Evening Republican, Volume 19, Number 72, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 26 March 1915 — DECISION ABOUT MIGRATORY BIRDS [ARTICLE]

DECISION ABOUT MIGRATORY BIRDS

Hold* That When Within Boundaries of State They Are Under State Jurisdiction. The Republican had a brief mention a few days ago about the decision of a federal district judge in Kansas regarding the killing of migratory birds. The decision is creating much interest with hunters and a more complete account of the finding will be eagerly read. The Kansas City Star thus gives the history of the test case and the decision of Judge Pollock: “In a decision filed today with Morton Albaugh, clerk of the U. S. district court, Judge John C. Pollock- of the federal district court holds that the federal game law, generally known as the migratory bird law, is unconstitutional. _ “Judge Pollock holds that the U. S. congress has no jurisdiction over the game in any of the states', and that the separate states only, and not the federal government, have the right .to enact laws for the regulation or protection of game. The case in which the decision is written originated in Fort Scott. George L. McCullaugh, a banker of Galena, Dexter Sapp and H. B. Savage were arrested on complaint filed by Fred Robertson, U. S. district attorney, on a charge of shooting ducks out of season and in violation of the federal law. A demurrer to the complaint was entered by the defendants, and the present decision is in ruling on this demurrer. “The decision is of interest, not only to the sportsmen of Kansas, but to those of all other states. “Fred Robertson said today that the case will be appealed to the U. S. supreme court. “In his decision Judge Pollock says in part: “The act challenged is believed to be 'the single instance in the entire legislative or judicial history of this nation or the composing states, in which a contrary law has been expressed. Unless a departure, as radical in theory as it is important in its effects, is to be made from fundamental principles long established by our lows, and long acquiesced in by our people, the act in question must be held incapable of support by any provision of the organic law of the country. If the act in question shall, on any ground, or for any reason be upheld, it must surely follow the many laws of the separate states of this union, must hereafter be held to be operative, for there can be no divident authority of the nation and the several states over the single subject matter in issue, with either safety to the nation or security to the citizens. And this for the reason although - a power of control be delegated by the constitution to the national government, still such power may be exercised by the states until congress acts.' “ ‘To the fact that the little and exclusive power of control over wild game coming within the borders of a state of this country resides in the state, and not in the nation, the following cases bear indisputable proof.' “Here Judge Pollock cites a mass of decisions upholding his contention.”