Important Game Law Decision 
By Henry Chase. 
R EADERS of Forest and Stream, and espe¬ 
cially the bird lovers, will be gratified to 
learn of a recent decision of the United 
States Supreme Court which has just been pub¬ 
lished, and which undoubtedly will meet with the 
approval of all good sportsmen and be of value 
for future guidance in game legislation. 
It is well known to all those interested in game 
conservation that one of the worst and most 
ruthless set of destroyers of our wild life is a 
class of foreign immigrants from Southern 
Europe. Also, the game officers in the states 
where this class exists in numbers recognize in 
them an unusually dangerous crowd to handle. 
It is the custom of these people to arm them¬ 
selves with cheap rifles and shotguns and then 
go on foraging or pot-hunting expeditions at 
every opportunity. They will shoot for their 
larders any living wild thing which crosses their 
path, from a deer to a chipmunk—from a wild 
goose to a sparrow. No living creature can es¬ 
cape them, as they are patient, persistent and per¬ 
severing in their efforts at extermination. 
As an instance of this, the writer once visited 
a part of the country where a new railroad had 
just been completed. Hundreds of foreigners 
had been employed in the construction work in 
the woods, and camped along the line. The 
country appeared as though it had been visited 
by some mighty plague to animal life, and not a 
fish, bird or quadruped was to be found where 
once they existed in large numbers. Again, the 
record show that a surprisingly large number of 
game officers have been either killed or wounded 
by these foreigners. Every game warden knows 
of the difficulty of enforcing the law in a com¬ 
munity inhabited by these people. 
All of this has been recognized in the state of 
Pennsylvania for many years. After repeated 
efforts on the part of the game commission and 
sportsmen of that state to stay the hand of this 
class, the legislature finally “took the bull by the 
horns,” as it were, in 1909. In that year a law 
was enacted making it unlawful for any unnatu¬ 
ralized foreign-born resident to kill any wild 
bird or animal, except in defense of person or 
property, and to that end making it also unlawful 
for any such person to own or be possessed of a 
shotgun or rifle; with a penalty of $25 and a for¬ 
feiture of the gun or rifle so owned or possessed. 
It is plain that this law would cover the ground 
completely and put and end to this nuisance. But 
the foreign element also quickly saw that the 
effect of this law would be to entirely eliminate 
their pot-hunting pastime and so they proposed 
to test it in the courts. One Joseph Patsone, an 
Italian, was prosecuted before a justice of the 
peace in Allegheny county and fined $25 for hav¬ 
ing a shotgun in his possession. From this deci¬ 
sion the defendant appealed successively through 
all the courts, including the Quarter Sessions, 
Superior and Supreme courts of Pennsylvania, 
and finally to the Supreme Court of the United 
States. On January 19, last, this, our highest 
judicial tribunal, handed down a decision in the 
case in which the court fully upheld the validity 
of the Pennsylvania statute in question. The case 
is known as Patsone v. Pennsylvania, and has not 
yet been published in the regular reports. It will 
appear in volume 231 of the U. S. Supreme Court 
reports. 
The opinion of the court was delivered by Mr. 
Justice Holmes, and is concise and to the point. 
Thus it is that this great court again gives its 
aid and sanction to the work of the states in their 
efforts to protect and preserve their game and 
fish. The law was attacked upon the ground that 
it was both contrary to the provisions of the four¬ 
teenth Amendment of the Federal constitution 
and in contravention of the treaty between Italy 
and the United States. In the opinion, among 
other things, Mr. Justice Holmes says: 
Under the fourteenth Amendment the objec¬ 
tion is two fold; unjustifiably depriving the alien 
of property, and discrimination against such 
aliens as a class. But the former really depends 
upon the latter, since it can hardly be disputed 
that if the lawful object, the protection of wild 
life, warrants the discrimination, the means 
adopted for making it effective also might be 
adopted. The possession of rifles and shotguns 
is not necessary for other purposes not within 
the statute. It is so peculiarly appropriate to the 
forbidden use that if such use may be denied to 
this class, the possession of the instruments de¬ 
sired chiefly for that also may be. The prohibi¬ 
tion does not extend to weapons such as pistols 
that may be supposed to be needed occasionally 
for self-defense. So far, the case is within the 
principle of Lawton v. Steele. * * * 
The discrimination undoubtedly presents a more 
difficult question. But we start with the general 
consideration that a state may classify with ref¬ 
erence to the evil to be prevented, and that if the 
class discriminated against is or reasonably might 
be considered to define those from whom the evil 
mainly is to be feared, it properly may be picked 
out. A lack of abstract symmetry does not mat¬ 
ter. The question is a practical one, dependent 
uopn experience. * * * It is not enough to 
invalidate the law that others may do the same 
thing and go unpunished, if, as a matter of fact, 
it is found that the danger is characteristic of the 
class named. * * * * The question therefore 
narrows itself to whether this court can say that 
the legislature of Pennsylvania was not warrant¬ 
ed in assuming as its premise for the law that 
resident unnaturalized aliens were the peculiar 
source of the evil that it was desired to prevent. 
Obviously the question, so stated, is one of 
local experience, on which this court ought to be 
. very slow to declare that the state legislature 
was wrong in its facts. If we might trust popu¬ 
lar speech in some states it was right; but it is 
enough that this court has no such knowledge of 
local conditions as to be able to say that it was 
manifestly- wrong. 
I believe that sportsmen generally throughout 
the country where this obnoxious class exists will 
fully uphold Mr. Justice Holmes in this last sen¬ 
tence, and it is apparent that the Justice has kept 
somewhat in touch with the sentiment and con¬ 
ditions as they exist in his native state of Mas¬ 
sachusetts, for there the game commission has 
had its difficulties with this same class. 
As to the treaty matter, the court clearly shows 
that this law does not contravene any rights of 
foreigners in that respect. As Mr. Justice Holme* 
says: 
It is to be remembered that the subject of this 
whole discussion is wild game, which the state 
may preserve for its own citizens if it pleases. 
* * We see nothing in the treaty which pur¬ 
ports or attempts to cut off the exercise of their 
powers over the matter by the states to the full 
extent. 
Now then, the way is cleared; the mists have 
dissipated and doubts have been removed upon 
this question, and it is sincerely to be hoped that 
all the other states, whose local constitutions do 
not forbid, will fall into line and follow the lead 
of Pennsylvania by enacting similar laws at once, 
so that one of the most implacable enemies of the 
birds may be removed from the scene of action. 
The only possible way which game protectionists 
can devise to remove this foreign element from 
the game woods and fields is to prohibit them 
from having guns and rifles in their possession 
at any time. This Pennsylvania law fully accom¬ 
plishes that object and should be emulated 
quickly. 
KIDS MAY LEARN ABOUT CONSERVATION. 
The Illinois state schools may have courses in 
game conservation added to the curriculum if the 
plan of Judge John B. Vaughn, of Carlinville, a 
member of the State Game and Fish Commission, 
is carried out. It is his belief that public school 
instruction on this topic would help greatly to 
make easier the enforcement of the game and 
fish laws, and that the expense involved would 
be relatively small. 
A SUBSCRIBER FOR THIRTY-EIGHT YEARS. 
Detroit, February 11, 1914. 
Editor Forest and Streams 
I herewith enclose check for my thirty-eighth 
annual subscription to Forest and Stream, for 
1914. W. P. MANTON, M. D. 
Only continuous advertising, intelligently 
done, yields full harvest. Persistency is the jewel 
of advertising. 
274 
