100 
have no doubt where you have hatcheries, where the land 
is right, the formation is right, and you have water 
enough to construct your natural ponds at moderate 
expense, then you can raise your fry up to a yearling at 
a very trifling expense, and in that case yearling planting 
is the best. But you cannot lay down inflexible rules, 
because it depends so much upon location and expense 
and other causes. 
Mr. CrarK—!I do not wish to occupy the time of the 
members on this very much discussed question, because 
there has been so many things brought up here it seems 
to me, only to be answered by another paper another 
year. As to the personal attacks upon me, I have 
nothing to say, any further than this, the quotation as it 
has been remarked here by one paper—which is a per- 
sonal attack, for it uses my name—I made a statement 
that I believe 100,000 yearlings were better to stock 
streams that 5,000,000 fry. And [still believeit. I can 
show quotations from eminent men—more so than myself 
—I think if you will look at the reports, our late Pro- 
fessor Baird made a more rash statement than that. 
We have already had one paper read here to-day by 
some gentleman from England, I think; the statement 
in it is broader than mine, so that my statement is not. 
the worst that ever was. Here are a few figures that 
Mr. Mather gives us in regard to the cost: He makes 
out that fry, or yearlings, rather, cost ten cents a piece. 
I make out that they cost less than acent apiece. Perhaps 
from my paper you did not just exactly understand how I 
arrived at that. I took two years. There was no guess- 
work about the cost of my business, that [know. 1 did it 
on the same principle that your bank examiner of the State 
calls for a report, and takes every book. You simply 
have got to give him a report of what it is. The 
figures for food of those two years were taken from the 
books and accounts of the U. S. Fish Commission, and 
the books are open for inspection; that you will know. 
