EEPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. [160] 



law; gbud I will guarantee that there will never be a general inspector 

 in this State again." 



The question of abolishing the office of inspector-general of fish came 

 before the legislature of Massachusetts in April, 1875, and that office 

 was continued. A communication in the Advertiser of June 4, 1875, 

 in discussing the wants of Gloucester in the regulation of the trade in 

 pickled fish, says : 



" What Gloucester really wants is a closer relation between producer 

 and customer, or, in other words, we want to sell our products directly 

 to the man who supplies the customer. We are entitled to the profit 

 on our goods that our advantage as producer gives us, without having to 

 divide that profit with any middlemen. We want to bring the customer 

 here. Now, if we are going to do a regular distributing business as well 

 as producing, we must do it on business principles. We must have a 

 regular standard quality of our goods to quote to the trade; a standard 

 that is known and established by law, so that when your customer at a 

 distance buys your goods without seeing them, he must know what he is 

 buying ; and further, there must be some one in position when any ques- 

 tion shall arise on the quality of the goods, as between buyer and seller, 

 who must settle the dispute and whose decision must be binding on both 

 parties. This position must be filled by a person of large practical expe- 

 rience and sound judgment ; and though you call him inspector- general or 

 not, you can confine and limit his powers and duties to this one special 

 duty, making him simply referee, with no power to harass or to confiscate. 

 The interesf of yourself, as well as your customers, demands such pro- 

 tection, which must neccessariiy be mutual. We want an inspector- 

 general just that much and no more. 



" Outside of this State there is practically no inspection law touching 

 our goods. So, to more rigidly enforce the law as it stands is to enforce 

 it against ourselves and in favor of outsiders. Any law that says to 

 the man who packs mackerel in Gloucester, you shall put those fish only 

 in such sized packages as are mentioned and no others, no matter if you 

 do brand the exact weight and quality on each package, or whether your 

 customer desires that size or another, is unnecessarily stringent and 

 despotic; especially so when anywhere outside the State the customer 

 can be accommodated with the same goods in just such packages as he 

 wants. That portion of the law should be abolished. We should have 

 the unquestioned right to put our fish in just such packages as our cus- 

 tomers want, provided the quality and the quantity is branded on the 

 package, as on all other kinds of provisions. 



" To resume: We must not abolish the law; it is the protection our 

 customers have a right to ask. We must not abolish the office of in- 

 spector-general, for we need him to enforce the law T in good faith as well 

 as our customers. 



" Let the law be plain and simple. Let the inspector-general be only 

 referee for the buyer and seller, and let any man put up his fish in just 



