So Bird- Lore 1900, deals merely with the shipment of birds from one State to another and the importation of birds from foreign countries. It is general in its provisions and (loes not mention special birds, but nevertlieless supplements the State laws very effectually. Thus if a State prohibits the killing of any particular bird, the shipment of the bird out of that State is an offense under the Federal law and the shipper, carrier, and consignee, each or all, may be prosecuted in the United States courts. Some of the principles on which these laws are based may be stated very simpiv as follows: (a) STATE LAWS 1. All wild birds are the property of the State, hence: 2. Killing birds is a privilege, not a right.* 3. State ownership of birds carries with it the right to impose restrictions, hence: 4. Birds may be captured, possessed, transported, bought or sold only under such conditions as the State prescribes. 5. Land-owners have no more right to kill birds out of season than other persons, unless the law specifically grants this privilege. {b) FEDERAL LAW 6. Birds are protected by the Federal law only when shipped from or into a State which protects them by a local law. 7. Birds killed or shipped contrary to law in any State cannot lawfully be trans- ported to other States. 8. Birds brought into a State become subject to its laws in the same manner and to the same extent as birds produced in that State. 9. Packages of birds shipped from one State to another must be marked so as to show the name of the shipper and the na- ture of the contents. 10. Foreign birds can be imported into
- Michigan (.■cts of iSy{, p. jiz) and Minnesota
(Laws of 1897, p.4i{) declare that birds protected by law shall always remain the property of the State. When their killing is not prohibited, they may be used in the manner and for the purposes authorized, but not otherwise. the United States only under permit from the U. S. Department of Agriculture, and birds declared injurious by the Secretary of Agriculture cannot be imported into the United States or shi|)pe(l from one State to another. Simple as these propositions may seem, they have been the cause of much discus- sion. Most of them, however, have been passed upon by the higher courts and are no longer open to question. The right of the crown to all wild game was established in England years ago and the State owner- ship of game now clearly stated in the laws of Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Texas and Wisconsin is an in- heritance from the English common law. The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld this claim as well as the right of a State to prohibit killing game for sale (125 U. S. 465), or export (Geer v. Con- necticut, 161 U. S. 519)*. Possession of birds out of season was long regarded merely as evidence of illegal killing, but is now made an offense pun- ishable by fine in several States. The right of a State to make laws regarding birds imported from other States has been vigorously contested and has been va- riously decided by the courts, but the question has now been practically set at rest by the passage of the Lacey Act. Some States have hesitated to encroach upon the rights of the individual, as shown by the exception in favor of land -owners in the section of the Delaware law relating to insectivorous birds, and also by the provisions in the laws of Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, and South Carolina, which permit a person to kill birds found destroying fruit on his own premises. On the other hand, Massachu-
- Those who are interested in practical bird protec-
tion should read the decision of the Supreme Court in Geer v. Connecticut, which is one of the most com- prehensive decisions on game law ever written. It has been reprinted in full in ' Forest and Stream,' XLVI, pp. 20(;-2li, March 14, 1896, and also in 'Game Laws in Brief,' I, pp. 114-150, April, i8yg. A brief but excel- lent popular review of 'Game Laws' by Chas. E. Whitehead maybe found in 'Hunting in Many Lands' (Boone and Crockett Club scries) New York, i8qs.
