2_i 
4 
\ 
Mr. Brewster 2 
his admissions of the year "before. Hone of the "brant-shooters took 
4tU 
very much interest "because they "believed in i*-s measure as a whole 
and had every assurance that with a little explanation at the commit¬ 
tee hearings the brant would be excepted. Such explanations were made 
and the committee seemed to grasp the point. I did not appear myself 
this year because I felt sure it would be all right. A member of the 
committee told me toward the close of the hearings that there was no 
need of it as the committee understood the situation and were going to 
except the brant. When the measure was thrown into joint committee 
of conference a very prominent member of the co mmittee told me the 
same thing. A little later I heard the bill had been passed, brant 
and all. Calling on this member for an explanation he said Forbush 
had been round to all the members (I am not sure whether orally or in 
writing) and told them that the brant must not be excepted, that they 
were very rare and in danger of extermination, that there were not 
over one thousand left in Massachusetts waters (I am not clear that 
Foifbush was responsible for this statement——it is possible it was 
the head of the State Commission on Fisheries and Game but anyway I 
understood Forbush assented) and quoted you as taking the same 
position. The member of the committee was astonished when I said I 
understood you otherwise—he said I must be mistaken, that Forbush 
quoted you positively. The statement as to the number of birds was a 
plain English lie if made by anyone with the least knowlege of the 
facts. Otherwise it was merely a wild inaccuracy, though almost 
equally inexcusable coming from one who purported to speak with 
authority. If a lawyer condescended to tactics like the above (which 
not many do) he would be called very ugly names. 
I took Dr. Townsend down to Monomoy with me last Spring 
