﻿68 
  KEPOET 
  OF 
  THE 
  COMMISSIONER 
  OF 
  FISHERIES. 
  

  

  FLORIDA 
  SPONGE 
  FISHERIES. 
  

  

  After 
  seven 
  years 
  of 
  earnest 
  but 
  futile 
  effort 
  the 
  Bureau 
  has 
  found 
  

   the 
  act 
  of 
  June 
  20, 
  1906, 
  for 
  the 
  protection 
  of 
  the 
  sponge 
  fisheries 
  

   unenforceable 
  in 
  all 
  of 
  its 
  provisions. 
  The 
  purpose 
  of 
  this 
  law 
  was 
  to 
  

   protect 
  the 
  sponges 
  off 
  the 
  coast 
  of 
  Florida 
  outside 
  of 
  territorial 
  juris- 
  

   diction 
  by 
  preventing 
  diving 
  for 
  them 
  at 
  all 
  times 
  in 
  certain 
  depths 
  of 
  

   water, 
  and 
  at 
  certain 
  times 
  in 
  all 
  depths, 
  and 
  to 
  prevent 
  the 
  taking, 
  by 
  

   whatever 
  means, 
  outside 
  of 
  1 
  he 
  3 
  mile 
  hmit, 
  of 
  sponges 
  less 
  than 
  4 
  inches 
  

   in 
  diameter. 
  The 
  offenses 
  at 
  which 
  the 
  act 
  was 
  aimed 
  are 
  not 
  specifically 
  

   prohibited, 
  but 
  they 
  were 
  supposed 
  to 
  be 
  prevented 
  by 
  the 
  prohibi- 
  

   tion 
  of 
  certain 
  subsidiary 
  acts 
  — 
  the 
  landing, 
  curmg, 
  or 
  offering 
  for 
  

   sale 
  in 
  the 
  United 
  States 
  of 
  sponges 
  taken 
  in 
  contravention 
  of 
  the 
  

   real 
  purpose 
  of 
  the 
  law. 
  To 
  secure 
  a 
  conviction 
  it 
  is 
  therefore 
  neces- 
  

   sary 
  to 
  establish 
  a 
  connection 
  between 
  (1) 
  the 
  act 
  of 
  taking 
  under 
  

   the 
  objectionalle 
  circumstances 
  and 
  (2) 
  certain 
  subsequent 
  and 
  

   secondary 
  acts 
  which 
  in 
  themselves 
  are 
  innocuous. 
  A 
  diving 
  vessel 
  

   operating 
  during 
  the 
  close 
  season 
  can 
  not 
  be 
  interfered 
  with 
  until 
  the 
  

   sponges 
  are 
  landed, 
  cured, 
  or 
  offered 
  for 
  sale 
  in 
  the 
  United 
  States. 
  

   The 
  sponges, 
  therefore, 
  must 
  be 
  followed 
  or 
  traced 
  from 
  their 
  beds 
  

   in 
  the 
  high 
  seas 
  to 
  a 
  point 
  of 
  territorial 
  jurisdiction, 
  a 
  requirement 
  

   which 
  it 
  is 
  usually 
  impossible 
  to 
  satisfy. 
  

  

  Acting 
  through 
  customs 
  officers 
  of 
  the 
  Treasury 
  Department, 
  vari- 
  

   ous 
  arrests 
  of 
  persons 
  and 
  seizures 
  of 
  vessels 
  and 
  sponges 
  have 
  been 
  

   made, 
  but 
  no 
  convictions 
  have 
  been 
  secured 
  except 
  in 
  one 
  lot 
  of 
  cases 
  

   in 
  which 
  the 
  accused 
  pleaded 
  guilty 
  and 
  took 
  appeals 
  which 
  have 
  not 
  

   yet 
  been 
  brought 
  to 
  issue. 
  In 
  these 
  the 
  evidence 
  on 
  which 
  the 
  prose- 
  

   cution 
  based 
  its 
  action 
  was 
  the 
  sworn 
  statement 
  of 
  the 
  master 
  of 
  

   each 
  vessel, 
  in 
  which 
  the 
  facts 
  necessary 
  for 
  conviction 
  were 
  admitted. 
  

   After 
  this 
  experience 
  the 
  masters 
  of 
  the 
  sponging 
  vessels 
  have 
  refused 
  

   to 
  make 
  further 
  admissions 
  of 
  this 
  character 
  and 
  no 
  other 
  sufficient 
  

   evidence 
  is 
  obtainable, 
  as 
  the 
  terms 
  of 
  the 
  law 
  are 
  such 
  that 
  no 
  

   further 
  seizures 
  or 
  arrests 
  can 
  be 
  made 
  unless 
  the 
  offenders 
  again 
  

   furnish 
  evidence 
  against 
  themselves. 
  

  

  The 
  various 
  defects 
  aheady 
  referred 
  to 
  were 
  called 
  to 
  the 
  attention 
  

   of 
  Congress, 
  and 
  on 
  July 
  12, 
  1912, 
  the 
  Senate 
  passed 
  a 
  bill 
  (S. 
  6385) 
  

   designed 
  to 
  correct 
  them. 
  Opposition 
  to 
  this 
  measure 
  developed 
  among 
  

   certain 
  persons 
  interested 
  in 
  the 
  sponge 
  fishery, 
  and 
  the 
  House 
  Com- 
  

   mittee 
  on 
  Merchant 
  Marine 
  and 
  Fisheries 
  conducted 
  a 
  hearing 
  on 
  the 
  

   subject 
  on 
  August 
  1, 
  1912, 
  since 
  which 
  time 
  no 
  action 
  has 
  been 
  taken. 
  

  

  Efforts 
  to 
  enforce 
  the 
  law 
  have 
  continued, 
  but 
  the 
  Bureau 
  is 
  now 
  

   confronted 
  with 
  an 
  opinion 
  of 
  the 
  Sohcitor 
  of 
  the 
  Department 
  hold 
  ■ 
  

   ing 
  that 
  while 
  the 
  Secretary 
  is 
  empowered 
  to 
  direct 
  the 
  agents 
  of 
  the 
  

   Department 
  to 
  perform 
  such 
  duties, 
  not 
  inconsistent 
  with 
  law, 
  as 
  may 
  

   be 
  necessary 
  to 
  enforce 
  the 
  provisions 
  of 
  the 
  act, 
  he 
  is 
  not 
  authorized 
  

   to 
  direct 
  them 
  to 
  make 
  arrests 
  or 
  seizures. 
  As 
  the 
  law 
  can 
  not 
  be 
  

  

  