The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1914-01-21

Isociat.on has a letter and newspaper
Iciippings from L Edgar Estes, at
ltoTney OF GAINESVILLE, Mo. One OF
the clippings contains a copy of
letter written to Champ Clark BIZ
Secretary Houston. OF the federal de-
partment OF agriculture, and the
ether is reply to Secretary Hous-
ton written by Attorney Estes.
Houston UpI,oIds Game Law.
Mr. Clark presented to Mr.. Hous-
ton number OF petitions signed by
his Missouri constituents, charging
that the new federal game law was
arbitrary and unfair. Mr.. Houston
replied that the regulation complain
ed against was not merely a ruling of
the biological survey. but one of the
regulations adopted by the depart
nent OF agriculture and approved by
t,le president, the object being to
l.rotect waterfowl migrating south
ward along two of the great rayig-
able rivers in zone No. /, and adding
that no attempt was made to prohibit
shooting on the Illinois or any of the
tributaries Of the main rivers. In
concluding his letter to Mr.. Clark.
Mr.. Houston expressed the hope that
after the regulation had been in
force for time and the purpose for
which it was established was better
understood, much of the present oppo-
sItion would disappear.
Being an educated gentleman and
ia lawyer OF good standing, Mr.. Estes
OF course knows what lese majesty
means, but he is unafraii and slashes
the letter Of the honorable secretary
into shreds. and dangling them in
one hand, proceeds with the other to
write an honest American opinion or
two OF both the secretary and the
letter.
What is the purpose for which the
regulation referred to has been estab-
Ilished?" he asks and answers:
Estes Decries the Law.
We know what the effect is, and
that 1t is to protect the birds for the
benefit Of the southern sportsmen and
! TO absolutely prohibit large number
of sportsmen in the Mississippi valley
from at all engaging in the sport of
wild fowl shooting. We think it per-
itfnent right here to ask this question.
/ For whose benefit is the protection of
Y the game designed7 We always had
the conception that it was exclusively
for the benefit of the sportsmen. Ger
tainly the masses of our citizens have
no interest in the matter, for under
existing laws, in most states. it is
practically impossible for those who
do not hunt TO procure any of the
game for their own use, the sale of
game being prohibited even when it
lis lawfully taken.
Some have argued as though the
protective laws were for the benefit
/ OF the game itself. If the game is
/ to be protected and propagated for
the mere sake of having it, without
regard to its use by the people, then
the hunting and killing should be alb.
solutely prohibited for all time and in
all places; but this view we deem too
absurd for consideration.
/ In my opinion, the entire federal
law is unconstitutional and invalid.
The federal government undertakes to
ilegislate upon a subject in reference
/ TO which it has no expressed or i'm
piled power given in the constitution.
! It usurps power exclusively vested in
the states. The United States gu
preme court has already decided this
question of the ownership and right,
OF regulation of the killing of game IN
favor of the states See Geer VS..
Connecticut, 161 U. s. Reports, page
:51s.
Game Law Not Necessary.
There is no necessity for federal
law on this subject Nearly all OF the
states have now good, modern protec-
tive laws which are entirely adequate
to the reasonable protection of game