Springfield globe-republic. (Springfield, Ohio) 1884-1887, 1885-05-17
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING


A gentleman from Maine sat In the
Fifth Avenue hotel, the other day, read.
ing paper. When he came to the
dispatch from Bangor relating that
Canadian pot.hunters violate the game
laws Of The state With Immunity. he
burst into laughter more hearty than
seemed warranted BY the news.
1T brought to my mind" he said, In
explanation, ian amusing incident CON-
nected with the early history Of the
game laws In Maine. II was not far
from thirty years ago that the first
comprehensive act for the protec-
tion Of game was introduced into the
legislature. As tho temperance party
was In the majority and advocated the
measure, the democrats or 'rummies,
as they were then called--were, Of
course, In duty bound to oppose It,
which they did vigorously. After It
became law It was discovered by
some astute democratic editor-Holden,
Of the Eastern Argus, believe
woodpeckers were included among the
birds to be protected during the close
season, and showers of ridicule wero
hurled at the temperance party for
CHASING woodpeckers a. gamc. The
law was derlsively named The Wood
pecker Law and its supporters The
Woodpecker Party Tie temperance
editors took up the cudgels and defend
ed the law in all its details. Wood.
peckers they said had not been includ-
ed as game birds, but ip the interest
Of farmers. They lived largely on
larv9 Of destructive insects, which they
picked from the bark OF trees.
''The opposition was ready for the
emergency; abundant evidence was
produced that the woodpecker, so far
from being friend to the farmer, was
one Of his worst foes. He lived not on
insects or their eggs, but on the tender
inner bark OF trees and on fruit buds.
He ought to he exterminated, and It
was sin and shame to protect him by
law. The name OF 'Sapsuckcr,' by
which some varieties are known among
country people, was brought up in evi-
dence against him. Now began con-
troversy over the woodpecker more an
imated than the later one over the
English sparrow. Expert testimony of
the highest character was introduced
on both sides. The agricultural news
papers took up the ground and fought
vigorously odCn VIII tHc party u
which its political affiliations endeared
it. In the legislature the following
year the war was renewed, and the
woodpecker was the occasion Of tor
rents Of epithets from bucolic law
makers. Not man who had voted for
the measure originally who was not
ready to defend the woodpeckcrs as the
most useful bird in the state-far more
worthy Of protection than birds who
were merely good as food; and not one
who opposed the bill but had done SO
from the firm conviction that this most
destructive bird should be slaughtered
without mercy at all seasons Of the
year.
'But the question was never settled;
for on one unhappy day it was discov-
cred that In the game law as intro
duced, debated, and passed there was
no woodpecker. II was woodcock
which was included among other game
birds; and printers blunder had
caused all this bother. The introducer
had simply taken the bill from the
statute-book Of some older State; and
neither he. nor those who voted for it,
nor those who opposed it, had any in
telligent idea of what was in it.
II have often thought" continued
the gentleman from Maine, "that the
great mass Of men defend the doings of
their party and oppose those OF the
other party with just about as much
independent judgment as characterized
this fight over the woodpecker. IN
y Tribune.