appropriation for fish hatching may be said to have created this 

 industry. To show with wliat rapidity this business is grovving, it 

 may be stated that in 1879 there were tinned, of Sacramento River 

 salmon, 33,017 cases of forty-eight pounds each, or 1,584,816 pounds. 

 In 1880 there were tinned 62,000 cases of forty- eight pounds each, or 

 2,976,000 pounds. 



The average catch of sahrion in the rivers, before the State added 

 to the numbers by artificial hatching, was five million pounds. This, 

 to persons not controlled by narrow personal interest or cupidity, 

 would be convincing evidence of the wisdom of the State laws for 

 the promotion and increase of this industry. Yet, strange as it may 

 seem, it is the history of the fish industry of every State in the 

 Union, and of all other countries, that when public moneys are used 

 to add to the numbers of fish to be caught, not only the fishermen, 

 but the owners of large capital invested in the business, are unremit- 

 ting and persistent in their applications for the repeal of all laws that 

 place any restriction upon unlimited fishing. The perpetuation of 

 the salmon industry is absolutely dependent upon the fact that some 

 of the fish must be allowed to pass the nets and reach their spawning 

 grounds at tlie head waters. It is only at the sources of streams, and 

 under the conditions there found, that the eggs will naturally develop 

 into fish. It is only when the fish reach their spawning grounds 

 that their eggs have become sufficiently matured so that they may 

 be taken for artificial propagation. These facts are well known and 

 undisputed, yet the Legislature is biennially besieged to repeal the 

 law, or to so change it that practically there shall be no limit to fish- 

 ing while there is a fish to be found in the river. 



From the report of Mr. H. D. Dunn, who, in gathering statistics of 

 the weight of salmon tinned from the Sacramento, may be learned the 

 views of the gentlemen engaged in the salmon canning business. It 

 will be seen that they also, with the fishermen, practically ask a 

 repeal of the law which now allows some of the fish to reach their 

 spawning grounds. They claim that if all nets were removed from 

 the river from Saturday noon until Monday morning of each week, 

 this would allow a sufficient number of fish to pass. They also assert 

 that the present law (except by the canneries) is violated. They, 

 however, neglect to state that if the close season were changed to suit 

 their views, and increase the profits of their business, they would 

 hardly stop to inquire, on Monday morning, whether the fish brought 

 to them were caught on that morning or on Sunday. 



Many changes have been made by succeeding Legislatures in the 

 time for a close season for salmon. Every concession is taken as a 

 basis for further changes, looking to the present profits of the fisher- 

 men and canners. Neither the fish, the public, nor the future of 

 the business appears to have many friends. Any restrictions upon 

 unlimited fishing and unlimited canning, while a fish can be found 

 in the river, is looked upon as a personal injury, inflicted by a med- 

 dlesome and tyrannical government. 



Under the present law the fish have so increased that the annual 

 catch has more tlian doubled. Although the law is violated by many 

 fishermen, yet the canning proprietors have so much capital invested 

 that they fear to violate the law by canning fish out of season. 

 Their obedience compels a partial observance of the law on the part 

 of the fishermen. When the canneries cease work, as required by 

 the present law, fish are usually quite numerous in the river. During 



