The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1914-06-01
MIGRATORY BIRD LAW
Federal Judge in Arkansas Says Is Is
Unconstitutional

Federal Judge in Arkansas Says Is Is
Unconstitutional
Advices just received from Wash
ington by the American Game Pro
tective Association state that Judge
Jacob Trieber OF the United States
District Court. sitting az Jonesboro.
Arkansas. has decided that the recent
ly-enacted federal law for the proteo-
ton of migratory birds is unconstitu-
tional This is the first instance ON
record in which any federal judge
has declared the law unconstitution-
al Last month at Sioux Falls. South
Dakota. Judge J. d. Elliott OF the
United States District Cour' held the
act constitutional when II was ques-
toned by an attorney in defending a
client who was fined 500, for taking
migratory game birds out OF season.
The whole thing SINNERS down to
the fact that the matter at issue viii
not be definitely settled until the
Supreme Court OF the United States
has passed upon it.
At the Office OF the American Game
Protective Association, a statement
regarding Judge Triebers decision
has been given out by William S.
Haskell, It's counsel. who made the
arguments before the Committees of
Congress on the constitutional ques-
tons involved in the Federal law
prior to its enactment. His state.
ment follows:
while the decision has not been
received, II is understood that II
holds that the constitution gives no
power to the federal government for
the enactment OF such legislation
that migratory birds. when within a
state belong to that state aud
the state. acting as trustee for its
people, has the sole right TO control
their taking.
The decision is in the nature OF a
disappointment to the thousands in
this country-sportsmen farmers,
conservationists-w look upon the
new law as the greatest forward step
ever taken in this country toward
stopping the mereilcss slaughter of
its wild life that has been going on
almost unchecked since the nations
birth
ut is TO be remembered, however,
that tho present decision is binding
only IN the district In which 1t has
been made. In every other part of
the United States the law is just as
much in effect as ever, and there Is
no doubt but the authorities at Wash
lngton will enforce II vigorously.
1T would seem that Judge Trieber
bases his decision upon the opinion
OF the Supreme Court of the United
States In the case of Geer VS.. Con
nectlcut This has been often cited
by those opposed to the Migratory
Bird Law as having held that wild
game belongs to the state. AS mat
ter OF fact, the words of Justice
White. who delivered the opinion
are. The sole issue which this case
presents is: Had the State of Con
necticut the power to regulate the
killing of game within its borders sc
as 10 coniine its use to tho limits oil
the state and TO forbit its transmits
sion outside of the stateg
Clearly, there was no issue raised
as to whether the state of Connect
cut had the right to control migra
tory birds as against the federal gov
eminent
The most significant sentence ii
| the opinion is: The genius ant
character of the whole government
seem to be that its action is to bC
applied to all the external concerns
of the nation. and to those interna
concerns which affect the states gen
orally, but not to those which are
completely within a particular state
which do not affect other states, ant
with which it is not necessary to in
terfere, for the purposes of execut
ing some of the general powers o.
the government
Applying the above definition tC
the present situation, It is easily
seen that the protection of migratory
birds affects the states generally ant
that no one state has any interest SIT
perior to that of any other 70, thes,
birds are here today and there tomor