hat it would be an excellent thing if spring shooting
of all migratory game birds should be stopped everywhere. But the
legislatures of many states paid small heed to the little minority of
their constituents who voiced such sentiments, and the problem of how
to bring about the desired results remained unsolved.

[Illustration: Egret brooding on a Florida island owned and guarded by
the Audubon Society.]

_The Theory of Shiras._--In the year 1904 a United States Congressman
announced to the country that he had found the proper solution for
settling once and for all the question of spring shooting, and for
putting to an end the ceaseless wrangling that {178} continually went
on in the various legislatures when the subject was brought up. This
gentleman, George Shiras, 3rd, planned to cut the Gordian knot by
turning over to the Federal Government the entire subject of making
laws regarding the killing of migratory game birds.

In December that year he introduced a bill in Congress covering his
ideas on the subject. This radical proposition created merriment in
certain legal circles. Was it not written in the statutes of nearly
every state that the birds and game belong to the people of the state?
Therefore what had the Government to do with the subject? Furthermore,
were there not numerous court decisions upholding the authority of the
states in their declarations of ownership of the birds and game?
Others saw in this move only another attempt toward increasing the
power of the central government, and depriving the states further of
their inalienable rights. This remarkable document was discussed to
some extent but nothing was done. Four years later {179} Congressman
John W. Weeks reintroduced the bill with slight modifications. Nothing
came of this any more than of the bill that he started going in 1909.
In 1911 he again brought forward this pet measure toward which Congress
had so often turned a cold shoulder. Senator George P. McLean set a
similar bill afloat in the troubled waters of the Senate. Nothing
happened, however, until the spring of 1912, when committee hearings
were given on these bills in both branches of Congress.
Representatives of more than thirty organizations interested in
conservation appeared and eloquently sought to impress the national
lawmakers with the importance and desirability of the measure. Both
bills were intended for the protection of migratory game birds only,
but the repres