the task of
enforcing the law by means of game wardens and other officials. That
is, the survey was to collect the evidence in cases of violations, and
the prosecutions were to be conducted {187} by the Department of
Justice. To enable these officials to execute the law, Congress has
appropriated $50,000 annually--which is just about one tenth the
minimum amount needed for the purpose. This paltry sum has been
expended as judiciously as possible with marked results for good.
Trouble, however, soon developed in the courts. One autumn day Harvey
C. Schauver went a-hunting on Big Lake, Arkansas, and finding no Ducks
handy he shot a Coot, which was against the law. When the case came up
in the Federal Court of Eastern Arkansas, the judge who presided
declared that the federal law under which the defendant was being tried
was unconstitutional, and wrote a lengthy decision, giving his reasons
for holding this view. Within the next two months two other federal
courts rendered similar decisions.

At this point the Department of Justice decided to bring no further
cases to trial until the United States Supreme Court should pass on the
constitutionality of the law, the Arkansas case having {188} already
been brought before this tribunal. At this writing the decision has
not been rendered.

_Only Bird Treaty in the World._--Early in the history of the
operations of this law the possibilities of an adverse decision by the
Supreme Court were considered by those interested in the measure, and a
plan was found whereby all might not be lost if such a catastrophe
should occur. The first movement in this new direction was made by
Elihu Root on January 14, 1913, when he introduced in the Senate a
resolution requesting the President to propose to the other governments
the negotiation of a convention for the protection of birds. A
proposed bird treaty between this country and Canada was then drawn up,
and after much effort was brought to a successful issue and was finally
ratified by Congress on September 29, 1916.

This treaty broadly covers the provisions of the Migratory Bird Law in
this country, so if the Supreme Court declares the latter to be invalid
the Government still stands committed to the {189} principals of
migratory bird-protection by virtue of the treaty.

So the long fight to stop spring shooting and provide short uniform
closed seasons for shooting shore birds and wild fowl is drawing to a
glorious conclusion