366 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
[May io, tgoi. 
tiful crown animalcule, Stephanoceros eichornii. The five 
arms which constitute the crown are long, slender and 
curved inward, their surface being clad with whorls of 
elongated setas. Beneath the crown is a kind of broad 
head, attached by a neck or collar to the irregular, cylin- 
drical body. The lower portion of the body is attenuated 
into a slender foot, by means of which the little creature 
is generally attached to the stem of some aquatic plant. A 
gelatinous envelope incloses the body, as in a transparent 
>case, which reaches upward to the neck and downward 
to the extremity of the foot, around which it is also at- 
tached to the support of the animal. 
Mr. Gosse, the naturalist, who carefully studied this 
species, says that the expanded arms of the crown with 
their setse form a kind of cup of network, contracted at 
the mouth. 
He says that both arms and sctas are commonly held 
motionless, yet there is a manifest vortex in the inclosed 
area; for small infusoria approaching are quickly drawn 
in and are driven about in the space. They can enter 
readily at all parts between the arms, but cannot get out ; 
for if one approaches the arms from within, it is seen in- 
stantly to be shot back toward the center. He, after 
much patient watching, discovered that, the motion was 
caused by the setse ; a minute, tremulous, and, as it were, 
spasmodic wave being seen to run along the nearest pen- 
cils at the instant. From this he deduces that the setse 
serve as a living net, which admit the prey to enter _ 
without resistance, but if touched from within vibrate 
in such a way as to jerk the touching body with consider- 
able force toward the center of the contained area. When 
.once the prey passes down below the area into the 
mouth funnel, which is formed by very contractile walls, a 
slight constriction takes place in the neck, which has 
the effect 'of forcing the monad down to the mouth of a 
capacious crop, which lies across the upper part of the 
body. Here. a sort of swallowing motion is seen, and the 
prey passes with a gulp down into the cavity. 
[to be continued.] 
As this seems to be an impossibility just at present, I 
am unable to suggest a remedy for the wounding and 
waste for which poor shooting is responsible. 
Jos. W. Shtjrtek. 
Gansevookt, N. Y., April 28. 
and %tm* 
Big Bores vs. Small Bores. 
This discussion of big bores vs. small bores is about, as 
the darky said, "worn to a frazzle," but it seems to me 
that the "Hunting Experiences" detailed by Lew Wilmot 
in Forest and Stream for April 26, call for a few com- 
ments, which I will endeavor to supply. Mr. Wilmot is 
undoubtedly an experienced hunter and a crack shot, and 
his article gives a lot of interesting data which shows 
what can be accomplished with small-bore arms under the 
most favorable conditions. It presents a fascinating pic- 
ture of skill which many others will no doubt attempt to 
emulate. 
And herein lies the danger, for there are two sides to 
this picture, the reverse side of which is anything but 
fascinating to any true sportsman who deplores the 
rapidity with which our game animals are vanishing off 
the face of the earth. 
Mr. ' Wilmot tells us of the clean kills he has made 
with his Colt's revolver, and his little .22-caliber rifle, and 
it would be interesting to know what ratio these kills bear 
to the number of animals he has wounded with these 
weapons. The facts might not be very bad in his case, 
for he is by his own showing an excellent hunter and a 
crack shot. But how is it in the case of others who are 
not so skillful, who are led by such fascinating pictures 
of skill to use small bores and light charges? Well, we 
have heard something about how it worked up in New 
Brunswick. It is not often that we get the chance to 
look on this side of the picture. When a deer is killed 
with a .22-caliber rifle, or a moose with a .30-30, we hear 
all about it promptly, but we do not hear much about the 
dozens which are wounded and escape to die and rot in 
seclusion. 
There is a wise provision in most game laws which 
limits the number of animals which a hunter may kill. But 
how often is the intent of this law violated by the use of 
rifles of insufficient power? I imagine if the truth could 
be known the awful aggregate would be appalling and 
sickening. If the hunter could be made to stop when he 
had wounded or killed the number the law permits, it 
would be all right, as in that case the wounded animals 
would be his loss. But no, lie is allowed to go right on 
maiming and crippling until he is lucky enough to kill 
his full quota. 
In this discussion the small-bore men have had much 
to say about lack of skill being responsible for the maim- 
ing and wounding of the small bore, and no doubt this is 
true in many cases. But the big-bore men do not seek to 
convict the small bore because of the shortcomings of the 
man behind it. They have better evidence. 
When it is shown that a bullet from a .30-40 stopped 
against the, neck bone of a moose without even knocking 
the animal down, it shows that there is a fault in the 
gun, and not in the man behind it. When a .30-caliber 
bullet stopped against the shoulder blade of a moose and 
only caused a pus cavity, it shows that the rifle from 
which it came lacked the power necessary in a moose gun. 
This discussion reminds me of a murder trial I once 
read about, in which the prosecution produced two 
credible witnesses who saw the prisoner commit the crime. 
The defense produced ten credible witnesses who did not 
see him commit the crime, and claimed that he should 
be adjudged innocent because erf the preponderance of 
evidence in his favor.- 
Now, what are the requisites in the ideal big-game 
rifle? Manifestly these: It should be a repeater of suffi- 
cient power to kill surely and quickly every time it is 
held right. A rifle < is held right when it is aimed at a 
vital point in the animal shot at. If tough hide and thick 
muscles intervene, they, should be cut through, and if 
massive bones are in the way they should be smashed. 
I think big-game _ hunters should unite in asking our 
manufacturers of rifles to put the ideal big-game rifle 
upon the market, and thus eliminate as fax as possible the 
wounding and waste of our big game, which is attributable 
to the use of rifles of lesser power. If rifle shots of the 
Wilmot type could be made to order like rifles, I should 
be in favor of having this done also. 
The Anti-Sale Bill. 
-Rochester, N. Y. — Editor Forest and Stream: The 
writer, with many others throughout this State, was, and 
are, much interested in the protection of our game birds — 
grouse, woodcock and quail — and necessarily took an 
active and greatly interested part in getting the Marson 
Bill No. 410 through the Assembly and Senate. And 
when it was learned that it was likely the Marson bill 
would not receive the Governor's approval, for the reason 
that it would be objectionable under the rule laid down 
by the Court of Appeals, in the case of People vs. Buffalo 
Fish Co., 164 N. Y., then the friends of protection 
dropped that bill and asked the Assembly and Senate to 
pass the Williams Bill 598, prohibiting the marketing of 
grouse killed in New York State. After no small amount 
of work by the friends of this measure, and little resist- 
ance, if any, from the lobbyist and cold storage forces, we 
all felt and to some extent were assured that the Gov- 
ernor would approve it, as we had been led to believe the 
lobby had no influence with the Governor, and that in one 
instance the Governor had rebuked the Albany gang. 
More than this, the Governor had his attention repeatedly 
called to these bills, and had repeatedly promised con- 
sideration to many, yet he saw fit without consultation 
with the friends of this bill to disapprove it. 
It is believed by the writer and others that the cold 
storage people, their attorneys, agents and servants and 
their interests were the only interests looked after by the 
Governor. The disapproval of the Williams bill is in the 
same category with his recommendation in his message 
to the Legislature, relative to permitting the pulp combine 
to cut all pulp timber under ten inches in the Forest Pre- 
serve, and to allow game dealers a license never to be 
enforced, a most mischievous piece of game legislation. 
In keeping with all this is his approval of the act amend- 
ing the navigation law, which, as I understand, permits 
lumbermen to flood the lands of any person and our 
Forest Preserve lands without liability, except for gross 
negligence. 
The dearest thing to the sportsman after his business, 
and nearest to his heart, is his recreation, and indeed 
many of us believe it is a great aid to our business, if not 
a necessity. 
Yes, the lobby and cold storage interest, their attorneys, 
agents and servants, had no occasion to worry about the 
Assembly and Senate, they knew the Governor, and his 
message and his acts seem to fully sustain this con- 
clusion. F. 
; Control 'of the Forest Reserves. 
The proposition to make game preserves of such of the 
forest reserves as may be adapted to the purpose has 
prompted an inquiry into the nature of the control which 
may be exercised by the Federal Government over the 
public lands. We give herewith the opinion given to Hon. 
John F. Lacey by Attorney-General Knox. From this it 
may be deduced that there is reasonable ground for the 
view that the Government may exercise sufficient author- 
ity to secure the protection of the game. 
Department of Justice, Washington, D. C, Jan. 3, 1902. — Hon. 
John F. Lacey, House of Representatives. — Sir: Complying with 
the request therefor, contained in your note of Dec. 5, 1901, I here 
transmit to you some of my views upon the questions there sug- 
gested. These questions are as to the power of Congress to enact 
laws for the protection and control of, or relating to our national 
forest reserves, when within the limits of a State; and specifically 
to make such reserves, to some extent, refuges for the preserva- 
tion of the remnant of the game on those localities. They neces- 
sarily involve also substantially the same questions as applicable 
to the general public domain; for, so far as concerns the ques- 
tion of Federal legislative power, no difference in principle is 
perceived. ' 
I quite agree with you that, as to those reserves situated within 
a Territory of the United States, this Federal legislative power 
is ample; and the questions are those arising when such reserves 
are within the limits of a State. 
* * * * * * * * * 
This, so manifestly the correct doctrine, would seem to cover 
and to settle the whole question, and to authorize the proposition 
that, as to public lands within a State, the Government has all the 
rights of an individual proprietor, supplemented with the power 
to make and enforce its own laws for the assertion of those 
rights and for the disposal and full and complete management, 
control and protection of its lands. 
Among these undoubted rights is the right of absolute or partial 
exclusion, either at all or at special times, and for any or for 
special purposes. 
While Congress certainly may by law prohibit and punish the 
entry upon or use of any part of these forest reserves for the pur- 
pose of the killing, capture or pursuit of game, this would not be 
sufficient. There are many persons now on those reserves by 
authority of law, and people are expressly authorized to go there, 
and it would be necessary to go further and to prohibit the killing, 
capture or pursuit of game, even though the entry upon the re- 
serve is not for that purpose. But, the right to forbid intrusion for 
the purpose of killing, per se, and without reference to any tres- 
pass on the property, is another. The first may be forbidden as a 
trespass and for the protection of the property; but when a person 
is lawfully there and not a trespasser or intruder, the question is 
different. 
But I am decidedly of opinion that Congress may forbid and 
punish the killing of game on these reserves, no matter that the 
slayer is lawfully there and is not a trespasser. If Congress may 
prohibit the use of these reserves for any purpose, it may for 
another; and while Congress permits persons to be there upon and 
use them for various purposes, it may fix limits to such use and 
occupation, and prescribe the purpose and objects for which they 
shall not be used, as for the killing, capture or pursuit of specified 
kinds of game. Generally, any private owner may forbid, upon 
his own land, any act that he chooses, although the act may be 
lawful in itself; and certainly Congress, invested also with legis- 
lative power, may do the same thing, just as it may prohibit the 
sale of intoxicating liquors, though such sale is otherwise lawful. 
After considerable attention to the whole subject, I have no 
hesitation in expressing my opinion that Congress has ample 
power to forbid and punish any and all kinds of trespass, upon or 
injury to, the forest reserves, including the trespass of entering 
upon or using them for the killing, capture or pursuit of game. 
The exercise of these powers would not conflict with any State 
authority. Most of the States have laws forbidding the killing, 
capture or pursuit of different kinds of game during specified por- 
tions of the year. This makes such killing, etc., lawful at other 
times, but only lawful because not made unlawful. And it is 
lawful only when the State has power to make it lawful, by either 
implication or direct enactment. But, except in those cases already 
referred to, such as eminent domain, service of process, etc., no 
State has power to authorize or make lawful a trespass upon 
private property. So that, though Congress should prohibit such 
killing, etc., upon its own lands, at all seasons of the year, this 
would not conflict with any State authority or control. That the 
preservation of game is part of the public policy of those States 
and for the benefit of their own people in shown by their own 
legislation, and they cannot complain if Congress- upon its own 
lands goes even further in that direction than the State, so long 
as the open season of the Slate law is not interfered with in any 
place where such law is paramount. 
It has always, been the policy of the Government to invite and 
induce the purchase and settlement of its public lands; and as the 
existence of game thereon and in their localities adds lo the 
desirability of the lands, and is a well-known inducement to their 
purchase, and it may well be considered whether, for this purpose 
alone, and without reference to the protection of the lands from 
trespass, Congress may not, or. its own lands, prohibit the killing 
of such game. 
Your other questions relate to the method of enforcing these 
Federal powers, if they exist— to the nature and kind of laws 
therefor. While such questions are peculiarly for Congress, yet, as 
you request it, I will suggest what occurs to me. 
You very properly suggest the power of Congress over inter- 
state commerce, as tending indirectly to this end, by prohibiting 
interstate transportation of game, living or dead, or of the skins 
or any part thereof. There is some legislation upon that subject. 
I do not take the pains to examine this to see how sufficient it is; 
but, if not already done, something to the end desired may be 
accomplished in this way; but, as a remedy, this would fall far 
short of what is required. 
You allude to the aid ond co-operation of forest rangers and 
those in charge, for the enforcement of State laws. This would be 
well, and especially so in the way of securing good feeling and 
harmonious action between Federal and State authorities. There 
is a provision for that in the act of March 3, 1899 (2 Sup. Rev. 
Stat., 993), but it simply imposes a very general duty, and should 
be more specific as to what acts are required to be done. 
In this connection, and with reference also to the general pro- 
tection of these reserves and the other public lands from fires, 
cutting timber, killing game and other depredations, I would 
suggest, in view of the existing law as to arrest without a war- , 
rant, whether it would not be well to give marshals and their 
deputies, and the superintendents, supervisors, rangers and other 
persons charged with the protection of these reserves, power, on 
the public lands, in certain cases approaching "hot pursuit," to 
arrest without warrant. Complaints come t. this Department that 
very often the place of illegal acts is so far from the office of any 
magistrate, and the means of communication such that before 
formal complaint can b»-made and an officer with a warrant sent 
there, the offenders are beyond- successful pursuit. I commend 
this to your consideration. No matter what laws we may have 
for the protection of these reserves, the public lands generally or 
the game, they should be in a very great many cases wholly in- 
efficient, owing to the impossibility, under the present law as to 
arrests, of their enforcement. 
There are already many statutes against setting fires and tres- 
passing upon the public lands. Perhaps these are sufficient, so far 
as laws go. I do not examine this, but as to the protection of 
game on forest reserves, drastic laws for that purpose, together 
with better means, as above suggested, for their enforcement, are 
required. 
I would suggest the making it an offense to enter or be upon 
or use any portion of a forest reserve for the purpose or with the 
intent to kill, capture or pursue (certain specified kinds of) game; 
or to kill, capture or pursue, with intent to kill or capture such 
game, on any portion of such reserve, and I would do this for the 
whole year as to some kinds of game, at least, and make such 
killing, capture or pursuit the evidence of such purpose or intent. 
The latter clause, as you will see, proceeds against the act itself, 
irrespective of any trespass upon the lands, if, indeed such" act 
does not necessarily involve a technical legal trespass. ttut this 
may be questionable in case, for example, when one who is prop- 
erly there, kills game. I would insert it, at any rate, and it will, 
with the other,, operate as a preventive. Respectfully 
(Signed) p. Q Knox, 
Attorney-General. 
Newfound Lake Fishing. 
Like other New England waters, Newfound cleared 
unusually early. On the morning of April 18 I started 
on my annual trip to Roger's, at the Hebron end of the 
lake. I have seen and been on most of the lakes of this 
State, and I think as far as scenery, none are equal to 
Newfound. The drive of some nine miles from Bristol 
to Hebron along the western shore is always interesting. 
In many places one can sit in the wagon and with some 
ten feet of line cast into quite deep water. At one place 
solid rock rises almost perpendicularly hundreds of feet, 
while on the other just over the rail is very deep water. 
Here the road_ for a short space is chained to the moun- 
tain. It is said that "faith will remove a mountain and 
cast it into the sea." There was not faith enough in the 
whole Newfound region to fill up that place. A heavy 
iron cable was stretched across well under water and a 
foundation started, This was done, 1 am told, early in 
the sixties. To-day that part of the road is apparently 
as firm as the surrounding mountains. Whether or not it 
will stay, should the cable give way, is an open question. 
Last year we weFe all sorry to leave Hebron. The 
genial General was there, and said he was sorry to have 
us go. On the i8th when we drove into Roger's yard, 
there sat the General, smiling as ever. It looked as 
though he had been there since last year. It is somewhat 
irritating to some of us to see how time leaves no traces 
on some pepple. The graceful lines of the General's figure 
appear as permanent as the hills, and his perpetual smile 
is as "childlike and bland" as ever. 
The bright young member of Roger's family was as 
smiling as ever, and also the schoolmarm. The Gen- 
eral said they were acting worse than last year as to de- 
tracting the attention of the young members of the party 
from the fishing. 
Practically the same party as a year ago were gf? e-n. 
Dr. Fowler, of Bristol, was an addition, as the trout and 
salmon found out to their cost. One afternoon he rowed 
up from the lower end of the lake — that is, his man 
rowed. Fowler never touches an oar, and I think shou'd 
he find himself alone in his boat in the middle of the 
lake he would stay there all m'ght rather than pull ashore, 
but when it comes to catching trout and salmon and big 
ones, he is there^first and last and all the time. What a 
story those two rods of his cou'd tell ! 
As to the fishing at Roger's, from April 14 to morning 
of 25th, forty-four fish were taken— 27 salmon and 17 
trout; 13 of the salmon weighed from 5 to 9 pounds each, 
16 of the trout from 5 to loyi pounds. 
My companion claims the championship of Newfoun I 
as an expert in hooking all manner of things other than 
fish. For some days he ran a silver-phantom, and there 
was not a floatmg bunch of weeds or half-sunken stick 
that he did not get. He caught one day in quite deep 
water two very lively clams. 
All were sorry when the time came to leave. We 
were about the last of the party; when we drove out of 
Roger's yard we left the Doctor sitting alone like the lone 
fisherman in "Evangeline." He said:' "Good-by; take 
care of yourselves. Good men are scarce." 
CM. Stark. 
Dunbarton, N. H., April 29, 
