AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2837 



to the theory which has been started here, that mackerel are not a 

 migratory fish at all, but hyberuate in the mud ? A. I cannot precisely 

 say ; but the evidence is quite strong in favor of hybernation of some 

 kind, though I do not consider the case proven in this respect ; at the 

 same time I do not consider it philosophical to refuse to countenance its 

 possibility. 



Q. Will you tell me how, if possible, it could be otherwise, if it is true 

 that the mackerel have, in the spring, scales over their eyes, as has 

 been described by witnesses here, and, as I understand, you admit. A. 

 I cannot say that this is the case; 1 have never seen it. 



Q. If these scales are on their eyes they could not possibly do other- 

 wise than hibernate? A. I cannot say that; I am not a mackerel, and 

 I could not tell what they do or what they do not do. 



Q. Is it certain that any fish, that you are aware of, hibernate in the 

 mud ? A. That is not certain, but it is believed to be the case. 



Q. Do yon know of any fish which certainly does hibernate? A. 

 The eel does. 



Q. Is its eyes protected against the mud by scales ? A. This is not 

 the case so far as I know. It has not been noted or reported. 



Q. How has it become a theory if it has never been noted ? Is it the 

 want of experience with reference to mackerel that you do not know 

 whether scales are found over its eyes or not? A. I have never caught 

 mackerel in the critical period of the year when they are said to have 

 scales over their eyes ; but a specimen which I have preserved in alco- 

 hol did have scales over its eyes, though the action of the alcohol on 

 the cornea of the eye always tends to make it opaque and destroys its 

 transparency. 



Q. Is there any period of the year when mackerel must be prevented 

 from seeing, as far as you can judge from the specimen which you pos- 

 sess ? A. No ; I cannot say that. 



Q. What are these scales for? A. I cannot say. The theory of the 

 fishermen, however, is that it is to curb the roving habits of the mack- 

 erel, and make it more ready to stay in the mud ; and that otherwise 

 they would not want to stay there ; that is the hypothesis of the fisher- 

 men, and I give it for what it is worth. 



Q. You do not assent to it? A. No; it is not proven to be true. 



Q. And it is not disproven-? A. All that is proven in this respect is, 

 that in winter we do not see the mackerel ; they do not then school on 

 the surface, nor do they go to the West Indies, or to Bermuda, or to 

 Florida; nor do they then appear on the surface anywhere as far as the 

 testimony has gone. 



Q. With reference to the inshore fisheries in the State of Maine, and 

 in the States of New England, generally, are they depleted or not? A. 

 The boat-fisheries there are not what they were 50 or 100 years ago ; 

 that, I think, I am perfectly safe in saying; but whether there has been 

 any decrease in them during the past few years I cannot say. 



Q. I now quote from your own report, part second, for the years 1872 

 and 1873, page xi ; it is headed "Conclusions as to decrease of cod-fish- 

 eries on the New England coast," and it states: 



Of all the various fisheries formerly prosecuted directly off the coast of New Eng- 

 land, north of Cap& Cod, the depreciation in that of the cod appears to be of the 

 greatest economical importance. Formerly the waters abounded in this fish to such, 

 an extent that a large supply could be taken throughout almost the entire year along 

 the Banks, especially in the vicinity of the mouths of the large rivers. At that time 

 the tidal streams were almost choked up with the alewives, shad, and salmon that 

 were struggling for entrance in the spring, and which filled the adjacent waters 

 throughout a great part of the year. 



