Jan. II, 1913 
FOREST AND STREAM 
45 
generally believed at the time that the fish and 
game sections were to be brought to this high 
state of perfection under the watchful eyes of 
three specially qualified experts—John B. Burn¬ 
ham, former chief game protector of the State 
and always an ardent out-of-door sportsman; 
Marshal McLean, a big-game hunter of the 
Camp-Fire Club; and George A. Lawyer, the 
present president of the State League of Fish 
and Game Clubs. 
This combination looked like a real divorce 
between protection and politics, and although 
Mr. Lawyer afterward developed into an active 
attorney and partisan of the Conservation Com¬ 
mission, the sportsmen of the State were in¬ 
clined to believe that at last something really 
was to be done in their interest. Some of them 
actually attended the first hearings given on the 
proposed new law, but went away speedily dis¬ 
illusioned. The resulting legislation was the so- 
called “uniform” fish and game law, which the 
merest tyro in such matters could readily see 
was based neither on scientific knowledge nor 
actual conditions. Attempts to secure important 
amendments were futile, although during the 
past season the Conservation Commission has 
been compelled to admit serious imperfections 
in the law and to modify it, to correct them in 
order to meet an outraged public sentiment for 
the real conservation of fish life. 
Why a scientific fish and game law was not 
secured for the large sum appropriated is readily 
seen when the vouchers on which the $15,000 
was drawn from the State Treasury, are ex¬ 
amined in the office of the comptroller. These, 
it should be remembered, were paid only on the 
approval of the Conservation Commission. 
The three experts commonly credited with 
the work on the new fish and game law appar¬ 
ently had very little to do with it, and got very 
little of the money. George A. Lawyer, the 
Conservation Commission’s attorney, drew $1,650 
for “services as special counsel in the codifica¬ 
tion and revision of the fish and game law, draft¬ 
ing rules and regulations, work forms and in 
preparing an index to the law.” He swears he 
worked in all sixty-six days and was paid $25 
per day, but he does not swear that he is a 
qualified expert in fish and game matters such 
as one might reasonably expect would have been 
selected to draft a perfect statute. John B. 
Burnham did not make any charge for his ser¬ 
vices nor for his many trips between New York 
and Albany during the time the “uniform” law 
was being forced through. Possibly his com¬ 
pensation came from the American Game Pro¬ 
tective and Propagation Association of which he 
is the responsible head. His many friends would 
scarcely like to believe that Mr. Burnham ap¬ 
proved either of the unscientific and indefensi¬ 
ble fishing section or of several things in the 
bird and animal sections. 
Marshal McLean, from whom much might 
reasonably have been expected in putting the 
hunting sections into a creditable condition, cer¬ 
tifies that he “worked on a draft of the marine 
fisheries law” one day in his office in New York, 
and that he was “in attendance in Albany” nine 
other days. He was paid in all for ten days at 
$25 per day, and got an allowance of $168 for 
expenses. It has not hitherto been known that 
Mr. McLean is an expert on marine fisheries. 
This somewhat remarkable accounting easily 
prepares one for the union of politics with con¬ 
servation shown by the disposition of the re¬ 
mainder of the $15000 fund. First comes John 
W. Hogan, lawyer and democratic politician in 
Syracuse, whose voucher says he was concerned 
in the “conservation of water" for forty-one and 
a half days in Albany and forty days in Syracuse 
at $75 per day. He got $5,112.50, although he is 
not recorded among those usually acknowledged 
as conservation experts. Next on the list is 
Roslyn M. Cox, lawyer and democratic politician 
in Orange county, who certifies to working 131 
days at $25 per day “as special counsel codifying, 
drafting and rewriting the laws relative to forest 
parks.” He got also $778.50 for traveling ex¬ 
penses. How Mr. Cox would be rated in a civil 
service examination in forestry is not known. 
The third beneficiary of the $15,000 fund to 
create a perfect law was John H. Burke, Sara¬ 
toga county lawyer and democratic State com¬ 
mitteeman, who drew 118 days’ pay at $25 per 
for “drafting and codifying laws relative to 
lands, forests and public parks; attending hear¬ 
ings of the committees and legislative sessions; 
preparing briefs on the constitutionality of the 
proposed law, statements for publication and for 
the committees, statements for the Governor and 
a synopsis of the law.” Committeeman Burke is 
another hitherto unknown authority on forestry 
matters. Finally Thomas J. Cummings, a Chau¬ 
tauqua county attorney and democratic State 
committeeman, was paid for thirty-four days at 
the usual $25 per. He got $850 and swears his 
days were “spent in examination of the laws and 
statutes, and assisting in the preparation of drafts 
and proposed amendments to the conservation 
law.” klr. Cummings is another hitherto un¬ 
known expert on the great subject of conserva¬ 
tion whose discovery may be credited to the 
Conservation Commission. 
From these few disclosures made by the 
records in the comptroller’s office, it does not 
require extended argument to indicate why there 
may fairly be dissatisfaction with the fish and 
game sections of the "uniform" law. Not a 
single well-known expert gave extended con¬ 
sideration to any subject contained in the statute. 
The fish and game section was not drawn by 
the three men reasonably supposed to know 
something about the subject. It may safely be 
said that half a dozen members of the hunting 
and fishing clulis could have produced a better 
law so far as fish and game protection are con¬ 
cerned. They certainly could have done so if 
a little scientific aid were given them. 
Other peculiarities in the making of the law 
can be shown, but it is probable that the fore¬ 
going statement will be sufficient to explain sev¬ 
eral of the strange things now known to exist 
in the “uniform" law whose enactment was se¬ 
cured by the Conservation Commission. 
John D. Whish. 
Nellie. 
BY VERNON HARTSOCK. 
Nell'ie. beautiful Nellie, thou art half the world to me. 
And the other half is nothing but to know that thee— 
Ihe best of boon companions, a true and noble friend— 
Belongeth to me—thy heart is mine until the end. 
Nellie, beautiful Nellie, thy brown inquiring eyes 
Bespeak to me of hunger or romp, I surmise, 
Ihrough wildwood or through meadow, in any lonesome 
place, 
Bead the way, I will follow thy bewitching grace. 
Nellie, beautiful Nellie, with thy locks of curling red. 
That would put to shame the tresses on some queenly 
head. 
Famed for its exquisite beauty—thou art never vain. 
Nor fishing for compliments; my smile is thy gain. 
My house shall be thy mansion; my hearthstone thy re¬ 
treat ; 
Thou can’st share my couch and welcome, and my 
victuals eat. 
I have no wife to protest, or cause a dialogue— 
Nellie, charming Nellie, my Irish Setter dog. 
