The Kusko times., 1926-08-07

] prohibition now, is it not? We do not want the State to lie down in the enforcement of it's game laws, as some of the States have lain down in the enforcement of the prohibition law, We have concurrent Jurisdiction , now on prohibition, and what is the result?
 MT. Shipstead. I simply call that to the Senator's attention to bring out the fact that where State desires to enforce the law it is permitted under , this bill to use it's machinery for that purpose.
 Mr. Dill. I understand, and think, that the number of game war dens to be appointed should not ex- ceed two to any State; that very sys- tenn couEd he worked out; but, instead of that, it provide that they can spend 40 per cent of the receipts un- der this bill. That is what 1 am ob- jecting to.
 MT. Norbeck. MT. President, let me i make suggestion to the Senator. l The question before the Senate is not the merits or demerits of this bill. The question before the Senate is whether the Senate shall take it up. MT. Dill Yes; and 1 shall be glad to talk about that.
 Mr. Norbeck. I was going to sug- gest to the Senator from Washington that if he is of the opinion that the Senate does not want this bill, the quickest way to dispose of it is to let ] this motion go to a vote as to whether or not we shall take it up.
 MT. Dill. Since the Senator raises the question whether we ought to take up this bill or some other bill, want to talk about thai little bit That ! is the question, the Senator, says, that is before the Senate.
 Mir. Norbeck. Replying to the other matter, the Senator will agree with me that there is a marked difference of necessity in different States. The State of New York and the State of Rhode Island would not require the same number of game wardens Some States have more violators than other States, and therefore they require more wardens. Some States have more game than other States, and therefore require more wardens. l MT. Dill. But the Senator said a while ago that they would not have more than one or two to any one State. Now, why not limit it?
 MT. Norbeck But these two can be moved from one State to another as they are needed; and think Congress will provide for the necessary num- Der of Wardens to enforce the law, 1 keeping in mind the fact that the 40 per cent is not fixed definitely in the bill. The bill simply provides that Congress shall appropriate not more than 40 per cent out of this fund for the purpose of law enforcement. The Congress itself immediately, if this bill becomes a law, may say that 20 per cent or30 per cent is the right amount.
 Mr Dill The Senator knows that as soon as this bill becomes law and the fund becomes to come in there are going to be lot of reasons pre- sented for appointing game wardens spend that money. There is not any doubt about that.
 The Senator says conditions ir New York are different from conditions in some other States. Undoubtedly so; and if there is any one reason above another why this great country has been able to exist so tremendously in a governmental way as it has in all it's development, it has been due to the fact that each State was suprement within it's own borders on matters of local concern. | am objeeting to the Federal Government interfering in a matter that is largely of. local con- cern- The Senator says we already have Federal game wardens to look after the migratory bird law. Well, why add q lot more to them2
 Under that system they are neces- sarily working with the local officials in the State where the game law is to be enforced,
 As to the uuestion before the Sen