REPORT OF STATE BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS 53 



that we were not disappointed. Through their attorneys they had 

 vigorously attacked the constitutionality of the former law, but were 

 defeated in the State Supreme and Federal courts. Several of the 

 leading Chinese shrimp dealers, previous to the legislative session of 

 190>, had called at our office and stated that they would spend no 

 more money to contest the law; that they were satisfied it could not be 

 broken, but desired that we should recommend to the Legislature that 

 two months be stricken from the close season, claiming that four 

 months was too long, and produced petitions signed by thousands of 

 our people asking that it be reduced. It was then suggested that we 

 might recommend a twelve months open season, instead of the ten 

 months they asked, but forbid the exportation of dried shrimps and 

 shrimp shells. This, of course, was promptly rejected, as it meant 

 putting out of business about two thirds of the boats, and depriving 

 them entirely of the profits of exportation. Consequently, in our 

 Eighteenth Biennial Report we gave a detailed account of the destruc- 

 tiveness of the shrimp fisheries on small fish, and the disposition made 

 of the catch, in order to draw especial attention to the need of retaining 

 the then existing law, hoping that the opportunity might arise through 

 which we might secure the present greater restrictions, which affect 

 none but aliens. When what was known as the "boodle scandal" 

 became public, Commissioner W. E. Gerber, believing that to be the 

 time in which to secure legislation to further discourage the destruction 

 of small fish, by preventing the exportation of dried shrimps and 

 shrimp shells, suggested the substitution of a bill carrying those pro- 

 visions. After satisfying ourselves that such a measure would not be 

 unconstitutional, it was substituted for the one already on the files, 

 which embodied all proposed amendments relating to fish, but had 

 recommended no change with regard to the shrimp law. We are 

 pleased to say that this measure quickly passed both legislative 

 branches and encountered no opposition until doubts were raised, as to 

 its constitutionality, by parties working solely in the interests of the 

 Chinese, who hoped by that means to obscure the main issue, which 

 was that they would rather operate under the restriction of a four 

 months close season than to have the profits in exportation of dried 

 shrimps and shrimp shells permanently stopped. Through their attor- 

 neys they have since made three test cases or attempts to have the law 

 declared unconstitutional. The matter was carried to the United States 

 District Court, the United States Circuit Court, and the State Supreme 

 Court. They were defeated in every instance. From present indica- 

 tions they will probably attempt to have the law amended at the forth- 

 coming session of the Legislature, so that they may again export shrimps 

 and shrimp shells, with probably a two months close season. We 

 urgently recommend the retention of the non-export law. 



