New-York tribune., 1906-05-26
THE EGRET AGAIN.
IIHIners and Audubonites Quarrel
OUer "White Badge of Cruelty"

The proposed crusade Of the Audubon Society,
backed up by the State Forest and Game Com
missioner. James s. Whpple. against the selling
of the plumage of the egret has created great
excitement in the millinery world. but in
tention to surrender The Forest and Game
Commissioner bases his action the decision
of the Court of Appeals in the case of the State
agt Sz, in which 1t held that the state
laws apply to all goods sold within the state
whether imported domestic. This case has
now been carried to the Supreme Court Of the
United States, and the milliners say that until
the Supreme Court decides against them they
will continue to sell imported pumage. including
the great bone of contention, the white badge
of cruelty" as the Audubon Society calls 1t, the
aigrette.
This is simply the semi-annual scare of the
Audubon Society" said Charles w. Farmer,
Editor of THE Millinery Trade Review" and
we shall advise our readers to pay attention
to it. Judge John Cunneen, former Attorney
General. said over his signature in 1903
that he knew of no law prohibiting the sale Of
imported aigrettes in New York State. and there
has been no change in the law since then. The
Silz case changes nothing for that is still pend
ing.
'Of course. if the decision of the Supreme
Court goes against US, shall have to submit,
but I don't think it will If the milliner is to be
furrier not interfered with for selling Persian
lamb coats or the merchant for dealing in calf
skin boots? There is no more cruelty associated
with the aigrette than with the Persian lamb
coat. Yet a woman who would not wear an
aigrette will Persian lamb without
qualm. In the same way people will sit down
and gorge on pheasants and then denounce the
cruelty of the man who is making his living by
hunting egretS. Yet the plumage of the
pheasant is just as beautiful as that of the
egret.
Il don't think I am any less humane than
the members of the Audubon Society. l am a
church member, and l live in the country and
leve in letting sentiment interfere with bust
ness. There is such thing carrying things
far
A large wholesale dealer in plumage expressed
himself similarly. but added that even If the
Supreme Court did sustain the state Court of
Appeals in the matter of the Silz case, II would
make no difference.
The point at issue there" he said lis the
right TO sell imported game birds in the closed
season of the state, and l don't how the
decision can be made TO cover the case Of the
ogret. Meantime we intend to go right
selling aigrettes"
The Audubon Society. however, intends to give
no quarter.
we will make hot work" said William
butcher. Of the board of directors of the New
York State society, for any milliner who at
temptS sell aigrettes The society is not
made up of hysterical faddists. A large proper
ton Of the members hard headed, Conserva-
tive business men. We know what are doing
We have waited until had good legal ground
to stand on, and now we intend To go ahead.
We have not been bile to touch the aigrette
before, although we have prevented the use of
other Objectionable plumage, because il was
impossible to tell in any given whether
the plumes were domestic or imported. But now
this difficulty is removed since the law, as in
terpreted by the Court of Appeals. makes no
| discrimination between domestic and imported
! goods