It was a well-known principle that views on important 

 subjects which evoked no opposition were of very little 

 value ; and, in addition to many important ideas which 

 had been suggested by Mr. Fryer— some of which he en- 

 dorsed, and on some of which he might have had something 

 to say if there had been time — the discussion which had been 

 elicited was also of importance. In fact, the great object 

 of these gatherings was to cause such discussions, and to 

 get the people of the country thoroughly alive to the 

 meaning of all these vital questions connected with fishery 

 economy. The objects which Mr. Fryer had proposed were 

 all exceedingly praiseworthy, though he agreed with Mr. 

 Wilmot that he ought also to have referred to an object 

 which was of equal importance — that of fish-culture. At 

 the same time the collection and dift"usion of knowledge, 

 and the proper utilisation of the fish supply were all ex- 

 ceedingly important. Whether this could be safely left 

 to a Society or not was a question for each Government 

 to determine for itself. The people of the United States 

 would not feel safe in committing an interest of such great 

 importance, which related not only to the interests of fisher- 

 men but to those of everyone in the country, to the care 

 of the few individuals who might or might not take an 

 interest in it. Twelve years ago, the carrying out of 

 these important objects was in the United States com- 

 mitted to an executive official who was of equal importance 

 with the Minister of Agriculture. He did not propose 

 to enter into those questions which had been touched upon 

 by the gentleman who had preceded him, though the one 

 referred to by Dr. Day was exceedingly important, namely, 

 the question whether the eggs of those herrings which spawned 

 far out at sea were hatched, and whether the young fish 

 would thrive as well as those hatched nearer shore. Now, 



