Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922 | View Entire Issue (June 21, 1914)
'Ihe Omaha Sunday Bee Magazine Page Existence of Valuable Insect-Eating Birds Threatened Dr. William T. Horna day Points Out the Obstacles Still to Be Overcome Before the Calamity to the Na tion of Their Anni hilation Is Made an Impossibility By DR. WILLIAM T. HORNADAY, Director of tho New York Zoological Park. THE most exasperating featuro of our present battle with the enemies ot tho Federal migratory bird law In and around tho U. B. Sonato la tho fact that for Ihe aako of local aprlng-shootlng of ducks In one email area, they aro willing and anxious to completely destroy tho only law that Is . compotent to protect our valuablo insect-cat lng birds in tho South. On May 9 and 12 wo witnessed in tho United States Senato a five hours' battlo in which the life of our finest bird law was at stako. Sena tor Reed, of Kansaa City, Mo., and Senator Kobinson, of Arkansas, labored long and earnestly to kill the Federal migratory bird law by cutting off tho means to enforce itl Had they and their flftoon supporters pro Tailed, that law would, in effect, bo to-day as dead aa Julius Caesar. No law that haa active enemlca and haters can long withstand being dragged through the mire ot aon-enforcomont . Aa I have stated in a previous articlo in this newspaper, tho centre of the hostility to the migratory bird law is Kansas City, Mo. Let tho members of the Intoratate Spring Shooting Protective Association deny it If they will, but the fact remains that according to tho reporta of their own secretary, that as sociation, ot Kansas City, was organised for the purpose of destroying the migratory law by having it declared unconstitutional. Aa a crowning injury to this country, their representatives in Congress "were alto asked to vote against tho treaty with Great Britain, which, If passed, will make It Impossible for the States to declare the Weeks-MoLean law , unconstitutional,1'. (Seo tho Sportsman's He view for Fob. 14, 1914, page 149.) From, that original programmo tho associa tion has not wavered an inch. Its senatorial champion, Mr. Rood, has already attacked the law as vigorously and as bitterly aa he knew how, and he haa shown also that he hatos the proposed treaty, scorns Its virtue, and evi dently intends to fight Its ratification to the last ditch. (Congressional Rocord, May 12, 1914, page 8815.) And what, think you. Is now (May S3) the latent move ot tho Kansas City contingent? The following telegram from Washington to Kansaa City tcllB tho beginning ot the story: "Acting Secretary ot Agriculture Galloway haa agreed to modify the migratory bird reuula. tlona as to Missouri and enforcement of the McLean law, and make same conform with Missouri State law as near aa possible. This ruling will be adjusted within fifteen days." I have no doubt whatever that Mr. Oallcway would like to mako a complete surrender to Senators Reed and Robinson and their con stituents. Mr. Galloway Is from Arkansas. According to the statement of Senator Robinson (Cong. Record tor May 9, page 8,683) it waa Assistant Secretary Galloway who "before the Sonato Committee admitted Ita constitutionality (the McLean Law) and said to the Committee that the validity ot the Act ought to be determined betoro any appropriation was made further than the amount necessary to try out fairly the question of constitutionality of tho Act, It waa In part upon that statement by the repre tentative of the Department of Agriculture, Dr. Galloway, that this amendment ($10,000) was Inserted." So It was no leas a man than the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture who uBcd tho longest knife on the migratory bird law, at the Capitol, at a most critical moment) The point is, the farmors, the forest owners and the consumers of farm and forest products must now ba informed that the Kansas City spring-shooters ot ducks who are behind Sena tors Reed and Robinson are going to make a tremendous tight In the United States Senate against the ratification ot any International Migratory Birds Soon Discover Where They Are Safe as Shown by This Photo graph of the Return of the Ducks to the Wichita Bison Range Preserve in 1913. Photo by the New York Zoological Society. Tho Shaded Portlona of Thcso Two Maps Locate the lirunt of tho Fight to Enforce tho Now Migratory Bird Protective Law. Above the Stntca Overrun by Colored "Pot Hunters;" and Below, the States In Which the "Gamo Hogs" Demand Spring Shooting Privileges. treaty with Canada tor the protection of migratory birds. With thorn it is "Rulo or Rulnl" For tho sake of preserving their pre cIoub spring-shooting privllego they nro will ing to destroy our only chance to socuro. pro tection In tho South for tho birds that fight ths destructive insects that annually operato against 100,000,000 American people. This Is no dream, but a cold fact. Tho battle In tho Senate on May 9 and 13 was over an appropriation (of $50,000) for the enforcement ot tho migratory bird law from July 1, 1014. to July 1, 1915. Tho dotcat ot the appropriation roally meant tho death ot tho law. Senator Reed led tho attack on the ap propriation, backed by Senators Robinson and Gore. Senator McLoan lod tho defense; and the bushwhackers who sought to hamstring our best bird law wero whipped out ot their boots, by a vote ot 45 to 17. Even a motion to cut the amount down to 120,000 was similarly beaten. Once more the United States Senate has preserved unbroken its record as an Impreg nable defense of wild life. The defenders ot the bird law expected It, and they were not disappointed, save In the number ot Mr. Reed's , backers. Any man, either In Congress or out ot it, who coats a vote or an opinion against the Integrity ot the migratory law, Is an enemy ot that law, and of tho people it protects. Lot there be no quibbling or mincing ot words on that point Tho names ot the Senators who mistakenly voted against the bird law and tome ot whom wo positively know are in favor of the treaty as shown by the yea and nay vote, are as follows: Dankhead (Ala.), Bryan (Fin.), Gore (Okla), Martin (La.), Nowlands, Overman (N. C), Ransdell (La.), Reed (Mo.), Robinson (Ark.), J3aulsbury (Del.), Shafroth (Col.). Smith (Ga.), Stono (Mo.). Tillman (S. C). Vardaman (Miss.), West (Ga.) Wo note with profound surprlso that nine ot those seventeen Benatora represent tho cotton-producing States, wherein, it auywhoro on this green earth, the services ot the insectivor ous birds are most needed in combating tho boll-weevil that annually destroys millions ot dollars' worth of cotton! There aro fifty-two species ot birds that feed on tho boll-weevil! Now, what have the cotton-growers of Alabama, Georgia, Texas, North and South Carolina and Florida to say to their Senators about their votes to destroy tho only law mat over can or ever will protect the insectivorous birds in the South? Do they wish their Senators to quibble Copyright, f4 A. aanp Tho Sea Gull Slonuraent, Salt Lake Cltr, Erected In Remembrance of the Bird Which Bared the Crops ot 1848 from Graaahoppe Plasm e. over the now undeterminable question ot "con stitutionality," and atop the protecting of their best allies for eighteen months or two years, while wo wait tor a Supreme Court decision? Men ot the Cotton Belt, what is your answer? The awful solicitude that In some quarters is being voiced regarding the possible "uncon stitutionality" of tho migratory bird law makes mo tired. Senator Reed declared in his speech that in my now-famous lntervlow with him I "did not have tho tomerlty to claim that this law was ot the slightest validity." And this to me. after I havo tar and near proclaimed In every possible manner my firm belief that tho law is valid and Is constitu tional, and that the U. S. Supreme Court will so decide! Betoro this we have seen soveral other alleged "unconstitutional" protective laws threshed out by tho Supreme Court, each ono of which was triumphantly constitutional. If the migratory law Is unconstitutional, then so are at least a score ot other Fedoral laws that now are In activo oporation in this country. We come now to the duty of the citizen, to tho present hour, and to tho fnture. The time has come to separate tho sheep from tho goats, the trtends ot wild lite from the enemios thereof. The time for neutrality has gone by. The migratory bird law Is a law. By the voto on May 14 the United States Senate prac tically re-enacted that law, and proclaimed (by a three-fourths majority) that tho law shall be enforced so long as It exlsta In our statutes. Now that the Senate has again proven the national Gibraltar ot wild life protection, what should tho citizen do? In my opinion, overy citizen should loyally support tho law, in season and out ot season, and help to maintain its full integrity. Have done with any further idle and utterly In effective talk, and soap-box decisions, about Its alleged "unconstitutionality." The law was wrought out for the greatest good ot the greatest number. Every good cltl zon In thlB land, Including some millions ot true sportsmen, are convinced that the law should have a fair trial and a square deal, and not be summarily destroyed for tho benefit of pet Individual privilege As good citizens, wo must stand by it loy ally and cheerfully bear with Its weaknesses. We must constantly keep in mind tho tact that it has been framed up for the greatest good of the greatest number! There are certain things, however, for which 1 contend, and will contend until the last breath leaves this bouse ot clay. For my part I will: 1. Never agree to spring-shooting north ot 1914. by the SUr Company. Great Britain Rights A Typical Example of Migratory Bird Slaughter from a Photograph Taken at Orange, Texas, in 1912. the Gulf States. 2. Never agree to market-shooting, and tho sale of wild gamo. 3. Novor agreo to tho killing of any moro quail tho arch-enemy of the boll-weevil In tho Cotton Belt. 4. Nover agree to tho killing of any moro bobolinks as "gamo;" and 5. Nover agreo to havo the pinnated grouso exterminated by tho lack of a ton-year close season as a migratory bird. Our Senators and our Representatives in Congress navo loyally glvon us the great remedial bird law that wo asked for In 1912-13. In 1914 they havo reaffirmed that action with a now declaration of faith, 45 to 17 in tho Sen ate, and $50,000. The Department of Agricul ture will mighty soon set In motion the ma chinery to enforce that law. Now tho rest of it Is up to the Stato and tho citizen. And what ore the States doing about It? Connecticut has changed her bird lawB to make thorn uniform with tho Fedoral law, so as to fully co-operate with the nntlonal Gov ernment In tho business of enforcement. New Jersey has done tho same. Now York has done the same. Pennsy'B laws are all right for uniformity as they are, and the State Gamo Commission is already backing up the Government. Utah's Attorney-General says that the Fed oral law Is tho law, and must bo fully enforced In Utah. Massachusetts Is fully co-operating; and so on and so on, I know not how much farther In total extent I have yet to hear of a Stato Administration, North or South, East or West, that Is kicking over the traces and refusing co-operation ex cept Iowa, whose Stato Gamo Warden Is sadly In need of removal. And what of tho duty of the citizen? All American citizens and near-cltlzens are divisible Into two classes. The first and largest contains tho men who loyally obey the laws of their city, their State and the nation, no matter whether thoy wholly approve all those laws or not. They uphold the law, they de fend the Integrity of the oourts, and thoy co operate with officers of the law In securing tho ends ot Justice. Theso are the good citizens; and, God be thanked, they yet constitute about 90 per cent of tho body politic On them de pends tho sanctity ot the hearthstone, the se curity of property and the safety of the nation. The other class contains the other 10 per cent; the men who hate tho laws that interfere with their desires, who flout the officers of the law, and hold courts of law In contempt Theso are the men who habitually break- the laws that interfere with their selfish schemes tor business or pleasure, and doty the statutes that they deem, In their great wisdom, "an interference with their constitutional rights." But let us return to tho duty ot the citizen. It is time for every good citizen to gird up his loins, take down his sword and shield, and prepare to do battlo for the cause of wild life. Let no man with red blood In his veins think that tho whole work of bird protection rests upon tho paid Game Wardens, for distinctly it does NOT! Firstly, It is tho duty ot every citizen to be the Gamo Warden ot his own premises! Thoso premises may bo a village lot, a country "place," a farm, a village, a city, suburb or a State; but, whichever it may be, tho obligation is the same. Every case of lawlessness that is observed should be diligently followed up, run to earth in a court ot law, and testified to under oathv When a farmer cannot stop a bold and Impudent trespasser single-handed, let him arouse his neighbors, and with them carry the war into the heart ot the enemy's camp. If a trespasser defies your order to quit your premises, fire a shot across his bows, as thoy do at sea whon pirates refuse to hcavo to. Too many easy-going farmers, who are im posed upon by gunning lawbreakers, are in the habit ot saying: "Let Geoi;e do it!" and re porting the matter, days Uter, to a Gamo Warden ten miles away. It is the quick and drastic treatment ot a lawcreaker that broods fear and wins respect Out remember this: Whenever you go after an armed killer of illegal gamo, always go armed yourself; and it your gun Is of heavier calibro than bis, you shall acquire merit Every bird sanutuary now needs to be defended with a rifle. Look out tor Italian song-bird shooters, for often they aro dangerous, and have Beveral warden mur ders to answer for. Reserved, Mr. Charles Asklns says that in tho South tho feeling among sportsmen Is: So long as tho negro will raise cotton and let the quail alono, let him shoot all tho other birds that ho ploascs. Tho Southern States cannot afford enough paid Gamo Wardens to curb tho bird eating negroes; public Bentlmont Is confined to a small circle of bird protectionists and editors, and tho southern whlto planter will not do police duty In arresting negroes for killing birds contrary to law. Those three reasons tell us why tho Fedoral migratory bird law Is abso lutely necessary to our insectivorous birds in Maryland, Virginia, the Carollnas, Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas and Texas. Without Fedoral co-operation, ti is a practical impossi bility for those States to protect tho insect destroying bird3 that winter there. Texas is a shambles for all kinds ot gamo butchery, and the last Legislature was too raw and ignorant to see tho necessity ot enacting tho excellent game bill that was put before it .by Representa tive Mills, of Corsicana. After a gallant fight last Winter for a docent protective act, tho Virginia Legislature lost tho Hart-Whlto bill by an adverse majority ot four votes in tho lower House. To-day Virginia is ono ot tho benighted States. The Carollnas are in a bad way, but three of tho four Carolina Senators voted to starve tho migratory bird law to death. Tho wholesale slaughter of non-game birds In the South by negroes has been fully and Intelli gently treated by an eyewitness, who wrlte3 without any heat whatever. Mr. Charles As klns, In Recreation Magazine for May, 1909, speaking of the negro hunter, has this to say: "I have seen the darkies at Christmas time collect fifty In a drove, with every man his dog, and spread out over the fields. Such a glorious time as he has then! Ho eats woodpeckors, Jaybirds, hawks and skunks, drawing the line only at crows and buzzards. At this season ot the year I havo carried chicken-hawks up to the cabins for the sake ot watching tho delight ot the pickaninnies who, with glowing eyes, would declare: 'Them's mos as good as chicken!' What happens to tho robins, doves, larks, red-birds, mocking birds and all songsters in this hungry season needs hardly to be stated." The white sports men " havo told him (tho negro) to trap tho rabbits, pot the robins, slaughter the doves, kill the song-birds, but to spare the white sportsman's game, tho aristocratic little bob white quail." The Stato gamo commission and the best people of thoso States are. all right, but they are confronted by conditions presenting im mense difficulties. Now, Just apply this to tho Southern States, from tho Chesapeake Bay around to Arizona, and you havo the reason for the fed eral migratory bird law! That law is ab 'solutely the only law that ever can or ever will protect the Insectivorous and other migratory birds ,ln the Southern States; and tho Ameri can people can Just take that fact or leave it. Tho Integrity of tho principle of the national protection ot migratory blrd3 is of tremendous Importance to American consumers of cereals, fruit and vegetables, and especially tho mil lions of tho poor. Several years ago tho an nual loss to those crops from destructive In sects was tho enormous sum ot $420,000,000. I can remember when farmers did not know what It was to Bpray an apple tree. Now, $7, 000,000 a year is spent, and lost in spraying operations! It is the duty of every sensible citizen to stop the waste of natural resources, and the waste of the products of labor. Every robin killed in the South by a negro, or in tho North by an Italian, Polish or Hungarian laborer, means a rise In the cost of oatmeal and apples. With the passing ot the grosbeaks, we pay more for potatoes. With tho slaughter of quail and swallows in Texas and tho cotton belt generally, tho fool cotton planters gather less cotton per acre, and pay higher for help. If the Spring-shooters of Kansas City and their seventeen champions In tho United States Senate do succeed in having our best bird law declarod unconstitutional, then may wo get out our sackcloth anc put It on; and If Senator Reed of Western Missouri succeeds in killing the proposed treaty with Canada, then may we sit down In ashes and bid our wild birds a long farowell. Meanwhile, what la tho average citizen go ing to do about it? Is he going to do anything? It is now up to him. 4