Year: 1876




money value and the market for them.
As the matter now stands. anybody is
practically free to wander over anybOdy's
land doing damage, and the owner can
only recover for the grass down-trOdden.
Even with law sufficiently stringent to
protect game, great trouble would arise
in the execution Of it from the want Of
police to detect offenders. Clothe the
landholder with the consciousness Of
his ownership Of valuable franchise as
readily transmutable into money as his
pasturage and he will regard any in
fringement Of his income, and you add
to his desire to enforce the law the I'M
petus which grows out Of personal
wrong. When our farmers learn that
by the common law tho hunting use Of
their land is theirs already it win not
take long for them so to appreciate its
value as to seek and to seek is to have
such statutory enactments-as are nee
essary to make their rights available.


The vindication Of the farmers right
to the shooting and fishing on his prem
eses is as much the interest Of the
sportsman as the farmer. As the enun-
citation of such a proposition might stir
the wrath Of the whole tribe Of impecu-
nious pOthunter and of some sportsmen,
the matter deserves consideration. In
answer to the popular prejudice that the
right to bear arms implies the right to
shoot. the speaker referred to the condi-
tion of shooting Germany. Here. the
condition before 1910, was the same as
in America, except that the hunting was
confined to privileged few. The in
dignation of the land owners waxed so
hot as to bring on rebellion, and for a
short time all game laws were repealed.
The determination of the game became
50 nearly complete that the present law
was passed, which allows any one pay
ing for license to shoot during certain
seasons. The late Prussian returns show
that the annual game product amounts
to something like two millions Of pounds
of meat. When / state that in Great
Britain and the Prussian States that
game is more abundant and cheaper
than in New England, and when state
that this condition of things is due ex-
clusively to the game code, l take it
that / state the whole question and ar
que it. 1t remains, however, to meet
the objection Of those who fear that If a
game law were enacted in this State it
could not be enforced. To say that II
could not, is to say that we, as people,
have less regard for our own interest
and less respect for the law than Brit
ons or Germans The farmer would
then protect his game as he protects his
crops from which he receives revenue.


The speaker then showed that il
would be for the interests Of the labor
ing man to have game within a short
distance and obtainable by paying Ii.
cense, rather than to have none short Of
the Adirondacks or Canada as will very
soon be the case with no game law. He
concluded as follows: But" says a
citizen, 81 don't like the idea Of paying
for the right to shoot" 1t may be
doubtless. there are to be found some
persons of peculiar idiOsyncrasy who OBJ
ject to paying for apples or even NUT
ton and ''sich like gear" ] have nc
doubt that many canny Scotsman has
lived to bemoan the "good old time
when haunch Of mutton could be had
for the starlight lifting But semporc
nautentur, and, as Bill Bar says, "will
continue to mutantur" in the right di
rection Of security to personal property
and rights Long may they "mptan
tur" in this direction. That's our gos
pei 1t is the gospel Of the Magn;
charta- "The gospel Of personal. civi
and religious liberty"