most hopeless discouragements, was successful in a suit against Delmonico for the alleged serving of woodcock at his restaurant during the close season. Mr. Bortree, of Chicago, now out of office, in a city which previously had taken a mere humorous view of violations of the game and fish laws, caused much unhappiness among the dealers by his seizures of game illegally offered for sale. Mr. Andrews, late executive agent of the State Board of Game and Fish Commissioners of Minnesota, now removed from office for alleged political reasons, by his energy and administrative ability compelled a close observance of the game and fish laws of that State. The alleged political necessity for his removal was probably due to anxiety concerning the rural vote, which was antagonistic to a really serious protection of the wild life of the woods and streams of Minnesota.

If the game warden or protector be handicapped by party or political exigencies, the rural game constable, who is in many cases chosen by ballot, and who is merely a local official, is very much more so. Should he carry out the reason for his being, he would be called upon to enforce the game and fish laws against such neighbors and friends as might violate them. Should he exhibit any zeal in this direction, his term of office would be one of brief duration, even if he escaped personal humiliations of a depressing character. There is no more unpardonable offense, in localities where game and fish still exist, than for one man to inform against another for their illegal capture. While in such communities bitter animosities may be rife among neighbors, and the law may be promptly evoked to settle disputes of a trivial nature, the most determined foes will abstain from lodging complaint one against the other for an illegal traffic in fish or game. Under these conditions, it may be readily understood that a rural game constable, so far as practical effectiveness is concerned, is about as useful

as an upright piano would be to an Esquimau.

In thinly populated districts where game and fish abound, to take "a mess of one or the other at any season is looked upon as an inalienable right. In them neither the State nor the individual is accorded a proprietary claim. After game and fish are killed or captured, to take them from the capturer is looked upon as theft pure and simple. An illustration of this theory of inalienable right is found in the case of a town man who purchased a large tract of land in one of these sparsely populated districts. On the property was a small pond suitable for the propagation of trout. This the town man had stocked, intending, when the fish had grown to a proper size, to angle for them in company with his friends. They were at all times carefully guarded by watchmen, but not so alertly but that, when the trout had reached a marketable size, the night before the end of the close season, the pond was netted, and almost all of the five thousand which it contained were taken. The trout were carried off in two doubleteam wagons to a railway station some sixteen miles distant, boxed, and sent to market. To the natives the culprits were known, though their movements were conducted under cover of night. They were seen to go to the pond with empty wagons, and return with them loaded; nor was much effort made to conceal the nature of the contents of the vehicles. Although the owner of the trout offered a reward which would have been a moderate fortune for more than one of those cognizant of the identity of the thieves for information which would lead to their detection, it was impossible for him to secure a particle of evidence. Had his hen-roost instead of his troutpond been robbed, the natives would have been instantly on the alert, and would gladly have furnished any clue in their possession which might lead to the capture of the marauders. This may ap

pear to be a very nice distinction; none the less it reveals the attitude of large numbers of ruralists vis-à-vis the game and fish laws, and the difficulties which environ their enforcement. While these difficulties are not insurmountable, as has been proved by Mr. Andrews, of Minnesota, the very success which attended his efforts, and resulted in removal from office, demonstrated that, under existing political conditions, the serious enforcement of the laws for the protection of game and fish is considered by party managers neither wise nor prudent.

The space accorded in the statute books to laws for the protection of game and fish is out of all proportion to their effectiveness or necessity. If these laws were intended to be taken seriously, groups of States with the same climatic conditions could combine and enact a simple and uniform code, jointly applicable, particularly as relates to the open and close seasons. As it is now, each State frames its fish and game laws without regard one to the other. Not only this, but many counties of the same State are provided with special enactments, conflicting with the general game and fish laws, and in force only within their own boundaries. An illustration of this is found in the State of New York, where the close season on wild ducks and geese commences on March 1, except on Long Island, where it goes into effect on May 1. As Brooklyn is on Long Island, wild ducks and geese may be sold in its markets until the later date, whereas in the city of New York the same birds cannot be offered for sale after March 1.1 This fine distinction is represented by the line of a narrow river. The game laws are loaded with just such petty and confusing discriminations, which, if enforced, would entail endless trouble and litigation.

At a recent session of the legislature of Wisconsin, an attempt was made to put into effect the theory of a uniform 1 Since this article was put in type, the date of the open season for wild ducks and geese

game and fish law for contiguous States. A law was passed for the protection of certain species of game, which, however, was not to be valid until the governor of Wisconsin had issued a proclamation to the effect that the States of Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Illinois had passed a law in conformity with the provisions of that of Wisconsin. This attempt at concert of action was a complete failure.

This is

To secure the protection of game, nothing is more imperatively needed than a uniform measure which will afford reasonable immunity to wild fowl that make their home in the United States during the autumn, winter, and spring. The assertion that any alarming decrease in the number of wild fowl that frequent our waters is in process of accomplishment has been often denied. This negation is based on the fact that localities where they were formerly abundant have, after years of apparent desertion, witnessed their return in large numbers. a false assumption, as wild fowl, other conditions being equal, always congregate where food is the more available. Their absence is due to the lack of it. If they return, it is at the expense of some other locality, where the aquatic plants and crustaceæ upon which they feed are, for the time being, scarce. An illustration of this is found on some of the bays of the south side of Long Island, where broad-bill ducks were more plentiful during the autumn of 1893 than had been known for thirty years previous. This was owing to such an ample supply of food that no amount of shooting could drive the ducks away. In the autumn of 1894 the same fowl were exceptionally absent from those waters. They came, but did not stay. The nutriment which was in great plenty during the previous autumn was no longer there to tempt them. Some years ago, when the wildcelery beds of the Susquehanna River were covered with sand, brought down has been made uniform throughout the entire State of New York.