188 
Union, whether seaboard or inland. To be sure, it 
applied directly but to mackerel and menhaden, but the 
possibility of its passage was based upon a larger general 
power and none of its advocates denied the fact. After 
the most careful examination which I have been able to 
give the subject, it is, in my opinion, perfectly clear that 
there is not the slightest foundation for the contention 
that, as matter of law, Congress has the power here 
claimed. Nothing is clearer than that within the terri- 
torial limits of a State (that is, speaking generally, within 
a marine league of seashore States), it is not within the 
powers of Congress to abrogate or contravene a State 
fishing law. The contention of the friends of the bill is 
a most contradictory tissue of half truths and non-sequit- 
urs, frequently even relying upon verbal quibbles and 
more often upon failure to give due weight to qualifying 
principles So far as the present state of the decisions is 
concerned, the rights of the States have nothing to fear 
from the legal aspect of the Lapham Bill. 
While, however, it is satisfactory to know that Con- 
gress cannot amend State law, it is equally satisfactory to 
remember that it is by no means powerless in the pre- 
mises. While Congress cannot abrogate State law, it 
can supplement and aid it. Under its power of prohibit- 
ing importation and of regulating American vessels 
engaged in fishing outside State limits, Congress can 
practically enforce a close season and probably limit the 
effect of destructive methods of capture by removing a 
profitable market or by forfeiting the Government license 
in case of violation, by those on board, of the Act of 
Congress. This power is well illustrated in the passage 
of the Mackerel Law of 1887, now expiring by limita- 
t10n. 
In further exercise of its power to regulate commerce, 
Congress may prohibit between States the transportation 
of fish which would, by the laws of any State be for- 
feited and by the easy process of making such offense 
