April 25, 1903.] 
FOREST AND SI HE AM. 
S27 
The bearing of this decision on the question of the 
validity of game laws, and especially on the Lacey law, 
is at once apparent to anyone who understands the sub- 
ject. Laying aside, for the moment the question whether, 
owing to the peculiar nature of the propertj^ in game, 
it can ever become a subject of interstate commerce, it 
appears that Avhere the States, in the exercise of what is 
called the police power, limit or prohibit the traffic in an 
article, Congress may, as supplemental to the State right, 
further declare that there shall be no interstate commerce 
in such an article; and that the only practical limit to the 
exercise of such power is the legislatiA^e discretion. In 
saying this, it is not assumed by me nor was it assumed 
by the court, as has sometimes been suggested by careless 
readers of the decision, that this power extends in all 
cases to the exclusion of legitimate articles of commerce," 
nor is it to be assumed that Congress, even had it such 
power, would arbitrarily exercise it to the injury of the 
commercial interests of the nation. 
In regard to game, it has been repeatedly declared that 
the individual citizen has no property therein, save and 
except such as the mass- of the people, acting through 
their Legislatures, think fit to give him : that the right to 
take game is a mere boon or privilege which can be 
bestowed or withheld at pleasure ; that a State may per- 
mit its citizens to take and dispose of game within its 
borders, thus making it an article of State commerce; and 
may at the same time prohibit its export beyond the limit 
of the State. If a State can do this, cannot the same 
State further say that game brought into the State con- 
trary to the laws of another State shall not be possessed 
or dealt in? Clearly such can be done. 
The constitutionality of the Lacey law, which prohibits 
interstate commerce in game taken in violation of the 
laws of a State, had not been passed upon by the Supreme 
Court of the United States; but it seems perfectly clear 
that the application of the decision in the Champion case 
to that law would make it invulnerable to any attack on 
that ground. 
Furthermore; as no one has, under the law, any abso- 
lute right to or property in game at any time, and as the 
possession thereof is at all times subject to the will of 
the Legislature, it would seem that no one has or could 
have any "right" to make it an article of interstate com- 
merce any more than he has a right to traffic in lottery 
tickets. It may also be said that the case of game is even 
stronger than that of these tickets; for to admit that a 
specific thing is an article of commerce assumes at once. 
It seems to me, that it has all the attributes of ordinary 
commercial articles, one, and perhaps the most important, 
of which is that it can be and is the subject of absolute 
ownership, an attribute which game does not possess. 
It has often been suggested that the enactment of game 
laws comes within the exercise by the States of wh^t is 
commonly called the police power ; and it may be as well, 
for lack of a better classification, to continue to so treat 
this class of laws. But it is submitted that they can 
be sustained on a higher and different principle. Police 
regulations almost universally operate upon persons or 
property directly; that is, such property as is capable 
of ownership _ in the common acceptation of the term; 
and their validity is frequently disputed on the groimd 
that they deprive persons of their property without due 
process of law. Indeed, this is one of the commcnest 
grounds of attack. Even here, however, the courts have 
said that such laws are not invalid because they have the 
effect to destroy property of small value, or to indirectly 
deprive the owner of the use thereof. It would seem, 
therefore, that in legislating in regard to an article like 
game, the ownership of which is alwaj's in the whole peo- 
ple of a State, in their aggregate capacity, the question of 
individual right of ownership was not involved ; and that, 
as no one had any right therein, no law could deprive him 
of that which he did not possess. 
How_ far Congress can go in prohibiting interstate com- 
merce in an article not in itself injurious to morals and 
not prohibited by any State law, was not, as has been 
already stated, decided in the Champion case; but it may 
well be that such a power exists in regard to game; and 
that Congress might go further than it has done at 
present, and declare that there shall be no interstate traffic 
in game; and this entirely regardless of anv State law. 
This and other questions will probably be decided in due 
t'™e. Joseph B. Thompson. 
New York, Ap ril IS. 
Deer Hounding. 
Springfield, Mass.— Editor Forest and Stream: T in- 
close herewith a clipping of a reprint of a recent article in 
the New York Sun regarding the subject of hunting deer 
with dogs. This article pretty nearly expresses my own 
idea on the subject, and it would please me to see it re- 
produced in Forest and Stream if you can find room 
for it. E. M. WiLKiNS. 
I was among those who strongly urged the passage of 
the law prohibiting the hunting of deer in this State by 
hounding," said a well known Sullivan county sportsman, 
•'but after seeing the effect of that law the last season in 
Sullivan county I am just as strongly in favor of repeal- 
ing that clause. 
"The chief argument against hounding deer was that it 
did not give the deer a fair chance; that it was cruel 
and tended to the annual decrease of their number in the 
y.'oods. The law permits the killing of but two deer dur- 
ing the season by any one hunter. 
"Now. two deer are two deer, the opponents of the anti- 
hounding clause argued, and it did not lessen the number 
of deer in the woods whether the two Avere killed before 
hounds or by still-hunting. To this the answer was that 
by still-hunting the hunter was not so likely to get the 
range of the game and if a first shot was not a\illino- 
one he could not follow the deer and locate it with any 
certamty by stalking, and with hounds on the trail he 
could. _ Hence many deer that might otherwise fall to the 
hunter s score would escape during the season. 
"In Sullivan county last season, which was the first 
open season for deer in that county for six years not 
less than fifty deer were shot at and wnunded durin^ the 
two weeks the season lasted, but managed to get away 
froni the hunters. I have heard of the finding in the 
woods since the season closed of the carcasses of eio-hteen 
deer seven m the Black Lake region alone, all with bullet 
or shot wounds, proving the cause of death. 
"The seeing of crippled deer here and there is also re- 
ported. A buck wallcing on three legs came into a fieid 
near Sackett Pond the other day, and a trackman on the 
Erie saw a doe cross the track above Cockerton dragging 
one hind leg helplessly. It is reasonable to assume that 
these were victims of the chase and got away, their 
wounds not proving fatal, and there are doubtless many 
others. 
"But there, at any rate, were eighteen deer killed by 
hunters who never knew it, and who, of course, kept right 
on hunting, eager to get a showing for their time in the 
woods, thus, perhaps, killing more than their quota of 
two. The intention of the law was certainly not served, 
and how did it benefit game preservation? 
"With dogs to follow their trail those eighteen deer 
would have gone to the credit of the hunters from whom 
they escaped, and the chances are that the lives of as many 
more that were killed to make those misses good would 
have been spared. In other words, the still-hunter in many 
instances killed four, and maybe more, deer in Sullivan 
countAf last fall, where the hound hunter would have killed 
but two. 
"It seems cruel to chase a deer with hounds that never 
relent on the trail, but isn't it cruel to hunt the deer, any- 
how? Hounding may be cruel and not entirely fair to 
the deer, but I am satisfied by the result in Sullivan 
country that it is more merciful to the deer than still-hunt- 
ing, less apt to breed infractions of the law, and, with the 
same number limit to the hunter as now and an open 
season of but two weeks, I believe it would be better for 
the preservation of the deer." 
The Connecticut Wildfowl Law. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
Why our legislators and other officeholders do things 
at times which they must know to be diametrically op- 
posite to the wishes of the vast majority of their con- 
stituents, passes ordinary comprehension. We pick up a 
daily paper and behold, our gaze falls on a head hue 
which stupefies our understanding. Hardly believing our 
sight, we rub our eyes and look again. Then we smile, 
laugh or swear. What we believed to be impossible has 
come to pass I Yesterday all was progression, apparently ; 
to-day we find retrogression at the helm, and we are left 
to grope in the dark and wonder the reason why. 
Who or what has caused the Committee on Fisheries 
and Game of Connecticut to recommend the passage of a 
bin extending the spring open season on wildfowl, and 
'.vhy was such a bill originated? Nine out of every ten 
sportsmen are asking this question, and nine out of every 
ten who think at all are emphatically opposed to the 
measure. In the name of reason and common sense, can 
anyone tell of any benefit to come out of such a measure? 
The great good accomplished by doing away with grouse 
snaring hi's been partly undone by this latest legislative 
betrayal of the public's interest. 
Sportsinen_ who have shot ducks on Long Island Sound 
for years will testify that they are getting scarcer and 
scarcer each season. And the fowl that stop here on 
their spring and fall migrations are almost exclusively 
coots and old squaws — though there were more broadbills 
last fall than in a number of years. Instead of betraying 
the sportsmen's interests by extending the open season to 
exterminate the few remaining wildfowl, the Forest and 
Stream's platform should have been followed, and all 
spring shooting legislated out of existence, and our ducks 
given so much more chance to propagate. And it would 
seem that the Committee on Fisheries and Game ought 
to work with its whole might and power for the perpetua- 
tion of all^ game rather than for its extermination. Should 
the committee continue its blundering policy it would be a 
wise and economical move for the State to abolish the 
committee and appoint a new one. 
There is abundant opportunity for the committee to use 
its influence for a stricter enforcement of existing game 
laws, rather than in encouraging retrogressive game legis- 
lation. It must be admitted that this body has a great deal 
to contend with in its various labors — that it cannot be 
expected to perform impossibilities. But there are such 
glaring violations of the game laws in many instances, 
that stupid legislation is a direct encouragement to the 
evildoers. y\.ny Sunday in the ducking season, and many 
times out of it, fusilading can be heard and shooters seen 
along the Connecticut shore. While it is easy to get out 
of sight in thick woods, here, on the water and along the 
shore, violators could be easily apprehended. And this 
Sunday shooting is in direct violation of the game law 
v.'hich imposes a fine of $25 for the same, and which for- 
bids "having in possession in the open air the implements 
for shooting" on that da}'. If the committee has not am- 
ple power to end this condition would it not be more in 
keeping whh its usefulness and dignity "to encourage 
legislative action to give to it the necessary authority? 
These lawbreaking duck exterminators should be fined 
and imprisoned rather than aided in their nefarious work 
bj' a retrogressive Legislature. 
If a little digression is permissible, I would say that 
there have been many violations of the game law where 
justice has miscarried, and where there is abundant room 
for the Legislature to do a good work instead of a poor 
one. It seems absolutely impossible to get convictions in 
mo.st glaring cases in some sections. Local justices ap- 
parently sympathize with the law-breakers, and impose 
very lenient fines— if any at all. There have been a num- 
ber of cases where deer have been killed, but, personally, 
I do not know of a single instance where the penalty has 
been paid ! Now, here is an excellent field in which the 
Fish and Game Committee can wield for good that in- 
fluence which it seems to possess. Let it induce the 
Legislature to take out of the hands of local justices 
jurisdiction in these cases and put the same into the hands 
ot specially appointed judges, who will not sympathize 
with neighbor violators of the law, and whose findings 
will be impartially rendered. But, first of all, for the 
good of the State, let the committee and the Legislature 
work to undo the blunder they have made. May they 
awake to a realization that the people created them for 
■building up, not for tearing down." If the blunder was 
thoughtless and unintentional, they should "'bout face" 
fall m for progresssion, and labor for the abolishment of 
all spring shooting, and the better enforcement of the 
game laws. 
But should the Legislature not voluntarily reconsider 
then there remains nothing for the thousands of Con- 
necticut sportsmen to do but enter their protest. And 
this should be done emphatically and fearlessly. Petitions 
are well enough, at times, but there is a more impressive 
way. 1 would suggest an individual letter protest. Let 
every interested sportsman write a personal letter to his 
Senator, Representatives, and the Governor. Demand the 
reconsideration of the present obnoxious bill, and the 
abolishment of all spring shooting. Make their mail 
heavy and imposing. It will cost but a few cents, and will 
take but a few minutes of time. It may be the means of 
saving to us, fellow sportsmen, many dollars in trans- 
portation, by perpetuating wildfowl shooting near home 
for years to come. It may yield hours of recreation, an 
abundance of health, and it will surely prove a desire 
on our part to keep the ducks and other wildfowl with 
us. William H. Avis. 
HiGHWooD, Conn , April IP. 
Woodcock Reminiscences. 
A paper read by Charles A, Richardson before the Hillsboro 
County, N. H., Association. 
I HAVE been invited to contribute some reminiscences 
of woodcock and woodcock shooting of fifty years 
ago. I fear this may seem like ancient history to most 
of you gentlemen present, but I trust it will not prove 
without interest, if I can succeed in picturing to life 
what must be to most of you tradition. When I re- 
flect that I am almost the only one left in this com- 
munity of those Avho participated in the sport of that 
period, I am very glad to make even a slight record 
of my recollections. 
To judge from the present scarcity of woodcock in 
this region you can hardly imagine their abundance at 
the period of which I write. \¥ithin a radius of ten 
or fifteen miles of Manchester will be embraced, prob- 
ably, one of the finest portions of our State as a breed- 
ing ground for these birds, and I might add one of the 
best for hunting them at the season of flight or migra- 
tion. 
Our springy hillsides, flowing trout brooks, rich 
swales and alder runs were once tenanted with an 
abundance of these choicest of game birds, and one 
could hardly go amiss in seeking them in any likely 
cover. Even within our city limits they were numer- 
ous both in breeding and at flight time, and were often 
seen in our gardens in quest of food. I once shot 
eight birds one afternoon in that portion of now Derry- 
field Park, just east of the "Old Pound"; also at "The 
Eddy," on the west side of the river, below the Amos- 
keag Falls; and there were other nearby localities with- 
in a mile of the city hall where they were numerous, 
either in summer or autumn. I have found them in 
all stages of development, from the downy fledgling 
of a few days old to their full growth. I have found 
them when nesting, and my dog; has pointed them then 
as stanchly as at any other period. 
I have seen them perform their peculiar gyrations 
during the mating or breeding season, and have heard 
their bleating or singing, as some have termed it, 
though think no one claims them as songsters. I have 
never seen them transporting their young to and from 
their feeding grounds, but that they do so is well 
authenticated; indeed, I have a truthful friend who has 
seen this performance. 
It has never been my fortune to find much written 
about woodcock in the early nart of the last century, 
I mean locally, and I have wondered if they were as 
much sought or as highly prized as for the last fifty 
years. 
Dr. Belknap, in his history of New Hampshire one 
hundred years ago scarcely refers to them, although 
he does to ruffed grouse and gives a little surprising 
statement as to their being prolific. He says: "They 
are very common in our woods. Some of our epicurean 
gentry have begun to fear that its race will be too 
soon extinct, but there is no danger. This bird is very 
prolific; it is common to find twenty eggs in a nest, 
and it has several coveys in a season." Dr. Belknap 
would not be taken as authority on ornithology, yet 
it is amusing to read the notions prevailing in his day 
on that subject, but I would remind you that it is only 
recently that a popular interest has been manifested 
in ornithology, and I presume many of you have had 
occasion to know the ignorance concerning woodcock. 
I have frequently been asked, "What are you shoot- 
ing?" by people in the immediate neighborhood, and 
have them manifest surprise that there was such a 
bird. 
In some of his writings Dr. Belknap says: "A goose 
caught in the spring and kept on a farm with a flock 
of domestic geese, and when the time of migrating 
arrived flew southward, but returning in the spring 
came back and alighted in the same farmyard with 
four j^oung ones she had produced in her absence." 
Again: "The swallow was formerly supposed to mi- 
grate, but evidences of its retiring to the water or 
marshy ground and there remaining torpid during the 
winter are so many that this opinion is now gener- 
ally received." Or that "the beak of the crossbill is 
like a pair of shears, by which it cuts off the stalks 
of wheat and rye and then lays its head on the ground 
to pick up the kernels." 
Naturalists have different opinions respecting the 
music of the swan. Dr. Goldsmith seems to "think 
the account of the music of the wild swan fabulous. 
What is deemed fabulous in Europe is often realized in 
America. It is certain that our swan makes a sound 
resembling that of a trumpet, both when in the water 
and on the wing. I am not sure that the trumpet swan 
does not make a sound like our wild geese, although 
I do not find any reference to the subject in any 
authorities I have consulted. 
The doctor says: "Flunting is an employment fol- 
lowed by some people who prefer rambling to a life 
of steady industry." Steady industry was the rule with 
us half a century ago, and only an occasional dav of 
sport snatched from employments demanding our al- 
most constant attention was indulged in. I think 
there was no one in this city who followed hunting ex- 
clusively, either as a pleasure or employment. There 
was no one in this busy community with leisure to 
make hunting an "employment," but only as a recrea- 
tion. 
