\ i a VWN 4 ti . s SS eae tH » Fi. Bd qe OP oy, / Me Se t/ ie NW £ ' re ~ x = s Sy SS SSS aan x a Oh ae LD LIFE FUND t, Uretat Stats Verto Torr Ge. pha Le Uprer ee 7235, th THE STATEMENT OF THE PERMANENT WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND spi op rages aie! , THE EAST PASSENGER PIGEON Died in the C ti Zoological Garden, incinna September 1, 1914. ctsy vet l, “4S | wy Copy fy it NO ANC ANG ANCA NG AN GANG) NO NONE NGC) | HHI} Wi} i TATAIAOATATANTATIA I ATIAIATIAI NATIAIOTIAIANATATAS Wa Zz Want ) VOWa () (() 7 (( f () Ih ((’) WANA, ay NG f) Wa) ) (‘a aN f) I f’ Way ) ‘a NaN Wa) VN /@ (ANVAN/ NIAAA NANI (NN FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT 21 or win any advance ground. The funds available for the use of every cause under the sun except the protection of our wild life, was positively maddening. Goaded to an act of desperation, the writer printed and issued an appeal for “a discretionary fund,” to promote certain specified lines of protection activity. There were many reasons why the appeal would fail, and only one rea- son why it should succeed. The “platform” then published with the appeal was as follows: Stop the sale of wild game. Promote laws to prevent unnaturalized aliens from owning or using rifles and shot-guns. Stop all spring and late-winter shooting. Stop all killing of insectivorous birds for food, and of all birds for millinery purposes. Increase the number of game preserves. Oppose the use of all extra deadly automatic, auto- loading and “pump” guns in hunting, and secure the passage of laws against them. Secure perpetual close seasons for all species of wild life that are threatened with extinction from our fauna. The result was but little short of a miracle. Money in good, round sums instantly began to flow in; and within six months the amazing sum of $5,023 had been accu- mulated! With the receipt of the first $500, the campaign opened on a scale of “sufficient funds,” and other campaigns have continued on that basis. The first check (for $100) came from Mr. William P. Clyde, and it was quickly followed by a like amount from Mr Emerson McMillin (annually for three years), and $500 from Mr. H. C. Frick, also as a first annual three- year contribution. Mr. Charles A. Dean, of Boston, gave $200; Mr. George Eastman, $500; Mr. Frank Seaman, $100, and Mr. Samuel Thorne and Miss Heloise Meyer, $200 each. That fund certainly made some very important history. As an item of history well worth preserving for all time, HENRY FORD FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT 23 that memorable subscription list will appear in full later on in this Statement. The campaign then inaugurated attracted the support of many organized bodies of protectors and sportsmen. In the end, the opposition was swept off its feet as if by a tidal wave. The “too drastic’ measures that were proposed were driven through the legislature by an overwhelming tide of public sentiment, and “‘the Bayne Law” was the result. The passage of that law was the signal for a masterful recodifi- cation of the game and fish laws of New York, for the enact- ment of a Bayne law in Massachusetts, a nearly similar law in California, and a vastly improved new code in Louisiana. Without that $5,023 it is extremely probable that not one of those five great reforms would have been carried into effect by this date. The total fund raised and expended in those campaigns by the writer alone amounted to about $8,000, which was only $1,000 short of the sum asked for in the first forlorn-hope circular. Having learned the enormous potential value of a wise distribution of campaign funds at critical moments, in 1912 it began to seem impossible to live without sufficient funds to meet the demands of each year. Many of the calls for help that came to New York were so urgent that they could not be denied. The office of the campaigning trustee became a permanent clearing house for wild life campaigns and expenditures. Campaign Funds.—In 1913, through the initiative and the energy of Mr. Madison Grant, Chairman of the Ex- ecutive Committee, the New York Zoological Society, which always had been a liberal supporter of the wild life pro- tection causes, raised a new special subscription of $10,500 for the purpose of placing before the public 13,000 copies of a book of 418 pages entitled “Our Vanishing Wild Life.” That volume was placed actually in the hands of every law- maker in the United States, and many other persons be- sides. With that effort, the Zoological Society completed the expenditure on wild life protection of about $14,000 in GEORGE EASTMAN ~ FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT 25 four years; and it became entirely out of the question to ask that organization to do more, either in 1913 or 1914. To the writer, the gathering of further campaign funds by annual subscriptions also had become impossible. The inexorable logic of the situation demanded an endowment fund, yielding an annual income sufficient for our campaign work. The result was the founding of the Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund, with a minimum capital of $100,000, and an annual income of between $5,000 and $6,000. The raising of such a fund seemed like an attempt to climb a Matterhorn 50,000 feet in height; but the demands of the wild life cause left no opportunity to shirk the task. It was hoped that the idea of a fund that will work and fight for the protection of wild life during the next 200 years would successfully appeal to all the friends of that cause who have funds that can be spared. The following subscription conditions were formulated and printed, compressing into a few paragraphs the basis of a far-reaching foundation, destined to be elaborated later on: SUBSCRIPTION CONDITIONS. For the purpose of providing a permanent endow- ment fund, the annual income of which shall be ex- pended in measures designed to secure the best possi- ble preservation and increase of wild life, on broad lines and by practical results, we, the undersigned, subscribe the sums set opposite our respective names, on the following conditions: 1. That the work prosecuted by the aid of this fund shall be national in its scope, and as a rule shall avoid local issues. 2. That the principal of the fund shall be handled by two trustees, at least one of whom shall be an officer in a New York bank or trust company, who will act as investment trustees. 3. That the first persons to act as such trustees will be A. Barton Hepburn, of the Chase National Bank, New York, and Clark Williams, of New York. 4. That during his lifetime, or until his retirement, the annual income accruing from the permanent fund ANDREW CARNEGIE FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT at shall be paid each year to William T. Hornaday, as campaigning trustee, for expenditure by him at his dis- cretion in promoting practical measures and campaigns to secure the best possible protection for and increase of the wild life of America, and especially North Amer- ica and the United States, in line with his previous efforts in that field. 5. That whenever a vacancy occurs in the position of either of the banking trustees, the vacancy shall be filled, within three months, by a bank officer chosen by the two remaining trustees. 6. That upon the death or retirement as trustee of W. T. Hornaday, the whole of the endowment fund, and the unexpended income, if any, shall be turned over to the New York Zoological Society, subject to the condition that the principal shall be kept intact as a permanent endowment fund for the protection and in- crease of wild life, and its income expended annually on the lines laid down above. Subject to the above conditions, we hereby subscribe the following sums toward the formation of a Perma- nent Wild Life Protection Fund of $100,000 or more. In order to convince the people of New York that the interest in wild life protection extends beyond that city, our first efforts were expended in securing subscriptions elsewhere. Mrs. Frederic Ferris Thompson, of Canandai- gua, Mr. George Eastman, of Rochester, and Mr. Henry Ford, of Detroit, each subscribed $5,000. Col. Max C. Fleischmann, of Cincinnati, made a sportsman’s subscrip- tion of $1,000. Mr. Carnegie promised $5,000 conditionally, and finally the fund reached $32,000. All was going very well when like a cyclone out of a clear sky came on the awful whirlwind campaign of October, 1913, for four million dollars for the erection of club houses for New York’s Y. M. and Y. W. C. Associations. That effort, which really was a “side-hunt” for millions, was prosecuted with teamwork, committees and publicity with- out end. It sweepingly absorbed all the loose money in sight, and much more; and for a time it completely wrecked the Permanent Fund. For a time there was naught to do but to survey the ruins of our plans, and reflect on the ephemeral character of human ambition. NO Oo MISS HELOISE MEYER FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT 29 In a few months, however, our plans had sufficiently re- covered from the cyclone to once more be set slowly in motion. In the spring of 1914 it began to look as if an option must be exercised on the Fund—either to increase it or abandon it. And then Mr. Emerson McMillin, a gen- tleman of large affairs, proposed to give a luncheon at the Lawyers’ Club, and invite to it several gentlemen who would be willing to listen to our story. Knowing well what would be expected of them, eighteen men had the courage to attend. The immediate result of the luncheon was a new list of subscribers, which included the names of Messrs. Emerson McMillin, James Speyer, George D. Pratt, Frederick C. Walcott, Franklin Q. Brown, John Markle, Col. R. B. Wood- ward and others. Another immediate result was the ac- cession of a great amount of new courage. But even then it seemed impossible to reach the half-way mark. Then it was that the Good Genius of the Fund, Mrs. Frederic Ferris Thompson, secured for it the serious at- tention of her friend, Mrs. Russell Sage, who presently sent her check for $10,000, and brought the total up to $49,000. That being accomplished, in the most sportsmanlike way in the world Dr. William H. Nichols responded, rather ahead of his intentions, with a Founder’s check for $1,000, and on May 6—exactly synchronizing with the senatorial courtesy attack of Senator James A. Reed upon the Cam- paigning Trustee,—the half-way mile-stone was reached. Since that time a number of smaller subscriptions pres- ently brought the total up to $51,980. Of that sum $39,505 have been paid in, and put to work earning an income. It is to be regretted that two of the subscriptions are con- ditional, but we do not regret the fact that some of the smaller subscriptions were made subject to payment in the near future. Another Obstacle-—The outburst of the European war, in August, 1914, added the finishing touch to the already existing bad money market, and placed the subscription campaign in a state of suspended animation. Possibly the sun of prosperity will rise over this enterprise before the 3 SONG GAN GANGANG LV. GAGA GAD ANG ANG AGA GANGAL. GDN NAN GANONG DNGANG a i J NO NONO NO NOANG NG DNONONENG) 7 P.4 = We oa | if f 18 4 | : i =| i = : z | » | Zz 4 (| | . Af = | ‘Caaf l bx cater St | i | p= Ven > = FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT on close of the war; and we hope that it will; but the wild life protection cause must and shall go on, war or no war! We need every dollar of income that $100,000 will yield. The demands for help now being made upon us are totally be- yond the scope of our income, and it is hard to be obliged to say: “We can not!” I repeat that the cause of wild life protection through- out the world is starving for funds! We sorely need the income of $100,000 for annual disbursement on the firing line for the benefit of the wild life cause. This is no great concession to ask from the world of great wealth. There are philanthropic and educational enterprises in America that are so loaded down with wealth that their trustees are bewildered by the necessity of spending more money than they know how to place to good advantage! The protection of the wild life of a nation benefits, either directly or in- directly, every man, woman and child of that nation! Mil- lions of money are being expended in transcendent educa- tion that is of little practical benefit to any living soul, save the men who draw the salaries for imparting it. It is mad- dening to see such things go on while the useful beasts and birds are being assailed everywhere by destructive in- fluences, and while Men, Money and Publicity are demanded in so many places at once. But the Trustees of this Fund are profoundly grateful for the sum that already has been realized, and that al- ready is at work earning an income. It is the first subscrip- tion to a Cause that requires the highest courage and the broadest philanthropy. In this case, it came from Mrs. Frederic Ferris Thompson, whose influence in this behalf has been very great. The campaigning Trustee hopes to live long enough to see the Fund brought up to $100,000; but even if he does not, he believes that eventuaally it will be completed. Already it is the second largest endowment fund in existence for the defense of wild life. Societies may come and societies may go, but this Fund will go on forever, doing whatever work is to be done for wild life, two cen- turies hence just the same as now. Is there not satisfaction in the idea? ARCHBOLD JOHN D FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT oo We said in the beginning—in our correspondence—that so far as in us lies the names of the men and women who make sacrifices in order that this Cause may prosper, shall be known permanently in connection with the work and the results of this Fund. We mean this for 100 years, and longer if we can insure it. We have noticed that in far too many causes for the benefit of humanity, the names of founders easily become obscured, or are permitted to disap- pear. This is entirely wrong. We are well assured that no one has subscribed to this Fund for the purpose of per- petuating a name, but for all that it should be the pleasure both of the present Trustees and of those who come after them, to perpetuate the names and the personalities of the men and women who by their loyalty to wild life and to humanity have brought this Fund into existence. The world should be placed in a position to thank intelligently all those whose gifts of money are the moving cause of the results in wild life protection that this Fund will achieve. To this end, the Trustees lay it upon their successors, as a duty not to be neglected, the publication in the “Biennial Statement” of a portrait of each Founder. The Report.—It seems to the Trustees desirable that once every two years there shall be published a “Statement’”’ in line with the present volume, and in form for permanent preservation. A regularly published report of some kind is quite necessary for the information of Founders and Subscribers. It seems desirable that it should be in a form suitable for preservation in libraries, and that fifty public libraries should receive it regularly. It should report upon those features of the wild life situation that call for special notice or report, and it should record important current history in wild life protection, or extermination. The Future.—Just what the future has in store for this Fund, we cannot even guess. We can only hope. We hope that somehow more subscriptions will come in. There is one thing, however, that we know: The campaigning Trustee knows full well that the holders of the great finan- cial “interests” that are behind the manufacture of the EMERSON MCMILLIN FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT 30 automatic and “pump” shotguns are so bitterly hostile to him, on account of his hostility to those weapons, that never while the world stands will any aid from them or from their friends ever come to this Fund! In view of the millions of capital invested in the gun and ammunition trust, and the distribution of that capital, this means more than appears on the surface. But we accept that situation cheerfully, even joyously. There is money for our work outside the ranks of the makers of machine guns for the slaughter of birds; and nolens volens the war on the guns of ungentlemanly slaughter will go on as long as those guns are made, sold or used. Else- where in this Statement there will be found a bit of history bearing upon this point, which we never before have com- mitted to writing. It will show the annual income that the Campaigning Trustee might today be expending at his discretion—under certain conditions. WILLIAM T. HORNADAY, Campaigning Trustee. FORM OF BEQUEST TO THIS FUND. I hereby give and bequeath to the Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund of New York, founded by Will- iam T. Hornaday, Clark Williams and A. Barton Hep- burn, as Trustees, and payable to them or their successors, the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars. MORTIMER L. SCHIFF PERMANENT WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS To January 1, 1915 FOUNDERS. Mrs” RUSSELL SAGE, New York 0... $10,000 Mrs. FREDERIC FERRIS THOMPSON, Canandaigua, N. Y. 5,000 GEORGE EASTMAN, Rochester, N. Y. We 6,000 Pen ren. Wetroit, Mich. eee 5,000 ANDREW CARNEGIE, New York _ 5,000 Miss HELOISE MEYER, Lenox, Mass. 0.000000... 1,000 MAx C. FLEISCHMANN, Cincinnati, O. 0... 1,000 MES. dos ENNEDY, New YOPR 1,000 eet) of ARCHBOLD, New York 2.5 1,000 MoenriMnn fe ocuirr. New York ..000 2.0 1,000 Wiis Goyrpe: New York 205 1,000 PMERSON NieMInLIN, New York 22.0000. 1,000 eOner he PRArT, New. ¥ OV 02 ok 1,000 PEeepenick G. BOURNE, New Y Ork: 20006 1,000 Grdeer be. BAKER, New York (20.0000 1,000 Srenht: “HORNE, INGw YORK 20. 1,000 Mainiisw fe Nicnons, Néw York 004 1,000 PEBDERIC C.. WALCOTT, New York 0c. 1,000 ANTHONY R. KUSER, Bernardsville, N. J. 1,000 JOHN DRYDEN KUSER, Bernardsville, N. J. 0. 1,000 SUBSCRIBERS. SrayrtAnp EH. DopGe, New York)... 080s... 500 FREDERICK F. BREWSTER, New Haven, Conn. .......... 500 Memes orev, INnew YOM .....j00. 4.6 ea. 500 EDWARD ©. HARKNESS, New York 2.222200. 0000 002... 500 WATSON B. DICKERMAN, Mamaroneck, N. Y. ........... 500 Hower f. SARGENT: Chicago, Tos. 300 GEORGE D. PRATT FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT 39 ROBERT B. WOODWARD, Brooklyn, N.Y. on... 250 JOHN J. PIERREPONT, Brooklyn, N. Y. .....1.............. 250 Mrs. ETHEL R. THAYER, Boston, Mass. ......................... 200 CHAS. A. DEAN, Boston, Mass. ............ eer hares Pan) 200 Ba EGER PRT ATIY, ING Yop cise cecccecctaccesctsacecesenece 200 DSS Bop. powArns, Albany, .N. Y. 22. 200 WiLbIAN (EHIORNADAY,. New York .....0000. 200 JOHNIM PHitiies,. Pittsburgh, Pa. 2.00003 100 JOHN ‘©: PHILLIPS, Wenham, Mass. .....0..0.. econ 100 Se Weeeost eatie Greek, Mich. oo 100 COLEMAN RANDOLPH, Morristown, NY* J. ........................ 100 no bARTON HEPEURN, New York 2.0.2.0... 100 BENAS@URS NE alton, Mass. i 100 a MAR SHATE GRANE, Dalton, Mass? eis. 0060 100 Miss EiMIny TREVOR, Yonkers, N.Y... ......... 100 NORMAN JAMES. baltimore, Md? 2. 100 BRANKLIN) @. BROWN, New. York 000.0000. 100 WILLIAM H. ALEXANDER, New York ...........000000000......... 100 HENRY W. SHOEMAKER, New York . 0.00... 100 Gustavus ©) Porm, Detroit, Mich. * 00. 100 meget rer WURAGHO Ne@W (OF Ko. 6. ed. 100 SOrNGMARKI ES New York (002. 100 ALEXANDER V.-FPRASER, New York 0... 50 WiatmAmir nh Coppin, New York 00... 25 CHARLES WILLIS WARD, Eureka, Cal. wu... 25 Me ity (G. HUNT. Pasadena, Caly 2.08. 25 J. WILLIAM GREENWOOD, Brooklyn, N. Y. ..................... 25 RICHARD HARDING DAvIS, Mount Kisco, N. Y. ............ 20 AUDUBON SOCIETIES of Pasadena and Los Angeles, Cal. 10 FREDERICK G. BOURNE TRUSTEES’ REPORT Permanent Wild Life Protection Hund As of January 5, 1915 Principal Account RECEIPTS © Meomccrosceipmons to. Mund... $39,405.03 Exchange on checks ............ Dt ee SO ae a 15) Investments : DISBURSEMENTS $10,000 Texas Company Deben- EPROM erAnOMOS, Se 0 oe $10,141.25 $10,000 New York & Westchester Lighting Company 4% Bonds... 8,075.00 $11,000 American Telephone & Telegraph Collateral Trust 4% emai iel Sees eer Pee i 9,831.25 $11,000 Interborough Rapid Transit First and Refunding 59 Gr) 1S\ 01000 SS oe ec ea 10,820.00 Balance in cash, in Columbia Trust. Een AN Ry ee ee ge re A 537.18 $39,404.68 $39,404.68 Sucome Account RECEIPTS facome trom IMVEStMentsS- 2 $1,617.70 ROREEESE Gi HA CCOUNE (2 cu i oo 100.08 DISBURSEMENTS Transferred to W. T. Hornaday, Trustee of Income «2 ... $1,717.78 SLATS. $1,717.78 WILLIAM T. HORNADAY, A. BARTON HEPBURN, CLARK WILLIAMS, Trustees. GEORGE F. BAKER CASH RECEIPTS ON SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE PERMANENT WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND 1913 July 7 Mrs. Frederic Ferris Thompson ........... $5,000.00 > See bremmmny, Go Hunt. 2 oe 25.03 x 8 Audubon Soc., Pasadena & Los Angeles 10.00 -) Ueoaeevassiteloise. Meyer 2.00500 1,000.00 Sept mem onme er Phillips 2.2.00 100.00 od aeGeorte Mmastman 00 ee 1,900.00 . emery A. -MOWaArdS: 2... 200.00 a 4 Miss Elizabeth S. Edwards .........000000000...... 200.00 ca emo nares eA. DCAM ta 200.00 ee hiaenG. beIschmanin 2.0.22 500.00 Mer miermrlonmr Go Philips: ce eee 100.00 Semen rsOS ti SS ee 100.00 EL” STC AN Gage 11S Sn oo a 100.00 ete eee ema omaMe nc 8 100.00 oe cor Niro solnmom. Kennedy” 2... 1,000.00 eee OMe Ey waeNneMOOIG: ee 1,000.00 PAS We Sel STUN Eyt0aI OX ON (0 Ul le CINE Ue 5,000.00 : cal wr rederiek (brewster 2.60 0 500.00 Nov.3-5) “Cleveland. Ho Dodee 2 en. 500.00 rt ee Colemamaram@ol phe 628 a. eed lg 100.00 . Soe iain ly ders. 5) wie 1,000.00 2 i. pe ArlOn? Mepourih 00. bs en ee 100.00 1914 Hale a, OV BOI. ee 25.00 eo ee) SebOMmer (E. SanreeMy fe Alec 100.00 a 24 ohn day F lerrepOnt: 6 ee 250.00 ee a Miss Emly “Mrevor 2.0 100.00 i 26. Norinal woames 6200.7) J) ie 100.00 S26. Wiortimer I: Sclitie 0 1,000.00 Miar..20. Richard’ Harding ‘Davis. 2..2.4....52.0-. 20.00 Be CO SAMOS DEV CU. cer abe 05 cel Oe 500.00 eT id. Wien (Greenwood oo. vrs 25.00 of re ee ie CACY ek eh 100.00 we 17 Rm (70.117 8) | 12 ee ne to 100.00 SAMUEL THORNE FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT 45 See IG oe ede 1,000.00 Pomersom.’ WeWTiry oe soe eeeen 1,000.00 PeOWert E.. WOOGWAEG: oes hee eens 250.00 Prederick. G.. Bourne 2.0620... 1,000.00 PQMer we aareent 0 ee eu 200.00 PeewaM@der Ve MFASOl.. e5 et ee 50.00 Charles Willis Ward. .......... ae ee ae ; 25.00 mamuer. bhorne: ... Fe vine Ae 1,000.00 Mras mussell Gare 620 A ee 10,000.00 Mrs. Ethel R. Thayer (Mrs. Ezra R.) 200.00 Hoard 5. blarkness .. bee 500.00 Metter INI CHOIS ieee ne 1,000.00 Meson is. Dickerman soo! oe 500.00 Mie. PMCISCHINANM, voc) Se be 500.00 Saris i ONG oe ore Sa 100.00 etme. baker ok eh 1,000.00 Punds deposited in error 24.0. 25.038 $39,405.03 emey. VW. shoemaker 2225 100.00 WILLIAM H. NICHOLS STATEMENT OF INCOME ACCOUNT, PERMA- NENT WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND Bo Januwry 5.1915: RECEIPTS. imeome trom Permanent Fund 2.8 ee Sea Wy ear ke: Rgeerese eneMeposib account 2.0 3.31 Donation from Jacob H. Schiff for current ex- OSS ES gl Alls ATT a se ne a 100.00 $1,821.09 EXPENDITURES. Cash subscriptions to California cam- TET EST (0S SS el eg $500.00 Traveling expenses and subsistence............ 68.40 Pete And StatOnery ene tee 22043 ate weer ee Ae 35.50 MAIS oct Oe a Pis2c, 5.08 Slides for lectures in California ................... 20.63 Campaign books for distribution ................ 50.00 LE EUEUE NYE [Sa ae an COSI De ro 9.00 LES TES! 24 Sr IM ee a oe ee 20.00 Exhibit at South Carolina state faiv......... B40 bebrssa TEMPOS ee i? $933.65 Accrued interest on investments .................. pA Ad $935.87 Balance in Columbia Trust Co., Jan 4, ea Oe sk ete SA ot Ne 885.22 $1,821.09 FREDERICK C. WALCOTT FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES BY CAMPAIGNS. ahtGrhins CAMPAlON ek $563.47 RIS TARGEV GEIEG ) LANy icc lo en 68.56 SLID TEC NCT EE EET lle ete a ea 36.09 SIG eee ON iets oe eo 3.719 eneramGaminaien, <6. 2 261.74 Peeriee Aneerest) oe B22 $935.87 Te ZED CS ge gk I ae dae eee rae ners 885.22 $1,821.09 WILLIAM T. HORNADAY, Trustee of Income. Vouchers for the above expenditures have been exam- ined and found correct. CLARK WILLIAMS, Trustee. January 115° £915: ANTHONY R. KUSER ANOTHER STRUGGLE FOR THE MIGRATORY BIRD LAW NY new law that confers far-reaching benefits on bird life by interfering with bird slaughter is certain to be attacked, early and often. The attacking parties will be the most selfish and unscrupulous of the men whose priv- ileges are reduced or obliterated. For these reasons, the friends of wild life must exercise eternal vigilance, and no matter how peace-loving they may be by natural inclina- tion, they must always be ready to defend their cause. Last spring a most unjustifiable and unnecessary strug- gle was forced upon us for the preservation of the national migratory bird law. It was so totally uncalled for that to the defenders of wild life it was exceedingly exasperat- ing. The object at stake was $50,000 for the enforcement of the law during the year 1914-15. As an instance of what we must always be prepared to meet, any and every year, its history is interesting and valuable. The contest referred to originated in Arter’s Hall, Kan- sas City, Mo., on February 2, 1914. At that time and place there met about 150 men calling themselves “sportsmen,”’ who one and all were bitterly opposed to the prohibition of the spring shooting of ducks and geese as enacted by the new law. They declared that their constitutional rights had been invaded, because the state law of Missouri had (very wrongly!) always given them the right to shoot waterfowl up to May 1. On the ground that the shooting of wild fowl during their mating season is inimical to the permanent preservation of the wild fowl and shore birds, the first regulations of the federal law stopped, on January 1, all shooting of migratory game birds in the states of Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska and Illinois. In Arter’s Hall, on February 2, the first steps were taken JOHN DRYDEN KUSER FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT 55 for the organization of the Interstate Sportsmen’s Protec- tive Association; and, strange to say, with it were identified a few such men as Edward F. Swinney, banker, and S. H. Ragan, physician. The talk was both incendiary and se- ditious. For example, Mr. D. G. Phillips, of Moberly, Mo., said that ‘ducks were being shot in his part of the state every day,” that “the bolder of the hunters were going ahead and enjoying their sport,’’ and he “advised all duck hunters to go ahead and shoot ducks the same as they have always done.” (Sportsman’s Review, Feb. 14, 1914, page 149.) “Mr. Rooney, president of a club at Archie, attorney, said he had been shooting ducks and was going to continue to shoot them,” and “he strongly advised all hunters not to be deterred from their sport, but to go ahead and shoot as the state of Missouri licenses them to do. His remarks were just what the crowd wanted.” “Several hunters present announced that they had shot ducks in January, and notified the district attorney that they awaited arrest. The Congressmen and Senators were asked to work to secure a third zone, to be called the ‘passing zone,’ which would take in Kansas and Mis- souri,’ and by a special dispensation give those states a special privilege all their own. But the new association did not stop with planning to attack the federal law, and if possible have it declared un- constitutional. As a crowning injury to the interests of the people of this country at large, their senators and represen- tatives in Congress “were also asked to vote against the treaty with Great Britain, which if passed, will make it impossible for the States to declare the Weeks-McLean law unconstitutional.” From that original program that Association has not swerved an inch. Its motto seems to be: “Rule or ruin!” The Association’s senatorial champion, Mr. Reed, already has attacked the law as bitterly as he could, and has de- nounced it as “unconstitutional.” From his latest utterances on the floor of the Senate, we know that Senator James A. Reed, of Missouri, is also 54 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND bitterly opposed to the pending international treaty with Canada for the protection of migratory birds, and we know that whenever such a treaty comes up for ratification, he will fight it to the extent of his ability. Concerning the precise status of the lawless acts, and of speeches tending to incite lawlessness in the meeting of February 2, of the Interstate Sportsmen’s Association, it is pertinent to this history to record here the definition of “Sedition” as it is found in the Century Dictionary: Sedition (se-dish’on), n.—A factious commotion in a state; the stirring up of such a commotion; incitement of discontent against government and disturbance of public tranquility, as by inflammatory speeches or writings, or acts or language tending to breach of public order; as, to stir up a SEDITION; a speech or pamphlet abounding in SEDITION. Sedition, which is not strictly a legal term, comprises such offenses against the authority of the state as do not amount to treason, for want of an overt act. But it is not essential to the offense of sedition that it threaten the very existence of the state or its authority in its entire extent. Thus, there are seditious assemblies, seditious libels, etc., as well as direct and indirect threats and acts amounting to sedition—all of which are punishable as mis- demeanors by fine and imprisonment. The position taken by the Kansas City spring-shooters, as reported in the Sportsmen’s Review by their own Secre- tary, W. L. Moore, was at once challenged by the Cam- paigning Trustee of the Permanent Fund, and severely criticised in the columns of that journal. In that denuncia- tion many persons joined, and the movement became ex- ceedingly unpopular. Mr. Hornaday journeyed to Wash- ington to interview Senator Reed, hoping to induce him to quiet his constituents; but it was found that the Senator was in full sympathy with their attitude. Students of wild life protection history will recall the fact that in 1918, when the plumage clause in the new Tariff bill was under discussion in the Senate, Senator Reed delivered himself of the following sentiment, which quickly was accorded a place among the classics: “T really honestly want to know why there should be any sympathy or sentiment for a long-legged, long- ol Ol FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT necked bird that lives in swamps and eats frogs and fish and things of that kind. If the young starve to death, let our kind-hearted friends establish orphan asylums for them, but still let the herons be killed and put to the only use for which the Lord ever intended ea namely, to decorate the bonnets of our beautiful adies. The scene now shifts to Washington. The estimates of Mr. David F. Houston, Secretary of Agriculture, for the expenditures of his Department during 1914-15 as originally sent to Congress contained an item of $100,000 for the enforcement of the national migratory bird law. By the House Committee on Agriculture that request was cut down to $50,000, and an item for that sum passed the House in the Agricultural Appropriation bill. When that bill reached the Senate Committee on Agri- culture, by the usual Senate reference, Mr. Beverly T. Gal- loway, then Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, appeared before that Committee and made a statement which was reported upon to the Senate by a Senator from his own state—Arkansas. According to the statement of Senator Robinson (Con- gressional Record, May 9, page 8,683), it was Assistant- Secretary Galloway who “before the Senate Committee ad- mitted its unconstitutionality (i. e. the McLean law), and said to the Committee that the validity of the act ought to be determined before any appropriation was made further than the amount necessary to try out fairly the constitu- tionality of the Act. It was in part upon that statement by the representative of the Department of Agriculture, Dr. Galloway, that this amendment ($10,000 instead of $50,000) was inserted.” It was, therefore, no less a man than an Assistant Sec- retary of Agriculture who discredited the estimate of his chief, and used a long knife on the migratory bird law, at the capitol, at a most critical moment. The result was what might have been expected from such an attack. Senator Joe T. Robinson, of Arkansas, moved to strike out the item of $50,000 for the enforce- ment of the migratory bird law which was done. 56 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND A little later, on the strength of an appeal from Senator George P. McLean, the item was restored with $10,000 as the amount to be allowed. Now the friends of wild life already were painfully aware of the fact that for the enforcement of that law throughout 48 states, $10,000 was just the same as nothing. On account of the fact that only $10,000 had been made available for enforcement on October 1, 1914, the govern- ment had been utterly unable to make even a good showing of enforcement, and from many localities throughout the North caustic complaints were coming to us, and people were demanding: “Why does not the government enforce its own bird law?” To the best of our ability we had been informing our friends of the disagreeable facts, and assuring them that on July 1, 1915, there would be available funds sufficient to enforce the law. In the winter and spring of 1914 it was painfully evident that the best bird law ever enacted was rapidly becoming discredited, and that in many localities it was being treated as a joke. Without a moment’s loss of time, the New York organiza- tions for the protection of wild life joined forces in an effort to correct the intolerable situation that had been created by Senators Robinson and Reed, at the mischievous initiative of Mr. Galloway. It was pointed out to senators that already the standing of the bird law had suffered severely through lack of funds for its reasonable enforce- ment, and that an appropriation of anything less than $50,000 meant that the law would be trodden down in the mire by lawless persons, and be made a measure of con- tempt. It was pointed out that the interests of both the producers and the consumers of farm and fruit crops im- peratively demand the enforcement of the law, and that its non-enforcement would be regarded as intolerable. In the end, and in spite of the bitter opposition of Sena- tors Reed, Robinson and a few others, by a vote of 45 to 17, the Senate voted to sustain the law with an appropria- tion of $50,000. Thus the record of the Senate in the pro- tection of wild life remained absolutely unbroken. FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT 57 The full vote on sustaining the national bird law, with $50,000 for its enforcement, was as follows: ROLL OF HONOR OF SENATORS WHO SAVED THE FEDERAL MIGRATORY BIRD LAW, MAY 12, 1914. (Many other friends of the measure were either paired or absent ) Henry F. Asnursr, Arizona. Harry Lane, Oregun. James H. Brapy, Idaho. Briar Lee, Maryland. Frank B. Branvecer, Connecticut. Porter J. McCumser, North Dakota. Joseru L. Brisrow, Kansas. George P. McLean, Connecticut. Epwin C. Burieicu, Maine. James E. Martine, New Jersey. Tuomas E. Burton, Ohio. Grorce W. Norris, Nebraska. Grorce E. CuamBerztarn, Oregon. Georce T. Oxiver, Pennsylvania. Moses E. Crapp, Minnesota. Rospert L. Owen, Oklahoma. CriarENCE D. Crarx, Wyoming. Carrot S. Pace, Vermont. LeBaron B. Court, Rhode Island. Gerorce C. Prerxins, California. Axsert B. Cummins, Iowa. Mires Pornpexter, Washington. Witi1am P. DittincHam, Vermont. Morris Suepparp, Texas. Henry A. puPont, Delaware. Lawrence Y. SHERMAN, Illinois. Jacos H. Gariincer, New Hampshire.Bensamin F. Suivery, Indiana. Aste J. Gronna. North Dakota. Marcus A. Smitu, Arizona. Gupert M. Hircucocx, Nebraska. Reep Smoor, Utah. Henry F. Hotus, New Hampshire. Tuomas Srerutne, South Dakota. Witiiam Hucues, New Jersey. Wittiam H. THompson, Kansas. Cuartes F. Jonnson, Maine. Joun R. Tuornton, Louisiana. Westry L. Jones, Washington. Cuartes E. Townsenpn, Michigan. Wituram S. Kenyon. Iowa. JoHN W. Weexs, Massachusetts. Rosert M. La Fotzrerre. Wisconsin. Joun S. WittiaMs, Mississippi. Joun D. Works, California. The vote to destroy the bird law by non-enforcement was as follows: JoHn H. Banxunean, Alabama. Jor T. Rosrnson, Arkansas. NatHan P. Bryan, Florida. Witrarp Sautssury, Delaware. Tuomas P. Gore, Oklahoma. Joun F. Suarrotn, Colorado. E. W. Martin, South Dakota. Hoxe Smiru, Georgia. Francis G. Newranps, Nevada. Mr. West, Georgia. Lee S. Overman, North Carolina. Wir1iam J. Stone, Missouri. JoserpH E. Ranspewu, Louisiana. BengAMIN R. Tittman, South Carolina James A. Reep, Missouri. James K. Varpamann, Mississippi. We note—with profound surprise—that nine of those seventeen Senators represent cotton-producing states, wherein, if anywhere on this green earth, the services of the insectivorous birds are most needed in combating the boll-weevil that annually destroys millions of dollars’ worth of cotton! There are 52 species of birds that feed on the boll-weevil! Now what have the cotton-growers of Ala- 58 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND bama, Georgia, Texas, the Carolinas and Florida to say about those votes to destroy the only law that ever can or ever will protect our insectivorous birds in the South? The above result was not achieved without the public use of a certain amount of plain language in the statement of indisputable facts. Some of those facts, as set forth by Mr. Hornaday, bore rather heavily upon the constituents of Senator Reed, and also upon the Senator himself. This caused the Senator from Kansas City to take great um- brage at Mr. Hornaday, and to indulge in some very un- parliamentary and undignified expressions. On May 23, the Senator went so far as to consume about two hours of the time of the chief legislative body of the nation in an elaborate denunciation of the author of ‘‘Two Years in the Jungle,” because that author had once in the jungles of the Far East collected many skins and skeletons of mam- mals, birds, reptiles and fishes, for American museums of natural history. At the close of that tiresome harangue, of mingled vituperation and bathos, the Senator withdrew the dilatory motion which he had made as an excuse for his “speech.” Later on, under the title “The Federal Migratory Bird Law,” those ten pages of “remarks” were reprinted at Government expense, probably to the number of 5,000 or more, and at public expense circulated by Senator Reed as a “speech.” The full text may be found in the Congres- sional Record for May 28, 1914, pages 9878 to 9882. This bit of history is worth recording, partly because it reveals the character of the opposition to the national mi- gratory bird law, and also because of the fact that this violent and well-organized spring-shooting opposition is certain to appear in the future whenever the Senate chooses to consider any measure for the better protection of our game birds. The Kansas City spring-shooters are quite de- termined to have their way; and they and Senator Reed are ready to destroy completely a bird law that is of enormous economic value to the market-baskets and dinner-pails of the American people, if thereby they can only secure the FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT a9 right to shoot wild ducks in the breeding and migrating months of February and March! We have not yet by any means heard the last of the opposition from Kansas City; but we are, as always, fully prepared to meet that opposition wherever and whenever it undertakes to rear its head. At rare intervals it has happened that enemies of wild life who have been hard pressed by us have accused the writer of making untruthful statements. The Campaign- ing Trustee desires to record here the fact that he never yet has published or uttered in public any statement re- garding any opponent of wild life that has been aught else than absolutely true, and fully susceptible of proof; and no opponent ever has dared to challenge the accuracy of any of his statements save in vague general terms. CALIFORNIA STEPS BACKWARD OR twenty years, and more, the state of California has been a shambles for the slaughter and sale of game. Owing to her location on the map, and her physical aspect, that state ever has been a great winter resort for the wild fowl, shore birds, band-tailed pigeons and other bird species of Oregon, Washington, British Columbia and Alaska. In California the mild climate invites repose; the feeding grounds are good, and below California the feeding grounds are poor, or altogether: absent. The resulting slaughter of wild geese, ducks, band-tailed pigeons, quail and doves is almost beyond belief. For twenty years the “game laws” of California were a joke. They promoted all kinds of slaughter, and gave real pro- tection to nothing. Many species became practically or wholly extinct. Fancy a “bag limit” on ducks of 50 birds per day! The world’s record case of duck slaughter oc- curred in California, on the grounds of the Glenn County Club—218 geese for two automatic guns in the first hour, and 450 for the day. If any conservator made any protest in such a case, the invariable answer was “Oh, in California geese are the same as vermin!”’ For many years the Golden State has had a State Game Commission, but in its earlier years it won few golden opinions. During certain past years that we remember, it was a storm-centre of criticism, much of which probably was undeserved. Two years ago we were led to hope that the new Commission had turned over a new leaf, and silenced hostile criticism. A little further on we will show how this hope was realized A. D. 1914. In 1912 it became perfectly apparent that if wholly left to themselves the “sportsmen” and game-butchers of Cali- fornia never would better the situation in any marked de- FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT 61 gree. There were too many shooters who had no code of ethics whatever, and whose only desire was to slaughter. It was strongly represented to certain zoologists of Cali- fornia that unless they took hold firmly to straighten things out, the situation might easily continue until Cali- fornia became as gameless as Ohio. To the everlasting glory of the University of California, the zoologists and other men, also, of that institution, arose and acquitted themselves like Men. Dr. Walter P. Taylor, Mr. Joseph Grinnell, Prof. William F. Bade and others, induced eight existing organizations to form a strong alliance called the California Associated Societies for the Conservation of Wild Life. That excellently-managed co-ordination of forces at once became the moving and directing spirit in a great campaign for the stoppage of the sale of game and the shipment of game for sale, for a fifty per cent reduc- tion in the bag limit, and for other reforms. Being at that time new in the business of raising money for such causes, the campaign was threatened with starvation for the sinews of war; and when an urgent appeal for help was made to New York, it met with quick responses. New York organizations subscribed $700 for that campaign, of which $200 came from the Zoological Society and $300 from our old “discretionary fund.” After an excellently-managed campaign, our friends were victorious through the enactment of the Flint-Carey law against the sale of game, against the shipment of game for sale, and for a reduction of the bag limit by one- half. In this fight, the State Game Commission co-op- erated, and its Secretary, Mr. Ernest Schaeffle, did excellent work. For a few months, California stood redeemed; lifted out of her Slough of Despond, and set on her feet in a respect- able position on the map of game preserving states. But not for long. In the City of San Francisco there is a Portugese game- dealer, named John F. Corriea. He is now a famous man. It has been stated publicly that either in person or by rep- resentatives he has been arrested twenty-one times for 62 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND violating the game laws. He is also a shrewd man—much more so than the average Californian. Associating with himself his attorney, his bookkeeper, Mr. Campodonico, Mr. Sischo, and Giannini (other game dealers), he organized in his office the “People’s Game Protective Association.” His attorney was elected President, and John modestly effaced himself in the vice-presidency. The organizers assessed themselves $325 each, and they started a petition for a referendum of the Flint-Carey Law to the vote of the people on November 3, 1914. A great campaign ensued. The old Association of 1912 entered into the fight and two new organizations were formed. That of Santa Cruz was most ably led by Mr. Harry Harper, and in southern California Prof. C. F. Holder, who has proven a great fighter, was elected President of the Wild Life Protective League of America. When campaign funds were urgently needed our Permanent Fund _ sub- scribed $300 to Mr. Harper’s work, and $200 to that of Prof. Holder. No other state ever saw a more vigorous or better sus- tained campaign than that one was. The people and the newspapers who were angry at the duck shooting clubs (for holding immense grounds, and exercising exclusive privileges), demanded for “the poor working man” the right to buy wild ducks for his epicurean table. Pre- sumably out of resentment toward those clubs, the San Francisco Examiner, and also a few other papers, insisted on the unlimited sale of game—precisely what many game- butchers in ducking clubs desired as an outlet for their sur- plus of dead ducks and geese! Throughout nearly a year the friends of wild life made a gallant fight—by publication, lectures, newspaper articles, and thousands of letters. The women of Cali- fornia were called upon to help, and they did help generously. Up to October 30 everything looked well for the allies who were defending wild life against the sale of game. It was confidently believed that the referendum vote would re-affirm the Flint-Carey law by a majority of 10,000 to FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT 63 15,000. But the friends of wild life reckoned without Mr. Newbert! Now it happens that Mr. F. M. Newbert, who is president of the California State Game Commission, is a crack shot, an enthusiastic duck hunter, and a Commissioner who kills game not wisely but too well. During the summer of 1914 he had been severely criticised for the formation of a new game-shooting “preserve” of very large proportions and the usual exclusiveness—a proceeding that did not at all tend toward popularizing the Commission with the haters of preserve owners. On Sunday, November 1, the San Francisco Hxaminer published on its front page, a “‘game-hog picture” of the kind that sets the public wild. It showed 187 dead ducks hanging in festoons, and behind them stood seven men in their shirt sleeves and suspenders, posing as the killers of the birds. They were all fully named, and the central figure was that of Mr. F. M. Newbert, President of the Game Commission of the sovereign state of California. On the ground lay piles of dead ducks. And the election was due on November 3. The instant that picture was seen by the champions of wild life, they knew that their cause was defeated. The picture was taken on October 15, 1914, and it represented the first day’s work of the shooting season. Some of Mr. Newbert’s friends endeavored to help him out of the ugly situation by stating in print that the picture was taken “ten years ago,” but Mr..Newbert himself told the truth about it in print (See Forest and Stream, December 5, page 730). Several good judges estimated that the Newbert game slaughter picture cost our cause 25,000 votes. Others say 40,000. Certain it is that the no-sale-of-game law was wiped clean off the statute books of California by a ma- jority of 8,154. The triumph of Corriea and President Newbert was thorough and complete. In his letter to For- est and Stream, Mr. Newbert admitted that the publication of his picture “resulted in the loss of a great many votes.” The voting record of Los Angeles and southern Cali- fornia is without a flaw. There the Flint-Carey law was 64 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND sustained by a majority of 57,565; but San Francisco and northern California wiped it out with a game extermi- nating majority of 66,719, or a net adverse state majority of 8,154. Commissioner Newbert’s indiscretions defeated us in a great campaign. Hereafter his support for any wild life cause will be more dangerous than his opposition. We have formally called upon him to do the only thing that remains for him to do, which is to resign at once. This, of course, he never will do. He is surrounded by “crack shots” and game killers, like himself, who will urge him to stand fast. In war it is the rule that every general who brings on a defeat by blundering shall at once be deprived of his com- mand. Late in December, Professor Henry Fairfield Os- born, as President of the American Museum of Natural History; Mr. Madison Grant, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the New York Zoological Society, and Wil- ham T. Hornaday, Campaigning Trustee of the Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund, each wrote to the Governor of California, calling upon him to remove Commissioner New- bert, and appoint in his place a man who is in sympathy with the real protection of wild life. Mr. Newbert is now a human millstone around the necks of the real wild life protectors of California, and it is reasonably certain that no progress will be made until he is unloaded. Whether he performs it or not, it is the duty of Governor Johnson to remove him. The people of northern California who killed the no-sale- of-game law may now look in the glass and see the real de- stroyers and exterminators of the wild bird life of the Pacific Coast. Henceforth that game will be destroyed, as heretofore—regardless of decency, regardless of the ex- ample of other states, regardless of state comity and the plain rights of Oregon and Washington. But blow high or blow low, the San Francisco game-dealer’s majority must answer to Posterity for California’s step ten years back- ward in 1914. CHRONOLOGY OF IMPORTANT EVENTS IN WILD LIFE PROTECTION AND EXTERMINATION January 1, 1913, to January 1, 1915. VERY active supporter of the cause of wild life real- izes the value of a regular list of important events, with the dates of their occurrence. Heretofore no such list ever has been prepared and published periodically. This volume offers the best means available for such a publica- tion, and the chronology will be made a permanent feature of The Statement. Inasmuch as this volume and its suc- cessors will be placed in about fifty public libraries in the United States, these records will be reasonably accessible to the public. 1913 Jan. 1.—A great campaign was then in progress in California, in which the allied protectors of Wild Life were battling with the game-dealers and market shooters over the sale of game. ‘The latter had attacked the Flint-Carey Law with a referendum petition intended to destroy that law (of 1912) against the sale of game. In 1912, several New York organizations contributed substantial sums of money in aid of the allies, because the sale of game in California seriously affects the migratory birds of our whole Pacific Coast. Jan. 10.—A book entitled “Our Vanishing Wild Life,” (by W. 'T. Horn- aday), was published by the New York Zoological Society, designed as a stimulus to the cause of protection throughout the world. Ten thousand copies were issued by the Society, and three thousand copies were issued by Charles Scribner’s Sons, through the regular channels of the book trade. To defray the cost Mr. Madison Grant procured special subscriptions in the Board of Managers of the Zoological Society amounting to $10,500. (See full subscription list elsewhere in this volume.) At the expense of the Society, the volume was placed in the hands of every state and national lawmaker in the United States, and many other persons in positions to materially advance the interests of wild life. Jan. 22.—Senator George P. McLean’s bill for the federal protection of all migratory birds passed the Senate without an opposing vote. 66 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND Jan. 30.—William T. Hornaday appeared before the House Committee on Ways and Means, 63rd Congress, representing the New York Zoological Society, and asked for a clause in the new Tariff bill to prohibit the importation of all wild birds’ plumage into the United States for commercial purposes. T. Gilbert Pearson appeared for the Audubon Association, asking for the exclusion of the plumage of American birds. Briefs were filed by both rte and published in full. (Tariff Schedules, pp. 4422 et seq.) Feb. 27.—The federal migratory bird clause came up in the House for a test vote. Representative Cox said: “The whole bill is a delusion and a snare. It would have been impossible to put the bill through simply to protect the game birds; and in order to get it through they had to couple with it a provision about which the fathers of the measure cared nothing whatever.” ‘The reference was to the inclusion of protection for insectivorous birds as well as game birds. As usual, Mr. Mondell of Wyoming opposed the measure. On the test vote the bird bill was sustained by a vote of 285 to 15. Feb. 27—The Agricultural Appropriation Bill, containing Senator McLean’s migratory bird measure, was passed by the Senate. March 4.—As a clause in the Agricultural Appropriation Bill, the Weeks- McLean federal migratory bird bill became a law. March 11.—Representative Francis Burton Harrison, of the Ways and Means Committee, wrote to Mr. Hornaday, requesting him to draft a clause for the tariff bill embodying his ideas for the exclusion of plumage. Draft forwarded to Mr. Harrison, on March 13. April 7—The new tariff bill was submitted to the House, containing under Schedule N, the plumage clause as furnished to Mr. Harrison, without the slightest alteration. April 8—The Zoological Society issued Circular No. 1: “Stop the Impor- tation of Wild Birds’ Plumage.” April 17.—After six years of effort by the protectors of wild life, Pennsylvania enacted a hunter’s license law, on a basis of $1 for an annual hunting license, but no license required for a land-owner hunting on lands lived upon by him, and cultivated. In 1913, there were 305,028 licenses issued and paid for under this law, and it is estimated at least 100,000 persons hunted unlawfully without licenses, or hunted on their own premises. May 16.—The tariff bill, having passed the House, was reported to the Senate. May 21.—Hearing before a Sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Finance consisting of Senators Johnson, Smith and Hughes. Present for the birds: W. T. Hornaday, E. H. Forbush and Henry Oldys. Against the birds: Leventritt, Cook & Nathan, representing the Eastern and Western Millinery associations, and Feiner & Maas, for the Associated Feather Importers. Date unknown.—The Sub-Committee reported a mischievous and destruc- tive amendment to the plumage clause, as desired by the millinery importers and manufacturers. Date unknown.—The Democratic caucus. adopted the feather trade’s amendment. July 2—The Democratic majority of the Finance Committee again revised Schedule N., struck out entirely the provision to prohibit the importa- tion of wild birds’ pulmage, except as to aigrettes, and as a double FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT 67 clincher inserted this additional permissive amendment, in lines 13 and 14: “artificial and ornamental feathers, suitable for use as millinery ornaments.” Date unknown.—The Democratic caucus approved the destruction of the bird-saving clause, and in effect bound the entire Democratic majority in the Senate to maintain the feather importers’ program. This action was equivalent to the passage of the bill, because the demo- cratic senators were firmly bound on the Senate floor to the deadly unit rule”! July 7—Senator McLean’s resolution (S. 25) calling upon the president to propose international treaties “for mutual protection and _preser- vation of birds” was passed by the Senate. July 14.—The “Steam Roller Circular,” signed by 24 leaders in wild life protection throughout the United States, was issued from the New York Zoological Park, and widely distributed by many organizations. July 21.—Senator George P. McLean introduced an amendment to H. R. 3321 (the Tariff bill) to restore the entire bird protection clause of section 357 to its original form. Referred to Committee on Finance. Aug. 6.—“Wild Life Call,’ No. 6, was issued by W. T. Hornaday, and sent to members of Congress. It quoted in full the editorial utter- ances of twenty-eight representative newspapers regarding the struggle with a ruling minority in the U. S. Senate over the plumage clause in the tariff bill. Sept. 2.—The plumage clause was taken up in the Democratic caucus, for the third time, at a night session, and for three hours a battle was fought over that clause. The fight for the clause as originally written was led by Senators Chamberlain and Lane of Oregon. The caucus voted once to stand by the Finance Committee, confirming the plumage trade in a sweeping victory; but the Oregon senators “bolted,” and led a revolt of such formidable proportions that the caucus yielded, and finally voted to accept the House provision without alteration. This was the end of the struggle. Oct. 1—By proclamation of the President, the regulations framed and promulgated by the Department of Agriculture for executing the provisions of the national migratory bird law went into effect all over the United States, but with only $10,000 for its enforcement. This law stops all spring shooting, puts 54 species of shore birds under continuous protection, and protects from slaughter in the United States and Alaska, all song and insectivorous birds. Oct. 4.—The tariff bill became a law; and all importations of wild birds’ plumage into the United States and its colonial possessions immedi- ately ceased. The law does not prohibit the sale of plumage im- ported prior to October 4. The enforcement of the plumage law by the Treasury Department has been very strict and thoroughly effective. Much irritation has been caused among American sports- men hunting in Canada, because ducks cannot be brought into the United States unless “picked.” Nov. 7.—The New York Zoological Society shipped fourteen American bison to the Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota, as a gift to the Government for the nucleus of the new national bison herd to be established at that place. This herd was established through the efforts of the late Prof. Franklin W. Hooper, then president of the American Bison Society. 68 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND Nov. 12-—-The “People’s Game Protective Association” was formed in San Francisco, Cal., by John F. Corriea & Co., game dealers, for the protection of the business of selling game in California, and also shooting it for the market. It is strictly a game-dealers’ and market- hunters’ organization. Its cause was vigorously espoused by the San Francisco Examiner, and followed up. Corriea & Co. at once started a referendum petition, and by various means secured enough signatures to it to suspend the operation of the Flint-Carey law, and compel a vote on it on November 3, 1914, either to wipe it out or to reaffirm it. Corriea and his associates, Campodonico, Sischo, Giannini and others, assessed themselves $325 each for the expenses of getting up the petition. 1914. Jan. 16.—Yale University formally espoused the cause of wild life pro- tection through a course of five lectures begun on that date by W. T- Hornaday, entitled “Wild Life Conservation in Theory and Practice,” under the direction of Prof. James W. ‘Toumey, Dean of the Yale Forest School. Jan. 20.—The United States Supreme Court handed down a decision sustaining the constitutionality of the alien gun law of Pennsylvania, which prevents all aliens from owning or using guns within that state. Dr. Joseph Kalbfus, Secretary of the State Game Commission, is the author of the law. Feb. 2.—In Kansas City, Missouri, about 150 “leading citizens” met in Arter’s Hall, and organized the “Interstate Sportsmen’s Protective Association.” Its object is to fight the federal migratory bird law, and destroy it if possible, unless Missouri and adjacent states are granted a special dispensation to shoot ducks in February and March. Branch organizations were planned throughout a wide area, and the movement promised to be very noisy and troublesome. A full report of the proceedings of its first two meetings, concealing nothing, appeared in the Sportsmen’s Review, Cincinnati, of February 14 and 21. The Interstate Sportsmen’s Protective Association reported that it had called upon Senator James A. Reed, of Missouri, to fight for the spring shooting “rights” of his constituents, and also to oppose the international treaty. Feb. 26—W. T. Hornaday called upon Senator Reed in Washington, to remonstrate with him regarding the unlawful and unpatriotic conduct of his constituents. The Senator took the ground that the constitu- tional rights of his constituents had been invaded, and therefore they were within their rights in shooting ducks in winter and spring in conformity with state laws of Missouri. The interview was quite fruitless; and open warfare followed without delay. March. 7 & 28.—In the Sportsmen's Review and elsewhere, W. 'T. Horna- day publicly denounced the Kansas City organization, and warned the public against it. This was the beginning of a vigorous and bitter warfare in the columns of the Review, in which the Association was strongly denounced by many writers. March 28.—The Société d’Acclimatation of France (the leading French Zoological Society) awarded to W. T. Hornaday its “Grand Special Medal,” for his work in the international protection of birds. On account of intimations of a troublesome scene at the annual meeting, to be precipitated by representatives of the feather trade, the medal was presented by a special committee to the American Ambassador Hon. Myron T. Herrick, at the American Embassy. (See illustrations. in this volume.) FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT 69 Apr. 18.—In South Dakota, in the case of A. M. Shaw, Judge J. D. Elliott of the Federal Court, decided that the national migratory bird law is constitutional. Apr. 24.—The Rhode Island bird protectionists, headed by Dr. Horace P. Beck, won their fight against the use of motor boats in hunting waterfowl. Rhode Island also enacted a law making the bird laws of that state conform to the regulations of the national migratory bird law. May 7—The United States Senate, by a vote of 45 to 17, restored the House appropriation of $50,000 for the enforcement of the federal migratory bird law. Thus ended a campaign that never should have been rendered necessary! May 27.—In the United States District Court at Jonesboro, Arkansas, in the case of Harvey C. Schauver for a violation of the national mi- gratory law, Judge Jacob Trieber decided that the law is unconsti- tutional. An appeal was taken by the United States, and the case is now on is way to the United States Supreme Court. There is a possibility that it may be reached in 1915. May 30.—The Canadian government decided to make a serious and far- reaching effort to preserve the prong-horned antelope from complete extinction in Canada. Preliminary steps were taken to establish one large fenced range in Alberta, another in Saskatchewan, and a third in Manitoba. Messrs. Maxwell Graham and Earnest T. Seton were called upon to assist in selecting suitable sites for the three pre- serves, which were located on lands not desirable for agriculture. Two of the areas chosen are in localities already inhabited by ante- lope, and to the third one it is proposed to drive antelopes with the aid of mounted police. Unfortunately the outbreak of the European war has postponed the practical consummation of this admirable plan. June 3 & 4.—Meeting in Washington of the Advisory Board to the De- partment of Agriculture on the Migratory Bird Law. A number of recommendations were adopted and transmitted to the Secretary of Agriculture. June 12.—The long campaign of the Camp-Fire Club of America, begun in 1912, for the enlargement of Waterton Lakes Park in south- western Alberta, terminated in success. This movement, proposed by Frederick K. Vreeland, was for the purpose of saving a good moun- tain sheep country from being desolated by sportsmen and ranchmen. Waterton Lakes Park, with its southern base on the international boundary at Glacier Park, originally contained 50 square miles, which later was reduced to 13% square miles. Now the Park as enlarged northward contains 436 square miles, and embraces practically all the mountain sheep country in Alberta, south of Crow’s Nest Pass. June 13.—The Rockefeller Foundation purchased 85,000 acres of swamp lands bordering the Gulf of Mexico, known as the Grand Chenier, west of New Iberia, as a bird preserve; and later on it was turned over to the State of Louisiana. Aug. 3.—At the outbreak of the European war, the “Hobhouse bill,” introduced in the British Parliament by Postmaster General Hob- house, for the prohibition of the importation and sale in England of wild birds’ plumage, was on the point of being passed. For twelve months a great struggle had been made by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (Mr. and Mrs. Frank E. Lemon and Miss 70 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND Linda Gardiner), Mr. and Mrs. James Buckland, Mr. W. Hesketh Pritchard, the Twentieth Century Magazine and Pearson’s Magazine for this bill. It was absolutely certain to pass Parliament by an overwhelming vote; and in a few days more the vote would have been taken. The outbreak of the war postponed indefinitely all legislation save that for the prosecution of the war; but for all that, there is very little left of “the feather trade,” either in London or on the continent. It will be years before the women of Europe and Great Britain again will care to spend money in costly wild birds’ plumage. Aug. 15.—Lumpy-jaw was reported in the herd of captive prong-horned antelope at Brooks Station, Alberta; and purchases that had been contemplated for the Wichita National Bison Range were abandoned. Sept. 1—The last passenger pigeon died in the Cincinnati Zoological Gardens, aged 21 years. The species is now totally extinct. Oct. 15.—The Department of Agriculture reported the existence of a “serious disease” affecting the mountain sheep and mountain goats of the Lemhi National Forest, Idaho. A veterinarian and three other officers from the Department were sent out to make a _ thorough investigation. Nov. 1.—The San Francisco Examiner printed a large game-slaughter picture containing about 200 dead ducks with F. M. Newbert, President of the State Game Commission, and six other gunners, representing the “first day’s shoot” (Oct. 15, 1914). Bitter comments were made on Commissioner Newbert’s attitude toward wila life. Nov. 3.—The great campaign made in California to save the Flint-Carey law culminated in the general election. The movement was directed by W. P. Taylor, Berkeley; Harry Harper, Capitola; Charles F. Holder, Pasadena, and Earnest Schaeffle, San Francisco, Secretary of the State Game. Commission. Many organizations participated, many lectures were delivered, and quantities of literature were distributed. On Oct. 30, the indications pointed to success for the allies. The Flint-Carey law (prohibiting the sale of game in California) was wiped off the books by 8,154 majority,—defeated by Commissioner Newbert. It was estimated that the publication of the Newbert picture in the Hwaminer cost the wild life cause 25,000 votes. The degradation of California was accomplished by San Fran- cisco and northern California alone. Los Angeles and Southern California maintained the reputation of the State by a majority of 57,565. Had southern California been a separate State, the enemies of the birds would have been overwhelmed. As it was, San Francisco and northern California wiped out the southern majority, and also piled upon it a net adverse majority of 8,154 votes. Nov. 7.—Dr. B. M. Dickinson, of Pittsburgh, and the officers of the Crystal Springs Hunting Club (Clearfield, Pa.), at last won a decision on a jury trial in the Clearfield County Court, against the State Game Commission of Pennsylvania, reversing a previous conviction for killing a fawn “without horns visible above the hair.” The court refused to accede to the request of the jury to be permitted to examine the head of the fawn killed by Dr. Dickinson. The fawn killed was about seven months old, and absolutely hornless. The decision of the jury is a gross miscarriage of justice and a disgrace to the State of Pennsylvania. Nov. 17.—W. T. Hornaday wrote F. M. Newbert, President of the State Game Commission of California, calling upon him to resign. FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT 71 Dec. 18-22.—President Henry Fairfield Osborn, for the American Museum of Natural History; Vice-President Madison Grant, for the New York Zoological Society, and W. T. Hornaday, for the Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund, each wrote to Governor Johnson of California, pointing out the necessity of removing Game Commissioner Newbert and appointing in his place a man devoted to real wild life conservation rather than to duck-shooting. Dec. 30.—It is reported that Canada is disinclined to consider the making of a treaty with the United States for the protection of migratory birds until after the war is over. SALVLS GHLINO AHL JO SLSAYOU 'IVNOLLVN GH pene ‘ i Sh MBN VALS A, ee) q 4] y i 9 ae Q { \ ~~ ’ ~ a RSS A RS i, I BS Wy & 4 ta Spe , " S Sy = =) . ey tH = ~ IS 5 OUR NEXT GREAT CAMPAIGN OR ten years a great task has steadily been drawing nearer and nearer. Today we may say that it has ar- rived. It is the conversion of many large areas of our national forests into national game preserves, for the sav- ing of the remnant of wild life, and the increase of game to a basis of economic value. Ten years ago, when the national forest idea was fighting for its life, and meeting bitter opposition from many kinds of people who wished to despoil the public domain for their own benefit, no one in Congress or out of Congress dared to speak above a whisper in mentioning the idea of national forest game preserves. We distinctly remember being cau- tioned by President Roosevelt against stirring up that sub- ject prematurely. For all that, however, many persons have recognized the desirability of a radical step in the direction indicated. A ~ number of bills have been introduced in Congress to create game preserves in national forests, but thus far no success has been attained by any of them, save in a few isolated and exceptional cases. But the lapse of time brings many changes; and some of them come swiftly. Today the American people are awake more thoroughly than ever before regarding the dangers to wild life, and the necessity for prompt action to reverse and improve existing conditions. Any man in the western third of the United States who does not know that the wild game is very rapidly and alarmingly disappearing from nearly all our national forests is to be pitied for his igno- rance. And any man who thinks that game is destined to survive in those forests unless put on a far different basis from that it now occupies, is to be pitied for his lack of judgment and foresight. 74 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND Unless the men of America now take hold of this subject with both hands and acquit themselves like Men, the next generation of Americans will see the national forests of the West, wherever hunting continues, absolutely destitute of big game. This will be true of all save a few isolated localities like northern Wyoming and certain wild and dif- ficult regions in Idaho. On the other hand, if the federal government will take hold of the matter with an iron hand, and seriously set to work to bring back the vanished game to the national for- ests, in twenty years’ time there can be hundreds of thou- sands of head of big game that legitimately may be shot for food, representing an increment of millions of dollars in total value, on a basis of about 80 per cent profit. It seems well worth while to set forth an outline of this plan, because very soon we will be engaged in a great cam- paign to induce Congress to adopt the national-forest-game- preserve idea. The national reserve forests of the United States em- brace 180,000,000 of acres of the public domain. This means 281,562 square miles. Sized up statewise, it means an area as large as the whole State of Texas and 15,666 square miles over. The national forests were established as such for the purpose of conserving their timber, grazing grounds and water for the greatest good of the greatest number. As yet no western state is fit to be trusted with the sole man- agement of its natural resources, because throughout all the more recently settled states, territories and colonial pos- sessions of our nation, the element that looks ahead, that regards the rights of posterity and that resolutely and ef- fectively conserves natural resources, is not yet strong enough to cope with the element which is resolved to exploit nature, cut, slash, shoot, destroy and impoverish for the purpose of getting rich quickly. Fifty years hence the con- servation spirit of the West possibly may be as strong throughout the western two-thirds of the United States as it now is in the eastern one-third; but we doubt it. Today, nothing but the strong federal arm stands between our Sq ye : X ; ttr Ma a QUERQUE Ye MB CLEVELAND NATIONAL FORESTS, WEST OF THE GREAT PLAINS 76 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND national forests and complete spoilation; and the more quickly every American recognizes that fact, the better for us all. It is only natural that every pathfinder and pioneer should feel that by virtue of his hardships he has a right to “live off the country,” if he can. Up to a certain point that theory is correct, and its practice is right. But in the course of state development a point presently is reached where the flesh of wild game no longer is necessary to ward off starvation. Because a poor man now elects to move his family into a remote game region of the Rocky Mountains, that is no reason whatever why he should claim the right to feed his hungry family all the year round on the na- tion’s asset of big game. In reality such a man now has no more right to live on game than has any poor family in New York City. Mere meat hunger does not now con- stitute a right to slaughter wild animals. If it did, the wild game of the United States would all of it be swept away in one year. The great bulk of the national forests, distinguished by dozens of separate forest names, lie in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific states. -Hunting now is permitted over all these 180 million acres, under the laws of the various states in which they lie. In every one of them, with but a very few exceptions, the game is being exterminated according to law. In nearly every one of them, the game is being killed far faster than it is breeding. Over millions of acres of the national forests, today the big game is locally extinct. It can be brought back only by systematic and determined effort, and twenty years of absolute protection. In twenty years any deer country or elk country can be so restocked with deer and elk as to justify the killing of the young males, for human food. The Vermont development with the white-tailed deer places this statement absolutely beyond the reach of dis- pute. Of course no one (so far as we are aware) ever intended that any agricultural lands should be sequestrated for for- estry purposes. In the haste that attended the first setting FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT 11 aside of the national reserve forests, a certain amount of agricultural lands were temporarily gathered in with the wild timber lands. But as rapidly as practicable, those agricultural lands now are being cut out and opened up to the tillers of the soil. This means many settlers in the na- tional forest areas, and great difficulties in delimiting any new game preserves,—saying nothing also of increased dif- ficulties in enforcing the game laws. But those difficulties can and must one by one be sur- mounted. The American people are neither so feeble in wit nor so infantile in resources that these difficulties can- not be met and vanquished. From the beginning, the government has permitted, un- der license, the grazing of stock in the national forests, and the cutting of timber. The proceeds of these duly licensed operations go toward defraying the cost of conserving the forests. No one will propose that game be increased at the expense of domestic sheep, cattle and horses that need range grass. The lower grass-grown slopes of the national forests are grazed to the limit of their capacity. There are vast areas, however, whereon there can be no grazing, because of the natural conditions. I think it is a safe guess that about one-half the total area of our federal forests is wholly un- suited to grazing and to agriculture, and never can be util- ized along either of those lines of industry. This being the case, is it not the part of wisdom and the true spirit of conservation to take steps to create in those otherwise waste lands a great permanent food supply in wild flocks and herds, that need no other care than protec- tion from wasteful and wicked slaughter? Why should we leave 125,000 square miles of rough mountains and more- or-less forests deserted and tenantless, and barren of wild life? Is it a kindness to a short-sighted frontiersman with a brood of children around his hearth to permit him to kill the last of the deer and elk, because he does not know any better ? In America there are perhaps 10,000,000 men and women who need to be protected from themselves; who need to be 718 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND shielded from the consequences of the foolish acts that they would commit if unrestrained. A child that is heading for an open fire is snatched back by violent but kindly force. In the same manner, far-sighted men must restrain the Rocky Mountain and Pacific states from rendering every national forest a scene of lifeless desolation. Those un- tillable and ungrazable forest lands should be made to teem with big game; and then when it teems sufficiently, the bars should judiciously be let down, in order that a right- ful annual toll of male wild game might be taken for the legitimate uses of the American people. At this point we have neither the time nor the patience to write anew the story of wild life destruction and de- pletion in the western third of the United States. The elk herds of Wyoming and the Olympic National Monument, the herds of big-horn sheep in Colorado, the deer of Ver- mont, the Adirondacks and Maine all point the way toward the sane conservation of big game, and show what real protection can do in a few years’ time. These facts should be sufficient to silence all argument that might be made against the creation of game preserves in the National Re- serve Forests; but by many persons they will be ignored. The moment we approach Congress with a bill, the war will begin. Let us now classify our foes and our friends: Those who will oppose National Forest Game Preserves: 1. The hunting freebooter who lives on the game of the country. 2. The ranchman and frontiersman who thinks his game- killing privileges will be abridged, or entirely cut off. 3. The stockman who thinks that the deer and elk will deprive his stock of some of the grass. 4. The Governor who is jealous of the national govern- ment in the matter of game laws and federal control. FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT 79 5. The politician who foresees civil service laws replacing the spoils system in the selection of game wardens. 6. The Congressman who fears additional expense in bet- ter protecting the national forests and their game. 7. The Congressman who fears the wrath of game-killing constituents. Those who will favor the Game Preserve idea: 1. All those who do not wish to see the national forests completely depopulated of game. Those who are mindful of the rights of posterity. Those who know that on perhaps one-half the total area of our Federal forests, wild game can be made a val- uable national asset, worth many times its cost. 4. The western men, all sportsmen, and others who know that every big game reservoir soon reaches a point where its game begins to overflow, and stock the sur- rounding territory. 5. The Governors of States who can see the Future with prophetic vision, and can realize what a large and continuous supply of big game really means to any state that produces it. 6. The Foresters of the U. S. Forest Service who see and know the great possibilities for big game in the Na- tional Forests, and who would loyally co-operate in restoring it. The large species of wild animals that would be affected by the creation of a great series of game preserves in the national forests are the following: Elk, Caribou, Mule Deer, Mountain Sheep, Columbian Black-Tailed Deer Mountain Goat, White-Tailed Deer, Antelope, Moose, Grizzly Bear, Black Bear. 80 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND To the above we well may add the beaver, wolverine, fisher, marten, mink and fox, all of them now so rare that in the United States the trapping of fur is practically a lost art, and has degenerated into the pursuit of the hum- ble muskrat and malodorous skunk. With the convening of Congress in 1915, a bill will be presented to provide the legislation necessary to the suc- cessful creation of National Forest game preserves. Dur- ing the intervening months we will try to map out a cam- paign equal to the occasion. The undertaking now con- templated will be no child’s play. It should be inaugurated in the enemy’s country,—the Rocky Mountain states, and absent treatment will not alone suffice. It is possible that an unusual campaign of education and exhortation will be made, personally conducted, in the strongholds of the op- position. But we feel that at last the hour has arrived. We believe that the harvest is now ready, and that the period of blind groping after real game conservation in our national for- ests should come to an end. Incidentally, we are glad that the income of the Perma- nent Fund can contribute substantially to the expenses of this campaign; though how other campaigns can be mate- rially assisted at the same time we do not know. THE AUTOMATIC GUN DISGRACE HE $36,000,000 of capital behind the automatic and pump shotguns still have, in the United States, the middle of the road. During the two years that have elapsed since the victory over the slaughter guns in New Jersey, we have been so continuously busy with other campaigns that those weapons have not received the continuous at- tention that they deserve. The makers of state laws are very much to blame for the increasing circulation and use of these reprehensible machines for slaughter. There now lies before me an advertisement of an “ex- tension” for the magazines of automatic shotguns, increas- ing by four the number of cartridges that can be fired with- out removing the gun from the shoulder. In other words, with the “extension” (costing only $5), ten shots now can be fired by ten pulls of the trigger without once stopping to reload the gun! Undoubtedly, the owners of automatic and pump guns would use Gatling guns on American game if they could. In many states, aye, even in New York, the desire among certain hunters for automatic guns amounts to a perfect craze. During the six months following its first appearance, the supply of the new Winchester Automatic was months behind the demand. These weapons seem to be specially desired by poor shots, in order to help out their daily show- ing, and make themselves seem more like real sportsmen; and no gunner is too poor to pay his $35 for one of these weapons. In Florida one year ago we saw a rag-clad and emaciated hook-worm victim slowly marching along a street with an automatic shot-gun on his shoulder, quite as if its price were no object. The trouble with these machine guns lies in the fact that they greatly increase the slaughter of wildfowl] by enabling 82 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND both good shots and poor shots to kill about fifty per cent more ducks and geese than the same men could kill with ordinary double-barreled guns, removed from the shoulder after every two shots. If this is not true then all the men who own the slaughter guns have been cajoled out of their money. . The principles of the devotees of the rod are exactly the reverse of the lack of principles of the machine gunners. To increase the difficulties of angling and to give the game more of a show, the former have steadily reduced the size of their lines and the weight of their rods. The automatic gunner wants the utmost of machinery, and every chance of escape taken away from the ducks and geese. But it is useless to comment upon that. No gentleman sportsman now uses a machine gun, and the man who does use one does not know that there is any such thing as ethics in shot- gun sport. They are in the class of “‘sports’” who dynamite trout and kill robins for food. At present the huge financial interests behind the guns are having things all their own way, except in Pennsyl- vania, New Jersey, in the various provinces of Canada, and clubs of gentlemen sportsmen from which the automatics and pumps have been barred. The net profits to the makers on the automatic and pump shot-guns must be at least $5 per gun, or $500,000 per year. Later on we hope to have time for further diversions with the automatic gun; for the use of machine guns is be- coming more and more intolerable and disgraceful. Just at present, however, we have more important causes to promote, and must apologize for our seeming neglect. THE LOSS OF A GREAT OPPORTUNITY EVER since it knocked at our door until the present hour have we found time to lodge in the annals of wild life protection a history of the loss of our great oppor- tunity. We are reminded of it now by our efforts to raise our Permanent Fund to $100,000, and to secure for our work a modest foundation of $5,000 per year. It is pleas- ant to think that once we had an offer of annual wealth, quite beyond our wildest dreams, for the protection cause. It was in the winter of 1911. There had been various local disturbances, some of which may have affected the financial seismograph that hangs in the office of the Win- chester-U. M. C.-Remington, etc., Arms Company, at New Haven. Perhaps the hyphenated corporation had grown tired of fighting bills in state legislatures aimed at the vitals of the automatic gun; but I do not know. Mr. A. H. Fox, a Philadelphia maker of double-barrelled shotguns such as gentlemen use, wrote to me requesting me to fix a date for an interview with Mr. Leonard, the Vice- President of the Winchester Arms Company, makers of an automatic shotgun, and also a pump-gun. I declined, on the ground that I could easily guess the object of the meet- ing, which, even if held, was certain to produce no more results than similar meetings had attained. A little later, Mr. Fox again pressed the matter, and re- quested the meeting as a personal favor. Again assuring him that it would end in nothing, I consented; and on the date appointed Mr. Leonard appeared. It required several moments to convince Mr. Leonard that the New York Zoological Society was fighting the ma- chine guns of its own volition, as a matter of principle, and not simply through excessive good nature to oblige Mr. G. O. Shields. At last, however, our independent position really was established. 84 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND Concerning the automatic gun there was not one point regarding the ethics of its use, or its effectiveness on game, on which Mr. Leonard and I could agree. This was quite as I expected, and quite as it had been with Mr. Browning, several years previously. We did agree, however, on a “state of fact,” as the lawyers say, regarding the status of American game birds, which was general and rapid dis- appearance, and impending extermination, barring a revo- lution in protection. We also agreed upon the advisability of more men, money and publicity in the protection of wild life; and it was there that Opportunity strove to enter at my door. When I ad- mitted the starvation basis for campaign funds, Mr. Leonard asked me: “Would you not like to have $25,000 per year to spend in your cause?” I admitted that I would. “Then,” said my visitor, “I will show you how you can increase your activities to that extent. The manufacturers of firearms and ammunition realize that the game is going fast, and they know that when it is gone their business in the production of sporting firearms and ammunition will be wiped out. As a plain business proposition the people I represent are disposed to invest a considerable sum of money in the better protection of game. I am here to pro- pose to you that you organize a small body of men to handle a large fund. The gun and cartridge manufacturers are in earnest, and they are willing to bind themselves to put up $25,000 per year for five years for game protection. If you will enter into it, you can form an organization to be governed by a small board of trustees, and you may name three trustees out of five, or four out of seven, while we name the minority members. You could spend that money virtually as you think best, of course along certain lines that we would all agree upon. The amount of good that you could do on that basis would be very great, and you could have practically everything your own way!” The whole of $25,000 per year, for men, money and pub- FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT 85 licity, for five years! To-day I shudder when I think what might have happened if the fund had been handed over to me with no conditions attached. The idea was positively bewildering; and Opportunity was all ready to step over the threshold. “Mr. Leonard,” I said, “your people would not make that arrangement with me except on one condition. They never would make it wnless I would agree to stop fighting the automatic and pump guns; now, would they?” There was not a moment’s pause or hesitation. “Well, of course, they would not expect the man who was spending $25,000 a year of their money to go on fighting their product.” “No; of course not. And on those terms I can’t accept your $25,000 a year. My best advice to you is to form an organization all your own, and spend the money yourselves. An organization for such work is easily made.” Thus ended the interview with “$36,000,000 of invested capital.” Thus vanished in thin air my opportunity to spend $25,000 a year in this Cause. Five years before I had told Mr. Browning that ‘‘the New York Zoological So- ciety will not sell out its principles against the use of ma- chine guns for a million dollars!” Just as usual, the Winchester-U. M. C.-Arms Company did not (at first), take my advice; and it made a serious tactical error. They offered the $25,000-a-year-for-5-years to the Na- tional Association of Audubon Societies, founded by William Dutcher, who as President has officially and most strongly denounced the automatic gun! The only condi- tion named was that “Hornaday should have nothing to say regarding the expenditure of the funds.” And in an evil moment a majority of the directors of the Audubon Association voted to accept it! The acceptance was voted despite the protests of several good friends of Mr. Dutcher and the Association, who feared the consequences of an acceptance of money derived from the sale of shotguns and cartridges. . 86 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND The expected happened. When it became perfectly evi- dent that a persistence in that unhappy acceptance would in all probability quite disrupt the National Audubon As- sociation, the directors met and reconsidered their action. After that, the strength of the Association mightily in- creased; and it is highly probable that the Association never has missed that $25,000 a year, because its annual income has increased far beyond that figure! Finally, the gun-and-ammunition people organized and financed the American Game Protective and Propagating Association, with which we frequently have been closely associated in campaign work, and toward which we enter- tain only sentiments of sincere regard. THE PERMANENT FUND ESTABLISHES A MEDAL N view of the fact that the defenders of wild life rarely receive for their services anything more substantial than passing recognition of the most transitory character, the Trustees of the Fund have decided to establish a medal “for meritorious services in the defense of wild life.” Originally the idea took form with the Boy Scouts of Amer- ica in view, and the first thought was to limit its bestowal to the members of that organization. It seemed, however, that the scope of award should be broad enough to embrace not only all America, but even the world at large. For men and women, and boys also, who render conspicu- ous services to the cause of wild life, and especially services that represent great sacrifices and produce tangible results, gold medals are none too good. Every medal bestowed is permanent proof to its recipient that some one appreciates, and some one cares. As a rule, the American people are very slow and modest in giving substantial tokens of their appreciation of public services. The Trustees of the Fund have formally offered to be- stow annually a gold medal upon the Boy Scout of America who had rendered the most conspicuous service to the cause of wild life during his year. It was proposed that under rules laid down by the Trustees of the Fund, the high offi- cers of the Boy Scouts of America should themselves desig- nate, upon evidence submitted, the Scout or Scouts, to whom our medals shall from year to year be awarded. After long and careful deliberation this proposal has been formally accepted by the Badges and Awards Committee, and the plan will at once be carried into effect. A design for the medal is being developed, but is not yet ready for adoption and publication. € a * £ & & . & * * * 7 Set MEDAL PRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL ACCLIMATATION SOCIETY OF FRANCE, AND THE FRENCH NATIONAL LEAGUE FOR THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS FRANCE AWARDS A MEDAL FOR BIRD PROTECTION By MADISON GRANT, in the Zoological Society Bulletin. N event of recent occurrence in France is of unusual interest to American protectors of birds. On March 28, 1914, there was bestowed upon Dr. W. T. Hornaday, at Paris, a medal for international work in the preservation of birds. In view of the numerous enemies that the pro- tection work of Dr. Hornaday has made for him, both at home and abroad, the action of the two affiliated French societies forms an agreeable counterpoise. As given by the Secretary of the French National League for the Protection of Birds, the title of the medal is “Grande Medaille Hors Classe,’ bearing the effigy of Isidore Geoffroy St. Hilaire. It was awarded jointly by the National Acclimatation Society, which is really the lead- ing Zoological Society of France, and the affiliated French National League for the Protection of Birds, “for interna- tional work in the protection of birds.” Of course this “international work” relates to the enactment of our law for the suppression of feather millinery in this country. In awarding this medal, the two national societies named have taken a bold stand against the feather trade of France and the world at large. Before the award was decided upon, the two societies named were approached by the feather dealers, and requested to form a “Committee for the Economic Study of Birds,” similar to that which was formed in England by the feather trade. After fully considering the facts and arguments that were presented, the joint Council of the two societies re- 90 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND ported, unanimously, that ‘‘the evidence submitted to the Congress of the United States and Parliament of Great Britain, against the continuance of the trade in wild birds’ plumage, is reliable and conclusive,” and the two societies firmly declared themselves unwilling to co-operate in any way in the formation of the dilatory Committee of Economic Study that was proposed. The next action was a decision to award the Society’s Grand Medal of Honor to Dr. Hornaday. It was first proposed that the medal should be awarded at the joint annual meeting of the Acclimatation Society and League for the Protection of Birds, to be held on March 29, at the Museum of Natural History, in Paris; and the American Ambassador, Hon. Myron T. Herrick, had promised to attend and receive it. The President of the Republic, and the Minister of the Colonies who was to take the chair, had engaged to at- tend, with the Ambassadors of several foreign powers. The plume-traders’ syndicate, having heard of this, ap- prized the Government that if the medal was delivered at the public meeting, “it was to be expected that the work- men of the plume trade would in some violent manner publicly manifest their disapprobation.” The feather trade strenuously objected to the presence of President Poincare at the presentation, even though he is known to be in sympathy with the work of the two societies in the preservation of the birds of the world. In order to avoid an unpleasant episode, the officers of the two societies reluctantly decided to alter their program somewhat; but it is reported that “the American Ambas- sador acted most gallantly in the matter, saying that in any event he would attend the meeting, and if any stones were to be thrown he wished to take his share.” The presentation of the medal was made at the Ameri- can Embassy, on March 29, by a delegation of officers from the two societies, composed as follows: Mr. Edmond Perrier, Member of the Institute of France, President of the Acclimatation Society of France. FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT 91 Mr. Magaud d’Aubusson, President of the League for the Protection of Birds (subsection of Ornithology of the Acclimatation Society). Mr. A. Chappelier, Secretary of the League. Mr. Maurice Loyer, General Secretary of the Acclimata- tion Society. Mr. Pierre Amedee Pichot, Honorary Member of the Council. Mr. Ch. Debreuil, Member of the Council. On receiving the medal, Ambassador Herrick made the following response: “In awarding an honorary medal of your Society, one of the most distinguished of France, to a citizen of the United States of America, you are honoring the Nation as well as the person upon whom such distinction is conferred, and it affords me special and particular satisfaction to re- ceive your medal on this occasion in behalf of Dr. William T. Hornaday, who greatly regrets that his lectures at Yale University prevents him from being present, so as to re- ceive it personally. “The fact that this eminent Society has deigned to bestow such an honor in recognition of services rendered to the cause of bird protection throughout the world, is most significant. It indicates that the destruction of wild ani- mals, pursued in all parts of the world, has assumed so grave an aspect that it has attracted the attention of scien- tists, of statesmen and of society in general. “In awarding your honorary medal to one of the most ardent champions of your cause in the world, unremittingly engaged in the defense of wild birds and animals in their painful conditions of existence, the Acclimatation Society of France has boldly challenged the persistent demands of fashion, and expressed, in a manner that cannot be misun- derstood, its desire to see the slaughter of wild birds for the sake of trade come to an end. “The American people, having witnessed the brutal de- struction of the vast herds of buffaloes and deer, as well as of wild birds, desired that law and order with regard 92 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND to those matters should prevail in their own country although it could not be done without strife, and they will know how to fully appreciate the moral courage which has resulted in this act on your part, which will be approved by all those whose judgment is based on a broad-minded and impartial examination into this matter. “In behalf of Dr. William T. Hornaday, it becomes my pleasant duty to thank you for your appreciation of his services, and to assure you that he will continue to devote his efforts to this noble cause, and persist in his attempts to save from destruction the animals and birds—so beautiful and useful—which are now being slaughtered without pity or mercy.” It is well to point out the courage of the leading zoologists of France in making this award, in the face of the feeling in Paris against us on the part of the feather trade. Even when it was privately announced that the medal was to be awarded, there were those who did not believe that it ever would come to pass, because of the probability that the feather trade of Paris would object so strongly that the idea would have to be abandoned. It seems, however, that the zoologists and ornithologists of Paris have quite as much courage and determination as the leaders of the feather trade. Naturally this episode is interesting to all American de- fenders of birds, and it affords good grounds for the belief that eventually the zoologists of France will bring the French nation up to the highest level in this cause. AN EDUCATIONAL CAMPAIGN BY THE ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY N 1912 one of the officers of the New York Zoological Society wrote a book of 400 pages, intended to jar law- makers and the public at large into a full realization of the dangers that beset the wild birds and quadrupeds of our country, and our continent. Its title was “Our Vanishing Wild Life.” After having read the manuscript, the chief executive officers of the Society decided to use it in a great educa- tional effort, and accordingly ordered the printing of an edition of 13,000 copies. The cost of that edition and its distribution was provided by a special subscription fund, chiefly from the Board of Managers, as follows: Wires TRMSsell, SAeC on $ 1,000 PEE GaAImeCIe Mk FF 2 1,000 Renews ee yiers tes ee lt 500 emineadyerd Ilan 2 ee 500 Wasson 6. Wickermam 6. 5... 500 Cleveland Hu DModee 2. a 500 earee tee er. ee 500 eel) NOME: he ae re Bt Se 500 OES EUAN" STS RR eg le tice Re eee 500 Pmerson. NicMillin 2 2 500 US rE CaN BT | Ee inca) ee ee IO 500 Mercier i: ochre 500 ei ie CTC ea ees 500 Mrederick G.) Bourne. 500 Wes ey APOE I SD oe en 300 Beware oo Harkness: 2b 250 USOE Lee p GB) 2 | ugh Aa Re ae een ee? 250 BGUGE SB Tewster a 250 RTS DiS PET of (Cl: Wey Re see a ee ee 250 F. Augustus Schermerhorn |. 250 hes AUB 250 Daspenard Stewart oe 250 Maso Be Erman 250 94 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND Charles: Greer: 220 5 ee eee 100 The Ladies’ Auxiliary, Mrs. Henry F. Osborn’ President? 2.2.29 2a... eens 91 Potal ies eee aE ee ees $10,491 This generous fund rendered it possible for the Zoologi- cal Society to publish the volume in January, 1913, and to place the book, up to this date, in the hands of several thousand persons who are in positions to benefit the cause of wild life, if they will. The systematic distribution was about as follows: Copies To members of the United States Senate. 100 Members of the House of Representatives and Clerks 530 Members of 45 State Legislatures, about... 6,247 United States Supreme Court.............:..7 2a 9 The Governors of States and Territories... 51 State Game Commissioners and State Game Wardens.” .o..2.000. 38 oy ws ee ee 105 INGWSDapers © onc. ee Ne oe ee ec 250 sportsmen’s Clubs: 2..025...6. 2.4 ee 290 Libraries +20 5 A ee ee 150 Sent. abroad in campaign work. 2 eee 95 For the regular book trade, Charles Scribner’s Sons, publishers 000.20 6 00s), ee 3,000 Miscellaneous; “about ...0 3) os ee eee 686 MWotall > eh hol ee eee 11,513 The cause of wild life is greatly indebted to Messrs. Charles Scribner’s Sons for the keen and sympathetic interest that firm has manifested in placing 3,000 copies of the work before the general public through the regular channels of the book trade. If we may judge from the thousands of letters that came to the Society from this effort, and particularly from mem- bers of lawmaking bodies, we must conclude that the effort was appreciated, and accomplished some of the results that were desired. THE ‘‘ DISCRETIONARY FUND” THAT MADE THE BAYNE LAW POSSIBLE A Page of History. RECEIPTS : Jiu. of 1011, to Jan. 5, 1912. Siencam F. ilyde, New York ... Mrs. William Henry Bliss, New York Charles A. Dean, Boston Peeerrck. New York Meet Godscnalk, Philadelphia o.oo Lewis S. Eisenlohr, Philadelphia Henry G. Cornell, Philadelphia Pere OLR —PRHACeIDMIA oe mead. Kennedy, New York ee. Fox Gun Company, (Against sale of game only) S. H. Vandergrift, Philadelphia George Eastman, Rochester mean oeaman, New York 0. F. W. Roebling, Philadelphia Miemaaa dames, Baltimore awe yw teree, Apalachicola, Pla... Mein G. Baetier, Baltimore 60. Henry F. Osborn, for N. Y. State Audubon Soc. Series 2. Tryon. Galtimore ..... 2 Thomas Barry & Company, Philadelphia New York Zoological Society, New York ................ Stokes’ Bird Fund, N. Y. Z. 8., New York... me Srowpridee, New York .00...0200 et. ee Wethercll Pinladelphia 0 $100.00 50.00 200.00 500.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 50.00 100.00 25.00 500.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 25.00 100.00 50.00 25.00 300.00 200.00 96 WILD LIFE PROTECTION FUND H. M. Hanna, Cleveland Lloyd Taylor; New. York) 2.65. .aylelie ee 50.00 James A. Robinson, New York |... 10.00 i J. Seaver Page, New York ........_ cece sane 10.00 Boone and Crockett Club, New Yous Rem. 100.00 H, A. Bdwards, Albany: 2... 92.0 eee 100.00 J: Re Bradley, (New York’ 222 eee 50.00 samuel Thorne, New -York *..2.2.... 4.) eos 200.00 James S. McCulloh, New York: 2.0.0.0... 25.00 Frank Hart, Doylestown, Pa, 00202 1.00 Emerson McMillin, New York 0000000000000. 100.00 Mrs. i. S. Achmuty, New York 2-25) 2232723 100.00 Kia Cy Childs. New. York: Uy 2. ..0)6 Sas ee 25.00 Hunter Arms Co., (against sale of game only)... 100.00 Ithaca Gun Company. Ithaca 2202. ee 10.00 f Pour Mriends) 22. ..2.05... hg ek Re ee 400.00 Rich and Marble: 2.00 5A ee eee 1.00 Wallan WeWall New Work, = == eee 1.00 Mrs. Killen P: Speyer, New York > 3.52 ie 50.00 Miss Heloise Meyer, Lenox, Mass. |... 200.00 J. Alden: Lorine, Qweso 22.02.50 2. = ee 10.00 C. Ledyard. Blair, New York’ 272 100.00 Mrs. Joseph Swift Whistler, Philadelphia ........... 5.00 Ruthven W.. Pike, New York (225 9232 ee 25.00 Henry W. Shoemaker, Altoona, Pa. 0... 50.00 6 0) (21) ROME SA nee Fe ee $5,023.00 DISBURSEMENTS: General Summary of Hapenditures, Jan. 5, 1911, 10 Jan. 5, 1912. 1. Services of Counsel, Attorneys and Field Agents: (13 items) 20 oe eee $1,020.00 2; Clerical Help (sh items) 3 ee 473.35 3. Traveling expenses, subsistence and other expenses in Field Work (85 items; 15 DETSONS))). toe ci ee ee a eee 524.28 FIRST BIENNIAL STATEMENT 97 4. Printing 42,000 copies ‘“‘Wild Life Call’’ ........... 507.61 5. Miscellaneous Printing and Engraving (20 eee poe ere ee Ae ee a 498.32 6. Postage on about 50,000 Pieces of Mail (26 ELLE Pap ES Fo 2s 0 i eae 730.92 7. Postage for Field Agents _..0.20°.0....... ence : 420.50 =) meoress Charses (7 items) ©... 2 27.95 9. Stationery for Campaign Headquarters (6 PERSERRS eee eR eee, me eal ee 8 71.90 10. Stationery for Field Agents (9 items) Ane 14.714 11. Telegrams from Headquarters (6 monthly Ree tAC HN here GOES ee ete 12. Telegrams sent by Field Agents (6 items)... T2267 18. Newspaper and Press Clippings (12 items)... 40.88 14. Miscellaneous items of Field Agents (6 TRS OS ARCS os 9 Sle ee ale ee einer ad a 31.30 TC HEEY Se NR ROE DSI dy Pee) eee ee ee $4,476.15 Jan. 5;. 1912. Total Cash Receipts to date ioe $5,023.00 Total Expenditures ......... Sat eh PIC ED BY oP Wace aes 4,476.15 Cash balance in Windsor Trust Company... $546.85 The above is a true statement. WILLIAM T. HORNADAY. Audited by MADISON GRANT and L. W. TROWBRIDGE. Nore:—After the enactment of the Bayne Law, other campaigns of equal importance called for additional funds, and during 1912 and 1913 various persons subscribed substantial sums. The most important sub- scriptions were: George Eastman, $2,000; H. C. Frick, $1,000; Emerson MeMillin, $200; Charles A. meas $200; Eversley Childs, pee aus Miss Heloise Meyer, $100. Pee aid io a » it % f | i atarrs wee ~ — ie OES — - —