The Audubon Societies
Nor yet the wild bird's song."
Edited by Mrs. Mabel Osgood Wright (President of the Audubon Society of the State of Connecticut), Faiifield, Conn., to whom all communications relating; to the work of the Audubon and other Bird Protective Societies should be addressed. Reports, etc., designed for this department should be sent at least one month prior to the date of publication.
DIRECTORY OF STATE AUDUBON SOCIETIES With names and addresses of their Secretaries
New Hampshire Mrs. F. W. Batchelder, Manchester. Massachusetts Miss Harriet E. Richards, care Boston Society of Natural History, Boston. Rhode Island Mrs. H. T. Grant, Jr., 187 Bowen street. Providence. Connecticut Mrs. William Brown Glover, Fairfield. New York Miss Emma H. Lockwood, 243 West Seventy-fifth street. New York City. New Jersey Miss Anna Haviland. 53 Sandford ave., Plainfield, N. J. Pennsylvania Mrs. Edward Robins, 114 South Twenty-first street, Philadelphia. District of Columbia Mrs. John DeWhurst Patten, 3033 P street, Washington. Delaware Mrs. Wm. S. Hilles, Delamore place, Wilmington. Maryland Miss Anne Weston Whitney, 715 St. Paul street, Baltimore. South Carolina Miss S. A. Smyth, Legare street, Charleston. Florida Ohio. Mrs. D. Z. McClelland, 5265 Eastern ave., Cincinnati. Indiana. W. W. Woolen, Indianapolis. Illinois Miss Mary Drummond, Wheaton. Iowa Mrs. L. E. Felt, Keokuk. Wisconsin. Mrs. George W. Peckham, 646 Marshall street, Milwaukee. Minnesota Miss Sarah L. Putnam, 125 Inglehart street, St. Paul. Kentucky Ingram Crockett, Henderson. Tennessee Mrs. C. C. Conner, Ripley. Texas California Mrs. George S. Gay, Redlaiids.
Notes
The work of a far-seeing Connecticut gentleman, Mr. E. Knight Sperry, in secur- ing the coöperation of farmers in allowing their lands to be without interference to cultivation, banded in retreats where, in addition to protection, game birds may find food in the hungry season, has suggested a work on similar lines that may be done for non-game and song birds and at the same time give an added field of labor and in- terest to all protectionists.
This topic will be fully discussed in the next issue of Bird-Lore
Acting on a suggestion made in this department in December, 1899. Dr. T. S. Palmer has kindly sent Bird-Lore the following admirable statement of the legal status of birds. —M. O. W.
Some Fundamental Principles of Bird Laws
Adequate laws necessarily form the foundation of effective bird protection.
By T.S Palmer
But it is not enough merely to enact laws; they must be enforced and doubtful points must be settled by the courts. The bird laws of the United States, usually called game laws, are of two kinds (a) State or local laws and (b) Federal laws,
State laws prescribe the kinds of birds which may or may not be killed, the time and manner in which they may be taken, and the purpose for which they may be captured. Thus the Illinois game law defines some birds and prohibits the killing of other birds at any time. In providing for game it fixes a definite season for shooting quail and ducks, but forbids the killing of ducks at any season from a sail boat, with a swivel gun, or after sunset; furthermore it declares that it shall be unlawful to capture quail in the State for sale, or to ship to other States except under license. In all these matters the State is supreme and violations of its laws are tried in the State courts.
The federal law, commonly known as the Lacey Act or the Act of May 25.
(79)
