101 



indifferent to augmenting their revenues. Therefore, 

 let us still keep it before the eyes of the proper author- 

 ities that state legislation positively requires conjoint 

 laws to improve the present situation. 



DISCUSSION ON THE PAPER OF 

 DR. JAMES. 



Mr. Anisden : An}^ remarks on this paper just 

 read by the gentleman from Pennsylvania must call to 

 mind one thing. There is almost due, if not past due, 

 a report from the joint commission apj)ointed by the 

 United States and Great Britain, of which Mr. Rath- 

 bourne was one, which commission was to look up this 

 subject of the depletion of the Great Lakes, the cause, 

 and make such recommendations for the future as were 

 deemed wise. I have been looking many months for 

 that report. I think it is now in the hands of the 

 printer. That covers the same ground as the paper 

 just read — this interesting matter of protection. I do 

 not believe that we will ever get any national legisla- 

 tion on this fish question, on account of the jealousy 

 between the states and the state right question. It 

 seems to me that this Association might be of great 

 service in that direction, and do something more than 

 meet once a year, and the thought occurred to me 

 while the paper was being read why this Association 

 could not authorize its President during the next year 

 to take this subject up and go before the Legislatures 

 of the states that stand out, like Delaware and West 

 Virginia, and let him appear before them, and in argu- 

 ment bring them around in line with the other states. 

 The same condition exists on the Great Lakes. There 

 the states do not act in unison, and never have. Then 

 the question of jurisdiction comes up that the states 

 cannot act to form any treaty act between themselves 



