APPENDIX. 
BIRDS OF PREY AND THE “SCALP” ACT OF JUNE 23, 1885. 
In an agricultural district, the preservation of the hawks and owls is a matter of 
great importance. These birds, with few exceptions, subsist mainly on mice, other 
small quadrupeds and various insects, which are so destructive in the fields, or¬ 
chards, gardens and about buildings. Until within a quite recent period, Pennsyl¬ 
vania has been burdened with an act of assembly awarding premiums for the de¬ 
struction of these Avell-known feathered friends of the farmer. The members of 
“The West Chester Microscopical Society,” recognizing the great wrong and injury 
which was being accomplished by the enforcement of this odious “Scalp Act,” as it 
was universally called, took an active part in endeavoring to secure its repeal. 
From reports* issued by their Committee on the Protection of Birds of Prey, the fol¬ 
lowing extracts are taken : 
“ The committee appointed at the last meeting of the Microscopical Society to take 
into consideration the act of assembly passed the 23d day of June, A. D. 1885, enti¬ 
tled ‘An act for the destruction of wolves, wild cats, foxes, minks, hawks, weasels 
and owls in this commonwealth,’ beg leave to report that the chairman of the com¬ 
mittee, Dr. B. H. Warren, ornithologist of the Pennsylvania State Board of Agricul¬ 
ture, has devoted several years of his life to the collection, dissection and examina¬ 
tion of birds, and that all of the committee from observation and experience have 
believed that all of the birds denounced in the law, with rare exceptions, have been 
found to be the best friends of the farmer. Lest, however, any of the committee 
might be mistaken they have corresponded with the best ornithologists in the 
country, men who have made ornithology a study and are connected with that de¬ 
partment in the Smithsonian Institution, asking their opinion as to the benefits or 
injury likely to arise from the execution of the law against the birds therein named. 
“They have received answers from Dr. C. Hart Merriam, ornithologist of the 
United States Department of Agriculture ; Dr. Elliott Coues, vice president Amer¬ 
ican Ornithologists’ Union; Robert Ridgway, Curator Department of Birds, 
United States National Museum; Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, assistant curator of the 
same department; H. W. Henshaw, of the Bureau of Ethnology, also a collector of 
birds for the Smithsonian Institution, and connected with the late Wheeler Survey 
of the territories, and Lucien M. Turner, a collector of birds, etc., for the Smith¬ 
sonian Institution for the last twelve years. These answers, which are annexed to 
this report, all bear testimony that the hawks and owls are of great benefit to the 
farmer, and render him far greater service than injury, and that it is unwise to se¬ 
lect any of them for destruction. 
“The committee regrets to say that there have been ninety odd hawks and a dozen 
or more owls killed since the law was passed, June 23, 1885, at a cost to this county 
of about 875, and that the slaughter is still going on. 
’Reports of the Microscopical Society of West Chester. Pa., on the act of assembly of said state 
awarding a premium for the destruction of hawks, owls, minks, weasels, etc., etc., enacted June 23, 
1885: published January, 1887. 
( 333 ) 
