National Republican., 1883-08-07

promised relief But the hope was rs short |
lived Us was the sparrow policy short sighted |
In this case tho end has certainly not justified |
the means for the worms now seem King
Log in comparison with the King Stork we
have invited to rule over us. The event has
proven n qualification of American ornithol-
ogists that we should have imported a
granivorous bird for insectivorous purposes
is satire on our scientific discernmcnt,
which time has developed with fine
irony. 1t is true that sparrows cat
insects, and that they fare largely upon such
diet during the breeding season but their
natural regimen is no more insectivorous
than is that of almost any bird which We
might name at random, as chicken, goose or
duck, stork, crow, or ostrich. Tho sparrow is
no exception TO tho rule, that conivostral
birds are pre-eminently vegotarian-that
they feed preferably and habitually upon
plants in flower, leaf, and seed, just as ahawk
or owl does upon the flesh of animals. In
acting upon premises so false as are those
upon which we proceeded, we have ignored
an elementary fact in ornithology; one of
those which the tyro masters first, as some
thing that afterward goes without saying.
Tho granivorous habits of any Frugilluie
bird is an inference which it would be dis
Creditable to an ornithologist not to make
upon q prOui consideration of the anatomical
structure of such n bird, and its place in u
system of classification; and in the case of
the sparrow THIS reasoning Is sustained ny
the critical test of experimental observation.
For in only a few of the sparrows which have
been dissected in this country, with refer
encd to this point have any remains of in
sects been discovered; in tho large majority
no trace of other than vegetable substances
has been found. Tho hope that the sparrows
might do what was wanted only fathered the
wish to import them in the teeth of expert
ence aud reason
This may be considered the technic or shop"
of case which ornithology, the science
of BIRDS" is competent to judge and pro-
nounce upon without reference to jury of
experiment. But we never thought of taking
the case into this court till the mischief had
been done; then the vigorous, emphatic, and
virtually unanimous decision Of American
ornithologists came just in time to be too late.
This false start from wrong premises has
been fruitful of q comedy of errors. One of
these is our sedulously fostering the birds, and
actually feeding them. Instead of being
starved into the diet of worms we desired
them to accept, and their recourse to which
was the sole excuse for their presence, the
birds were so petted and pampered that it is
no wonder their natural reluctance to eat in
sects turned to positive aversion. Food of the
kind most palatable being abundant and easily
secured, they naturally declined to undertake
the unaccustomed business OF destroying
worms, or only carried out the programme as
signed them in desultory way under excep-
tional exigencies. How slightly etiicacious
their services have been is easily proven. In
Boston, for example, where the birds have be-
come extremely numerous and where the
conditions are favorable for fair esti-
mate of their services, the experiment
is an acknowledged failure. For in that
city the usual mechanical safeguards
against insect devastatons are employed
much the same as before; the trees are still
scraped, still girdled with troughs of coal tar
showing that the confidence reposed in spar
rows is strictly of the Napoleonic ORDER
while the trees are still infested with worms
in spite of all these precautions combined
The legislatures of Massachusetts, and Penn
sylvania have at length been prevailed upon
to take measures against the birds, but with
what result remains to be seen.
One important consideration should not be
lost sight of here; it is another thing that
science might have foreseen by logical infer
ence. So delicately are natures vital forces
adjusted, and so severe is the competition for
life both in the vegetable and animal world,
that the throwing out of gearing of the ma
| chine in any one of its wheels by the sudden
appearance or disapp earance OF species is sure
| to result in increased friction. The query
might properly have been put: Supposing the
| sparrows exterminated the measuring worms,
may not this be only making room for some
other species not less obnoxious; and if the
| new lessee of life be, one that4the sparrows
will not also destroy. what then? According
to the testimony OF chronological experts
this has actually happened; for even the
moderate decrease of the measuring worms
which the sparrows appear to have effected in
some places, has by SO much favored the
increase of the 0rgyia leacOStiguue, q spe-
cies certainly not less undesirable; and
properly conducted experiment in Boston has
made it clear that the birds do not appro
cately affect the numbers of the species thus
T.. &. u1n tor ieta
These are all matters of fact, susceptible of
proof by direct observation; they are neither
arguments to be made by counter statements,
nor opinions of one individual to be disre-
garded by anocher at his pleasure. 1t is un-
necessary to cucumber this page with the
references to long array of authorities, for
these are duly marshaled in the photography
with which this article concludes. Several
years witness of the working of the expert
ment has established the pivotal fact beyond
all candid question that the experiment is a
failure. The sparrows do not do what was
fatuously expected of them, and when this is
said it is saying that there is no use of their
being here; for the most irresponsible zealot
of all their few lingering defenders never
went so far as to pretend that they were good
for anything else except to amuse the chill
dren.
In establishing the main proposition that
the sparrows are failures as bug hunters, and
have, therefore, no excuse 1Or Delng IN
this country, l am prepared to go further
in the matter of their worthlessness
before examining the evidence of their
harmfulness. 1t may be safely as
serted that if these birds had done.
or were to do, all the good in checking
the ravages of insects that has been ig-
norantly or disingenuousy attributed to
their agency, they would still be undesirable
In fine if the sparrows should. absolutely
protect our ornamental trees from insect
pests this would he no Offset to the damage
done in tho long run. The preservation of
certain luxuries at such expense is not de-
sirable even were it practicable. The spar
rows have shown what little good they can
do. They are already abundant enough for
that but we are only ON the threshold of our
experience of the incalculable injury to be
done the agricultural interests of the country
in due course of time. Mischievous results
of the programme we have ordered are al
ready apparent after the mere span of time
il has taken for few hundred sparrows to
breed into the millions. The full force Of
disaster that is inevitable, If the increase of
the birds goes on unchecked, is logical in
ference
/ might be willing to concede, for the sake
of argument, that the sparrows have not as
yet exerted any very disastrous influence
upon agriculture. Aagnifying this fact
if it be one, TO the most exaggerated
proportions, some short sighted apoogsts OF
the bird would rest their case here. But the
point is not whether the comparatively few
millions of sparroWs we endure have done