Iron County register., 1905-10-26

- -1----
GREAT is Game-Warden Rodes,
Eogician-in-Chief to the beasts,
birds and fishes! Section "a of
the new game law reads:
1t shall be unlawful for any per-
son, after the passage of this act,
to hunt in this State outside of the
county in which he lives without
first obtaining license permitting
him or her to do so. Such license
shall be dated when issued and
shall authorize the person named
therein to hunt during that year,
and then only subject to the regu-
lations and restrictions provided
by law.
Some person or persons having
construed this section to mean
that, as the hunter is required to
procure a license to "hunt outside
the county in which ne lives" his
old-time right to hunt, unlicensed,
in the county in which he lives, is
not impaired. And very reason
able inference it is, is it not? but
Logician Rodes, in syllogistical
way, smashes it into smithereens.
Iquote him, in this relation, in full:
Such reasoning and deduction is
erroneous, and the conclusion
drawn therefrom illogical and
@ false, as | will endeavor to clearly
illustrate by the construction of
two parallel syllogisms, Nos. and
2, worded as follows:
sYLLOGIsM, NO. 1.
(Major Premise. All persons
hunting outside their county are
required by law to take out license.
(Minor Premise.) A, B and G
never hunt outside their county.
(ConcIuston.) A, B and G are
not, therefore, required to take out
license.
By the same process of reason
ing and by the same rule of law
and logic, I respectfully suggest [
can confer upon my disputants the
priceless boon of Immortality, and
will endeavor to do so, by the fol-
lowing parallel syllogism:
NO. 2.
(Mdjor Premise All persons
who hunt outside their county
must die.
(Minor Premise,) A, B and C
never hunt outside their county.
(Conclusion.) Therefore, A, B
and G will never die.
1t will be at once suggested that
the error of the logic and conclus-
ion in syllogism No. 2 is apparent,
for the reason, that, while tits true,
as stated in the major premise, that
all men, who hunt outside their
county must die, yet it is also true,
under the law of nature, that men
living inside their county must die,
also.
Syllogism No. treats of the re-
striction or curtailment of an ex-
istent natural right; Syllogism
No. 2 deals with something-im-
mortality-no man is terrestrially
possessed of, and which statute
law, therefore, cannot affect. The
first takes away from: the second |
proposes to add to. If all men
were endowed with earthly i'm
as they were possessed
of the right to hunt unlicensed be-
fore the passage of the late fool
law, then Syllogism No. 2 would |
be in strict parallel-and it would
incontestably disprove the very
thing the Game Warden seeks to
establish. But as it stands in the
Game Warden's circular, Syllo-
gism No. 2, to Mr.. Rodes, as we'll
as to my limited power of reason
ing, seems clear out of parallel
and foully false. Stated accord
ing to the actuality of the case, it
ought to read:
(MGor Prenaise.) All persons
hunting outside their county must
take out license to live.
(Minor Pren,ise.) A, B and G
never hunt outside their county.
(Conclusion.) Therefore, A, B
and G may live without taking out
license.
Mr.. Rodes points out the fallacy
OF Syllogism No. 2, as he puts it,
and advances the same reasons |
give, and then says in effect that
No. ! is therefore no good. This
will not hold. All the provisions
hang upon the declaration of Sec.
54; they do not enlarge its scope,
but modify it, and direct its ap-
plication. One thing is certain:
either Sec. 81 means just what it
says, or the men who enacted it
need course in plain English. If
II was intended that all persons
desiring to hunt must take out
license, wouldn't the law have