THE TRAFFIC IN FEATHERS.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXIX, Issue 10767, 16 May 1911, Page 1

THE TRAFFIC IN FEATHERS.

WHY IMMEDIATE LEGISLATION IS NECESSARY.

In view of the steady growth of public, opiniqn in favor of some form of legislatioh\to suppress the London trade 111 wild birds' plumage used for mil-lmetj-t.th'fe textile section of the London Chamber'of Commerce' have considered it expMite'nt-to "issue oil the eve of the opening of Parliament what is described as the case for the defence of. the feather 'trade. It may be said briefly that the defence offered Contains no facts with _ which the public are not already, familiar. It Would only be l going over old ground' to discuss anew the question of ' cruelty in regard to" the hunting and slaughtering of birds for trade purposes. Nor need we' seek to prove,, in face of so much existing expert scientific evidence, how many species, of birds are being exterminated in tlie same interests. The facts' are beyond dispute,' and were thoroughly established by the' Select Committee :of the House of Lords which two and "a half years .ago considered Lord Avebnry's Importation of Plumage Prohibition Bill..

Nothing has transpired since this 'com-' I mittee "sat to alter the decisions' arrived at when it was clearly shown' bow necessary it was to invoke Parliamentary aid. to assist the' colonics and 1 India iu carrying out'-their 16'cal laVs for bird protection. Rather is'the reverse the case. Time lias shown that however; necessary the proposed' sure was= deemed'then,-it is incalculably more urgent now. : Indeed, how grave the situation lias become may be gathered from the "fact that it few. months ago a petition was presented to the Colonial Secretary from, the self-gfiverning' colonies asking; that' ■steps might be taken to assist them in 1 enforcing tlieir laws to protect native birds, arid' pointing but that so long as there: existed ah open market in London for illicit exports it was utterly impossible effectually to prevent the enormous' drain that was being made on the bird'life of the colonies. It is hardly possible to exaggerate the' critical condition of' many of tlie more rare and' beautiful birds of out - cokmies, due to their destruction in the millinery interest, arid to save what still remain by a Parliamentary measure is a duty imposed on the Mother Country, which calls for fulfilment, even at the eleventh hour. The Times, voicing a similar plea, a month or two ago stated in reference to Lord Avebury's Bill that the most substantial objections < urged against it were that the closing of the London market to wild birds' plumage might divert the traffic to the Continent, and so deprive British workers of employment. It has been pointed out, how-: ever, again and again that the, work of curling, cleaning and dressing wild birds' plumage is mostly done abroad, and is carried on to a very minor extent in England, save in the ostrich feather industry, which, of course, is a perfectly harmless and quite legitimate trade. Moreover it is self-evident that were the feather trade confined to the forms of millinery that do not entail the slaughtering of rare birds, a stimulus would l be given to the fabrication.of artificial feathers and flowers and other kinds of hat decoration. So that a Bill to protect the avi-fauna of the various parts of the British Empire would not throw workers out of employment, but have quite the contrary effect, and this to a very appreciable extent. In face of the loud and persistent outcry made by the feather trade that a protective measure such as the' colonies are asking for would jeopardise a British industry, it is as well to inquire how far the complaint is justified. It is inadmissible that any people in England would be robbed of employment, but it is not contended that the plume hunters and feather smugglers, having no longer a medium for the remunerative disposal of their ill-gotten quarry, would be compelled to resort to a less burglarious' means of livelihood. We submit their plight makes little demand' on the public sympathy. In regard to the receivers of the smuggled plumage it may be asked with all respect what property rights the London traders claim for the wild birds the colonies demand as a right. to retain for the benefit of their agriculture, their forestry, and their citizens. The feather trade, in their efforts to obscure the i. l -.sties, have freely insisted that sympathisers with any form of bird protection are "sentimentalists," "egotistical humanitarians," and "wellmeaning but badly-informed agitators." The. trick is not ,i,t all a bad one. There is no word that awakens more anxiety iu the breasts of commercial men for the safety of their particular interests than the epithet sentimentalist. It implies the shattering by unpractical busybodios of the pillars of prudence, and common-rsense oil which our trade is ' reared. But with all its ingenuity the trick is no new one. It was practised ad nauseam in the old slave-trading days, when the emancipators agitated to suppress a "legitimate and honest trade," and threatened' "an important industry." .• _ The truth is, the economic side of bird protection far outweighs any feelings of sentimentality, strong as they may be. To denude a country; of its insect-killing and ' vermin - destroying birds- is an open invitation" to plague and pestilence and a menace to agriculture. . " TM evidence of the" representative of the Board of; Trade before the. Select Committee already referred ;to lias been freely quoted by the feather trade in their own. "defence. Much has happened since it was takeii to modify the conclusions to be' drawn from it. The passage is as follows: —

••Our view about the Bill (Lord Aveburv's) generally is that so far as the objects of the Act are stated in the memorandum' we do not quite see* how they are going to be ' carried, out,] except. by. virtue of some international agreement. It seems to us that to prohibit the importation into one particular .country'would be but a' very small step towards thfe'preservation of whole species (if-birds,'-and that, although we should b : e'prepalred to recommend, spine prohibition, which was the Tesult of an international agreement, and which would carry out effectually the objects stated.in. the memorandum, yet-, we do not see what the justification is for interfering wjith a particular trade of such unless it is certain, that thpse objects would be, , carried o.ut ; Those birds, com.e, from. tropical countries and from British colonics,, and itseems to. us. that, unless sb'me legisla,tion .were, actually introduced ; in the places where are captured, -or, as an.alternative, amongst the importing nations generally, the, mere Woliibitry would not have any.great effect." . "In rejoinder to the necessity J of introducing legislation in tne places where the Trirds are captured' it "Tiiay'be said that all the colonies' of Great Britain; with'" but few insignificant" exceptions, have passed ; laws to protect native birds. But'as has been said, these laws ■cannot be enforced effectually, for obvious reasons," so long as a market exists in London for the disposal of smuggled plumage. -The same facilities tend to render the Indian laws for the protection of native birds inoperative. In this matter the British colonies have done their part, and the occasion offers for the Imperial Parliament to do - hers. But there -still remains the question of an international agreement. Already a move has been made in this direction Last summer ornithologists from all parts of the world met in congress at Berlin, when it was generally agreed that measures mn=t he taken internationally to prevent the present wanton slaughter of birds. The likelihood of such measures being achieved depends entirely on England. If an opportunity can be found in the new Parliament to pass into law a Bill embodying the proposals or the colonies, a lead l will be given to those countries which look to us to-take" the initiative. It will be the first step towards an international measure advocated by a representative of the Board of Trade.