Oct. 19, 1907.] 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
617 

Indiana Game and Fish. 
rom the last Report of the Hon. Z. T. Sweeney, Com- 
missioner of Fisheries and Game. 
Very early in the history of our country the 
‘olonies passed laws against hunting, some of 
rhich were very severe and some quite ludi- 
rous. As a sample of such laws I quote from 
fartin’s laws of North Carolina, volume I, page 
9, which is probably one of the earliest statutes 
egarding a hunting license in America, being 
lassed in 1745 A. D.: 
“And forasmuch as there are great numbers of 
lle and disorderly persons who have no settled 
labitation nor visible method of supporting 
remselves by industry and honest calling, many 
if whom come in from neighboring colonies 
ithout proper passes, and kill deer at all sea- 
jons of the year, and often leave the carcasses 
la the woods, and also steal and destroy cattle, 
ind carry away horses, and commit other 
normities, to the great prejudice of the inhabi- 
jants of this province; be it therefore enacted by 
lhe authority aforesaid that every person who 
lhall hunt and kill in the king’s waste within 
his province, and who is not possessed of a 
lettled habitation of the same, shall be obliged 
\o produce a certificate, when required, of his 
laving planted and tended five thousand corn- 
ills, at five feet distance each hill, the preceding 
rear or season, in the country where he shall 

he peace of the said country, and the hand of 
it least one of the church wardens of the parish 
lvhere such person planted and tended such corn, 
ls aforesaid. 
“And be it further enacted, that if any person 
is aforesaid is found hunting and does not pro- 
lluce such certificate, as aforesaid, when required, 
1e shall forfeit his gun and five pounds procla- 
nation money for each offense.” 
After the achievement of our independence 
he various States were so busy in preparing 
heir constitutions and adapting their statutory 
icts to new surroundings that they paid no at- 
ention whatever to hunting and fishing laws. 
[he first general act of Congress was passed in 
|he year 1832, regulating the destruction of game 
jn the Indian Territory; in 1878 a game law was 
nacted for the District of Columbia; in 1894, 
me for the Yellowstone Park; in 1899 a second 
lict was passed regulating hunting in the District 
of Columbia and providing against the destruc- 
ion of fish and game in Mount Ranier, Wash- 
ington Park. This is about all that was ac- 
complished by the general government in the 
nineteenth century; in fact, the question of 
ywnership of game was not settled until the 
Supreme Court in the year 1896, in the case of 
Geer vs. The State of Connecticut, held that the 
game was the property of the State; that the 
Legislature could prescribe for its protection 
and preservation, and that its export to other 
States could be prohibited without conflicting 
with the interstate commerce clause of the con- 
stitution. This decision of the Supreme Court 
gave a great impetus to State legislation, and 
many laws were passed prohibiting the export 
of game as well as regulating its sale within 
several States. 
On July 1, 1897, Honorable John F. Lacey, of 
[owa, introduced into the House of Represen- 
tatives a bill to encourage the introduction of 
yew or valuable birds, which held the attention 
of Congress for several years before its final 
passage. It was introduced four times; it was 
thoroughly discussed by the press, the sports- 
men and the protectors of game. From a very 
simple measure it thus developed into a general 
bill to provide for the introduction of foreign 
irds, prevented importation of noxious species, 
regulated interstate traffic on game, and placed 
|:she supervision of federal game protection under 
the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture. 
When the law became effective it was supposed 
iby many that it would be impossible to en- 
force its provisions. All the supposititious ob- 
jections have proven groundless and the law 
ihas gone on smoothly and effectively, gaining 
lfriends every day as it is more clearly under- 
stood. Its effectiveness has been of great aid 
ito the States in their attempts to protect game. 
} Within the last two years thirty-nine States 
Ihave enacted one hundred and eighty laws re- 






hunt, under the hands of at least two justices of. 
lating to the subject of game protection. Thirty- 
six States have a regular system of game 
wardens or protectors, about one-third of which 
have placed their wardens on a self-supporting 
basis from the income derived from hunters’ 
licenses. The amount derived from these 
licenses varies from $10,000 to $250,000. Thirty- 
six States required a nonresident license, vary- 
ing from $5 to $25, and the number of licenses 
each year shows a very rapid increase. 
In the twentieth century, eight federal game 
preserves have been established: two in Florida, 
two in Michigan, and one each in Louisiana, 
North Dakota, Oklahoma and Alaska. Indiana, 
while slow to initiate protection, is coming to 
the front and stands well up in the list of States 
that are advancing in legislation. The first bill 
creating the office of Fish Commissioner for the 
State of Indiana was introduced by Honorable 
W. T. Strickland, then representing the county 
of Decatur in the State Legislature of 1865, but 
it failed to become a law. Nothing more was 
attempted until 1881, when a bill was passed, be- 
coming effective September 19, creating the 
office of Commissioner of Fisheries. It was, 
however, treated more as a joke than otherwise, 
and very slight provision was made for execut- 
ing the duties of the office, an annual appro- 
priation of $300 for salary and $500 for office 
expenses being allowed by the different Legis- 
latures up to the year 1897, when the present 
commissioner was appointed. 
In 1899 a bill was introduced into the State 
Senate by Honorable W. W. Lambert. Senator 
from Bartholomew County, abolishing the office 
of Commissioner of Fisheries and creating the 
office of Commissioner of Fisheries and Game. 
This was passed after some modifications, 
one of the most important of which was 
extending the jurisdiction of the commissioner 
to that of song and insectivorous birds. The 
same Legislature passed a new fish and game 
law which was rendered necessary on account 
of the vigorous enforcement of the laws by the 
commissioners and deputies. Previous to this 
the citizens of the State hardly knew that there 
was a fish law on the statute book, and when the 
present commissioner began enforcing the law 
there was an almost universal demand for its 
repeal or modification. One of the most im- 
portant features of the law passed by the Legis- 
lature of 1899 was the permission to hold 
licenses for seining. Farmers argued that they 
had not time to fish with a rod and reel and 
ought to have some means by which they could 
lawfully and openly catch an occasional mess of 
fish. This appeared plausible and reasonable to 
the Legislature and the bill was enacted. As 
soon as it became in force it was discovered to 
be a mistake. While the statute limited the 
size of mesh and the length of séine, it was 
found an easy matter for different parties to tie 
two or three seines together and thus depopu- 
late the streams. The law became very un- 
popular during the first season of its operation 
and was regarded by almost all as a mistake. 
The Legislature of 1901 wisely repealed the 
law permitting the use of seines, declared all 
licenses void and provided a reward of five 
dollars to any officer who would capture and 
destroy a Seine, net or trap, and one dollar for 
the destruction of a spear. It also regulated 
the number of bass taken in one day by one 
person, as well as many other important regu- 
lations. 
The law of 1901 was the first consistent and 
reasonable law ever given the people of the 
State. It declared a close season against all 
game except squirrel, wild turkey and other 
waterfowl, from the first day of October to the 
tenth day of November, and these could only be 
hunted only after one secured a permit from the 
Commissioner of Fisheries and Game. It also 
provided a fee of twenty dollars in case of con- 
viction or plea of guilty of violating any of the 
provisions of the act, which amount should be 
paid to the Treasurer of State and go into a 
permanent fish and game protective fund to be 
expended by the commissioner. It also pro- 
vided for a nonresident license and regulated 
the number of birds which could be carried 
from the State of Indiana. 
The Legislature of 1903 amended Sections 3, 

4, 7, 11, 13 and 16, and repealed Section 6 of the 
laws of 1901, and added a supplemental section 
making it unlawful to hunt with ferrets. 
The Legislature of 1905 incorporated the fish 
and game laws into the criminal code of the 
State and made very few changes. 
What the Legislature of 1907 will do remains 
to be seen. There are very few changes that 
should be made. The present law is the re- 
sult of the experience not only of the officers of 
the State of Indiana, but of the officers of the 
different States of the Union, and is quite 
similar to the legislation of most of the pro- 
gressive States of the Union. No legislation 
should be based upon the particular needs of 
one county or section. The needs of the people 
of the State are varied and frequently diverse. 
What is wholesome legislation in most of the 
State may bring hardship to a particular section. 
Generally, an attempt to relieve this situation 
disorganizes and demoralizes the legislation of 
the whole State. The people have now be- 
come adjusted to the present law and are ac- 
cepting it, and working in harmony with it in 
a highly gratifying degree. Persons who were 
bitterly opposed to it when it was first passed 
are now its warmest friends—especially is this 
the case with the rural and farming population 
They have a law which guarantees all the rights 
which they can properly desire, and under the 
present law no hunting can take place upon a 
farm where the landlord or proprietor does not 
permit it. As an evidence of the general senti- 
ment of the people of the State, I copy a letter 
from one of the principal farmers and stock 
raisers of the State, which is only a sample of 
hundreds received at this office during 
year: Y 
“Z. T. Sweeney, Commissioner 
Game: 
“Dear Sir—I will tell you of our game con- 
ditions in Central Indiana. Quail is much more 
plentiful than they were three years ago. The 
farmers are all very strict about the killing of 
quail here and there has been practically none 
killed in this section for the last three years. 
Almost every farmer is a game warden as re- 
gards the killing of quail. 
“T think every farmer should co-operate with 
the game warden, and in ten years we can have 
Indiana with plenty of quail within its boun- 
daries. Last winter I fed and wintered two 
coveys of quail near my barn and did not lose 
a bird during the season. I had twelve in one 
covey and nineteen in the other. They have 
hatched well and I believe that we will realize 
at least two hundred young birds this season 
from the two coveys. Last June there were two 
boys who came through the neighborhoos 
shooting quail along the road. We went to 
them and gave them two hours to get out of 
the community, ard they have not been seen 
here since. 
“We are propagating some pheasants to turn 
loose in our neighborhood and have had good 
luck with what we had to hatch. We raised six 
out of seven that hatched and will try more the 
coming season. We have the Mongolian va- 
riety, which seem to do well in Central Indiana. 
We have a veterinary here who has raised quite 
a number of pheasants for turning loose on his 
farm. 

each 
Fisheries and 
“Now in conclusion, let every farmer in In- 
diana get to work and protect the noble quail 
and co-operate with all the game wardens in 
the State.” 
As an evidence that the law is proving bene- 
ficial to the State, I copy an article from the 
Indianapolis Star of August 7, 1906: 
“Dr, Downds, oil inspector at Evansville, was 
in Indianapolis last week and said: ‘There will 
be more quail, pheasants and squirrel found in 
Indiana this fall than have been found for 
twenty years. Plenty of them_can be found all 
over the southern part of the State.’ 
“Targe tracts of woodland in every county are 
stocked with quail, and everywhere the pheasants 
are plentiful. The rain of acorns, beech and 
hickory nuts attests the presence of a large 
number of the squirrel family. The reports 
that are coming in from the northern counties 
are predicting the most successful hunting sea- 
(Continued on page 634.) 

