[153] HISTORY OF THE MACKEREL FISHERY. 243 



be far inferior to those packed under the same number by other firms. 

 In other grades of mackerel the same fraud is practiced, No. 3 appear- 

 ing as No. 2, and No. 4 packed as No. 3. But a small part of the fraud 

 in packing is done within the j)recincts of States that have inspection 

 laws. Most of the fraud is in repacking in Western or Southern States 

 barrels of fish that have been inspected in New England. A large quan- 

 tity of fish are bought of New England packers and are by dealers West 

 and South repacked, and the same frauds again practiced that governed 

 the original packing of the fish. Thus mackerel that are in reality No. 

 3 are first fraudulently packed as No. 2 and later as No. 1. A small 

 short weight of fish and extra quantity of salt is increased until ten 

 barrels of fish become twelve or thirteen. Especially is this short weight 

 liable to be practiced where whole barrels of fish are repacked in small 

 packages containing 25 or 50 pounds, and as in most of the States out- 

 side of New England there is no law regulating the grade of mackerel 

 and quantity required in a barrel, the dishonesty is not illegal, and can 

 be carried on with an impunity only limited by the patience of the cus 

 tomer. 



A chief cause or occasion for fraud is, perhaps, the fact that the in- 

 spectors in States where inspection laws are in force are themselves the 

 owners and packers of the fish. In Massachusetts only the inspector- 

 general is forbidden to be interested, directly, or indirectly in the packing 

 of the inspected fish. Nearly all the deputies, or the men who really 

 do the culling, weighing, and branding, are the owners and sellers of 

 the very fish they inspect. There is little protection against fraud, there- 

 fore, save inthehonesty of the man, and as the moral standard varies with 

 different men, so does the degree or extent of fraud. A strictly honorable 

 inspector would scorn to take advantage of his authority and under 

 the cloak of his commission cheat his customers. Some inspectors, 

 however, have an elastic conscience that will stretch to the point beyond 

 which there is liability of detection either by a superior officer or by a 

 customer. Such men can make old fish appear new by scraping Off' some 

 of the rust, or can from one legal grade offish make two superior grades. 



In Maine there is no inspector-general of fish, so that each inspector 

 is responsible alone to the county or city authorities to whom he is 

 under bonds for the faithful discharge of his official duties. For sev- 

 eral years prior to 1875 Maine had an inspector-general, but in the 

 year named the office was abolished as unnecessary, and inspectors be- 

 came personally responsible for their acts. A loud cry was made in 

 Massachusetts in 1874 and 1875 concerning the abolishment of the offi< e 

 of inspector-general of fish, and numerous articles appeared in the 

 papers of the day discussing both sides of this question, and including 

 the general subject of fraudulent packing. We qnote several of these 

 uews])aper discussions to show the general spirit of the discussion. 

 The following article appeared in the Portland (Me.) Advertiser April 

 4, 1874 : 



