The record-union., 1891-10-20
ARIZONA QUAIL.
Is It Illegal to Have Live Ones in
Possession?
Members of Local Firm Arrested
Under the State Law Prohibit
ing Quail-Trapping.

Ex-Fish and Game Commissioner Rou-
tier called on Constable Brissel yester-
day afternoon and informed him that he
had seen a cageful Of quail at the Pacific
Market or street. This, he said, was in
violation of the game laws, and he de-
sired that some steps should be taken IN
the matter.
Constable Brissel visited the market
and the proprietors showed him ship
ping receipt which certified that the quail
had been sent from Arizona.
The Constable and Mr.. Reuter- held
another consultation, and concluded to
lay the case before the District Attorney.
The result was that warrant was issued
from Justice Henry's court for the arrest
of Messrs. Christianson & Dierssen on
charges of misdemeanor. and placed in
the Constable's hands.
The complaint is based upon Section
63l of the Penal Code, which provides as
follows:
Every person who shall at any time net or
pound any quail, partridge or grouse, and
every person who shall sell, buy, transport or
give away or ofier or expose for sale, or have
IN his possession, any quail, partridge or
grouse tlat have been shared, captured or
taken in or by means of any net or ound is
guilty OF misdemeanor Proof OF possession
OF any quail, partridge or grouse, which shall
not show evidence OF having been taken by
means other than q net or pound, shall te
prinla facie evidence in any prosecution for
violation of the provisions of this section that
the person in whose possession such quail.
partridge or grouse is found took, killed or
destroyed the same by means of a net or
pound.-Approved March "A, 1887.
There has been so much incompetent
fTtlly lorr
formed legislators that they have become
about as much muddled as the brains of
the average law maker, and it would take
"a Philadelphia lawyer to tell just what
they do or do not provide.
The last Legislature did not expressly
interfere with the section of the Code just
quoted, but it did amend % section 626,
and among the clauses thus amended"
is the following:
Every person who shall buy, sell, offer or eX-
pose for sale, transport or carry or have in
his possession any deer or deer skin, or any
hide or pelt from which the evidence of sex
has been removed, or any OF the aforesaid
game at q time when it is unlawful to kill the
same, as provided by this and subsequent sec
uons, is guilty OF a misdemeanor.
This clause was evidently intended by
the author to apply exclusively to deer.
but somebody probably offered an
amendment making it apply to 'any
of the aforesaid game'' Including quaiD.
The same law-that of last winter-pro-
vides that ''all laws or parts of laws in
conflict with this Act are hereby re-
pealed.'
of last winter apply exclusively to dead
game? Presumably it does, but why not
live game also?
The RECoRD-UNION favors the enact
ment and enforcement of the most
stringent laws for the protection of gamo,
and does not seek excuses for anyone
who may be accused of having violated
the law. But it has no desire to see an in
justice done to anyone.
Amy person familiar with the charac-
teristics of the California quail can tell at
Il glance that the birds in the possession
of MesSrs. Christianson g. Dierssen are
not of that species. They are what is
known as the Arizona quail. That they
were caughti in Arizona and shipped from
there can no doubt be proven.
Assuming that the law of the last Leg
islature does not interfere with Section
63l, prohibiting the trapping of quail,
and that it is still in force, does it apply
TO the case in question? OF course, no
body will contend that the California
Legislature can prohibit the trapping Of
quail in Arizona, and there is no law on
our statute books prohibiting the ship
ment into this State from other States
or Territories of any kind of game,
whether dead or alive.
In short, our laws apply only to game
belonging within the borders of the
State. This being the case, it is difficult
to see wherein the spirit and intent Of the
law has been violated by parties having
foreign quail i'll their possession. In
deed, If we mistake not, the old Board of
Fish and Game Commissioners had Sec
ton G3l amended so as to permit the trap
ping of quail in this State when it might
be deemed advisable to restock localities
that were barren; such amendment.
however, is not at hand, and possibly
does not exist.
Mr.. ChristianSon stated to a RECORD
UNION reporter last evening that his firm
has always been careful not to violate the
laws in handling game, and he contends
that 1t has not violated them in this in
stance. The birds, he says, were not
trapped in California, as he can prove
1T IS, therefore, difficult to see how the
mere possession of a foreign article the
importation of which is not prohibited
can be in violation Of a law framed to ap-
ply to a domestic article
The object of the State law is to pro-
mote the increase of game birds. and
every person who can bring into the
state desirable game birds should, in
stead of being punished, be rewarded for
ms enterprise. Indeed, the late Board of
Fish Commissioners were praised by the
press 1of having introduced pheasants
rom Oregon and quail from China. The
latter were procured by the hundred
from Cinnamon in San Francisco, and
the Commissioners were glad TO get them.
Mr.. Routier was then President of the
Board of Game Commissioners. and
good one he was, as everybody knows.
1t was, too. very commenGable in him to
call the attention of the authorities to
what appeared 10 be a flagrant violation
Of the law; but we apprehcnd that neither
Mr.. Routier nor anyone else will insist
on prosecuting citizen under a techni-
cality which has been ignored III the past,
and which should not apply in a case of
this kind.
There is, however, one more point to
be considered. fthe Imprisonment of
these birds IN small cage comes within
the scope of the cruelty y-to-animals law.
the proprietors should be REQUIRED to
sszr1> ryuDv1 NJ