized hy all, and too much cannot be said in praise of 
^the disinterestedness manifested by those who have signi- 
fied a readiness to make sacrifices for the general good. 
In closing I will say that, while aware that we arc 
not yet "out of the woods," we are hopeful for the 
success of the bill; and even if it fail of passage, the good 
seed sown this winter will not be lost. Some of it, surely, 
has not "fallen upon stony ground," but on soil that will 
cause it to germinate and bring forth fruit. 
The circular sent out by the North Attleboro Fish 
and Game Association — born Jan. I, 1900, and now 
numbering more than eighty members, and carrying on its 
roll Mr. Harry D. Hunt, of the Legislative Committee 
on Fisheries and Game, and Mr. J. E. Tweedy, of our 
Executive Committee — may serve as a model for others. 
Henry H. Kimball, Sec'y. 
Boston, April 16. — I am sorry to be obliged to disagree 
with so good an atithority as Mr. A. B. F. Kinney, in 
which he says concerning House Bill No. 549, in Forest 
AKD Stream of April 14: "That bill [the Bennet Bill] was 
certainly turned down by the Legislative Committee, and 
the Walker Bill reported favorably upon. Later the House 
has taken up Bill No. 549 and sent it to the committee, 
asking that they amend it so as to permit of the sale of 
both partridges and* woodcock during the open season. 
The primary object of that bill was to prevent the sale 
of partridges and woodcock for three years." Mr. Kinney 
seems very confident that his bill will become a law, and 
I very much wish that it might, but I am positive that the 
marketmen are perfectly sure that no bill can be passed, at 
the present session on Beacon Hill, that proposes to 
stop the sale of game during open shooting season. 
Saturday I saw several of the leading marketmen in 
affairs legislative, and I want to assure Mr. Kinney that 
they are so certain of no legislation this session to prevent 
the sale of game that they are not giving themselves the 
slightest uneasiness. Hence, I again say that game legis- 
lation is in a bad way in Massachusetts, and by the close 
of the session I am afraid that Mr. Kinney will be obliged 
to agree with me. The marketmen well know, and 
doubtless Mr. Kinney is aware, that at least one member 
of the Fisheries and Game Committee is determined that 
no bill shall become a law that does not permit of the 
sale of game whenever it is open season for shooting it. 
Special. 
Acgumeot la Favor oi Prohibitlofr . the Sale of Wood-° 
cock aod Partridge. 
The game birds within the Hmits of the cornmonweaith 
belong to the people in their collective sovereign capacity, 
and the people, through the Legislature, may provide when 
and how they shall be taken and sold. Phelps vs. Racey, 60 
N. Y., 10; Magner vs. People, 97 111., 320; Whitehead 
vs. Smithers, 2 C. P. D., 5531 State vs. Judy, 7 Mo, 
App„ 524 
They may provide that they shall not be transported out 
of the State after they have been taken or killed, and 
such a law is not in conflict with the Constitution of the 
United States respecting interstate commerce, Geer vs. 
Connecticut. 161 U. S., 518. 
It is hardly necessary to give much time to the con; 
sideration of the right of the Legislature to pass this law'; 
in fact, we are somewhat surprised that the question 
should be raised, for it is not a new question in the laws 
of this connnonwealth, even, for some provisions of law 
prohibiting the sale of game for a part of the year have 
been in existence almost beyond the memory of man, and 
if the Legislature has the power to prohibit its sale for a 
part of the year it can prohibit its sale for the entire year. 
It is only a question of degree, nor are we without 
precedent of absolute prohibition the entire year, as note 
the law regarding the Mongolian pheasant, which was 
formerly imported from England and sold in our markets. 
Nor is the idea of the total prohibition of the sale of game 
anything particularly new, for over a dozen States of 
this Union already have some law of this character. 
Three of the New England States have similar laws, and 
a law prohibiting sale came very near of passage in the 
State of Connecticut at the last session. Maine last year 
passed a law prohibiting the sale of partridge and pro- 
hibiting any person having the same in possession except 
for his own consumption, so in that State they cannot 
even be given away. The States of New Hampshire and 
Vermont prohibit their sale except for consumption as 
food within the State. This, with their limited market, 
would be as much of a protection there as prohibition of 
sale here. These three States with their vast tracts of 
woodland to protect their game birds are far in advance 
of Massachusetts in restrictive legislation; in fact, this 
commonwealth has the poorest game laws of any Eastern 
State, if not of any in the entire LTnion. 
As there can be no question with regard to the right 
of the Legislature to pass the law, we come to the 
question of whether or not the people want the law, and 
how they have expressed themselves upon the subject. 
Over' fift}' witnesses have testified in favor of this law 
at hearings before the Committee on Fish and Game, and 
of those that appeared and wanted to testify, not over 
half were heard, for lack of time on the part of the com- 
mittee to hear them. These witnesses represented all 
classes of our people. There were members of the Legis- 
lature and others of high standing in the community, to- 
gether with those from the humbler walks of life. The 
laboring man left his bench to come and ask for this law. 
Besides those who appeared personally to testify, more 
than fifty petitions, signed by judges of our courts. State, 
county, city and town officers and other individuals, have 
been filed, these representing in the aggregate thousands 
of our citizens, who, being unable to be personally present, 
have requested by thir signatures the passage of this 
law. The bill is also supported by a resolution of the' 
State Board of Trade, the old Massachusetts Fish and 
Game Protective Association, and over forty different 
organizations, representing farmers' clubs, game protective 
associations and sportsmen's clubs. From the fact that 
the organization which undertook the work of present- 
ing this matter to the Legislature did not come into exist- 
ence until Jan. 6 last, and that there was neither time nor 
opportunity to work up any sentiment in support of this 
law, this spontaneous outburst in its favor, which has 
come from every part of the commonwealth, is nothing if 
tiot marvelous. It shows that there is a deep-seated 
anxiety upon the question of the preservation of our 
game birds, that it has been a matter of very serious 
thought in a great manj'^ minds and that it was only wait- 
ing for some opportunity for its expression, waiting for 
some organized effort, when it has moved as in a flood.. 
Ever since the hearing before the committee, petitions 
have been constantly coming in to us, and movements 
in localities before unheard from have taken on form 
and action. 
It would be impossible, for want of space, to go into 
any detail of the testimony, as given by the witness at 
the hearing before the committee, or to refer to it here, 
except in the most general way. It showed conspicuousl}'' 
the great scarcity of all kinds of game, particularly of the 
partridge and woodcock. To be the better understood 
we shall use the name "partridge" here instead of ruffed 
grouse, the proper name of this bird, as that is the name 
more generally used in this section. Many of the wit- 
nesses were men who had hunted for years and had 
sold a large number of birds in the market. These all 
agreed that the time had come when the marketing of 
birds must be given up or that in a very short time the 
partridge would be exterminated; some said in one more 
season like the last season, some gave them more time, but 
none more than three years, with an open market for sale. 
The marketmen testified that the partridge was getting 
very scarce and that something would have to be done if 
they were to be saved, and one said that he would be 
glad if the sale of woodcock was prohibited, because they 
were so scarce that it was almost impossible to fill an 
order, and that if the sale was stopped it would relieve 
them from the trouble of making the attempt. They also 
testified that partridges sold as high as $2.50 per pair 
last season. It must be remembered that those men were 
wholesale dealers ; as a fact, these birds sold as high as 
$3 per pair at retail during the last season. When it is 
considered that one of these,- as far as matter of actual 
nourishment is concerned, is not worth much, if any, 
over 25 cents, it will be seen that such an exaggerated 
price over any intrinsic value jiot only shows their very 
great scarcity, but is really a premium offered upon their 
extermination. 
The testimony of ex-Congressman Walker was of im- 
portance. He stated that birds were very scarce, so scarce 
that they did not furnish sufficient inducement for him 
to go hunting, and that he did not go into the brush 
during the last season. He also stated that forty years 
ago he and a friend killed thirty birds in one day, about 
one-third of which were partridges, though „ they were 
hunting particularly for woodcock. The woodcock and 
partridge have their own particular habitat and peculiar 
cover, yet they are also found to some extent in cover 
common to both. This and the fact that they were hunting 
for woodcock will explain why a larger part of their bag 
was woodcock. 
Witnesses testifying regarding the present conditions. 
