Tht Point of View. 
Aitkin^ Adinn., July. — Editor Forest and Stream: I 
ive been reading with some little interest your corre- 
londcnce on the “Point of View,’’ but it does not seem 
me that the case demands such scientific splitting of 
lirs as has been indulged in by both sides, though I 
ink it^ is the first discussion I ever read where my 
mpathies were on both sides of the question. Man is 
hunter of necessity and by instinct, and hunting for 
oih after the necessity has bfeen filimilidted is but the 
tuba of, the nlah to farm, shop or office after the neces- 
:y for doing so is past, or even , the repairing to shop, 
Id or office where his grandfathers earned a fortuiie 
st to experience what his ancestors experienced before 
m. After that it is a mere matter of how the sport is 
nducted. Men are supposed to be educated, and to un- 
rstand that new conditions prevail, and that there are 
ncs, places and conditions where shooting game would 
criminal. A man hunting for sport is supposed to 
ike good use, of his kill or cause it to be turned to some 
eful purpose, otherwise the killing would be purely 
inton. If a man returned to the sliop where lie had 
ide a fortune At wagonmakilig And made a wilgoh just 
r aniuaeffifeht it would be wanton to. destroy it just be- 
jse he did not need the money it woulti briiig. 
lii'ere^ is a little too much sentiment and not enough 
ise mixed in with this subject. The man who went far 
0 the wilderness and killed two biill elks hfe.did not 
ed, and could_ not care for (with, ink), some time Ago, 
d then went intO' raptures over the beauties of nature, 
sd too much of the former, while in the lattef he was 
loily lacking. The people who made such a howl over 
: killing of a buffalo for a barbecue recently are niueh 
same. Why is it Worse to kill a buffalo .than a beef? 
is hot Bupposable that the killing Was to he done in a 
rticularly brutal manner. The men who breed, and care 
• the animals may_ safety be left to take care of that, tt 
much safer than in the hands of the collection of indi- 
luals without occupation who have taken up the fad 
prevention of cruelty to animals. The protection of 
ag and game birds for the purpose of maintaining Aii 
Liilibrium is a very inlportant matter, but abolish guns 
d their users and we should soon be eaten up by the 
‘ds. lalce from man the power of making guns, and 
two centuries he w'ould be getting his precarious liveli- 
od, by the chase again, and hunting with a club dt that, 
le gun ha.S been the great civilizer. While. I do not 
nk it at all necpsary tp have game to practice our 
diers on, 1 do think the instinct for firearms has much 
do with the .making of a soldier. Neither do I think 
1 men are less liable to enjoy a gun than young men 
ly as their infirmities make them so. Some men have 
t spots, but usually the first opportunity finds them 
nmg strong again. Watch “Flint Lock” and I think 
u will see hini afield the first of the season, and I could 
nost insure him to do nothing to be ashamed of. 
E. P. Jaoues. 
Massachusetts Game Breeding. 
dosTON', Mass., July 2O.~Edit0f F&rest and Stream: 
om a town not twenty miles from Worcester a friend 
ites that a few days ago he saw where a brood of quail 
d been hatched OUt in the middle of a hay field. The 
h had been left a few days before the farmer cut the 
iss. An'oth'er man reported seeing one covey, and my 
orniant teels confident there are many broods we don’t 
n- about, and further, “we hear them callin.g all about,” 
having heard no less than three different birds the day 
wrote to me. This is in a town where great pains were 
len to feed the quail last winter, and our friend is 
ich gratified by seeing tangible results. He reports 
prospects for partridges good, 
am in receipt of a letter from far-away Iowa, from a 
•. Gay, who says he now has seventeen birds eighteen 
t>'S old. which were hatched under a hen. He says he 
i lost but one quail of the brood.. 
\ friend writing from Springfield, says : “I think I 
1 safely say there will be more partridges this season 
,n for the past three.” He declares that it has been a 
endid hatching season. He has seen numerous broods, 
i the chicks are now well grown. A friend of his put 
four^separate broods in a walk of not more than 300 
’ds. “If we pan only prevent the snaring and marker- 
: of these birds,” he says, “there will be good part- 
ge shooting this fall.” He speaks encouragingly also 
nit woodcock, and is of the opinion that the number 
t breed here is increasing. He is confident the birds 
ceding here move on before our hunting season begins, 
: if they are as plentiful north of us “we should have 
AC good shooting on them.” He tells me that quite 
uimher of quail came through the winter all right, and 
Dresses the hope that sportsmen will refrain from 
loting them this season and see that they have plenty 
food next winter, and the result, he thinks, will be aii 
rease in their numbers. 
The writer of the letter is well known among the 
irtsmen of Massachusetts, and his opinions are based 
careful observations. From all sections the informa- 
n obtained thus far is on the whole favorable as re- 
:ds partridges in our Stale. Some of our gunners tell 
the young grouse are now as large as full-grown- 
lil. 
Sssex county, first of the Massachusetts Bay colony to 
settled Iw the Puritans, seems to have become one of 
■ licsl game regions in tlie State, especially for pheas- 
s (it they may be classed as game birds), and deer, 
iearn that - the latter are quite numerous in several 
sex coLinty towns. It is vcuorted that on a farm hn 
mers, near the hoimdary line of Toosfield, the deer 
re destroyed several acres of fanner Wakefield’s cab- 
les. As lie h.as heei) unable to frighten the deer away. 
life has requested a deputy game warden to consult with 
thfe coirimlsSiOnefs as to means of getting rid of the deer 
or recovering damages. Tile law in Massachusetts pro- 
viding for payrrient of damages in such a case is patterned 
after that which provides for damages caused by dogs, 
and provides that one of the selectmen make an exam- 
ination, and estimate the loss, but if the damage is more 
than $20 the estimate must be made by more than one 
man. 
P'ortunately for our commissioners they are not an- 
noyed by having to make awards. In this respect they 
are moffe fortunate than the Maine commissioners, who, 
by the way, have found their duties in such cases very 
anhoyihg, and the system in vogue there has been the 
cau.se of no little friction between thetn and the farmers. 
The farmers of this State got what they asked for in the 
deer law, as they are very apt to do, and so far as the 
writer is informed, are entirely satisfied with it, although 
it involves no little red tape to secure cash for damage 
done. Central. 
Shooting Preserve Rights. 
til Chancery of New jerBey, Simpson vs. Moorhead, Sylfabus. 
1. When a lessee assigris his lease, and , delivers possession of 
the demised lands to Ids assignee, he may riot subsequently intrude 
upon them and against the assignee’s prohibitioil occupy them for 
their only use. 
2. W here l,ands subject to ebb and flow of tides, are usable 
only for shooting of ducks and other game, intrusions day by day 
upon such lands for the purpose of shooting will be enjoined. 
The injury suffered by the owner, in the lessening the quantity 
of game, increasing the danger of accidental shooting, and inter- 
fering with his exclusive shooting rights, is not adequately re- 
mediable in damages. 
•3. .Jhe title to the belt of land lying at high water mark within 
the tidal waters of thfe Stdtfc and thence out into the sea or river, 
so far as there can be any ownership of lands, was originally in 
the State of .New Jersey, in its fight as sovereign. 
4. W'Jiere such lands have been reclaimed by the riparian owners 
by excluding the tide water therefrom by erecting a bank, the 
title thereto becomes vested in the reclaiming owner, under the 
local common law of this State as declared in the case of Gough 
vs. Bell, 3 Zabr,, 624. 
5; If his lands can be identified, the title of the reclaiming 
oivner is not taken from him by the breaking of the banks wliich 
exclude the tide water from the reclaimed lands and the admis- 
sion of the tide water, whether the submergence be for a long or 
a short period. 
Grey, V. C (Orally). This is quite an interesting case, 
llie Complainants are a numbet of gentlemen who have 
a,ssoeiated themselves together for entertainment and 
sport, in a gun club, and have acquired in their private 
capacity the ownership of some uplands, and also of some 
considerable quantity of banked meadow, lying in the 
county of Cumberland. They complain that tlie defend- 
ant Moorhead comes upon their lands, of which the mea- 
dow part is largely overflowed by the tide at certain por- 
tions of the day, and guns Jor birds which come on the 
meadow and on waters thereof, and for birds flying over 
the same, thus interfering with and depriving the com- 
plainants of their land, subjecting them to loss by reason 
of the lessened quantity of game; and also to the danger 
of accidental shooting from the increased number of gun- 
ners on the lauds, and they allege that the defendant de- 
clared his purpose to continue so to shoot on their lands 
and intends so to do. They pray that he may be en- 
joined from hunting, gunning, shooting, fishing on the 
said lands or the waters thereof, and from entering 
thereon for any purpose whasoever during the term of 
the complainant’s ownership thereof. 
dhe defendant files no answer, but presents affidavits 
in which he submits his rights and claims, and on them 
makes a very strenuous argument that no preliminary in- 
junction ought to go in this case. 
The lands described in the bill consist of * * * 
lands which have been either conveyed or leased to the 
complainants giving them the right of shooting, fishing, 
etc., some of these were assigned by the defendant him- 
self to one of the complainants, and by him jointly to the 
other complainants. * * * 
It is claimed that the terms of these leases, formerly 
held by the complainant, were mere licenses of a privi- 
lege of gunning and fishing; but they are not so ex- 
pressed in the executed written lease. 
The defendant also claims that though he assigned 
them they are not lawfully assignable, and therefore the 
complainants have no right. On looking at the leases I 
find they are not mere conferences of privileges. The 
word of grant used is “lease,” and .that is sufficient to 
pass a term in the lands demised. It is true the leases 
do mention a purpose for which the lands may be used, 
but they do not prescribe that that shall be the only use 
to which the lands may be put,_ and the effect of the leases 
is to pass title for a term of years in the lands thenir 
selves. 
So far as the challenge made of the assignability of 
the leases is concerned, the rule, I believe, is quite well 
established, that unless a lease of lands expresses on its 
face a limitation of the power of the lessee to assign it, 
or to sublet the lands demised, the power to assign or to 
sublet during the term, goes to the lessee. 
The complainants insist that the defendant not only in- 
truded on the lands which he had assigned to the com- 
plainant, Air. Simpson, but that he has persistently de- 
clared that he intended and had a right so to do. * * * 
E\'eii yet it is argued for him that he has a right to go 
< ri these very assigned lands, because the tide ebbs and 
llows ovei them. His declaration of his future purpose 
is in conflict with hi.s claim of right in the premises. At 
this time and for the next few months, the only value of 
these lauds will be. the privileges of duck shooting upon 
them. The defendant' has without .right exercised this 
privilege and has- insisted he had a right to exercise ’it 
tor himself and his friends. If he is permitted to do this 
the complainants will be subjected to additional danf^er 
of accidental shooting, to the lessening of the quantity^of 
game on I heir lands, and to the loss of that which they 
bought from the defendant himself, the right to possess 
the demised premises free from the defendant’s intru- 
sion. Ihey ought not to be left dependent upon the grace 
of the defendant, who argues that he has a right to in- 
trude, but at present does not think he will do so. He 
may again change his mind and conclude to assert his 
claimed right to go upon lands under tide water, even if 
he has himself sold leases of them which passed to the 
assignee the right to their exclusive possession. 
It is, I think, clearly sliown, that as against the defend- 
ant, the complainants have an established right during 
the terms of the leases assigned to them by the defend- 
ant, to possess and enjoy for all purposes the meadow 
lands described in these leases. The situation when the 
bill was filed, exhibited an intent on the part of the de- 
fendant to insist on his right to intrude continuously day 
after day on the lands assigned by him, and to shoot 
ducks and other game thereon, now in season. 
The injury suffered by the complainants is within the 
class called irreparable, for which they cannot recover 
adequate damages at law. To be irreparable, it is not 
necessary that the money loss shall be so great that it 
cannot be repaired. The loss which the complainants 
will suffer is not probably of great money value, if the 
computation be limited to the value of the ducks and 
other game which the defendant will take. But the acts 
which he says he has a right to do will deprive them 
not only of the ducks he may shoot; it will increase the 
danger of the sport, invite further and other intrusions, 
deprive the complainants of the exclusive possession of 
their property, and will indirectly tend to defeat the 
whole investment in their sporting club house and ad- 
jacent lands, for if the defendant and his friends may go 
there at will so may everyone else. 
The question which has been very interestingly argued 
here, touching the ownership of the reclaimed meadow 
lands lying subject to the flow of the tides, and the effect 
of subsequent submergence, etc., or any other question 
challenging the complainant’s ownership and right of 
posse.ssion, cannot be raised here by the defendant under 
the peculiar circumstances of this case. The defendant 
himself is the grantor of those privileges and rights to 
the complainants which he now disputes. He cannot be 
heard to deny the effect of his own deed. It is inequit- 
able that he should be permitted to do so, and 1 cannot 
see that it lies with him to raise any question at all 
affecting the title or possession of the lands which he 
passed by assignment of his leases to the complainants. 
The counsel for defendant contends that the lands 
leased by the owners of the meadows have been suffered 
to go out to the tide, and that this submergence re-estab- 
lishes the State’s title to those lands, and justifies all per- 
sons in going as they please upon the tide waters which 
may cover such lands. * * * seems to me to be 
unquestionable, that if the lands be once reclaimed, the 
title to such lands remains in the several reclaiming own- 
ers, whether the tide water afterward overflows them 
or not. * * t- 
Some of the proofs address themselves to the question 
of the title of the private owner, outside of the bank 
which he has erected. The defendant’s counsel claims 
that the complainants have no right to exclude the de- 
fendant from the shore or “guard” which lies between the 
bank by which the owner has reclaimed, and the bed of 
the tidal stream. I think this is correct. Wherever the 
line of the bank of the reclaimed land is, that is the line 
of the private ownership. Whatever privilege of remov- 
ing mud, etc., for the bank the owner may take outside 
of the “guard,” without interference from the State, does 
not give title. He has himself pm the limit of the line to 
which his title runs, by his reclaiming bank. If he has 
been accustomed to exercise a privilege outside of the 
bank, to take mud to maintain the bank, that is not re- 
clamation, and gives no title or exclusive right of pos- 
session enabling him to exclude other people from the 
“guard.” The line of the ownership of the reclaimed 
land is the line of reclamation. No injunction should go 
against the defendant, prohibiting him from going upon 
the “guard” outside of the meadow bank. 
Summer Protection for Woodcock. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
In an interesting article in Forest and Stream a few 
months ago by A, K. Fisher, the scientist, attention was 
called to the danger of extermination of some of our 
migrating game birds, especially the woodcock and the 
wood duck that are fast disappearing. The beautiful 
plumage of the wood duck, called by Audubon the hand- 
somest duck in America, makes it very attractive and 
much sought for by all gunners. 
Were it not for the protection of the vast wildness of 
the North, where they go to breed, and the impenetrable 
canebrakes of the South, their wunter hiding place, the 
woodcocL would indeed have a hard chance to survive, 
as there are but two or three States in the South where 
they are protected at all. Shooting at both ends of the 
line is like burning the candle at both ends. Under these 
conditions there is but little wonder that they are fast 
disappearing. 
Massachusetts stands at the front in regard to game 
protection. It was one of the first to abolish summer 
woodcock shooting. It took years to enlist public senti- 
ment and get laws through the Legislature against sum- 
mer woodcock shooting. Two weeks a year was all we 
could gain at first, and some years we could not get that, 
but gradually the close season was moved forward from 
July I to Oct. I, where it stands to-day. It was a long, 
hard fight against the man who shot the half-grown 
birds to sell, as welh as against those who bought them> 
Only by persistent efforts against adverse conditions and 
even threats of personal violence were the existing laws 
formed and maintained; The pioneers in this crusade 
