PLEADINGS. 199 



accidentally broiigbt out without the knowledge of their effects upon 

 the subject-matter. 



By comparing and examining these, it not unfrequently happens re- 

 sults are produced that completely overthrow tlie theory they were 

 expected to support. 



In order to arrive at a rational, careful, and correct judgment of the 

 effect of traps upon these fish, I shall endeavor, by the light of the lim- 

 ited information we are able to obtain, and of some of the facts as to the 

 habits of fish, to show that the theories upon which the trappers mostly 

 rely" are deceptive and unsound. 



And, as a part of the information, I shall refer to various books on 

 the general subject, and in relation to the particular subject-matter, to 

 the report of the joint special committee, and to some of the statements 

 of the witnesses accompanying it; the latter, however, to be taken as 

 hearsay testimony, if no greater weight can be accorded them. 



In an inquiiy of the character now under consideration, the committee 

 must, from its very nature, depend in a great degree upon the state- 

 ments of the persons appearing before it, of whom many, if not all, 

 are more or less interested, but none so much as the trappers and those 

 connected with them. In the testimony of these last, much has been 

 stated upon information derived from others. Desiring that the com- 

 mittee shoultl be possessed of all the information the question afforded, 

 I have not objected to the reception of such hearsay testimony, except 

 for the reason that the testimony taken under oath before the joint special 

 committee was ruled out. 



I am yet to be convinced that this testimony, so taken, and for the 

 purpose for which it was taken, is not as full}' entitled to credit as much 

 that was presented to the committee, especially since there has been 

 nothing adduced to question its authenticity and correctness, or to con- 

 tradict the facts or opiuions therein stated, any further than the evidence 

 at that inquiry on the part of the trappers tended. 



With all due deference to the committee, I must confess that I am still 

 of the opinion, particularly after conferring with gentlemen conversant 

 with the usage i)revailing in such investigations before committees of 

 either house, that the committee was incorrect in its decision, and did 

 not follow the customary practice usual and necessary in such cases. 



Inasmuch as the question is one affecting the interests and rights of 

 every citizen of the State, it would seem but reasonable that witnesses 

 coming before the committee should be paid for their time and expenses ; 

 but as the honorable Senate declined to provide for this, and as there 

 was no other way to procure the evidence of persons acquainted with 

 the subject of and interested in the hook-and-line fishing, except by tlieir 

 voluntary appearance, I had to content myself with the few that did 

 appear, and who were sufficient, and all, that in my opinion, were neces- 

 sary to establisli the main points of our case, trusting to prove the re- 

 mainder by the testimony of the witnesses on the other side. 



Several very important witnesses reside at such distances that they 

 could not be expected to present themselves at their own expense. 



I hold that the tra^^pers are and have been endeavoring to establish, 

 as the nmin support of tbeir cause, two principal theories, viz: 



1. That scup and other similar fish cannot be affected, as to numbers 

 and size, by any kind or any amount of fishing. 



2. That scup, w^hen caught at Seaconnet Point in the traps, are on their 

 way to the eastv>'ard, out of the waters of the State. 



A third, subordinate to and connected with the last, is — 



3. That scup found above Stone Bridge are lost fish, coming in by the 



