Page:Condor3(3).djvu/28

86 THE CON DOR Vol. III THE CONDOR. Bulletin of the COOPER ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB OF CALIFORNIA. Published bi-monthly at Santa Clam, Cal., in'the interests and as Official Organ of the Club. CHESTER BARLOW, Santa Clara, Cal., Editor and Business Matlager. WALTER K. FISHER, Stanford University Cal. HOWARD ROBERTSON, Box 55, Sta. A.. Los Angeles. Associates. Subscription, (in advance) One Dollar a Year. Single Copies, - ...... 25 Cents. Six Copies or more of one issue, ta? Cents Each. Foreign Subscription, - ..... $r.25. Free to Honora .ry Members and to Active Members not in arrears for dues. Advertising rates will be sent on application. Advertisements and subscriptions should be sent to the Business Managers. Exchanges should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Entered at the Santa Clam Post-office as second class matter. This issue of The Condor was mailed May, rS. EDITORIAL NOTES. ?ird The sweeping Bird Protection 1%oteetion Bill projected in the recent Cali- Bill fornia legislature by the Cooper Defeated Ornithological Club, and known as Senate Bill II4, has failed to become a law. It was reasonably expected that a bill of this natnre, having suecessfnlly buffeted the ad- versities of both houses of the legislature, would receive the governor's sane+ion and con- sequently become a law, but in this instance bird protectionists were doomed to disappoint- ment and upon Governor Gage alone rests the odium of relegating California to its former position of a non-protective bird state. This was the first concerted effort to place California on a bird protection plane, and that all concerned with the bill labored faithfully and well is a matter of general knowledge. The bill, with but little substitution, passed both houses of the legislature and few doubted that the governor would add his signature and ap- proval to the proposed statute, the sole possible effect of which would have been for public good. However, for some inscrutable reason, the bill was permitted to ' suffer the "pocket veto." Thus it becomes apparent that Cali- fornia's governor has no appreciation of measures which savor of the ?esthetic. He has evidently not kept apace with the work of bird protectionists in the United States. and considers such movements but lightly if at all. To bewail the short-sightedness of the gover- nor at this juncture is a waste of both words and energy. The fact remains, that the Cooper Club through its able member, Senator E. K. Taylor, prepared and carried to success- fulcompletion the only thorough bird protec- tion bill which has yet been considered by the California legislature. Practically the ertlire credit for the successful handling of the bill rests with Senator Taylor, whose legislative work was marked throughout by a combina- tion of brilliancy, energy and conscientious- ness. His effective efforts not only carried the bill through the Senate but practically through the Assembly as well, and to him the bird pro- tection forces of California may well look for a legislative leader. The failure of the bill may be attributed to a variety of sources, the true one being best explained by the governor providing he could be persuaded to become communicative. The most plausible inference is that the governor feared to act in the face of the considerable op- position developed by the bill in the legisla- ture. This opposition, it should be under- stood, was but the natural outcome of placing such a sweeping bill before a legislative body, many members of which had little or no idea of the scope of the proposed measure, if in- deed they could give a comprehensive defini- tion of bird protection. In the face of such conditions Senator Taylor's work is the more remarkable. The killing of this measure permits vandals to slaughter songsters and non-game birds as before, and the hordes of ignorant foreigners may continue to snare all manner of wild birds, which vicious and destructive practice has al- ready been pointed out in the columns of this journal. It is indeed lamentable that the chief executive of a state, rich in its bird life as is California, should disregard a plea backed bv scientists, fruit~growers and the public alikE. The result is disappointing, but bird-protec- tionists may still accomplish much valuable local work, and recruit their forces for unother effort two years hence. Several months having elapsed since the ini- tial numbers of at least two bird magazines were given the pnblic, with no subsequent is- sues to bridge the gap, we may naturally in- fer that January has proven an unpropiqous anonth in which to launch such publications, or at least this assumption seems applicable to the two journals in question. Such occur- fences--all too frequent of late years--ten 1 to shake public confidence in the stability of new magazines, while publishers may justly reserve the "glad hand" until they know whether their "coBgratulations" are to concern one lonely number,--or more. It is true that every magazine must have its beginning, and all publishing efforts, if they be characterized by regularity of issue, become entitled to the confidence and patronage of the ornithological fraternity. Numerous magazines are unpreteutiously piling up volumes to their credit, and we may cite the ?/ilson t3ullelin, The /ourhal of the .'l[aine Ornilholo?ical Sociely and :Voles on /eltode land Ornithology as examples of publications which are accomplishing praiseworthy work in their givelt fields. Ornithologists, and even the ntuch-abuse.t bibliographer, are ready to