AUTOMATIC The Cuairman. Mr. Surevtps. How AUTOMATIC SHOTGUN. Capron. did they do that? By going there and telling the members of these com- mittees that the use of this gun should not be prohibited. I was unable to attend any of these meetings for good and sufficient reasons. The Cuairman. They had public heari ings before these State committees, had they ? Mr. Ca nae ps. Yes, sir; but the burden of organizing delegations to go to the meetings would have fallen on me. I have said in the outset that I have been doing everything I could. Mr. Moon. Your purpose is to protect the game? Mr. Sureups. Yes, sir. Mr. Moon. Do you not think it is better to make a short se ason, and designate in each season the kind of game that should be killed, and how much each man may Inll? Mr. Sutrerps. These things are being done and have been done for vears past, and I have been largely instrumental in securing such laws. These things have all been done. They are merely steps in the right direction. Mr. Moon. What difference does it make to the bird what kind of gun he is killed with, if there are only so many of them to be killed ? Mr. Sutenps. I will come to that directly. The Cuarrman. Are you familiar with the decision of Judge Ross, of the United States circuit court of northern California ? Mr. Sutexips. Yes, sir. A most vigorous lobby was, however, conducted in the facturers against the bill, which was ultimately killed. The board prohibited. recommends Special most attention emphatically has been that given the to interest use the of of the manu- these weapons investigation of. ments made by the sportsmen generally opponents of the measure last session, to the effect approve of the gun, are opposed to its prohibition, are of opinion that it is not an unduly Almost witness every and many has It been is who has have been spoken raised in support objectionable as destructive appeared before or unsportsmanlike the board has been be statethat and weapon. questioned to in private, with the result that not a single voice of it. being unduly .destructive,. because with little or. no practice it can be used as rapidly as a repeating gun in the hands of a: highly trained expert, and it is especially destructive: where a bevy of partridge or quail do not all take wing at the same instant. The most conclusive objection, however, against this gun is that by its use large numbers of birds are wounded which would otherwise escape untouched. The difficulty of estimating the range of birds aimed at is well known. and where the sportsman can shoot four or five times by merely pressing the trigger, the temptation to continue shooting is irresistible, the result being that one, two, or even three shots are discharged at a distance too great for killing, and numbers of birds are hit which are able to escape for the .time, only to die within a day or two. That is from the official report of the Ontario game commission, and I: can show you a report of the Per insylvania State game commission in almost IGN. OF these stated there. thegs ame words. On Nees sata natic ‘They shotoun rec seed d the prehibi- the same reasons and for ve Has there been any law enacted in the Province of dace prohibiting the use of that gun? Mr. Simerps. The bill was defeated there last winter in their committee, and it is up now again with, they say, a fair chance of passage, in spite of the opposition ; but the Provinces of Manitoba and Alberta have enacted laws against this gun, and they are on the statute books there to-day, so that the gun can not be used there legally. The CHAIRMAN. Assuming that this is a highly destructive gun, the Chair would suggest that you discuss what may be the constitutional, legal questions relating to its use. Mr. Sutenps. Yes, sir; I will come to that shortly. Mr. McKinney. And I wish Mr. Shields would take up the discussion m some way of the question why one particular arm should be prohibited in its use, rather than that we should have a general _ prohibition of the use of any arm. Mr. Sutetps. I will say in answer to that question that, personally, I would be glad to see a law enacted to prohibit the use ‘of any gun on God’s earth in hunting any phi animal or bird for at least five years to come. Mr. Hieerns. In other words, you would prohibit absolutely the use of firearms for the hunting of any kind of game? Mr. Sureips. Yes, sir; for at least five years. Mr. Hicerns. And make that general throughout the country ¢ \ Mr. Suretps. Yes, sirf but such laws are impossible to-day. There are 10,000,000 shotguns |in use in this country, and it would be practically impossible to secure the enactment of laws in any State proee — The CHairmMan. Before you finish will you make some comment on that decision ? Mr. Suteps. Yes, sir; I will; but I should now like to read this recommendation by the board of game commissioners of Ontario, continuing from where I left off: SHOTGUN. Bo kc hibiting the use of firearms for any such length of time. A number of States have passed laws prohibiting the shooting of certain species of game for three years at a time, and with very beneficial results. When I say I would prohibit all shooting for five years I am speaking for the Audubon people and for the nonsporting and bird-loving people of this country. There are hundreds of thousands of men and women who do not shoot and who do not approve of the shooting of birds or animals. Personally I like to go out and kill a bird occasionally ; but I would deny myself that. right for five years or for the rest of my natural life if it would result in restoring the birds of the country in such numbers as they were here twenty years ago. There are several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and I can furnish you copies of them any day that you may want them, from the Department of Agriculture, in which the United States Supreme Court has held that the game in each State belongs to the people of the State in their sovereign capacity; that the taking or killing of that game is a privilege which the State may extend to the people; that that privilege may be limited and abridged in any “way that the State sees fit to abridge it. “Mr. Powers. That is as to the privilege of killing? Mr. Suieups. Yes, sir; and of selling. Mr. Powers. We have that in my State. Mr. Carron. That is true always, acknowledging that the authority of the State covers this entire subject: I should like to ask you ‘if you do not think that the Territorial legislatures of the several Territories have absolute jurisdiction over this subject so far as the Territories are concerned, barring Alaska ?