DECREASE OF FOOD-FISHES IN AMERICAN WATERS. 33 



that the State's guardianship of its public waters is not intended as a curtailment 

 of individual rights, but an undeniable prerogative to be exercised for the promotion 

 of the public good; and that, therefore, to disregard its commands is practically as 

 much a misdemeanor as would be the illicit appropriation of any other State prop- 

 erty. While the fish are the actual property of the people, the people have delegated 

 to their legislative representatives the duty of enacting laws for their protection, the 

 same as though they were public property of any other kind. To insist upon com- 

 pliance with restrictive fish statutes is therefore no more an infringement of popular 

 rights than is the law requiring that public moneys shall be paid over to the State 

 treasurer, to be disbursed by him only in rigid accordance with legislative enactment. 



This may seem an extreme view of the case, but, practically and thoughtfully con- 

 sidered, it will bear no such interpretation. When it is thoroughly impressed upon 

 the public mind, the first and most important step in the direction of restored fish- 

 fruitfulness will have been taken. 



Not many years ago insectivorous birds were regarded as nuisances, or at best 

 worthless, except for food. Farmers, in many cases, encouraged their extermination. 

 But when their grain fields were devastated, their fruits destroyed, and their incomes 

 lessened by noxious vermin they began to look around for the cause and a remedy. 

 It was very readily demonstrated that the enormous increase of crop enemies was 

 mainly due to the destruction of the birds. Laws for their protection were demanded 

 and enacted. Bird slaughter ceased, farmers laid aside their shotguns, the idle 

 hunters who traversed the country in every direction, invading private property and 

 indiscriminately killing birds of every kind, were driven away, and respect for the 

 laws was insisted upon. To-day the farmers are receiving their reward in the form of 

 increased crops of grain and fruit. It was the argumentum ad crumenam — the appeal 

 to the purse — the potent influence of the almighty dollar, that wrought the change, 

 and such would in all probability be the result if people could be persuaded to believe 

 that duty to themselves and to the State demands obedience to the fishery laws, as 

 well as cooperation with the authorities in the efforts that are made to replenish our 

 waters. 



Allusion has already been made to the lax manner in which magistrates, con- 

 stables, and wardens generally discharge their sworn duties in regard to the fishery 

 laws. It is a fact that will not be disputed that, whether from negligence, indisposi- 

 tion, or the dread of being looked upon as informers, in not one case in a hundred are 

 transgressors of those laws called to account, though the authorities whose duty it is 

 to arrest and punish are fully cognizant of the perpetration of the offenses. A reason 

 for this is found in the largely prevalent opinion, already referred to, that fish in public 

 waters are the rightful property of any one who can take them, at whatever season 

 and by whatever means. Officials who honestly discharge their duties are regarded 

 as informers, and it does not need the saying that the role of the informer is a very 

 ungracious one, which private citizens are unwilling to play, however strongly they 

 may be inclined to right a public wrong. 



But why should this feeling so generally prevail '? There is no such hesitancy 

 in respect to other misdemeanors. The sentiment is erroneous and mischievous. It 

 can not be defended either on moral or legal grounds. A magistrate who, having 

 knowledge of the perpetration of a misdemeanor, fails to bring the perpetrator to 

 justice, rightfully subjects himself to impeachment. Why not in cases of inisde- 



F. C. B. 1893 — 3 



