^ ^ DUCKS VERSUS RICE H J . 
iJi Jf 
The Country Must Make Up Its Mind Which 
1 It Prefers to Have 
W E DO not know that wild ducks have any 
economic value whatever except for food. If 
ihey arc valuable for that those who get them should pay 
for the feed which the pests consume. They are “pro* 
lected,** however, by State law, and are unavailable for 
food at any time of the year except by those able to go 
snd kill them to the limited amounts permitted, after 
ihey have been fattened at other people’s expense. As 
• matter of fact, they are not “preserved” for food, but 
for the gratification of those who find pleasure in killing 
something. 
In addition to this, being “migratory” birds, there is 
Federal law. savagely enforced — probably under the 
^‘Interstate Commerce” clause of the Constitution, or 
possibly the general welfare clause — which overrides 
)ltate authority, and would penalize any rice grower who 
fought to ‘protect his property, whatever the state law 
permitted. There are, therefore, two sets of sleuths 
watching the rice growers to sec that they do not . prevent 
|he ducks from eating and wasting their rice by any 
incans more deadly than shooing them away. Thus far' 
that has not been forbidden, but if the United States 
Government may lawfully interfere in the matter at all 
k may do so to any degree of efficiency it desires. ' ^ j 
There is, if we remember correctly, something in the 
Constitution which purports to prevent ‘any public 
authority, from taking private property without compen- 
sation or otherwise than by due process of law. But 
the Constitution seems not to count any more. 
The Government urges the utmost possible production 
of grain, including rice. We stiggest' that as a >war 
measure it surcease from its efforts to fatten ducks for 
the pleasure of sportsmen on other people’s rice. It 
Would help a good deal in increasing rice acreage. 
Original copied by 
Smithsonian Archives 
