of handling the matter. He termed it federal aid to the States, help to the 

 States in handling this great problem. He did it very nicely. He clearly 

 showed a strong disposition to help. He said that it was very evident to 

 him that the States could not handle this problem individually and he was 

 willing to come in and assist. 



Take the case of the Merrimac River. Probably quite a number of you 

 are aware of what the Merrimac means to the cotton industry. For three 

 miles there is nothing but factories along that river. We cannot put them 

 out of business for the sake of the few fish that may come up some year, 

 or five or ten years from now. The matter must be looked at in a broad 

 light. Some rivers, where there are but few factories or other small inter- 

 ests, can be reclaimed, but on other rivers we have not much of a chance. 

 We are all interested in fish, but we must look on both sides of the problem. 



Mr. Carlos Avery, St. Paul, Minn.: The fact that Secretary Hoover, 

 with his great influence and prestige, has taken an interest in this subject 

 offers the first ray of hope in all the years I have heard this question dis- 

 cussed by this Society. The Secretary has recognized what we know to be 

 the fact, that the pollution problem is far greater in the Atlantic Coast 

 States than in our inland States. We do not know anything about pollution 

 in the sense that the streams are poisoned in the east. Pennsylvania cer- 

 tainly has knowledge of it, and I think the situation exists practically 

 throughout the country. States may pass laws, but, however stringent 

 they may be, it is practically impossible to enforce them. Therefore, I 

 hope that this Society will go on record as endorsing the movement of 

 Secretary Hoover in the strongest possible way. 



Mr. M. G. Sellers, Philadelphia, Pa. : The Federal Government exer- 

 cises jurisdiction over streams with respect to navigation and I think it 

 would be one great step in advance if we could induce Congress to exercise 

 some power over streams on the question of pollution. I think we ought to 

 admit, without further argument, that this job is too big for any State ; it 

 must be an interstate job, a federal job. I want to suggest that the Ameri- 

 can Bar Association undertake the preparation of a model statute on 

 stream pollution which the individual States may adopt. 



Mr. J. M. Crampton, New Haven, Conn. : No subject interests Con- 

 necticut more than pollution. This important question is being handled by 

 a lot of lawyers in the legislative halls of our States. We see the results at 

 home and we should clean house first. Norwich, Conn., is as well located 

 for taking care of waste products as any city in the United States and if 

 it would do so the Thames could be filled with fish. Where have our shad 

 and black bass gone? We are not producing today 10 per cent of the fish 

 we did. Take our oyster and shad industries and the fishing industries 

 throughout the State, even the lobsters, and you will find they are all 

 contaminated where they border the cities. This should not be. Com- 

 missioner Block of Connecticut says that at comparatively small expense 

 each industry could do away with all of the pollution in our Naugatuck 

 River where today it would take the hair off a mule's leg to wade across it. 

 Unless this subject is taken hold of by the Federal Government you will 

 never see any radical change. 



Mr. Barber: I admire Mr. Hoover as much as does any man here. 

 But the Federal Government cannot come in and tell us that we must clean 



130 



