4§6 
FOHEST AND STREAM. 
[the. io, mi 
$20 iot battery shooting to itia.ke the purchase pay a 
profitable revenue. 
"For five years the Bellport Gun Club leased the 
rights of the bottom of Bellport Bay, and there was 
constant friction between the baymen and the ckib 
members. An end was put to these troubles about 
three years ago, when the township of Brookhaven, 
which owns the vested right in the bay bottom, refused 
to renew the lease, and the existing troubles were prac- 
tically ended. 
"However, ill feeling was again generated when, as 
I understand it, the members of the Bellport Club suc- 
ceeded in having a law passed authorizing point shoot- 
ing for ducks from Oct. i to Jan. i, while battery 
shooting was limited from Oct. ig to Jan. i. This 
simply means in effect that the club members who con- 
trol the point shooting, may revel in the sport for near- 
ly thi'ce weeks before anyone else is allowed the privi- 
lege of shooting. By the time the battery shooting 
season opens the club members have enjoj'^ed the cream 
of the shooting and then the public, which is prohibited 
from landing on the beach, may step in witti their bat- 
tery shooting. As the latter sport is not permitted in 
Moriches Bay, the club men there have the whole 
shooting match, as it is called, to themselves. To many 
of us who have been accustomed all our lives to shoot 
over the beach between the bay and the ocean and 
also /over the waters of the bay, the present state of af- 
fairs, to put it mildly, is most irritating. 
"Those interested in the present movement against 
the club members are agreed that in all fairness point 
shooting and battery shooting should begin and end on 
the same days, and a new law to this effect will prob- 
ably be framed and submitted to the law makers at 
Albany." 
Col. Alfred Wagstaff, one of the prominent members 
of the Bellport Gun Club, when seen by a representative 
of Forest and Stream yesterday, stated that while he 
had heard that there was some dissatisfaction caused by 
the shooting privileges secured by the club, he could 
not see any real reason for it, "We are lessees of 
the property," said he, "and I think as such are en- 
titled to all the rights and privileges that go with it. I 
wish to say that there is no truth in the story that the 
club sent word to Washington complaining that one of 
the men attached to the life saving service had been 
seen by us to shoot a duck and eat it for his dinner. 
The story is utter nonsense. When we had control of 
the Bellport Bay bottom three years ago the shooting 
over the waters of the bay was far better than it is 
now, and the public was granted many privileges. At 
all events we have leased the property aud intend to 
hold on to our rights." 
Mr. E. F. Hutton, of the banking firm of H. L. 
Horton & Co., is one of the dozen men who have se- 
cured a lease of the St. George's Manor property, com- 
prising about 12,000 acres. "We have leased the prop- 
erty for shooting purposes," said Mr. Hutton yester- 
day to the reporter, "and I can't see where anyone has 
a legitimate right to kick. We have paid our good 
money for the purpose of enjoying a few days' shoot- 
ing during the season, and why shouldn't we set up 
restrictions against the public. It is simply this. When 
I feel inclined to go for a few days' shooting I want 
to be sure of finding something to shoot at and not be 
coinpelled to get up at two o'clock in the morning for 
nothing. So to this end myself and a few friends leased 
the property. As we have paid for the privilege, what 
right has anybody to complain? I know that there are 
a lot of kickers down around Bellport way, but if they 
feel so badly about the matter as they profess, why 
don't they get together and take the lease off our hands. 
I'm pretty sure they could have it did they really want 
it. There isn't a kicker down there who, if he owned 
the property, wouldn't be glad to lease it to a gun 
club. We want the rights and privileges that we paid 
for secured to us, and we intend to have it so. We've 
got the best private shooting preserve on Long Island 
and we intend to keep it so. There are lots of other 
places that the public may shoot over." 
Maine Big Game. 
Bangor, Maine, Dec. 12. — Editor Forest and Stream: 
Only three days more before the stroke of the midnight 
clock shuts off all big-game hunting for another year, 
and deer are still being slaughtered. The reports in the 
dailies still appear under such headings as "Game Record 
Still Holds Up," but just as to what "holds up" means 
it is a trifle difficult to understand, since the total record 
- for the season will be far behind that of 1902, possibly as 
much as a thousand less deer. The daily shipments to 
and through this city are small, seldom running over 
twenty-five or thirty head, and more frequently less than 
the smaller number. Then, too, nearly every deer 13 
labeled with the name and address of a resident of the 
State, one recent list containing but one non-resident in 
all those shipped. This would be natural, especially when 
it is such difficult work to get by the wardens a couple of 
days after the end of a season, as most people prefer to 
get out early and avoid complications. 
The law says that a man shall have a reasonable time 
in which to get his game out after the season closes, but 
few sportsmen who are delayed beyond the limit fixed by 
statute seem to agree with the wardens and commissioners 
as to "a reasonable time." Three moose out of seven 
shipped down over the line on the second day of the 
month were held up as suspicious, although the owners 
assured the wardens the moose were legally killed on the 
preceding Saturday. The position of the officials of game 
protection seems to be that a man must prove his inno- 
cence, rather than the State prove his guilt, a complete 
reversal of the usual position of the law. Last year t^yo 
sportsmen came out from one resort to a shipping point 
on the railroad either the first or second day of close 
season, having been delayed by storms from reaching the 
railroad station at which they shipped, and their game was 
on the platform of the station the last night of open 
season. Yet when they attempted to ship it from the junc- 
tion point, where they took another railroad, the express 
agent refused to receive it for shipment, and they left 
it in his charge pending instructions from Augusta. Mean- 
while an over zealous warden came along, determined 
from the "fresh" look of the venison (so- plain in fro^eti 
meat) that it was killed the day befbrfe, seized and sold it. 
All attempts to secure satisfaction had, up to the last re- 
ports, failed, although there were golden promises of nice 
bucks to make good their loss, if any such should be 
confiscated this fall. Possibly by this time the aforemen- 
tioned sportsman is among the very few non-residents 
permitted to eat Maine venison emphatically his own, for 
which he has had to pay no license. If no deer has been 
sent him, he may decide to demand full- satisfaction, as the 
promises are said to be all that have;- prevented action 
hitherto. 
Notices have been issued to the members of the Maine 
Sportsmen's Fish and Game Association of the annual 
meeting, which is to be held in this city on the evening of 
Tuesday, the fifth of January, at the Bangor House. The 
meeting will be preceded by a banquet, for the first time 
in many meetings of the association, in this city, and it 
is expected that there will be a big gathering of the lovers 
of rod and gun to listen to Mr. Carleton tell of the great 
work of the Fish and Game Commission, and review the 
results of the adoption of the license system. The pro- 
gramme includes an interchange of views on the questions 
of importance to be brought out during the evening, and 
if some of those who hold divergent views of things as 
they are decide to express their views there, something 
lively may be expected. The committee on programme 
may not, however, find time to give to an open debate on 
fish and game, but feel compelled to confine the remarks 
to those who have previously been invited to talk. 
Herbert W. Rowe. 
Possession in Close Time. 
From the New Orleans T hnes-Democrat. 
Mere possession is not an offense within the meaning 
of the Louisiana game law. 
This is the meaning of the opinion handed down by 
Judge J. G. Baker, of the Criminal District Court, in the 
case of the State vs. James E. Salles. 
The decision goes somewhat into the authorities of 
other States, and is of peculiar interest to men who hunt 
in the State of Louisiana at this season of the year. 
Judge Baker, of the Criminal Court, has rendered 
a very interesting decision in the case, which was on 
appeal before him from a decision rendered .by Judge 
Thomas M. Gill, Jr., last May. 
Mr. Salles is the proprietor of the Victoria Hotel in 
St. Charles street, and he was charged with having a 
wild dead deer in his possession during the prohibited 
season. The evidence showed that Mr. Salles had 
bought the deer in the lawful season and kept it in cold 
storage, and used it as he needed it. 
The Audubon Society for the protection of game, etc., 
caused an affidavit to be made against Salles in the First 
Recorder's Court for violating section i of the city ordi- 
nance No. 1386, approved Sept. 10, 1902, which reads: 
"Section 2. Be it further ordained; That it shall be 
unlawful for any person or persons to oft'er for sale, or 
have in his or their possession, any wild deer during the 
months of February and March of each year." Upon 
being arraigned upon this charge, Salles, through his at- 
torney, Judge Louis P. Paquet, filed a demurrer to the 
complaint on the ground that he could not be punished, 
if he were guilty, under the ordinance, because it con- 
tained no penal clause. Thereupon Judge Hughes sus- 
tained the demurrer and discharged Salles. An affidavit 
was then made against Salles before Judge Gill for vio- 
lating the State law, act 65 of X902, for having the same 
in his possession. His attorney, Judge Paquet, filed an- 
other demurrer to the charge, contending that the State 
iaw fixed another time for the prohibited period to have 
in possession wild .game, etc., than the city ordinance, 
and therefore his client could not be held. Judge Gill 
overruled the demurrer and tried the case, and found 
Salles guilty, and sentenced him to pay a fine of $10, or 
in default ten days' imprisonment, whereupon an appeal 
v/as taken to the criminal court. 
Last Monday Judge Baker heard the argument made 
by E. B. Block, attorney for the Audubon Society, repre- 
senting the State, and Louis P. Paquet, attorney for de- 
fendant Salles, which was an elaborate one, both sides 
citing numerous decisions of the Supreme Courts of 
other States, and took the case under advisement until 
yesterday, when he rendered a written opinion sustain- 
ing the defense made by- Salles' attorney, and reversed 
the judgment of Judge Gill and discharged Mr. Salles. 
This Avas the first prosecution under the new game 
law, which makes the decision miportant. The Audu- 
bon Society, it is reported, will have the next Legislature 
to amend the law in certain respects. 
"The appellant was found guilty of having in his pos- 
session on the 4th day of February, 1903, the carcass of 
one deer, contrary to the provisions of section 5 of act 
65 of the Legislature of 1902, entitled An Act for the 
P^rotection of Game Animals and Birds in the State of 
Louisiana,' and fixing the fines and penalties for vio- 
lation of this act. 
"From the judgment and sentence of the court, con- 
demning him to pay a fine of $10, and in default of pay- 
ment to imprisonment in the Parish Prison for ten days, 
he prosecutes this appeal, contending that he has not 
rendered himself liable to conviction on the facts of this 
case, as they appear in the evidence against him. The ad- 
mitted facts as disclosed by the record are these: 
"That the appellant is the proprietor of a hotel; that 
during the open season as hereinafter mentioned for kill- 
ing deer, and while it was lawful to kill and dispose of 
the same, defendant purchased and placed a deer in cold 
storage (on the 21st of Januarjr, and during the open 
season), where it remained up to the time of the making 
of this affidavit, that is, the 4th day of February, 1903. 
"Section i of the act makes it unlawful to kill or pur- 
sue any deer, or have the same in possession after it has 
been killed or caught, except as hereinafter provided. 
"Section 3 provides that the season for shooting wild 
deer shall open on the ist day of November, and qlose 
on the 1st day of April of each year. 
"Section 5 provides that it shall be unlawful to sell, 
exchange or have in one's possession any of the game 
mentioned in section i, within the period during which 
they are intended to be protected by the provisions of 
this act, and it also makes it unlawful for any person 
or corporation, acting as a carrier, to transport at any 
time any enumerated game in section t of tliis act, which 
shall have beeli killed in this State, beyond the confines 
thereof, provided that this section shall not apply to the 
shipment of wild ducks beyond the limits of this State. 
"Section 8 gives the police jury of the several parishes 
power to change the dates of the opening and closing of 
the season, during which game mentioned in section i 
of this act may- be killed, provided the length of the 
closed season shall not be less than the act now pro- 
vides. 
"The City Council taking advantage of the permission 
herein above referred to have adopted ordinance 1386, in 
which the opening season for shooting deer has been 
changed in the parish of Orleans from the date in the 
act. It is immaterial under the facts disclosed in thifi 
case whether we adopt as the closed season the time 
mentioned in the act, or that in the ordinance, which is 
made to commence on the ist day of September, and to 
end on the ist day of February of each year. 
"It is contended on behalf of appellant that as the deer 
was killed and placed in cold storage in the open season, 
the fact that it remained in cold storage after the close 
of the open season Avas not an offense under the statutes. 
"Counsel representing the State contend that it did not 
matter when the deer was killed, that the having it in 
possession by the appellant within the prohibited time 
created an offense. 
"The question presented for decision is by no means 
free from difficultj;, and a contrasity of decisions exist. 
1 have found it impossible to reconcile the decisions 
rendered on the subject of the protection of game. No 
general rule of statutory construction has been applied 
to the legislative enactment against the possession, or 
procurement of game, during the closed season, but law- 
fully killed, each case depending largely upon the phrase- 
ology of the statute under interpretation. 
"It, therefore, becomes necessary to go back to the 
object of the statute to see if the just intention of the 
Legislature cannot be best ascertained. 
"The undoubted object of our statute is to prevent the 
destruction of game by limiting the time when it may 
be taken or killed. The undoubted object of this act 
was to prevent the destruction of deer during the breed- 
ing season and to carry out this object the killing of 
game was limited to the time specified in the act. Had 
it intended to make the mere possession of deer lawfully 
killed an offense it would have said so in plain and un- 
equivocal language. It is the possession of deer unlaw- 
fully killed that is an offense, and not the mere posses- 
sion of it at a particular time. 
"It is conceded tliat the deer in question was lawfully 
killed, and was the property of appellant, and the fact 
that it remained in his possession after the close of the 
open season did not render his possession unlawful. Of 
course, when deer is found in one's possession during the 
closed season the presumption is that it was unlawfully 
killed, and it devolves upon the defendant to rebut this 
presumption. But it was never intended to hold him 
amenable to the act when he establishes that his pos^ 
session had been acquired during the open season. If we 
are to adopt a literal construction of the act as con- 
tended by counsel for the prosecution and hold that pos- 
session merely without regard to the time when the deer 
was killed, then any person who should place game in 
his refrigerator on the last day of the open season and 
serve it during the next day would be guilty of an 
offense under this statute. A statute of this kind should 
receive a reasonable, and not strained, construction, and 
it was not intended that when a party comes into pos- 
session of game at a time not unlawful that he must con- 
sume it all upon the same day. 
"All of the decisions under prosecution for the pos- 
session of game during the closed season, but taken or 
killed during the open season, have turned upon a con- 
sideration of the language employed by each Legisla- 
ture in regard to the subject. In a number of the cases 
to which my attention has been directed by counsel for 
the prosecution an examination of the statute makes it 
clear that it was the intention of the Legislature to make 
the possession of game irrespective of the time when or 
place where the same was killed or taken an offense. In 
the State vs. Rodman the statute provided that no person 
should kill or have in his possession for no purpose 
whatever any fawn at any time, nor elk, nor moose, etc., 
before Jan. i, 1898, nor any deer between certain times, 
except when the same shall have been lawfully killed. 
They may be had in possession for five days after the 
time herein limited. In State vs. Racy, provided that no 
person should kill, expose for sale or have in his pos- 
session game between the ist of January and the 20th of 
October, and the act further provides that persons selling 
game shall not be liable to the penalty up to the ist day 
of March, provided they prove it was killed before the 
prohibited time, thus giving two months to dispose of the 
game killed at a lawful time, and making the inhibition 
after that time absolute. The case of the State ex parte 
Mayor is not in point, as the section of the code there 
made it unlawful to kill or have in possession deer at any 
time. In the case of Magiier vs. People, after making it 
unlawful to sell or have in possession any of the game 
mentioned in sectioii i of the act, provides in section 6 
that it shall be unlawful to sell or have the same in pos- 
session after the expiration of five days next succeeding 
the first day of the period in which it shall be unlawful 
to kill such game. A mere reading of the statutes above 
referred to leaves no doubt that it was the intention of 
the Legislature in these cases to make the mere posses- 
sion of game during the closed season an offense. Had 
such been the intention of our Legislature the use of 
similar language or of language clearly indicating that it 
was its intention in framing the act now under considera- 
tion to make the naked possession of game unlawful 
would have been very simple. If I am in error in regard 
to this interpretation it is a matter easy for the Legisla- 
ture to remedy. 
"This deer, when placed by the defendant in cold stor- 
age, became his property, and unless for use his pos- 
session of it at the time specified was not a violation of 
the act. I know in some of the cases called to my at- 
tention by counsel for the State are opposed to the views 
herein expressed. But it appears to me that a correct 
and true con'"truction of an act of this kind is laid down 
in Spade vf Bucknam. Where the statutes under con- 
