Newspaper Page Text
Itenut HitMinr j TARDIEU NEXT FRENCH PREMIER? 1 -niTrii... The report comes from Brest, * i : ••-• w France, that Andre Tardien will he the ''" next French premier. In that strong* xl hold of socialism the men who make MM? \ politics what it is in that end of \ France predict the resignation of Pre \ mier Clemenceau before long. j---- t Political gossip has it “The Tiger” will retire with colors flying, taking no chances of asking the chamber of f . J& > deputies to vote its confidence in the . M'MM; i government. Much of this talk comes v^V :V ' • from circles in which are the support ■ JMmki ers of Deputy Goude of Brest, member % of the extreme left, who has led the liL.:- • v fights against Clemenceau. This speculation is coincident with J V : the arrival here from the Black sea ' v 0 f the French warship Justice. Now, it was aboard the Justice that the sailors mutinied in Sebastopol and in whose behalf Deputy Goude demanded port of the motion, 100 members ab staining from voting on the question. Those whose chatter in a political strain predict that Clemenceau will address the chamber and point out that he has brought France to a just peace that his work is done, and that he will resign. CARSON’S MESSAGE TO AMERICA The Irish question is always in- teresting. While President De Valera £ ' of the “Irish republic” is here to raise £,• . . \ money and is greeted by enthusiastic y ~'X N crowds, Sir Edward Carson, the Irish _ unionist leader, is telling the United States to mind its own business. In a “Heaven knows I want good feel ing between America and this country. I believe the whole future of the |jt W world probably depends upon the rela- .£}£ tions between the United States of- ’) America and ourselves, but I am not f going to submit to this kind of a cam- lykj Jf£ country, however powerful, "it Is riot for that we waged the great war of independence which has jusf been con cluded. What right had an American mission to come to this country—come here in a breach of hospitality of one nation toward another —to attempt to stir up strife in matters in which they were not concerned ? “The encouragement those men gave the Sinn Fein party has created for the British government far more difficulties than ever before.” WOULD KEEP PRESIDENTS AT HOME -PP Wl , , , , Pi. »P»II ■ »PP - ■ 1 —" i The president of the United States would not be permitted, during his term of office, to leave the country or to perforin the duties of his office ex cept at Washington, under a bill intro- BSllßliiiPw duced by Representative Campbell of ■ "*■ - Kansas, chairman of the house rules ; IMp!? committee. The bill’s text follows: : ; .v : . ' - y “Be it enacted by the senate and IpF • . house of representatives of the United •: States of America in congress assem ’ ilk* 1 J' \ bled, section 1, that from and after 5 ,Cyk-.'i* • • wr* I the passage of this act it shall be un- M lawful for the president of the United Ak States, during the term of his office, -.l&mf to absent himself from the territorial jurisdiction of the United States or to perform the duties of his office at any other place than at the seat of govern llllllllllt ment established by the act for estab lishment of the temporary and perma nent seat of government of the United States, approved July 16, 1790, to W hich this act is an amendment.” Representative Campbell had prepared a lengthy address on his bill in which he sharply criticized President Wilson for going to Europe for the peace conference, but unanimous consent for its immediate delivery was refused by Representative Blanton, Democrat, Texas. [ LADY BEATTY’S RICHES COSTLY An income of $200,000 a year is r- supposed to insure one from fear of the wolf at the door. But not if one v'k. lives in England and owns property A, 'fa.. in the United States. Here is what happens in the case of Lady Ethel Beatty, wife of Adinira| Sir David per cent of her income on the ground * kjfell that she is a British subject, being ***•••"' married to a Briton. And the United , s!'• ? States government takes GO per cent , because her property is in America. Her income is known to be between 4#M $200,000 and $300,000 a year, because it is only on incomes of that amount that 60 per cent is levied. jf • Say, then, that Lady Beatty draws ' $200,000 a year from her property. £ The British government takes SIOO,- ffifHlTruai 000. the American government takes OTTCTro = ; -• . $120,000, and her income is $20,000 " ~ ’ess than nothing at all. If her income amounts to $280,000 the British govern ment tQKes $140,000, the American government takes $168,000, and Lady Beatty pays *528,000 more than she gets. ARIZONA STATE MINER C# t IgEg^redarory Animals .liKiimiiin M* ' HILE the appropriations ! for the department of ag riculture were under con sideration in the house the following memorial from 7 New Mexico was read: “Whereas, we believe that the work of exterminating predatory wild ani mals and range-destroying rodents car ried on under the direction of the bio logical survey during the past few years has been very successful, and that under the thorough organization and efficient plans of that bureau this evil will be largely minimized, if not entirely removed, provided the differ ent states will heartily co-operate with the federal government in its plan of work; and “Whereas at the present time the funds appropriated by congress for this purpose are wholly inadequate to meet the real requirements of the bio logical survey in carrying on this work, and on that account the results ob tained are not satisfactory in most sec tions of the West; and “Whereas it is our belief that the present laws of the states should be repealed, and in lieu thereof the vari ous states should, through their several legislatures, enact laws appropriating sufficient money to equal the amounts to be expended by the federal govern ment in the different states, and that such state appropriations should be ex pended under the direction of the bio logical survey, to be handled in con junction with the funds appropriated by congress; therefore be it “Resolved 6y the New Mexican Cat tle and Horse Growers’ association, in convention assembled at Albuquerque, N. M., March 25, 26 and 27, 1919, that we urge congress to appropriate the additional sum of $300,000 for imme diate use in the extermination of preda tory wild animals and range-destroy ing rodents, and that we petition the various states to make appropriations at least equal to the amounts expend ed by the federal in the various states, said money, both fed eral and state, to be expended under the direction of the biological survey.” This question of predatory wild ani mals and rodents —which are also predatory animals in the true sense of the word, inasmuch as they raid and pillage the crops—is a serious one in many parts of the West. The case of New Mexico is typical; so the remarks of Representative Hernandez of New Mexico concerning the situation are of interest. He said in part: “One of the serious problems con fronting those engaged in promoting increased production of food crops and meat animals was the tremendous dam age to growing crops and to range grasses caused by prairie dogs and other rodents, and the loss of cattle, sheep, and poultry from wild animals. Investigations by the United States bi ological survey show that the annual losses in the United States from preda tory wild animals amounted to several hundred million dollars, and the loss from rodents is probably greater. The annual loss in New Mexico was vari ously estimated at from fifteen to twen ty-five million dollars. The method used by the biological survey has been perfected by years of investigation and experimenting and is very success ful. The “kill” of prairie dogs is gen erally from 85 to 95 per cent by the use of poisoned oats. They followed up the work by using poisoned rolled barley and later by using fumigants, such as bisulphide of carbon, with which, if carefully and thoroughly used, a good start has been made. “The biological survey had co-opera tive arrangements in several states for j c&ro2Z^Atß& •< •: \ ■■■. :■ ong OA'HzZsZiarrs exterminating rodents and predatory wild animals, and in every case the results are much more satisfactory and less expensive than under the bounty system. I have before me now a par tial report made by the men in charge of this work in the southwestern part of the country through the council of defense of the state of New Mexico. “In the spring of 1918 the governor of the state authorized the use of $25,- 000 from the fund known in our state as the war fund, and under an agree ment covering the plan for the co-oper ative work as executed. Under this agreement SIO,OOO of this amount, in conjunction with an equal amount by the department of agriculture, was set aside and applied in reducing losses in live stock due to predatory wild ani mals, an increased force of hunters was placed in the field, trapping was resorted to by this experiment; the results have been very satisfactory. “State hunters have a total of 1,972 days, at a cost of $5,741.44. They have taken 642 coyotes, 124 bob cats, 14 gray wolves, 5 predatory bears, includ ing 3 grizzlies. The average cost of animals in June was $88.87; in July, $8.53; August, $5.93. The government operations in the state during the same periods cost $9,225.70, and resulted in the killing of 417 coyotes, 77 bob cats, 41 gray wolves, 13 mountain lions, 2 bears. No reasonable estimate of dam age inflicted by predatory animals that has been advanced can show anything other than the return on this invest ment of a very high rate of Interest. The estimate generally accepted—and It is conservative, indeed, in view of the present high value of live stock — is that each gray wolf destroys an nually SI,OOO worth of live stock; each mountain lion, $500; each coyote and bob cat, SSO worth; predatory bears may be rated in the same class with wolves. On this basis the saving rep resented in this co-operative work is nearly nine times the amount of ex penditure. Thus you will observe that the estimated saving to the people of the nation, you might state, is $131,500, at a cost of about $20,000.” While the facts presented by the New Mexican representative are not clearly arranged, they afford a glimpse of the situation that prevails pretty much all over the far West, and the whole nation is interested, too, as Mr. Fernandez said in closing: “We are all interested in that in dustry. We send our wool —20,000,000 or 25.000,000 pounds —to the cities of Philadelphia and Boston, so that those merchants can have that product, which will increase the employment of their people. We send our meat to the packing houses. All the American people are interested in that. There was a time when the people did not care how many animals were destroyed by predatory beasts, because meat was plentiful. But since meat has become all the way from $lO to sls, instead of from $1.50 to $2.50, we urge that the department give us experts in co-oper ation with our own activities for the extermination of these pests.” It is true that predatory wild ani mals, like the mountain lion and wolf, are expensive. The biological survey is emphatic in its statement that the average gray wolf kills SI,OOO worth of live stock a year, and a mountain lion SSOO worth. The coyote, which is the smaller prairie wolf, rivals his big cousin in destruction. The biological survey claims to have reduced the wolf population of New Mexico by 260 in dividuals in three years. Incidentally, naturalists and sports men will be interested in the state ment by the biological survey that in the Pecos mountain region bears have been very destructive. The survey uses these words: “During the recent grazing season bears killed approximately 125 head of valuable cattle in the Pecos region. Similar damage in the Black range and in the Mogollon mountain makes it evi dent that a total of at least 250 head of cattle as well as a large number of sheep were killed by bears. These facts are worthy of consideration, in view of the general and concerted efforts now under way on the part of sports men to enact legislation that will pre vent trapping of bears or hunting them with the aid of dogs.” Naturalists and big game hunters hold that bears seldom kill big game or stock, and that when individual bears get the stock-killing habit it is an acquired taste. Big-game hunters holding these views have been active in promoting state legislation for the protection of grizzly and black bears, which otherwise are doomed to speedy extermination except in the national parks, which are wild life sanctuaries. The warfare against prairie dogs, chipmunks and other rodents is less exciting, but there is much more money at stake. In New Mexico in four summer months co-operative work in exterminating prairie dogs was conducted over 652,000 acres of in fested land, 3,403 landowners assisting in the work. An average of over 90 per cent of the prairie dogs was killed. On the untreated land the total loss of the crop, or at Iqast a 50 per cent loss, often occurred as a re sult of prair'e-dog infestation. It is estimated that the crop saving effected by prairie-dog control amounts to ap proximately $500,000. Multiply this by a dozen or more— the number of states doing the same kind of work —and the size of the job is apparent. A new angle to the situation is the recent public announcement that prai rie dogs are good eating and that vari ous towns in the infested areas are go ing to put them on thi® bill of fare.