148 
THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS IN HUNGARY 
and sentimental side of the question and, in consequence, 
did not throw into relief the enormous economic interests 
latent in the work of birds, thus avoiding side-issues which, 
if only on account of their importance, might have proved 
of advantage even to the aesthetic point of view. 
There was another question which demanded attention, 
viz. in the relation of the State towards bird-protection we 
must admit that, if the State, in the interests of the community, 
undertakes the protection, prohibits and punishes, the State 
must itself declare to what the prohibition and punishment 
respectively refer. 
For merely to say „I defend birds useful to agriculture 
and forestry with prohibitions and punish him who defies the 
prohibition'' gives rise to a whole series of questions : which 
birds? what are their names? what are they like? why are 
they useful? And if there are noxious birds too, why are 
they so ? what are their names ? what are they like ? what 
is the damage they do? etc. 
It is perfectly clear and natural that it cannot be the duty 
of Parliament to make the text of Acts do what the schools 
ought to do: but in cases where the correct application of 
the prohibition as well as the proper infliction of the punish- 
ment depends upon a strict definition of the objects of living 
Nature, the State should, even if obliged to do so outside 
the law itself, take steps to make everyone clearly understand 
what the State, by its laws, forbids or punishes. This cannot 
be left entirely to private enterprise, for it is not impossible 
that definitions and views entirely at variance with the inten- 
tions of the laws arise and involve in trouble people who 
have only the best intentions. 
The Hungarian Central Office for Ornithology had this 
fact in view when it turned its attention to economic ornith- 
ology as well. The younger generation was encouraged to 
