REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. [154] 



" To the Editor of the Advertiser : 



u In your issue of March 31 I noticed an article beaded ' Fish Inspect- 

 ors,' from which readers not familiar with the business would receive a de- 

 cidedly wrong impression, as they would infer that the inspectors of fish 

 are in favor of abolishing the present law by whicb they are governed. 

 But such is not the case. The whole difficulty seems to rest with one 

 or two •fish buyers; they are anxious to have the law repealed, and 

 those acquainted with tbe fish business can easily understand the motives 

 by which they are prompted. The fishing interest of Portland is of vital 

 importance, and should be protected, and every honorable influence 

 brought to bear to encourage fishermen living east of Portland to bring 

 their fish here to market; but if the views of some of the fish buyers 

 should be carried out, it is evident that not only vessels from the east 

 would pass this port, but vessels that are owned andpack their fish here 

 would be Obliged to seek another market. 



"All the regular deputy inspectors of fish in this city have presented 

 a petition to the governor praying that the present manner of conducting 

 the business under a general inspector may be continued, and the present 

 incumbent, who has served so faithfully and impartially, may be reap- 

 pointed for the usual term of five years, believing that it is the best and 

 most judicious course to pursue both for the buyer and inspector. 



" The old system, as it is termed, has been tried, and it failed to give 

 satisfaction. Under the present law. a general inspector is appointed 

 to take the entire charge, and he appoints his deputies, who are re- 

 quired to give bonds for the faithful performance of their duties. Mas- 

 sachusetts has the same law, and we hear no complaint. 



" You s ate that ' by the old system deputy inspectors were appointed 

 who were, generally speaking, connected with the fish business, and on 

 them the responsibility rested, and at that time Portland fish stood very 

 high.' Under the present law all the deputies are directly interested in 

 the fish business, and they know that if these fish are not put up accord- 

 ing to law the responsibility rests upon them. Upon whom else can they 

 throw the responsibility ? They inspect the fish and brand them, and 

 have .uiveu bonds as the law requires. You 'would not imply there is 

 deterioration in Portland fish, but yet the deputies have been inclined to 

 be careless.' So it seems that, although the deputies have been careless, 

 yet the fish is up to the standard! Then what reason is there for com- 

 plaint ? I am inclined to believe that the writer of the article was either 

 misinformed, or else he wished to abuse the public mind with the impres- 

 sion that the general inspector had an exorbitant salary, and that this 

 office entails an expense upon the merchants. The compensation of the 

 general inspector last year was about three hundred dollars, and it is all 

 paid by .his deputies, who are assessed one cent per barrel for all the fish 

 they inspect. So far as regards the quality of the fish, there is a law 

 w I) ich definitely states what is required to constitute the different grades 

 oi fisu, so that the inspector has his instructions from the law, and there 



