86 
THK CONDOR 
I voi. nr 
THE CONDOR. 
Bulletin of the 
Cooper Ornithological Club 
OF CALIFORNIA. 
Published bi-monthly at Santa Clara, Cal., in the interests 
and as Official Organ of the Club. 
CHESTp:r BARLOW. - - Santa Clara, Cal.. 
Editor and Business Manager. 
WALTER K. FISHER. Stanford University Cal. 
HOWARD ROBERTSON, Box 55, Sta. A., Los Angeles. 
Associates. 
Subscription, {in advance) - - One Dollar a Year. 
Single Copies, 25 Cents. 
Six Copies or more of one issue, - 12^ Cents Each. 
Foreign Subscription, $1-25. 
Free to Honorary Members and to Active Members not 
in arrears for dues. 
Advertising rates will be sent on application. 
Advertisements and subscriptions should be sent to the 
Business Managers. 
Exchanges should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. 
Entered at the Santa Clara Post-office as second class 
matter. 
This issue of The Condor was mailed May, 15. 
IvDITORTAL NOTE.S. 
Bird The sweeping Bird Protection 
Protection Bill projected in the recent Cali- 
Bill fornia legislature by the Cooper 
Defeated Ornitholog'cal Club, and known as 
Senate Bill 114, has failed to become a law. It 
was reasonably expected that a bill of this 
nature, having successfully buffeted the ad- 
versities of both houses of the legislature, 
would receive the governor’s sanction and con- 
sequently become a law, but in this instance 
bird protectionists were doomed to disappoint- 
ment and upon Governor Gage alone rests the 
odium of relegating California to its former 
position of a non-protective bird state. 
This was the first concerted effort to place 
California on a bird protection plane, and that 
all concerned with the bill labored faithfully 
and well is a matter of general knowledge. The 
bill, with but little substitution, jrassed both 
houses of the legislature and few doubted that 
the governor would add his signature and ap- 
proval to the proposed statute, the sole possible 
effect of which woirld have been for public 
good. However, for some inscrutable reason, 
the bill was permitted to suffer the “])ocket 
veto.” Thirs it becomes apparent that Cali- 
fornia’s governor has no appreciation of 
measures which savor of the aesthetic. He has 
evidently not ke])t apace with the work of 
bird protectionists in the United States, and 
considers such movements but lightly if at all. 
To bewail the short-sightedness of the gover- 
nor at this juncture is a waste of both words 
and energy. The fact remains, that the 
Cooper Club through its able member. Senator 
E. K. Taylor, prepared and carried to succes.s- 
ful completion the only thorough bird protec- 
tion bill which has yet been considered bv the 
California legislature. Practically the entire 
credit for the successful handling of the bill 
rests with Senator Taylor, whose legislative 
work was marked throughout by a combina- 
tion of brilliancy, energ}^ and conscientious- 
ness. His effective efforts not only carried the 
bill through the Senate but practically through 
the Assembly as well, and to him the bird pro- 
tection forces of California may well look for a 
legislative leader. 
The failure of the bill may be attributed to 
a variety of sources, the true one being best 
explained by the governor providing he could 
be persuaded to become communicative. The 
most plausible inference is that the governor 
feared to act in the face of the considerable op- 
position developed by the bill in the legisla- 
ture. This opposition, it should be under- 
stood, was but the natural outcome of placing 
such a sweeping bill before a legislative body, 
many members of which had little or no idea 
of the scope of the proposed measure, if in- 
deed they could give a comprehensive defini- 
tion of bird protection. In the face of such 
conditions Senator Taylor’s work is the more 
remarkable. 
The killing of this measure permits vandals 
to slaughter songsters and non-game birds as 
before, and the hordes of ignorant foreigners 
may continue to snare all manner of wild birds, 
which vicious and destructive practice has al- 
ready been pointed out in the columns of this 
journal. It is indeed lamentable that the chief 
executive of a state, rich in its bird life as is 
California, should disregard a plea backed by 
scientists, fruit-growers and the public alike. 
The result is disappointing, but bird-protec- 
tionists may still accomplish much valuable 
local work, and recruit their forces for another 
effort two years hence. 
Several months having elapsed since the ini- 
tial numbers of at least two bird magazines 
were given the public, with no subsequent is- 
sues to bridge the gap, we niaj’ naturallv in- 
fer that January has proven an nnpropi' ions 
month in which to launch such publications, 
or at least this assumption seems applicable to 
the two journals in i|uestion. Such occur- 
rences — all too frequent of late years — ten 1 to 
shake public confidence in the stability of new 
magazines, while publishers may justly reserve 
the “glad hand” until they know whether 
their “congratulations” are to concern one 
loneh- number, — or more. 
It is true that every magazine must have its 
beginning, and all publishing efforts, if the3' 
be characterized by regularit v of issue, become 
entitled to the confidence and patronage of 
the ornithological fraternitv. Numerous 
magazines are unpretentiously j)iling up 
volumes to their credit, and we may cite the 
Wilson Bulletin, The Journal of the Jfaine 
Ornithological Society i\nd Woles on Rhode Is- 
land Ornithology as examples of publications 
which are accomplishing praiseworthy work 
in their given fields. Ornithologists, an. I even 
the much-abused bibliographer, are ready to 
