Nov. 5, 1904.] 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
a 
887 
were formerly made to give to the stock of those com- 
panies the character of an interest in real estate. Sales 
of stock are therefore excluded from the provisions of 
the statute of frauds regulating conveyances of real 
estate or interests in real estate." "A stockholder has 
no legal title to the corporation property, or to any 
separate part thereof, until a division is made on the 
winding up or dissolution of the corporation, and prior 
to that time he has no right to take any of the corporate 
property_ for his own purpose." The assets of a private 
corporation, whether consisting of real estate or personal 
property, belong to the corporate body, and the stock- 
holders are not in any sense the owners thereof. We 
think this proposition so well established that the citation 
of authorities in support of it unnecessary. 
The language of the court in In re Eberle, 98 Fed. 
Rep. 197, is applicable to the present case. There the 
defendant was arrested for hunting in a preserve in Hen- 
derson county, this State, and brought habeas corpus 
proceedings in the United States District Court for the 
Northern District of Illinois. The land upon which he 
was charged with hunting was owned by a corporation in 
which he held stock, as the defendant did in the case at 
bar. There the defendant was a non-resident, and con- 
tended that, being an owner of land in Illinois, he could 
not be put on a different footing from residents, and that 
the attempt to discriminate against him deprived him of 
the equal protection of the law. The court, in the de- 
cision of the case, said : "In his petition he states that he 
is a member and stockholder in an Illinois corporation, 
which corporation is the owner of land on which he was 
hunting at the time it is alleged he violated the statute. 
Without, therefore, determining whether a non-resident 
land owner would be relieved from the provisions of the 
statute in question when shooting wild game upon his 
own premises, I deny the petition on the ground that 
the allegations thereof do not entitle the petitioner to the 
relief prayed. * * * The sovereign ownership of wild 
game is in the State, in trust for the benefit of its citi- 
zens, and a statute requiring the payment of a license by 
a non-resident for the privilege of hunting such game 
within the State is a police regulation within the power 
of the State, and not in violation of article 4, section 2 
of the Federal Constitution, or of section 1 of the four- 
teenth amendment, although said fee is not required of 
residents of the State." We concur in the reasoning and 
conclusions thus announced. 
In the. next place, it does not appear that the lands 
upon which the defendant was charged with hunting 
without a license were farm lands, but, on the contrary, 
the agreed statement of facts tends to show that the 
twelve hundred acres owned by the shooting' club were a 
game reservation owned and used by it as such. It will 
be seen that the proviso above quoted permits the bona 
fide owners of farm lands, or their tenants, during the 
season, etc., to hunt on the same "without procuring such 
resident license." The title to wild game is in the State, 
without reference to the ownership of the lands upon 
which it may be found, and the State has the undoubted 
right, therefore, to protect and prohibit or regulate the 
taking or killing of the same. "And a game law is not 
invalid because it provides greater restrictions and 
severer penalties against non-residents than against resi- 
dents." The manifest intention of the Legislature in 
adopting the proviso to section 25 was to permit the 
owners of farm lands residing in this State, and their 
children or tenants, to hunt upon those lands, within the 
other limitations of the statute, without obtaining a resi- 
dent license so to do, and not to extend that privilege 
to residents of other States or countries. 
It is again insisted that even though section 25 is valid 
and the plaintiff in error does not come within its proviso 
as an owner, still the court below erred in refusing to 
hold that section 32 was valid, and that under the proviso 
thereto the defendant should have been acquitted. That 
section provides for the repeal of laws previously passed 
for the protection of game, and the last clause is as fol- 
lows : "Provided, that nothing in this act contained shall 
apply to persons hunting on the land of another person 
by invitation of such land owner." The Circuit Court 
held this provision invalid, and the defendant preserved 
exceptions to such holding. The question for our de- 
cision on this branch of the case is whether such excep- 
tion or proviso is so repugnant to the balance of the act 
as to be invalid. 
It is a well settled principle of law that an act of the 
Legislature shall be construed, if possible, so as to give 
effect to the intention of the law-makers, which intention 
must be ascertained from the language of the act itself, 
if it be possible to do so, and if it consists of several 
sections, they must be considered and construed together 
in order to arrive at such intention. By section 25 it was 
the manifest purpose of the Legislature to require per- 
sons residing out of this State, owning land here, to ob- 
tain a non-resident license to hunt or take game on such 
land, and it certainly was not the intention to require an 
owner of farm land who^ was a non-resident of the State 
to pay a license fee of $15 for hunting upon his own land, 
and at the same time permit him to authorize others, by 
mere invitation, to do so without, a license. But that 
proviso is not limited to> section 25. It is general, and 
applies to every section in the act which contains any- 
thing in conflict with it. If valid, so construed, a person 
would be authorized to hunt at any season of the year, 
in any manner, without limit as to the amount of game 
killed or taken, if, forsooth, the owner of the land on 
which he hunted had invited him to do so. To give it 
that construction would lead to a defenseless incongruity. 
It is a well-known rule applicable to the construction 
of statutes, that a saving clause must be rejected when it 
is directly repugnant to the purview or body of the act, 
and cannot stand without rendering the act inconsistent 
and destructive of itself. We are of the opinion that the 
last clause of section 32, which expressly exempts per- 
sons who are hunting on the land of another by the invi- 
tation of such land owner, from taking out a license, 
literally construed, is so repugnant to the balance of the 
statute as to render all of the statute ineffective, and as 
this was manifestly not the intention of the Legislature, 
the clause must be held invalid, except in so far as it 
can be given a limited effect. The purpose of the Legis- 
lature doubtless was to authorize the owner of lands to 
invite another person to do that which he might himself 
lawfully do, and so construed the proviso can be sus- 
tained, but as applicable to the facts of this case the court 
was clearly right in holding it invalid. 
We find no reversible error in this record, and the 
judgment of the Circuit Court will be affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
New Jersey Non-Residents Again. 
We are told that certain New Jersey game wardens do 
not permit the export of wildfowl, snipe, and mud-hens 
killed by non-residents. As the law contains no prohibi- 
tion of export of these species, the actions of the game 
wardens are, as King Edward wrote of Admiral Rojes- 
twensky's cannonading the other , night, "unwarrantable." 
The New Jersey export law relates only to quail, ruffed 
grouse, pinnated grouse, woodcock, hare, rabbit, squirrel, 
English pheasant or ring-necked pheasant (unless killed 
on preserves). If the exportation of other species of 
game be interfered with, interference should be resented 
and resisted. 
Prince's Bay, N. Y. — Editor Forest and Stream: You 
speak of the apparent uncertainty as to what the non- 
resident can shoot in New Jersey. I am informed that a 
non-resident cannot shoot woodcock in the State without 
first obtaining a license, but as the law reads, it seems 
that woodcock are called snipe, and a non-resident can 
shoot "wild water fowl, snipe and mud-hen (marsh- 
hen)." New Jersey fish and game laws, in an act ap- 
proved April 14, 1903, Sec. 1, puts the woodcock where it 
belongs — "Limicolse, sandpipers, willets, marlin, yellow- 
legs, plovers, tattlers, woodcock," etc. Then again, in 
"an act for the protection of birds and their nests and 
eggs," approved March 20, 1901, the woodcock is 
properly classed with the snipe family. The only reason 
that has been explained to me why a non-resident can- 
not shoot woodcock in New Jersey, is that the woodcock 
refuses to associate with the sandpiper, etc. Can this be 
right ? *** 
[In the several sections of the law, other than the 
Sec. 1 quoted by our correspondent, treat woodcock and 
snipe as different birds ; and there is no uncertainty or 
want of specification to make it clear that the non-resi- 
dent must have a license to shoot woodcock.] 
Vermont Game* 
Hyde Park, Vt, Oct. 27.— Editor Forest and Stream: 
The shooting season (since September 1) in this part 
of the State has so far proved quite satisfactory. Grouse 
are now more plenty than they were the past two years, 
and very much more plenty than last year. It is not diffi- 
cult to get from ten to twenty shots a day, which, with 
fair shooting, ought to result in the legal limit of five 
birds. An unusually good nesting season, with an 
abundance of feed throughout the summer and fall ex- 
plains their increase. Woodcock were a,lso found in fair 
numbers, the writer having on several different days 
started at least ten birds from their covers. 
The deer season opened last Saturday with apparently 
all the arms-bearing population let loose. During the 
day firing was heard all along the line, and in the evening 
three deer were reported killed, one Jersey cow, and a 
hunter narrowly escaped death, a bullet passing through 
a canvas coat he was carrying on his arm. Several fine 
bucks have been brought into town, and the number re- 
ported killed in the country is already much larger than 
last year. Snow sufficient for tracking fell last night, 
and this will still further increase the score. 
_ The day before the season opened, Governor Bell 
signed a bill providing that non-resident deer hunters 
should take out a $15 license. Applications for such 
licenses were received by the town clerks on opening day, 
after probably the majority of non-resident hunters had 
been in the woods several days. One non-resident who 
acidentally learned of the new law while in the woods, 
pulled in Sunday. He expressed himself to the effect 
that the quick work of the Legislature was pretty hard 
on him after paying his fare up from Boston with the 
expectation of free hunting here. That the State will 
receive any amount of revenue from such a license, I 
very much doubt. A charge of $15 for eight days of such 
hunting as Vermont offers, would seem to me little short 
of prohibition. I would much rather see the sawdust 
kept out of the trout brooks, and believe if this were done 
we would get much more of the non-residents' money. 
H. A. Noyes. 
Long Island Ducks. 
Bayport, L. I., Oct. 29.— Editor Forest and Stream: 
The first week's battery shooting here has been very suc- 
cessful for so early in the season. Ducks are in the bay 
in large numbers, and shooting is good, as may be judged 
from the fact that Captain Brown with one gun and four 
separate barrels got four ducks from one flock. The 
largest bags made here this week were Mr. Purdy, of 
New York, 37; Mr. J. Suydam. 40 in two days; Mr. 
Runyon, Newark, 30; Mr. S. G. Painter, New York, 12; 
Mr. Frank Hobson, New York, 13. Others here from 
Manhattan who had good sport were H. B. Goodwin, 
W. P. Peckham, C. A. Ross, A. J. Martin, J. E. Douglass, 
R. Rodman, L. C. Connoly, and G. Still. The ducks are 
fat and in good condition. The outlook for quail and 
rabbit shooting, which opens Tuesday, is very good; the 
birds are well advanced and strong, and the rabbits more 
numerous in this locality than for some years past. 
Henry Stokes. 
East Quogue, Long Island.— Ducks shot last week by 
guests at my house as follows : October 17, 20 ; October 
18, 13; October 19, 11; October 20, 6; October 21, 15; 
October 22, 32; a total of 95, or an average of 19 per 
day. October 24, 34; October 25, 7; October 26, 12; 
October 27, 16; October 28, 8. Friday's storm brought 
a flight of mallards, widgeons, sprigs and gadwall or gray 
ducks, with a few blacks and redheads. The shooting of 
ducks with changes of weather is quite fair. More mal- 
lards and widgeon are here than in October, 1903. 
E. A. Jackson. 
Quebec Moose. 
Aylmer, Quebec, October 27.— Mr. E. J. Chamberlin, 
general manager of the Canada Atlantic Railway, writes 
to Provincial Game Warden N. E. Cormier, October 14: 
"We had a most pleasant outing at Kippewa, and each of 
the party secured a moose. Those secured by Mr. Guild 
and Mr. Megeath had rather small heads, but mine, I 
think, was above the average. We. had fairly good 
weather, and enjoyed the scenery and outing very much." 
Silkworm Gut* 
To every true sportsman the study of natural history 
has a certain fascination, and to the angler that little 
understood but most important component of a fisher- 
man's outfit, gut, presents a study which is of exceeding 
interest. Silkworm gut is a long gland or sac taken from 
the silkworm at a certain period of its growth, when it is 
found to be filled with a fluid which is nothing more or 
less than embryo silk, and which, under certain treat- 
ment, condenses and forms a solid cord or strand, which 
is the article used in the manufacture of our leaders, 
snelled hooks, etc. 
The center of production of silkworm gut is Murcia, 
the capital of the Province of that name in southeastern 
Spain. . Here is situated a beautiful and picturesque val- 
ley in which are cultivated the mulberry trees which pro- 
duce the leaves on which the worms are fed. 
How strange it must seem to the modern angler that 
away in this remote country, where the gentle art has 
never been cultivated, and where, in fact, it is almost im- 
possible to find the recognized implements for fishing, the 
discovery of the properties of silkworm gut was made, 
and for generations its cultivation and production located, 
Although experiments in raising worms for the sake 
of the gut have been made in many other localities, none 
have been very successful, the natives of Murcia asserting 
that the local growth of mulberry has some peculiar 
property which produces the results obtained with them. 
Now, as to the methods of raising the worms and pre- 
paring the gut : The eggs from which the worms are 
hatched are imported in the spring of the year from 
Italy, principally from the island of Sicily. These are 
purchased by the Spanish peasants, who hatch out the 
worms by placing the eggs between the mattresses of 
their beds, the heat so generated having the desired effect. 
As soon as the worms are large enough to handle, they 
are collected and placed on shallow shelves, which line 
the living rooms of the peasants' cottages, and are fed 
three times a day on fresh mulberry leaves. For several 
days they feed ravenously, until they attain full growth, 
and the silk glands (of which each worm has two) are 
congested with the fluid which would, if left for further 
development, produce silk fibre. They are then killed 
by immersion in a weak solution of sulphuric acid, which 
at the same time hardens the skin or outside shell of the 
worm and congeals the fluid contained in the glands, 
producing a solid cord or strand of gut. 
Now the worms are ready for the final preparation, 
and in the early days of May they are disposed of by 
auction in the public market of Murcia to the gut manu- 
facturers. When the worms reach the hands of the gut 
manufacturers (of whom there are some half-score in 
Murcia, employing in the aggregate about a hundred and 
fifty hands), they are first of all stripped of their shells 
or outer skins, exposing the congested glands or guts of 
various lengths and thicknesses, to which is found adher- 
ing a certain quantity of yellowish fleshy substance. 
These guts are softened by soaking in warm water, and 
then with one end attached to a hook fastened in front 
of the workman and the other end attached to a clamp, 
they are stretched to their full natural length. They are 
then cleaned of the superfluous animal matter by means 
of potash and bleached by exposure to the sun. After 
this the strands are polished by rubbing between strips 
of chamois leather and then passed on to the sorting and 
classification department. This sorting is done by women 
and girls, who, receiving the gut in bundles of fifteen to 
twenty thousand strands, first of all separate into the 
various lengths, after which all faulty strands are thrown 
out. These latter constitute an inferior quality or grade 
technically termed "estriada" (Eng. striated), and are 
