193 
return; that representatives from our fishing ports like 
Gloucester and from fish distributing points like Port- 
land, Boston or New York saw good cause to support 
the bill? It is even unintelligible that an official of the 
United States should allow a confidential subordinate 
most disingenuously testify for the greatest fish destroy- 
ing agency of modern times and himself personally to 
endorse a bill which would have made ignorance and 
ambition supplant knowledge and intelligent interest in 
control of the great fishing interests of the States of the 
Union? 
With this incessant, well directed, well supported work 
the cause of the defenders of fisheries did not invite com- 
parison. The disadvantage under which the public 
interest labors compared with private interest, showed 
out clearly from the first in alarming contrast. There 
were, of course, certain Representatives in Congress who 
gave consistent and loyal support to the cause of fish pre- 
servation in spite of threats and at much personal incon- 
venience. Messrs. Milliken and Boutelle of Maine; 
Hoar and Randall of Massachusetts, more especially 
Mr. Seth Milliken, gave their personal attendance to the 
hearings of the Committee and every possible assistance 
to the representatives of the cause. Mr. W. A. Jones 
of Virginia made an excellent argument against the con- 
stitutionality of the bill. In other ways and through 
the members, undoubtedly excellent work was done. 
But necessarily much of such work was disconnected 
and without co-operation or general direction. It was 
done in most cases in the interests of other business by 
men having large matters on hand and without the bene- 
fit of special knowledge or experience. Much of it was 
offset by the efforts of other Congressmen like Coggs- 
well, Paige or Lapham in favor of the bill. Necessarily 
such systematic work as must be done fell to other hands 
and these were few and not especially practiced. 
Really, gentlemen, it was at first disheartening, indeed. 
