6 
Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture. 
^ . 
quite incapable of effective enforcement, but it exerted a 
wonderful influence upon the public mind, and its passage 
laid the first real foundation for the actual preservation of 
our migratory birds. 
The regulations adopted under this act enjoined spring 
shooting throughout the United States, and the extent of 
their observance is a splendid tribute to the sportsmen of the 
country. Fully 95 per cent of the sportsmen abided by this 
mandate and refrained from hunting during the closed sea¬ 
sons. The result was almost instantaneous. Waterfowl and 
other migratory game birds at once not only showed a 
marked increase in numbers, but, owing to the cessation of 
spring shooting, remained unmolested in ever-increasing 
numbers to breed in places from which formerly they had 
been driven every spring by incessant shooting. At the end 
of the 5-year period during which this law was in opera¬ 
tion, State game commissioners, leading sportsmen, and con¬ 
servationists were practically unanimous in their expression 
that wild fowl were more abundant than at any time in the 
25 years preceding, and in attributing this increase to the 
abolition of spring shooting and the general observance of 
the Federal statute. 
The very marked improvement in conditions under this 
law instilled a new spirit into sportsmen and showed the 
wonderful possibilities under a Federal law broad and com¬ 
prehensive enough not only to protect the birds during the 
mating and breeding season, but to equalize hunting privi¬ 
leges and opportunities by removing the incongruities still 
existing under State laws. 
The constitutionality of the law was attacked in the 
courts, but before it was passed upon by the United States 
Supreme Court the law was repealed by the enactment of 
more effective legislation in 1918. The constitutionality of 
the law of 1913 thus became a dead issue and on motion of 
the Attorney General the appeal in the case 1 was dismissed 
on January 6, 1919. In its action the court did not pass 
upon the constitutionality of the law and this now remains 
a moot question. 
1 United States vs. Harry Shauver. 
