The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-12-28
CHE &atland Daily GIuhe.
MONDAY, DECEMBER %, 1874.
from the Manchester Journal.t
GAME LAWS.
4 letter from DIR. Goldsmith.

Dear JonrnaL Whether we, in Ameri-
ca, consider game in the light of food ii
produces or the manly outdoor pas
time the pursuit of it affords, the fact
stares us every day in the face
That ere long regard must be had to the
subject of game and the means for its pres
ervation. The indiscriminate slaughter
practiced almost everywhere, the unseason-
able shooting, the persistent hunting which
kills the goose that lays the golden egg is
fast depopulating our fields and forests, and
unless some or ali of these evil practices
can be sufficiently crushed, the time is not
far distant when good days shooting will
be possible only to those with means and
leisure to seek it in distant areas of unset
tied or sparsely settled land.
Tie immensely of the amount of game
annually killed in Great Britain and that,
too, over a country almost every practical
bic foot of which is under cultivation or
pasturage Is a marvel to an American.
When it is remembered that of rabbits, the
only kind of game which interferes with a
farmers crops and therefore are not al
lowed to breed and multiply as much as
they otherwise would, about 40, 900 tons
are annually killed and eaten, il will be evil
dent that with that protection to game as Is
afforded il in this country the food produc-
ton wrought by the terae ndturae might
become, in the United States, almost beyond
computation. The most radical opinion in
this country does not not attribute to feath-
cred game any serious damage to the crops.
Indeed, it is somewhat with partrdges and
pheasants here as with quail with us, that
is, they are held rather to help than to harm
the farmer, in this, that they pay their
way in the injurious insects they destroy.
| refer to the function of the quail in the
wheat bearing region of America, in which
it is said to keep in subsection the wevil.
However this may be, the fact is that the
quantity of game here is enormous, as is
evidenced by the shops where it is sold, in
the price it brings and the frequency in
which it is seen along every roadside where
the traveller goes. That this abundance
should exist in country where animal
food is not common to the laborer and
where, therefore, game is constantly
poached, is proof of the efficiency of the
legislation in the form of game lBws. |
propose to give your readers some idea of
what these are in principles and details.
The game laws of Great Britain arc de-
rived from the common law and from stat
uary provisions made to give a protection
not afforded by the common law. The
right to kill the ttrae natu1'ue wild anmals)
is attached to the soil. This right is guard
ed as is the right to pasture or plough the
land. To kill the game upon it is as much
a legal use rs any other use. While the
landlord has only qualified or conditional
ownership in the game on his land the
right of killing it on his land is his solely,
aud is unqualified except III the operation
of such general regulations as determine
the times and the methods of capture. The
killing of game is a use of the soil which
may be separated from the tillage or the
pasturagc, and as such may be sold sepa-
ratcly or retained separately. In other
words, |, owning 100 acres can rent you
the shooting, or | can rent you the land
and retain the shooting But in all cases
the presumption law is that the agricultur-
al use is the dominant use, or, in other
words, if l rent you the shooting on my
100 acres, you are bound to keep the game
so far killed off that they shall not injure
my crops and this though there be not a
word about it in the lease.
If own land in which you, in common
with others have the right of pasturage,
the right 10 kill the game belongs to me.
Again, il | give you the right to shoot
game on my lands for pleasure, the game
killed belongs to me; if for profit and it is
so expressed, the game is yours. If for
pleasure you cannot delegate your privi-
lege, if for profit, you can. l can convey
to you the right to kill feathered game and
retain the furred game, but in that case the
distinction must be clearly expressed. But
in any case your right to kill game thus
acquired is held subservient to the farming
usues of the land. You cannot tramplc
my wheat or meadows, ect
I'd. The ownership OF game is qualified
by several considerations. In ordinary
cases if you wrongfuly kill game on my
premises, can recover it by civil suit and
pursue you for trespass. The law makes
the killing criminal and Furnishes you. If
l put around any part Of my land such an
enclosure as keeps the game, if l domes-
ticate it then it is no longer .ferae naturae
but domesticated animal, and if you enter
my enclosure and kill my birds you do the
same, in law, that you would do if you
come into my garden and killed my house
pigeons. But if my rabbits or my phea-
SAINTS escape from my enclosure and go
upon yours, you can kill them. While in
the enclosure my property is absolute. If
the game killed is such as is fit for human
food, the trcspasser is guilty OF larceny as
well ms poaching.
The distinction is made in another way.
The deer or other game in forests desceDds
with the land and in case of entailed prop
erty goes to the heir and executor, but
where they are domesticated and kept in
Enclosures they become destrainable or de-
scend to the executor, when the estate is
entailed. They are personal property like
sheep.
A person may have qualified property
in game, or, in other words, the right of
killing it in exclusion of other persons by
reason of privilege derived from grant of
franchise of forest, free chase, park
or warren. But in all these cases the
right springs from the ownership of the
soil by those granting the right. If the
United States saw fit to grant to A or b
the exclusive right of forest, free chase,
park or warren over n tract of say 100, 600
acres of land in some of her territories
while the title was yet in the commonwealth
subsequent titles from the government
would be conveyed subject to the hunting
privilege Warren, forest, park and chase
have to do with notifications of the right
of killing game derived from the crown or
other owners in analogous cases. The sub
ject has no interest to the American reader.
1t may be remarked, however, that the old
perniclous penalties such as castration, put
ting out the eyes, cutting off the hands and
feet were inflicted for the protection of the
crown right in lands.
The statutes provide for the protection
of game and for revenue. Those for pro-
lection are; LIST, Statutes for close time.
1t is forbidden (a) to kill on Sunday or
Christmas (b) The killing of pheasants,
partridges, ETC., except during certain
months. 60 The buying or selling or hav-
ing in possession game after certain Pc
Rod in close time I'd Prohibiting tho de-
struction of eggs. Sd Prohibiting trespass
in pursuit of game. GAY In tho day time
the penalty where the trespasser is alone is
$40. (d) If he has four or more compan-
ions the penalty may be S25 (c) The owner
or occupant mayI orderS trespassers OIL
the property, demand their names and res.
idence and, if they refuse, can commit
them. (d) Night poaching in open or
closed lands or in public highways or be-
ing in such places in the night armed with