THE SEA FISHERIES OF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA. 213 



Q. Would not that, in your opinion, confirm the theory that the cod is not really 

 a migratory fish ? — A. It would. That is very good evidence that there is no great 

 migration. 



Q. There is another question I wished to ask you. You gave us a very interesting 

 account of a company that has been formed for the purpose of catching these pre- 

 daceous fish, and you seemed to think it would have the effect of materially dimin- 

 ishing their numbers. Well, if human meaus can reduce the predaceous fish, would 

 you not think that the appliauces that are being used by fishermen must be dimin- 

 ishing the edible fish? — A. I don't think that the amount captured by man has any 

 appreciable influence upon the supply of fish in the sea. 



Q. Well, that is what I understood you to say.— A. That whatever effect is pro- 

 duced by waste or extravagance in the capture of the fish is itself so trifling, in pro- 

 portion to the natural wear and tear of the fish, that it may be thrown entirely out 

 of account. The report of the British Fishery Commission is very satisfactory on 

 that point. 



Q. The only reason why I asked the question was that you seemed to think this 

 company would succeed in reducing the number of predaceous fish. — A. Well, those 

 are large and take a long time to get their growth. You can imagine a limit to the 

 abundance of certain fish like the shark, though you cannot to the other fish, such 

 as the cod and the mackerel. 



Q. You are United States Commissioner. Are you clothed with authority respect- 

 ing the several States of the Union ? — A. No. 



Q. Well, have you any authority ?— A. I have none, except that they are all per- 

 fectly willing to have me spend all the money I will in their ports, and that they are 

 willing to have me put as many shad, salmon, and cod, and useful food-fishes as I 

 think I can spare in their waters. 



Q. Have the United States collectively or the individual States the constitutional 

 control over their fisheries; that is, their inshore fisheries ? — A. The river fisheries are 

 underthe control of the several States, and the question of the jurisdiction of the sea 

 fisheries has not yet been settled. For the present it lies in the States. The general 

 Government has exercised no control or authority on the inshore fisheries. 

 By Hon. Mr. Kellogg : 



Q. Referring to your hypothesis about the waters of the world being supplied with 

 one kind offish as another leaves, what have you to say in regard to the whale fish- 

 ery; what is going to supply that?— A. Well, a fishery diminishes to a certain extent 

 until it does not pay, and then is abandoned. After being let alone it increases and 

 again becomes a profitable enterprise. 



Q. Have any of the species of fish that were used in ancient times disappeared ? 

 They used fish in ancient times just as much as they do now. Do you know of any 

 tribe having actually disappeared ?— A. The only kind of fish that has gone entirely 

 out, so far as I know, is a kind of mackerel that was formerly found, known as the 

 chub-mackerel or big-eye mackerel. It was formerly well known. Thirty years ago 

 it was extremely common, a steady measurable article of the fish supply. I have been 

 in search of specimens ever since I have been in my present line of inquiry, and have 

 a standing offer of $25 for a specimen, but it has not been produced. There are many 

 instances of the local abandonment of extensive shores. For instance, herrino - was 

 formerly abundant on the coast of Sweden. 



Q. Do you refer to a distinct species of mackerel ?— A. A totally distinct species. 

 We had two species on our coast and now we have only one. I dare say there may 

 be a few, but we don't find them as formerly. 



