American Fisheries Society 305 



thing shall not be done. If the public is apathetic about it, 

 and the people who desire to abuse it are powerful, why, 

 naturally, the act becomes a dead letter. Perhaps this is 

 equally applicable to your country as to mine. Anything, 

 therefore, that this Society can do to reach and interest the 

 plain people will, I believe, be of immense benefit to the 

 cause it represents, especially in the direction of securing 

 the practical enforcement of the fishery regulations. 



The members of this Society meet, as I take it, to educate 

 one another; to advance the science of fish culture. It is a 

 meeting more or less of experts. I would ask them, how- 

 ever, not to disregard the little suggestion that I make; to 

 come down, as it were, from their position as experts and to 

 occupy the platforms before simple country audiences, and 

 to talk plain facts to the plain people. 



DISCUSSION 



Mr. W. E. Meehan: As ray friend Mr. Evans has mentioned my 

 name in connection with the work in Pennsylvania, I will say that I 

 tried to make it clear in my paper that whatever credit might be due to 

 the Department of Fisheries for what was done, equal credit was due 

 to the Department of Health, which has done quite as much as the 

 Department of Fisheries. 



If a person were riding through Pennsylvania on the train, he might 

 think nothing has been done, but I want to say particularly with refer- 

 ence to what Mr. Evans has said concerning publicity and educating th» 

 people, that I am in hearty accord with that proposition. It has been 

 a policy of mine ever since I have been commissioner. I suppose I 

 spend one-third of my time in the State of Pennsylvania, in the 

 smaller towns principally, talking fish culture, fish propagation, and 

 pollution, wherever I get a chance, and it has a wonderful effect. It 

 has had much to do, I think, with solidifying public sentiment. It has 

 gone this far: Public sentiment has got so strong in the State of 

 Pennsylvania that every now and then we are honored, either in the 

 Department of Health or my Department, by a request for us to be a 

 guest and to talk on this question of water pollution and the best and 

 wisest methods of getting rid of it. It has progressed to such an extent 

 that we are often called upon to do that. I believe it is a good thing. 

 I think if it were more general the sentiment would be stronger in the 

 states. Mr. Titcomb does the same thing in Vermont, and I suppose 

 many of the commissioners in other states do the same thing. It should 

 be followed systematically and continuously. 



Mr. R. E. Follett, Pittsfield, Mass. : I do not think stream pollu- 



