466 
wildfowl are permanently located in their places a great 
deal of work of this sort will be undertaken. 
The work of preparing the garden for the public goes 
on most energetically, and walks and drives are being 
made. A system of iabeling_ tho cages has been devised 
by which a small picture, painted on each label with the 
name of the bird or animal, will enable the individual 
most unlearned in matters zoological to associate the 
name on the label with the animal in the cage. This is 
a matter of very great importance, since it will trans- 
form the Society's collections from a mere wild beast 
show into an exhibition of very higli educational value, 
enabling each observer to identify tlier-aniimaJs that be 
may see. 
The Society has just issued its fourth annual report, a 
document which, for the information it contains and its 
illustrations, ought to be in the hands of every one in- 
terested in wild creatures. As yet the New Yoi'k Zoolog- 
ical Park has been seen by very few people, but as it 
comes to be more and more known its value both from 
the point: of entertainment and education will come to be 
highly appreciated. 
Light Stations and the Birds. 
The Lighthouse Board has recently sent out a circular 
letter to light-keepers cautioning them against the vio- 
lation of the game laws of the States in which they may 
be stationed, and to inculcate in them a spirit of protec- 
tion, not only of the game birds, but of song birds, and 
of all bird life. 
See the list of good things in Woodcraft in our adv. cols. 
dni^ md 0mu 
Preservation of African Game. 
The text of the Convention signed at London, May 
IS, for the preservation of the wild life of Africa, has just 
been issued as a Parliamentary Paper. The contracting 
parties are the Queen, the German Emperor, the King of 
Spain, the King of the Belgians (for the Congo State), 
the French President, the King of ItaJy and the King' of 
Portugal. The articles defining the scope and adopted 
methods of the Convention are as follows: 
ARTICLE I, 
The zone within which the provisions of the present 
Convention shall apply is bounded as follows: On the 
north by the twentieth parallel of north latitude, on the 
west by the Atlantic Ocean, on the east by the Red Sea 
and by the Indian Ocean, on the south by a line followiiig 
the northern boundary of the German possessions in 
Southwestern Africa, fi-om its western extremity to its 
junction with the River Zambesi, and thence running 
along the right bank of that river as far as the Indian 
Ocean. 
ARTICLE a. 
The High Contracting Powers declare that tlie most 
effective means of preserving the various forms of animal 
life existing in a wild state within the zone defined in 
Article I. are the following: 
1. Prohibition of the hunting and destruction of the 
animals mentioned in Schedule I. attached to the present 
Convention, and also of any other animals whose protec- 
tion, whether owing to their usefulness or to their rarity 
and threatened extermination, may be. considered neces- 
sary by each local Government. 
2. Prohibition of the hunting and destruction of young 
animals of the species mentioned in Schedule II. attached 
to the present Convention. 
3. Prohibition of the hunting and destruction of the 
females of the species mentioned in Schedule III. attached 
to the present Convention when accompanied by their 
young. The prohibition, to a certain extent, of the 
destruction of any females, when they can be recognized 
a,s such, with the exception of those of the species rnen- 
tioned in Schedule V. attached to the present Convention. 
4. Prohibition of the hunting and destruction, except in 
limited numbers, of animals of the species mentioned in 
Schedule IV. attached to the present Convention. 
5. Establishment, as far as it is possible, of reserves 
within which it shall be unlawful to hunt, capture or kill 
any bird or other wild animal except those which shall 
be specially exempted from protection by the local author- 
ities. By the term "reserves" are to be understood 
sufficiently large tracts of land which have all the qualifica- 
tions necessary as regards food, water, and, if possible, 
salt, for preserving birds or other wild aninaals, and for 
affording them the necessary quiet during the breeding 
time! 
6. Establishment of close seasons with a view to facili- 
tate the rearing of young. 
7. Prohibition of the hunting of 'Wild animals by any 
persons except holders of licenses issued by the local 
Government, such licenses to be revocable in case of any 
breach of. the provisions of the present Convention. 
8. Restriction of the use of nets and pitfalls for taking 
animals. 
9. Prohibition of the use of dynamite or other ex- 
plosives, and of poison, for the purpose of taking fish in 
rivers, streams, brooks, lakes, ponds, or lagoons. 
ro. Ii'dposition of export duties on the hides and skins 
of giraffes, antelopes, zebras, rhinoceroses and hippotami, 
on rhiti6ceros and antelope horns, and on hippopotamus 
tusks.' 
11. Prohibition of hunting or killing young elephants, 
and, in order to insure the efficacy of this measure, estab- 
lishment of severe penalties against the hunters, and the 
confiscation in every case, by the local Governments, of all 
elephant tusks weighing less than 5 kilograms. 
The confiscation shall not be enforced when it shall be 
duly proved that the possession of the tusks weighing less 
than 5 kilograms was anterior to the date of the coming 
into force of the present Convention. No such proof shall 
be accepted a year after that date. 
12. Application of measures, such as the supervision of 
sick cattle, etc., for preventing the transmission of con- 
tagious diseases from domestic animals to wild animals. 
13. Application of measures for effecting the sufficient 
reduction of the numbers of the animals of the species 
FOREST AND STHE.AM. 
mentioned in Schedule V. attached to the present Con- 
vention. 
14. Application of measures fdr Insuring the protection 
of the eggs of ostriches. 
15. Destruction of the eggs of crocodiles, of those of 
poisonous snakes, and of those of pythons. 
ARTICLE III. 
The contracting parties undertake to promulgate, within 
a year from the date on which the present Convention 
conies into force, unless they already exist, provisions 
applying in their respective possessions within the zone 
defined in Article I. the principles and measures laid down 
in Article II., and to communicate to one another, as 
soon as possible after issue, the text of such provisions, 
and, within eighteen months, information as to the areas 
which may be established as reserves. It is, however, u:i- 
derstood that the principles laid doAvn in paragraphs i, 2, 
3, 5 and 9 of Article IT. may be relaxed, either in order 
to permi{ the collection of specimens for museums or 
zoological gardens, or for any other scientific purpose, or 
in cases where such relaxation is desirable for important 
administrative reasons, or necessitated by temporary 
difficulties in the administrative organization of certain 
territories. 
ARTICLE i.v. 
The contracting parties undertake to apply, as far as 
possible, each in their respective possessions, measures for 
encouraging the domestication of zebras, of , elephants, of 
ostriches, etc. 
SCHEDULE I. 
Animals referred to in paragraph i of Article II., whose 
preservation it is desired to insure : 
(Series A). — On account of their usefulness: I, vul- 
tures; 2, secretary bird; 3, owls; 4, rhinoceros birds or 
beef-eaters (Buphaga) . 
(Series B). — On account of their rarity and threatened 
extermination: i, giraffe; 2, gorilla; 3, chimpanzee; 4, 
mountain zebra; 5, wild asses; 6, white-tailed gnu {Con- 
nochcetes gnu) ; 7, elands {Taurotragus) ; 8, little Liberian 
hippopotamus. 
SCHEDULE II. 
Anirnals referred to in paragraph 2 of Article II., of 
which it is desired to prohibit the destruction when 
young : i, elephants ; 2, rhinoceroses ; 3, hippopotami ; 4, 
zebras of the species not referred to in Schedule I.; 5.. 
buffaloes; 6, antelopes and gazelles; 7, ibex; 8, chevrotains 
{Tragulus) . 
SCHEDULE III. 
Animals referred to in paragraph 3 of Article II., the 
killing of - the females of which, when accompanied by 
their young, is prohibited: i, elephants; 2, rhinoceroses; 
3, hippopotami ; 4, zebras of the species not referred to 
in Schedule I.; buffaloes; 6, antelopes and gazelles; 7, 
ibex; 8, chevrotains {Tragulus). 
SCHEDULE IV. 
Animals referred to in paragraph 4 of Article II., of 
which only limited numbers may be killed: i, elephants; 
2, rhinoceroses; 3, hippopotami; 4, zebras of the .species 
not referred to in Schedule I. ; 5, buffaloes ; 6, antelope 
and gazelles; 7, ibex; 8, chevrotains {Tragulus); 9, 
various pigs; 10, colibi and all the fur monkeys; 11, aard- 
varks (genus Oryctoropus) ; 12, dugongs (genus Hall- 
core) ; 13, manatees (genus Mamatus) ; 14, small cats; 15, 
serval; 16, cheetah {Cynoslarus) \ 17, jackals; 18, aard- 
wolf (Protelcs) ; 19, small monkeys; 20, ostriches; 21, 
marabous; 22, egrets; 23, bustards; 24, francolins, guinea 
fowl, and other "game" birds; 25, large tortoises. 
SCHEDULE V. 
Harmful animals referred to in paragraphs 3 and 13 of 
Article II., of which it is desired to reduce the numbers 
Avithin sufficient limits: i, lions; 2,. leopards; 3, hyaenas; 
4, hunting dogs (Lycaon pictus) ; S, otter (Lutra) ; 6, 
baboons {Cynocephalus) and other harmful monkeys; 7, 
large birds of prey, except vulture, the secretary bird and 
owls; 8, crocodiles; 9, poisonous snakes; lO, pythons. 
The Marin County Case. 
In the United States Circuit Court for the Northern 
District of California. 
IN KE APPLICATION OF W. A. MARSHALL FOR A WRIT OF 
HABEAS CORPUS. 
The petitioner was convicted in the Justices' Court of 
Marin county, California, of a violation of the provisions 
of an ordinance enacted by the Board of Supervisors of 
that county declaring in its seventh section that "Every 
person who, in the county of Marin, shall use any kind 
of a repeating shotgun or any kind of magazine shotgun 
for the purpose of killing or destroying any kind of wild 
duck, geese, quail, partridge, doves, or any other birds, 
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor" ; and by its eighth 
section prescribing that "Any person violating any pro- 
vision of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, 
and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by 
imprisonment in the county jail for not less than ten days 
or more than thirty days, or pay a fine of not less than 
twenty dollars or more than two hundred dollars, or by 
both such fine and imprisonment. A judgment that the 
defendant pay a fine may also direct that he be imprisoned 
until the fine be satisfied, specifying the extent of im- 
prisonment, which must not exceed one day for every 
dollar of the fine." 
The complaint upon which the petitioner was prosecuted 
and on which his conviction rests charges in substance 
that on the 12th day of January, 1900, he did in the county 
of IVIarin, State of California, use a repeating shotgun for 
the purpose of killing quail and bluejays, and did on that 
day and in that county shoot and kill with a repeating 
shotgun one quail and one bluejay, contrary to the provi- 
sions of the seventh section of the ordinance mentioned. 
A judgment of imprisonment having followed the convic- 
tion, the petitioner seeks his discharge from custody under 
the judgment by means of a writ of habeas corpus, on 
the ground that the judgment and his imprisonment there- 
under are in contravention of provisions of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States and therefore void. 
By the fourteenth amendment of that Constitution it 
is, among other things, declared that "No State shall 
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges 
or immunities of citizens of the United States ;t nor sk^H 
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or propeif^H 
without due process of law ; nor deny to any person witl^H 
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 
The broad question in the case is whether all or t^itl^H 
of these provisions have or has been violated by 
judgment under which the petitioner is held in custo^(| 
"Life," said Mr. Justice Swayne, in the Slaughter-Housc 
Cases, 16 Wall.j 127, "is the gift of God, and the right t. . 
preserve it is the most sacred of the rights of man 
Liberty is freedom from all restraints Init such as arc 
justly imposed by law. Beyond that line lies the domain 
of usurpation and tyranny. Property is everything which 
has an exchangeable value, and the right of property \\\- 
chides the power to dispose of it according to the will nf 
the owner. Labor is property, and, as such, merits pro 
tection. The right to make it available is next in ini 
portance to the rights of life and liberty. It lies, to a 
large extent, at the foundation of most other forms of 
property." This was said in a dissenting opinion, but it 
is none the less true. The evidence given on the hearino; 
of the application of the petitioner shows that the repeat- 
ing shotgun with Avhich the petitioner killed the quail and 
bluejay he was convicted of killing was his own gun, 
manttfactured b}' a concern whose annual output of such 
guns aggregate several million dollars itt value ; that the ' 
petitioner killed the quail and bluejay on his own land, and , 
that the gun in question with which he did the kiUing was .j 
not only not inore but in fact less destructive than the • 
double-barreled automatic ejector shotgun not prohibited ' 
by the Marin county ordinance. Guns are made, not foi- 
ornament, but to be used; and their chief, if not their 
only, value is in their use. "The constitutional guaranty," 
said the Court of Appeals of New York in the matter ot' 
Jacobs, 98 N. Y., 105, "that no person shall be deprived of 
property without due process of law may be violated with- j 
out the physical taking of property for public or private 
use. Property may be destroyed, or its value may be 
annihilated ; it is owned and kept for some useful purpose 
and: it has no value unless it can be used. Its capability for 
enjoyment and adaptability to some use are essential char- 
acteristics and attributes withotit which property catinot 
be conceived ; and hence any law which destroys it or its 
value, or takes away any of its essential attributes, de-' 
prives the owner of his property." See also Pumpelly vs. 
Green Bay Co., 13 Wall., 177; Wynehamer vs. People, 
13 N. Y., 398; People vs. Otis, 90 N. Y., 48. To deprive 
the petitioner of the it.se of the gun in question is therefore 
to deprive him of his property. Not only so, but if Marin 
county may lawfully prohibit the use of such a gun, everyi 
other county within the State of California may, as a 
matter of course, do likewise, and so may every other 
State and Territory within the United States, thus prac- 
tically destroying the manufacture of this class of gun.<: 
for the shooting of game within the United States. 
Of course, this right of property^ as well as the higher 
right of liberty of action on the part of the owner— tht 
rights here involved of freely using one's own property — 
is subject to the lawful exercise of the police power; s 
power which, as said by the Court in the Slaughter-Houst 
Cases, 16 Wall.. 36, 62, "is, and must be from its verj 
nature, incapable of any very exact definition or limita' 
tion." It is not denied on the part of the petitioner, anc 
cannot be successfully denied, that private property anc 
private rights must always yield where the public safety: 
public health, or public morals demand the sacrifice 
Thus, if a great conflagration is spreading toward one'' 
house and the public exigency demands it, the individual'; 
home may be torn down or blown up, if such drastic 
measure be necessary to stajr the fire. So may gambling 
and dance houses and .such devices and other things a; 
have direct relation to public morals be absolutely in 
hibited and prohibited. On the same principle — that O' 
danger to the public— it is held that the sale of intoxicating 
liquor by retail may be entirely prohibited and the valut 
of breweries destroyed bj' the laws prohibiting the manu, 
facture of malt liquors. Carroll vs. Christiensen, 13; 
U, S., 86; Muegler vs. Kansas, 123 U. S., 669. But surely 
in a case like the one at bar, where there is no questioi 
of the public safety, public health, or public morals, ant 
where the prohibited act is in no respect malum in se 
the absolute prohibition of the use of one's own propert: 
on his own land cannot he held to be a reasonable exer 
cise of the police power, when regulation will plainly attaii, 
tlie end desired by the legislation in question. In th' 
present instance, what was the end sought? Manifest!: 
only the prevention of the taking or killing by one persoi. 
of more than twenty-five quail, partridge or grouse ij 
any one day; for section 3 of the ordinance provides 
"Every person who in the count}' of Marin shall take, ki) 
or destroy more than twenty-five quail, partridge or grous 
in one day, and every person who in the county of Marh 
shall have in his possession in any one day more thai 
twenty-five quail, partridge or grouse, shall be guilty 0 
a misdemeanor." That end is just as effectively accom' 
plished Avithout the obnoxious section as with it. It 1 
wholly immaterial to that object whether the sportsmai 
or hunter use a repeating or magazine gun, or a doubl 
or single barreled gun. When the limit is reached he ha 
to stop shooting or incur the penalty prescribed, An^ 
the opportunity of detection is just as great in the on 
case as in the other. No valid reason i.s therefore per 
ceiA'ed, and none has been suggested by counsel, why tli 
owner of a repeating or magazine shotgun should b 
prohibited from using it, and the owmer of the equally j 
not more effective double-barreled automatic ejector shot 
gun be free to use it, in killing the twenty-five quai 
partridge or grouse permitted to be killed by any pefso 
in one day. The eqnal protection of the laws to whic 
every person is, by the provision of the Constitution c 
the United States above quoted, declared entitled, _ woul' 
indeed be a vain thing if such discriminatory legislatta 
was sttstained by the courts. If section 7 of the ordinaji 
in question is valid, no reason is perceived why the proc- 
of elimination may not be extended by next prohibiting th a 
use of the double-barreled automatic ejector shotgun, ne>. [f 
all but muzzleloading guns, and so on tmtil the pof 
gun only is permitted to be used upon wild duck, geest 
quail, partridge, grouse, doves, or other birds in Mari 
county. Laws enacted in the exercise of the police powe iii 
whether by a municipal corporation acting in pursuance c n 
the laws of a State, or by a State itself, must be reasoi:, s 
able and are always subject to the provisions of both tli, iil 
Federal and State con.stitutions ; and they are alwavs sui: ti| 
ject to judicial scrutiny. Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, riS V . S: ^ 
