84 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
[Aug. 3, t^ot, 
once of killing "on the Tobique," beaver weighing 80 
pounds or more. Now, does that take any one's breath 
away? All I can say is that it is a datum tliat has Jong 
been in my memory, and I would like to hear expert 
testimony about it. C. H. Ames. 
Proprietors of shooting resorts will find it profitable to advertise 
them in Forest and Stkeau. 
The Illinois Quail Law. 
State Game Commissioner Lovejoy has issued a notice 
to his deputy game wardens, reading as follows: 
RoscoE, 111., July I. — To whom it may concern : Acting 
on_ the authority of Attorney-General Hamlin, of Illi- 
nois, I wish to say, that while it is true that under the 
law as it now stands, a person may kill quail at any time 
of the year after this date, but in so doing he consents 
that the title to such quail shall remain in the State, and 
if such quail is killed or in his possession for any purpose 
prohibited by law, any game warden or deputy, may take 
possession and dispose of same, as provided in sections 
20, 21, 22 and 23 of the original act, which are still in 
full force and effect. I therefore instruct all wardens and 
deputies to take possession of any quail killed by any 
one, between the twentieth day of December, and the first 
day of November of the succeeding year. 
Under the law as it now stands you are fully author- 
ized to take such possession. 
By section 29 of the original act which is still in force 
and effect, it is made unlawful "for any person or per- 
sons, to hunt with dog, gun or net within or upon the 
ground or the land of another, without his obtaining 
from the owner, agent or occupant of such ground or 
land, his, her or their permission so to do." 
I. wish to urge the enforcement of the above. Re- 
spectfully, In 
A. J. Lovejoy, State Game Commissioner. 
The opinion of the Attorney-General, upon the author- 
ity of which this opinion is based, reads as follows: 
Springfield, 111., June 21. — Hon. A, J. Lovejoy, Roscoe, 
111.: Dear Sir — ^Replying to your inquiry, "Does the 
statute, for the protection of game, approved JVIay 10, 
1901, and in force July i, 1901, repeal the first section of 
the statute for the protection of game, approved April 
24, 1899. and in force July i, 1899?" 
The chief difference between the two laws consists in 
the omissioii of the word "quail" in the law of 1901; 
whereas quail was protected by the law of 1899. 
Except some slight changes as to the time to hunt, 
entrap, etc., game, and the punishment for the violation 
of the law. the two sections are substantially the same, 
save that the word "quail" is left out of the law of 
igoi. 
The statute of 1901 provides that section I of the law 
of 1899 shall "be amended to read as follows:" 
The general principle laid down in the text books and 
often declared by the Supreme Court is: Repeals by 
implication are not favored. 
Section 2, however, of the recent act of 1901 is as fol- 
lows: "AH acts and parts of acts conflicting herewith 
are hereby repealed." 
It is apparent that the two laws do conflict, and so far 
as they do conflict, the law of 1901 is an express repeal 
of the law of 1899. 
Besides other repugnancies between the two acts, the 
punishment is entirely different. In the law of 1899 the 
punishment for each offense is not less than $5 nor more 
than $25; in the law of 1901 the punishment is not less 
than $15 nor more than $50. There is, therefore, such 
a repugnancj' that it is impossible to reconcile the two 
acts. 
Whenever a law has been amended in this particular 
manner the Supreme Court has uniformly held that the. 
amended law is repealed. 
When an amendatory act declares a certain section 
"shall be amended that it shall read as follows," and then 
makes a distinct provision, that operates to repeal the 
section of the amended act named. 
In the People vs. Young, 38 111., 490, the Supreme_ 
Court says: "A form of amendment of the section of 
the statute that it shall be 'amended to read as follows,' 
setting out in words how it shall read, of necessity re- 
peals all of the section, as it before stood, which is left 
out of and not included in the reading which _is written 
5n the amendatory act for the section to have." To the 
same effect is Goodal vs. The People, 123 111., 389-394; 
L. & N. R. R. Co. vs. the City of East St. Louis, 134 
^'in the case of Palmer vs. the City of Danville, 166 111.. 
49, the Court held: "The amended act declared that the 
statute should be amended to read as therein provided, 
and it is operated to repeal the original action and to 
substitute the amended section." . 
I am. therefore, of the opinion that section i ot tne 
law of 1899 is repealed by the law of 1901- rr ■ , 
I am of the further opinion, however, that sutticient 
of the act of 1899 remains, if rigidly enforced, to protect 
'^"bv section 2 of that act, which is still in force, it is 
provided it shall further "be unlawful for any person or, 
persons at any time to sell or expose for sale or to have 
in his or their possession for the purpose of selling, any 
quail, etc., that shall have been caught, ensnared, trapped 
or killed within the limits of this State. ' . . , ^ 
I^ is further proAaded in section 11 of the original act, 
which is still in full force, "that the ownership of and title 
to all wild game and birds in the State of Illinois is 
herebv declared to be in the State; and no wild game 
or bii-ds shall be taken or killed iri any manner, or at 
any time except the persons so taking or killing shall 
consent that the title to said game shall be and remain 
in the State of Illinois, for the purpose of regulatmg the 
use and disposition of the same after such taking or 
^'bv lection 29 of the original act, which is still in full force 
and efTect it is made unlawful "for any person or persons ^„ 
to hunt with dog, gun or net within or upon the ground , 
pr the land of another without his obtammg from the .f 
owner, agent or occupant of such ground or land his, her 
or their permission so to do." 
While it is true that under thfe law as it now stands 
a person may kill quail at any time of the year, but in 
so doing he consents that the title to such quail shall 
remain in the State, and if such quail is killed or in his 
possession for any purpose prohibited by law, any State 
game warden or deputy may take possession and dispose 
of the same, as provided in sections 20, 21, 22 and 23 of 
the original act, which are still in force and effect. 
I would recommend that you instruct your deputy 
wardens to take possession of any quail killed by any 
one at any such times in the year as in your judgment 
would best protect the quail in Illinois from destruction, 
and under the law, as it now stands, your deputies will 
be fully authorized to take such possession. 
I remain, very respectfully yours, 
H. J. Hamlin, Attorney-General. 
Some Moose Heads, 
As moose measurements Mr. G. E. Armstrong has 
kindly furnished me the following list of statistics of 
moose shot in his camps during the last three seasons, with 
permission to send them to Forest and Stream for publi- 
cation. This record seems to me noteworthy. For ob- 
vious reasons of delicacy, the names of the individual 
sportsmen, which are given to the editor in full, are here 
replaced by initials: 
Moose Shot at G, R. Armstroag's Camps in the Seasons 
of 1898, JS99 and 1900. 
Spread, Web, 
1898. Sportsmen. Inches. Inches. Points. 
Sept. 1. Dr. A. M 34 5 9 
Sept. 3. W. M 36 7 10 
Sept. 12. V. F. P 48 12 24 
Sept. 18. E. R. L 48 12 26 
Sept. 27. G. A. S..... 40 7 13 
Oct. 4. C. S. B 58 13 2(> 
Oct. 9. L. F. F 37 8 18 
Dec. 10. C. P. W 63_ 19% 32 
Average, 8 moose 45% 10% 20 
sSf 10. W. E. H 52% 12 24 
Stpt. IL C. E. W 53% 11 18 
Sept. 28. C. B. T. 58 13 21 
Oct. 3. O. S 56 12 18 
Oct. B. E. C 46 14 24 
Oct. 14. C. M. C 26 6 S 
Nov. 10. H. L. P 36 7 U 
Nov. 10. S. A 42 15 22 
Nov. 23. C. P. W 33^ _f 
Average, 10 moose 401-3 9% 16 
Sept. 15. N. C. N 34 6 8 
Sept. 15. T. A... 44 12 18 
Sept. 17. \V. H. G 49% 15 26 
Sept. 18. W. O. A... 47 10 24 
Sept. 18. O. R 51 14 23 
Sept. 18. L. M. W 48% 11% 23 
Sept. 20. E. M 56 15 28 
Sent 26 S A 55 7 IS 
ocf 3. B. G.;:::::.;: 50 u is 
Oct. 5. E. D. W 40 8 15 
Nov. 29. C. V 44% 13 22 
Dec. 15. G. E. A 50^ 1^ ^ 
Average, 12 moose 47% HV4 20 
Total average, 30 moose 44% 10% 19 
W. O . Atwater. 
The Eastern Shore. 
Stockton, Md., July 24.— Once more the soft whistle 
of the yellowleg sounds from the marshes, borne on the 
breeze that waves the long salt grass like the billows of an 
ocean— mile on mile of undulating green, full of ponds, in- 
lets and bays, stretching away until lost in the shadow of 
the dark, unbroken line of pine woods as far as the eye 
can see. On the ocean side uprises a border of glistening 
white sand dunes, piled high by the even pounding surf. 
Over this wide expanse of marsh and islands pass thou- 
sands of shore birds, stopping to feed in the half-dry 
ponds or following the waves up and down over the flat 
ocean beach. What a mixed lot they are— willet, yellow- 
legs, dowitchers, greybacks, hay birds and sandpipers and 
plovers of many kinds. There is no quarreling, no chas- 
ing or picking each other; all are intent on the one busi- 
ness of capturing as many snails, bugs, shellfish and worms 
as their quick eyes can detect in the mud and shifting 
sand. They are always moving, always eating, seemingly 
never full. 
. Mosquitoes, you say? Certainly we have mosquitoes! 
Who ever heard of a salt marsh without mosquitoes? 
Not only one kind, but nine or even more, we are told, 
each with its own particular way of cultivating your 
acquaintance. Now in the mountains and North Woods 
you have the black flies ; in the Southern woods you have 
green flies, sheep flies and ticks ; on_ the Southern coast 
you have midges, and over the fields and farms, North and 
South, you have the harvest midges. But go where you 
will, if there is a pond, lake or river near, you have the 
inevitable mosquito. We are not the only spot. How- 
ever, a netting thrown over your head as you walk to your 
pond, saves all blood shedding; then when you are quiet 
in your blind, your decoys all ottt, the mosquitoes settle 
away again and you are little disturbed, unless you persist 
in getting up and running about through the grass. 
Generally the flights stop and feed in goodly numbers, 
keeping the marshes well worked from the middle of July 
until the middle of August, Then the late flight is on, 
which often is here far into September. Then again the 
feeding conditions do not seem to suit the birds, and 
flight after flight will pass on down the coast to be seen no 
more until spring. Plenty of fresh rain water on the 
marshes holds the yellowlegs and other marsh feeders; 
low tides and bare mud flats draw the other flight birds. 
If the birds are moving well, the shooting is fast, and the 
sport something to be remembered, but if birds are scarce 
and not flying, the sun gets very hot, the marsh smells 
bad, the mosquitoes bother and the whole thing is mean. 
The whole country here is full of quail. I have never 
seen so many old birds in early summer, and as we have 
had no rain to hurt since the first of June, I do not think 
the young birds can now be in any danger. Driving four 
miles along our road last week, I counted eighteen birds 
that I saw on the fences and in the road, and I heard as 
many if not more whistling back in the fields and along 
the edge of woods. I look for good shooting this fall, and 
as the season does not open until Nov. 10, the birds will be 
big and strong. , O. D. Foulks. 
CHICAGO AND THE WEST. 
Sad Death of John L. Collins, 
Chicago, July 24. — Mr John L. Collins, for many years 
cashier in the Chicago office of Messrs. E. L Dupont, De 
Nemours & Co., met his death this morning in an elevator 
accident at the Masonic Temple. The offices of tlie Du- 
pont Company are on the fifteenth floor of that building, 
and Mr. Collins was going up to that floor. The elevator 
boy opened the door to let off a woman at the thirteenth 
floor, and it is likely that Mr. Collins at this moment be- 
lieved that it A¥as the fifteenth floor. Without stopping to 
think, he sprang past the elevator conductor and got part 
way through the door just as the car started up. He was 
carried to the floor above and crushed between the car 
and the floor, his body falling the full length to the base- 
ment, death, of course, being instantaneous. 
Mr. Collins was favorably known among the shooters of 
Chicago as a man diligent and attentive to his business, 
yet always affable and pleasant. He was fifty-two years 
of age, married and the father of a nineteen-year-old son. 
Mr, Collins was a son of the late Rear-Admiral Napoleon 
ColHns, of the U. S. Navy. 
In Town. 
Mr. Charles Porter, of the Marlin Fire Arms Co,, New 
Haven, Conn., is in town this week upon business con- 
nected with the trade. 
Out of Town, 
Messrs. A. S. Trude and W. S. Forrest, two of the lead- 
ing criminal lawyers in Chicago, start this week for Jack- 
son's Hole, Wyo., where they will fish and perhaps later 
hunt for large game. Mr. Trude has a lodge not far from 
that point, and makes a trip to the Rockies every year. 
Mr. Martin Andrews, of this city, leaves this week for 
an extended stay at Plum Lake, Wis., where he will fish 
and rest. 
Mr. John D. Coleman, of San Francisco, Cal., outfitted 
in Chicago this week for a trip of some extent in the lake 
region of Minnesota, where he will fish for black bass and 
muscallonge. Mr. Henry D. Bushnell, of this city, out- 
fitted extensively this week for a trip to Old Mexico. 
E. Hough. 
The State's Right to Prohibit the 
Sale of Imported Game. 
Following is the text of the decision handed down by 
Judge Bellinger in the Deininger case. The point at 
issue was the right of the State to forbid the possession 
for sale of game or fish lawfully killed in another state 
and lawfully exported therefrom: 
In re Deininger. (Circuit Court, D. Oregon. April 
17, igoi.) No. 2,670. 
Bellinger, District Judge. The petitioner was con- 
victed in the State Court of having in his possession trout 
for sale, in violation of the game laws of Oregon, and 
was sentenced to pay a fine of $35. In default of pay- 
ment, he has been imprisoned by the sheriff of the 
county. He therefore makes this application for a writ 
of habeas corpus, and this hearing is for an order upon 
the sheriff to show cause why the writ should not be 
granted. The facts in the case, briefly, are that the peti- 
tioner is the manager of the Chlopeck Fishing Company, 
doing business in Portland, Ore.; that said company 
conducts a retail fish market in Portland; that the trout 
in question were purchased in the city of Seattle, in the 
State of Washington, where they had been lawfully 
caught, and were shipped from that State to the market 
of the company in Portland, for sale there. 
It is contended for the petitioner that the law of Ore- 
gon which makes the possession of trout for sale, law- 
fully caught in another State, unlawful, is a restraint of 
interstate commerce, and is therefore void. In the case 
of Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S., 519; 16 Sup. Ct, 600; 
40 L. Ed., 792, it is held that a law of Connecticut which 
provides that no person shall at any time kill any wood- 
cock, ruffed grouse, or quail for the purpose of conveying 
the same beyond the limits of the State, or shall trans- 
port or have in possession, with intent to procure the 
transportation beyond such limits, any such birds killed 
within such State, is legi-slation which it is within the 
constitutional power of the State to enact. In jihat case, 
as in this, it was contended that the act of the State of 
Connecticut was in • restraint of interstate commerce, 
since it made the possession of the birds in question for 
the purpose of conveying the same beyond the State 
illegal, notwithstanding the fact that said birds were 
lawfully killed in the State of Connecticut. The decision 
is based upon the fundamental distinction that exists 
between the qualified ownership in game and the perfect 
nature of ownership in other property. If game when 
reduced to possession became an article of property, in 
the ordinary sense of the word, it would belong to com- 
merce; otherwise, it is a subject of control by the State, 
in the exercise of its police power. There is, in my 
opinion, no room to distinguish between the right to 
take game out of the .State and the right to bring it 
within the State. Interstate traffic is affected as much 
in one case as in the other. It is not material that in 
one case the killing of game is discouraged by the Hmita- 
tion which the law puts upon its use, by prohibiting its 
exportation, while in the other the enforcement of the 
law against the taking of game is rendered practicable 
by making its possession for sale umlawful. The ultimate 
object sought in each case is the same, and the law in 
each case is a legitimate exercise of the police power of 
the State. The taking of game is not an industry. It is 
merely a diversion. If it is ever anything more than 
this, it is under primitive conditions of society, when 
industrial enterprise and commerce are not .yet estab- 
lished. It is wholly immaterial whether the game was 
lawfully caught within the State of Washington or not. 
The violation of the laws of Washington imposes no duty 
in respect to the particular matter upon the State of 
Oregon. Its right to prohibit the possession of the 
interdicted game does not depend upon what has been 
done in another jurisdiction, but wholly upon the limited 
right of property which exists in game birds, animals, 
and fishes. . r , 
The right to legislate without restraint, so lar as the 
