The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-06-04
THE MIGRATORY BIRD Law.
some Reasons Advanced In Favor Of Its
G0nstitutIonality.

To THE EDITOR OF THE SuN--Sir. The
letter entitled "Game Bird Migration Law
in THE Sun OF May 2S contains mislead-
ing statements. The Federal law whose
constitutionality Is now In question is the
migratory bird law which went into effect
on october I, 1919, and not the Lacey
act which has been declared constitutional
by the courts.
Last month Judge ]. u. Elliott OF the
United States District Court, sitting at
Sioux Falls, $. H., held that the migra-
tory bird law was constitutional. Within
the last few days Judge jacob Trieber OF
the United States District Court. sitting
Mt Jonesboro, Ark. has decided that the
law Is unconstitutional.
As counsel for the American Game Pro-
tective Association ] made the arguments
before the committees OF Congress on the
constitutional questions involved prior to
the enactment OF the law. At that time
the case OF Geer VS. Connecticut GG1
Il. s.. 5l9.) was discussed. and ! called
the attention of the committees to the fact
that there was no issue in that case with
reference TO the right OF the State az
contrasted with that OF the Federal Cow
eminent to control the taking Of migratory
game. However In that case Mr.. Justice
White said that the character OF the
Federal Government seemed to be such
that Its action was to be applied TO all
the external concerns OF the nation and
10 those Internal concerns which affected
the States generally.
The protection OF migratory birds az
fects the States generally. No one state
has any interest superior to that Of any
other. because OF the habits OF these birds,
which are here to-day and there to-
morrow.
Congress has passed beneficial leglsla-
ton for the purpose OF DISCRIMINATING In
sect pests. such as the boil weevil In the
n Ia
In the North. The Federal agents have
with the funds appropriated by the ma
tlonal Government destroyed these pests
without protest from the people OF the
various localities. This, In my opinion,
was reasonable and proper action on tho
part OF the national Government. by
protecting The migratory birds. which, do
without expense 10 the Government this
work. the same beneficial results Will be
obtained.
The Supreme Court has held in the
Kansas case that Congress has the power
TO legislate for the protection OF nom
navigable rivers which feed navlgable
streams. Under the interstate commerce
clause Congress has control over navl-
gable waters, and therefore the incidental
power to protect the sources of supply for
these waters. There In. however, no eN-
press power delegated to the Federal Gov
eminent by the Constitution. il II an
| lncldentdl power Wnlcn accompanies an
express power.
Our forests assure the permanence OF
the navigable streams by protecting the
source OF the water supply which feeds
, them on this principle Congress has
legislated and made large appropriations
under the Appalachian reservation law
| for the protection OF the watersheds OF
the Appalachian system. The migratory
| bird law extends It's protection 20 tho
| birds which are needed 10 prevent these
! forests from devastation by insect pests
| For these reasons feel confident that the
Supreme Court will sustain most worthy
| and beneficial law.
| WILLIAM s. HASKELL,
| Counsel Of American Game Protective and
Propagation Association.
| NEW York. June 3.