, \ % t MIGRATORY BIRDS < 
‘ — 
Devastating Habits Raise Great 
and International Questions 
T HE determination of the State and Federal author- 
ities to prevent rice growers from defending them- 
selves against the devastations of worthless ducks and 
geese is not only causing growing indignation in respect 
to the senseless destruction of property but is drawing 
more public attention than has hitherto been given to the 
legal foundations for the claim for the exercise of such 
tyranny. . . 
Considering, for convenience, only one phase of the 
matter, by Federal law the** sale of wild ducks and geese 
is prohibited within a state. Obviously, that is a local 
police regulation for which, under the Constitution, as 
yvritten, there is no shadow of Federal claim. We do not 
know that there is even under the Constitution as 
‘‘interpreted. 0 
At any rate. Congress could find no such power, 
and, therefore, resorted to the “treaty power,** treaties 
being declared to be “the supreme law of the land.’* 
If that be literally true, then the* President, Senate and 
Mexico, Canada or China can enact domestic law which 
the President, Senate and House of Representatives 
could not enact, and have done so. 
The Constitution says: “This Constitution, and the 
laws of the United States Which shall be made in pur- 
suance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be 
made, under the authority of the United States, shall 
be the supreme law of the land.** . 
■ The question is whether the treaties which are to be 
the supreme law of the land are treaties enacted, like 
laws, “in pursuance of. the Constitution,** or treaties 
which may happen to be made in defiance of the 
Constitution. 
The legal argument for the former construction is 
familiar to all students and need not be stated here. 
If the duck question results in a thorough discussion of 
this fundamental question patriotic citizens can well 
afford to raise by subscription money to compensate the 
victims of Federal usurpation. 
But it has been cabled to our attention that penal laws 
are t& be construed strictly, the burden of proof being 
absolutely and completely upon the Government. 
Therefore, if one is accused, under the Federal law 
of unlawfully selling wild ducks and geese, the Govern- 
ment must prove that the particular birds sold were 
hatched outside the State of California before conviction 
can be had under the treaty power or any other power. 
And that cannot be done. There is no presumption 
against the accused in a criminal case. . „ 
Original copied by 
Smithsonian Archives 
