120 
that can in any degree interfere with the jurisdiction: of 
the States in the premises, or to affect in any way unfa- 
vorably the work of the States in the protection, multi- 
plication and distribution of valuable food fishes.” 
Afterwards the same subject was again brought promi- 
nently into view by the introduction in Congress at its 
present session of the Lapham Bill, so called (H. R. 
5030), entitled “A Bill to regulate the Fisheries and for 
other purposes.” This bill related on its face to the 
taking of menhaden and mackerel with purse scines 
along the sea coasts and shores of the United States and 
adjacent islands and in the bays, harbors and estuaries 
thereof, but it contained an insinuating reference to the 
great lakes. Its evident aim was to extend the jurisdic- 
tion of the Federal Government over fisheries in waters 
which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the States. 
This bill received such energetic opposition from the 
States of Maine and Massachusetts, aided by the Board 
of Fish Commissioners of Michigan and other States, 
that the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 
to whom it had been referred, decided by a vote of seven 
to six that it was unconstitutional. 
Thereupon the promoters of said bill caused a new 
bill to be introduced which was known as H. R. 7553 
and which was identical in principle with the former one. 
This bill was afterwards unanimously decided to be 
unconstitutional. 
The plan of interesting Congress and the Federal 
Government in the matter of Féderal control of the pro- 
tection of the commercial fisheries, has attracted con- 
siderable attention at various times for several years. 
From a superficial survey of the subject it seems to those 
not thoroughly informed, very desirable because of its 
tendency towards uniform rules and laws governing all 
the fisheries. Consequently the matter has been often 
considered, and while at first blush it appears very pro- 
mising yet the conclusion uniformly reached after careful 
