Here’s A 
Brand New Savage 
The .22 Tubular Repeater 
Y OU'LL never know how perfectly a .22-caliber rifle can balance, how naturally and instinctively 
it will handle and aim, until you have had this new Savage .n your hands. 
It has all the original Savage .22-caliber features—hammerless trombone action, solid breech, 
solid top, side ejection, no exposed moving parts, simple takedown device, breech-bolt removable 
without tools, and spiral main spring—features every one has imitated but no one has equaled. 
It looks better than others. Tile outlines are more graceful and symmetrical; but that isn't halt 
the story, .lust put it up to your shoulder. Extend your left arm naturally—this side handle is 
long enough to let you. Hold her steady—this pistol grip actually supports the hand; it is made to 
GRIP, to control the rifle, not merely to look at. Press the trigger and work the action. Now how 
about it? 
Can’t you FEEL how you could shoot it? IIow much easier its perfect handling and balance and 
its short, smooth, snappy action will make any rifle work, fancy or plain, at any object, target or 
game, moving or at rest? 
But when you shoot it—when the hits PROVE and CLINCH what the feel of the rifle suggests 
—you’ll find it has spoiled you for any other .22. After that no other is good enough for you. 
And it holds a lot of cartridges—20 shorts, 17 longs, and 15 long-rifles. 24-inch octagon barrel. 
Weight, 5J4 pounds. It only costs $12.00. Write us about it. 
SAVAGE ARMS COMPANY, 924 Savage Avenue, Utica, New York 
Makers of the Famous Savage Rifles. 
THE ANCIENT RIGHT TO OWN GUNS UN¬ 
IMPAIRED. 
Editor Forest and Streaan: 
The article, “Hunter’s License Not Needed,” in 
a recent issue of year journal, set nie to thinking 
that Mr. Kinter B. Rodgers’ lucid interpretation 
of the game laws of Pennsylvania could be fol¬ 
lowed to advantage by the legal advisers of the 
New York Conservation Commission, our law be¬ 
ing practically identical with that of the Key- 
state State regarding the necessity for obtaining 
hunting licenses. 
The confusion existing in the minds of many 
sportsmen on this point, particularly among those 
residing all the year in farming and hunting local¬ 
ities, should be settled by legislature. As repeat¬ 
edly and lately stated by writers in your journal, 
the New York law, as at present and, as I claim, 
incorrectly and hastily interpreted by the legal 
advisers of the commission, seems to be that no 
one can hunt and kill with fire-arms any kind of 
wild birds or animals, whether these birds and 
animals be protected or not, without first ob¬ 
taining a hunting license for that purpose. They 
in effect say: A person cannot kill and trap the 
various game animals and vermin, now unpro¬ 
tected by any statute, without a license so to do. 
I maintain that the language of the statute itself, 
after being carefully read, will lead anyone to 
agree with the opinion expressed by the Pennsyl¬ 
vania authority. Section 185, Laws of N. Y., 
1913, Chapter 508, states, substantially, that no 
person shall at any time hunt, pursue or kill with 
a gun any wild animals, fowl or birds, or take 
with traps or other devices any fur-bearing ani¬ 
mals, or engage in hunting or trapping, except as 
herein provided, without first having procured 
a license so to do, and then only during the re¬ 
spective periods of the year when it shall be law¬ 
ful. “To do what?” is the instant query. “Take 
protected birds and animals mentioned,” is the 
answer. 
A great many sportsmen pick up the laws of 
1913 in their local attorney’s office, read the first 
line of section 185, just given, and shut the book 
with a snap, making some ill-advised remark 
about the average legislator’s ignorance of real 
game conditions. They then and there resolve 
that they will in future obey only such laws as 
seem to them just and sensible, without regard to 
any statutory game legislation. If these hasty 
men would borrow that book and read it at home 
under the green shade of their student lamp some 
night they would find out what the writer of this 
article is now about to tell them in the hope that 
the information may clear the cobwebs from 
their minds on the subject. 
Following down to sub-division 5, Section 185, 
what do we find? This: “Every license shall 
entitle the person to whom issued to hunt, pursue 
and kill game animals, fowl and birds and trap 
fur-bearing animals within the state at any time, 
when or place where it shall be lawful to hunt, 
pursue, kill or take such game animals, fowls and 
birds in this state.” 
Now, sub-division 8 allows a man cultivating 
a farm and his family, without procuring any 
license at all, “to kill and take game or trap fur¬ 
bearing animals” on this farm “during the season 
when it is lawful to kill and take the same.” This, 
of course, allows the farmer and his boy John, the 
hunter of the family, we will say, to get out the 
old hound and chase that big fox about the 200- 
acre “place” at any time and when spring comes 
they can set traps in the holes and catch the 
“chucks” ready to trample down their clover and 
peqa fields, even if these rodents do not venture 
within the sacred precincts of the growing kitchen 
garden. The saucy red squirrel, destroying the 
nests, eggs and young of king birds, robins, 
ground and tree sparrows (not English), golden 
robins and other glorious insect-eating songsters 
in the old orchard, is picked off with the ancient 
musket and his costly forays thus discouraged. 
In like manner the predatory hen hawk, the 
half-wild house cat, and even the cowardly crows 
that come day by day and take one chicken after 
another from the exposed coops, until the early 
broilers are gone, are also disposed of. Now, this 
farmer and his son are not given by the statute 
one whit more rights than are accorded to the 
local cottager wh-o has a little cabin, but no 
farm lands at all, in this matter of hunting and 
trapping unprotected birds and quadrupeds. To do 
so would be most flagrant class legislation, and 
would be unconstitutional. Both of these house¬ 
holders and their families possess the same rights 
in this particular, and can freely take the fox, 
the weasel, hedgehog, woodchuck, the red squir¬ 
rel, and birds like the owl, hawk and crow, until 
one by one these birds are also exempted by stat¬ 
ute from the common law governing wild ani¬ 
mals and birds, which, as everyone knows, per¬ 
mits their capture by all citizens alike anywhere 
or at any time, unless their taking be regulated 
and restrained by some state law. Such statutes, 
being enacted in opposition to the peoples’ com¬ 
mon law rights of capture, must be strictly con¬ 
strued or interpreted, word for word, and cannot 
be extended by implication, as it would almost 
seem that the learned counsel for the. commission 
have hitherto been inclined to do. 
Owing to the increasing frequency in the use of 
revolvers by “gun men” and thieves in our large 
cities, the so-called Sullivan law was passed. It is 
still in force, the idea being that it may lessen the 
carrying of concealed firearms by the lawless ele¬ 
ment. It is just possible that these legel advis¬ 
ers, with a desire to maintain this law, have reah 
the first line or two of Section 185 have hastily 
given this opinion which has caused so much trou¬ 
ble and comment. 
The remarks of Mr. Rodgers regarding the true 
meaning and intent of the Pennsylvania laws ap¬ 
plies with equal force to our own statute on this 
important subject. He says: “The law does not 
place any restrictions upon the hunting of birds 
or animals which are not protected, and in order 
to hunt or kill them, no license is necessary at 
any time of the year.’’ As if he were actualh 
explaining our own Section 185, he goes on to 
say “There is nothing complicated about the law 
The restrictions contained in the act of 1913 
( Pennsylvania ) apply only in cases where pro¬ 
tected game is sought.” 
That everyone may clearly understand what our 
law actually means, I say again that wild game 
could, at common law, be taken by any citizen of 
this state at any time, unless such taking were 
restrained by some statute law. Now, little by lit¬ 
tle, the people have agreed, through their repre¬ 
sentatives and for the greater good of all, that the 
killing of certain game birds and animals as well 
as fur-bearing animals, should be confined to cer¬ 
tain seasons of the year, restricted as to number 
in some cases, and that a license should be re¬ 
quired before any person could take, kill or trap 
them. 
The New York conservation law, therefore, to 
present any confusion, actually mentions the 
name of about every bird and animal thus ex¬ 
empted from the original rules of the common 
law. It also plainly refers by name to those birds 
that can be taken at any time by any citizen of 
this state. These are by Section 219: English 
sparrow, starling (an English importation, having 
a yellow bill), crow, hawk, crow-blackbird, snow 
owl, great horned owl and the kingfisher, and, by 
implication, states that these birds can be pos¬ 
sessed at any time, dead or alive. And this is the 
actual practice at present in all parts of this 
state. Owls and hawks, for example, are shot 
and sent lawfully and freely by sportsmen to their 
