NATIONALISM IN STATE FISHERIES. 
By C, A. CHAMBERLAYNE of Massachusetts. 
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: 
It is with very justifiable hesitancy that I ventured to 
address this presence I am afraid that my practical 
knowledge of fishculture is limited to a fascinating trout 
brook found in that part of Massachusetts known as 
Cape Cod, along the banks of which some most delight- 
ful hours of my life have been spent. I must plead 
guilty to a dense ignorance on the subject of those inge- 
niously constructed but not entirely settled /atza dzsepuotias 
of the inhabitants, depths or shallows, for which I have 
constantly and so far successfully retied upon a certain 
commissioner from the State of Maine, who is detained 
from you to-day by a sickness, which he greatly regrets. 
But, while it will be impossible to masquerade before 
you as a worthy associate in any scientific aspect for the 
means of national definition of approved knowledge and 
experience gathered here, it may still be permitted to 
claim such brotherhood in the great guild of friendship 
for the fisheries or may properly be conceded to careful 
consideration of the fish food supply of the country, and 
at least partial appreciation of the importance of its pre- 
servation, and some knowledge of certain of the obvious 
dangers that threaten it. 
It has been suggested that a word or two might pro- 
perly be said of that attempt at national legislation called 
the “Lapham Bill.” The suggestion is a flattering one, 
for the Lapham Bill is interesting in itself, in its history, 
and still more for what it represents. It is difficult to 
say whether it is more worthy of examination in the 
legal, the scientific or the political side. What the bill 
proposed originally to do is not disputed. It attempted 
to revolutionize the control of State fisheries, to nation- 
alize them. Its purpose was, and its effect would have 
been, to abrogate all important fish laws of the entire 
