justice of the peace fining a man even $100. I worked to get the manu- 

 facturing industries to cooperate. I do not want to put any manufacturing 

 industry to extra expense or trouble, nor do I want them to close their 

 plants, because our cities have invited the industries into their communities, 

 offering free sites in many instances. 



One of the pulp mills got an engineer and spent about $47,000 and the 

 manager told me it was the best work they ever did. They put in a plant 

 whereby waste was used for some by-product which they are selling. We 

 received complaints from Thomas Creek on the Monocacy River, one of 

 our great bass streams. A very fine dust from a stone quarry in Pennsyl- 

 vania was allowed to go into the stream on which this manufacturing 

 plant was located. That grit would stick to the gills or throat of the fish 

 and cause death. Of course, the fish could not go through the water with- 

 out getting the grit. I could not do anything as that manufacturing in- 

 dustry was in another State. Federal legislation could do something, but 

 not State laws. We can pass all the laws we please in the State of 

 Maryland, but some of these streams come from Pennsylvania and 

 some from West Virginia, and under our State laws it is impossible to 

 prosecute violators not located in our State. We would prefer to have 

 Federal Legislation alone take care of the question of pollution. 



Mr. Bullek : At the last session of the legislature of Pennsylvania 

 the Department of Fisheries carefully drafted a bill carrying a fine of 

 $2,000 to enable it to better cope with this situation. This bill was widely 

 advertised and public hearings were held, and I regret to say that at those 

 hearings we received no cooperation from the public at large, the people 

 who complained of the conditions. Every manufacturing interest of any 

 importance and the mining interests were heard. In spite of their protests, 

 the Department of Fisheries was able to get the bill out of the Committee 

 on Fisheries to which it had been referred, and it passed the first reading 

 in the House of Representatives. On the second reading it was referred to 

 the Committee on Municipal Corporations and nothing further has been 

 heard from it. I have failed to learn what interest that committee has in 

 the pollution of streams. I hope Wisconsin will be more successful in 

 getting this legislation than we were in Pennslyvania. 



Mr. a. L. Millett, Boston, Mass. : Massachusetts has laws enough in 

 regard to pollution but enforcement is well nigh impossible. The conference 

 in Washington called by Secretary Hoover was intended to be a step for- 

 ward, to improve if possible upon local handling of the matter. It was 

 not the idea to take away State rights. I presented the case for Massachu- 

 setts at that hearing, and my stand was backed by the gentleman from 

 Louisiana, which shows that we were pretty much in accord. Virginia, 

 Maryland, South Carolina, and Georgia all did likewise. AVe discussed the 

 subject in a great broad way. We on the coast are up against oil pollution 

 by steamers. The waste dumped by those steamers comes into every port, 

 so that today in the New York fish trade the designation "Standard Oil" is 

 applied to certain kinds of lobsters and fish because they simply reek of 

 petroleum. The meeting was an honest effort to do something with the 

 pollution question. Whether Wisconsin or Massachusetts, there is no State 

 in this country that can handle the pollution problem by itself. The question 

 of State rights was very nicely gotten over by Mr. Hoover's splendid way 



129 



