222 KEPORT O^ftOMMISSIONEE OF FISH AND FISHERIES. 



long usage, ;i prescriptive rigbt to occupy these places to the exclusion 

 of all others. 



It will be borne in miud that the committee who were appointed to 

 make the investigation which w%as reported at the January session, 1857, 

 and which report I have read to you, were appointed upon the petition, 

 as we are informed by Mr. Childs, who was himself a member of that 

 committee on the part of the senate, of persons engaged in tantog fish- 

 ing at and about Newport. 



In their report they say that "no evidence was offered to the commit- 

 tee that these kinds of tishing in other parts of the bay were injured by 

 the traj) or seine fishing in Seaconnet River;" and that they were satis- 

 fied that these fisheries "should not be interfered with or restrained, un- 

 less it seriously interfered with the fishery in the other waters of the 

 State, or some other very important reason," 



This opinion comprehends by implication also this, that if the fisheries 

 in the other waters of the State were seriously interfered with by the 

 trap-fisheries, then these last should themselves be interfered with and 

 restrained ; but there was no evidence of this nature brought before them. 



Nearly lilteen years have passed away since this investigation was 

 made, and now complaint is made by those interested in the fishery 

 throughout the whole bay. Their opinion is clear and positive, that the 

 trap fishery has not only seriously affected the scnptishing, but has 

 destroyed it ; and whether it can be revived and restored to the state it 

 was when the former committee was sitting, depends, in their o])inion, 

 ui)on the recommendation of this committee. 



In concluding this presentation of the various ciuestions that have 

 arisen under and are necessarily connected with the inquiry referred to 

 you by the legislature, I am sensible that I have not exhausted the 

 subject, and that much more might 2)crti neatly he said to strengthen and 

 support the position assumed by the petitioners; but rather than 

 exhaust your patience, I will rely upon your own recollection of the 

 various statements of those you have examined, with confidence that 

 \vhere I may have omitted to state correctly or to mention all the evi- 

 dence bearing upon the points I have attempted to maintain, or upon 

 others, you will not fail to give them their proper weight. 



In the course of the investigation as to the cause of the scarcity, it is 

 evident that not only does such scarcity prevail, but that the same is 

 the case with the other fish caught in these traps, viz, sea-bass and 

 tantog ; and the conclusion is forced upon us that if, as the remon- 

 strants contend, this scarcity is caused by the scup changing its former 

 haunts for new ones ; that the sea-bass and tautog are doiug the same ; 

 and that our waters are to be deserted, or if this is not so, then that 

 the scarcity is caused by the traps and heart-seines. 



All the witnesses not interested in traps, 1 believe, without exception, 

 some who have been engaged in the business, and some who are engaged 

 in seining, are strongly of the opinion that trapping causes the scarcity, 

 and that it o\ight to be prohibited. 



And this leads me to observe that the efforts of the remonstrants have 

 been entirely directed to prevent any interference with the Seaconnet 

 traps, and, as it appears to me, they are ready to throw over all the 

 outsiders if they can gain their object. 



Should the committee think proper to re])ort in favor of the pr'ti- 

 tioners, and to recommend the passage of an act prohibiting or regulat- 

 ing trap and other seine-fishing, I would urge that they be notexcei)ted 

 from such provisions. 



There is no question but what these trap-fishings have been important 



