Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1920-07-08
NAZzAzK LIKE g

shoot one, that breaks up the pair for the season.
well, four years after the pigeonholing Of
Shiras' bill, John B.. Weeks introduced in the
house the same bill with slight notifications.
Nothing came of it. He introduced it again in
1903, and again in 1911, while at the same time
George P. Mclean introduced a similar bill in the
senate. In the spring of 1912 committee hearings
on the bill were begun.
Both these bills mentioned migratory game
birds only. Now, there are only about 80 game
birds" Mr.. Pearson said meditatively, putting his
pipe, land there are 1000 kinds of birds in North
America. There are 81 warblers alone in the
eastern part of the United States. Therefore,
the Audubon society urged that the Bill De
changed to apply to all migratory birds, and this
change was adopted and put before congress.
"The bill became a law on March 4, 1914; ex-
President Taft signed 1t on the morning that he
gave up his Office as one of his last official acts.
Authority was given to the department of agri-
culture, then, to go ahead and make the rules
governing the killing of birds. The department
of agriculture did not know anything about birds,
so they turned it over to a special branch Of the
department, the Biological survey. Three men
Of the Biological survey drew up a lot of regula-
lions and announced them to the states. Imme-
diately there was a roar Of objections from all
over the country, and all Of the states thought
their rights had been infringed.
"Then came a test case. Out in Big Lake, Ark,
u man KlLIeu u COOL III ViUldtlO0 OIL Il6 T6SuIdC1O0S.
He was arrested and the federal Judge for the
Eastern district of Arkansas declared the fed
eral migratory bird laws illegal. The case, Of
course, then went to the Supreme court of the
United States. The Supreme court was very hos
tile, and the case dragged along for several
months. Finally, the Supreme court did a very
unusual thing. It asked the department Of agri-
culture to restate its case, from which we under
stood that the court was a tie, and the case was
-aaau.ol I-4Ix A4 @Io In-,n &on 10 -ts E
'Tn the period of waiting which followed Elihu
Root came to our assistance. This may be de-
clared unconstitutional and everything lost he
said, but we may be able to beat it. A treaty
is not subject to revision by the Supreme court,
so why not get these ideas written into a treatyY
Immediately the machinery was set In motion
which would turn the, bill into a treaty. After
a great deal Of trouble arrangements were finally
concluded with Great Britain for Canada and
the treaty was drawn up. But a treaty is a
dead letter unless congress by law states what
department shall enforce it-that is every treaty
requires an enabling act.
81 went down to Washington and spent six
weeks there trying to arouse interest in the ena-
bling act for our treaty. The treaty was ratified
by congress on September 20, 1916, and a year
or SO later the enabling act was passed. Then
the government, remembering the tremendous
amount Of abuse heaped upon them after the
drafting OF the hrSt set Of regulations, decided
to have a committee to find out what the people
wanted, and they appointed a national committee
of first a dozen men and later about 20.
"Soon after this in Missouri some men went
hunting and violated the regulations and were ar
rested. The case was referred to the Supreme
court, and on this case the present decision is
based, holding legal the enabling act and thus
protecting the treaty"
This very wise decision makes quite clear the
position of state rights when it comes to birds.
It says:
'sThe state, as we have i%ntimated POUNDS its
claim Of exclusive authority upon an assertion of
title to migratory birds, an assertion that is EN-
bodied In statute. No doubt It is true that as
between a state and its inhabitants the state may
regulate the killing and sale Of such birds, but 1t
does not follow that its authority is exclusive of
paramount powers, To put the claim of the state
upon title is to lean upon a slender reed. Wild
birds are NOT in the possession Of any one; and
possession is the beginning Of ownership. The
whole foundation Of the states rights is the
presence within their jurisdiction of birds that
yesterday had not arrived, tomorrow may be In
another state and In a week 1907 miles away. If
we are to be accurate we cannot put the case Of