EEGULATION OF THE SEA-FISHEKIES BY LAW. 01 



Peroliance this is oue of those cases where the stopping the practices 

 comphiiiied of is the only means of accurately knowing what the ultimate 

 eli'ect of tlieir continuance will be. 



Should the trapping- and ixiunding of these fishes be suspended for a 

 time, and the fish should thereafter steadily increase in numbers, the 

 question would be settled. 



The matter is of consequence enough. Would it not be worth while 

 to try the experiment ? 



In this view of the case, all we have to show is, that these novel, and 

 what we claim are improper, methods of catching fish, are a probable 

 cause of the scarcity complained of, having fii'st shown that the scarcity 

 exists. The burden of proof is then logically shifted, and it is for the 

 trap[)ers to show that their metliods do not consume these fishes faster 

 than their natural increase. 



They have then one further point to make — that by their wholesale 

 modes of fishing they do not interfere with the rights of others, for 

 nothing is clearer settled in the law than that all uien have the right 

 to catch tisli in the bays, iidets, .and arms of the sea, and that no nmn 

 has the right to catch fish to the injury of others in theu' rights. Then 

 we inquire — 



Firstly, have the fishes under consideration become scarce? 



Secondly, are the methods of catching them, by pounds, weirs, and 

 traps, a probable cause of such scarcity I 



In answer to the first, we claim that they have. 



Both in Massachusetts and Khode Island it was at first stoutly de- 

 nied that there was any scarcity of the fishes named, yet it was testified 

 to. by most of the witnesses in both States, and Mr. Atwood finds him- 

 self at last compelled to admit it, and then goes on to try to account 

 for it. 



The interrogatories put by the joint special committee of the general 

 assembly of Ehode Island were in vvriting, and were eighty-two in num- 

 ber. They were answered in so far as they severally knew, by thirty- 

 nine witnesses, under oath. 



Twenty-eight of these interrogatories bear directly npon the question 

 of scarcity, and thirty-seven of the witnesses swore that they had 

 grown i)erceptibly scarcer year after year, except during two years, 

 when the traps had been broken up by storms. 



The testimony of the Massachusetts witnesses is not in print that I am 

 aware of, but from my notes I find that every hook-and-line fishernum 

 anmng them, except one, agreed with the Rhode Island witnesses upon 

 this point. 



Add to this the testimony of every amateur fisherman with whom I 

 have conversed, many of whom are men of superior knowledge, accus- 

 tomed to observe everything with regard to the fish they catch, some of 

 v.iiom have made their o})inions })ublic in works of standard inerit, and 

 we have evidence sufflcient to establish the fact of the increasing scarcity 

 of these fishes, beyond a reasonable doubt. 



Again, and more conclusive than the testimony of all these witnesses, 

 the scarcity of these fishes has become notorious. All along the shore, 

 from Point Judith to Monomoy, it has been and is now a general cause 

 of com[>laint. Everywhere you go, in any seaport town, the fishermen 

 will tell you what they used to do, and all the inhabitants are lamenting 

 .the time when they could go out and catch a " mess of fish at any time." 

 But now it is not so. 



If there remained any doubt as to whether it was proved that these 

 fishes have become scarce, the Massachusetts committee, in their report 



