195 
tion of law, for the constitutional point seemed to be the 
best and strongest. Practically, I was alone. The Fish 
Commissioner of my own State had gone home and I[ 
was informed that there was nothing of the appropri- 
ation of $14,000 which was available for the purpose of 
resisting this bill, even to the extent of paying for print- 
ing an argument. I was not in funds myself for the pur- 
pose. 
At this juncture something of an inspiration came to 
me. JI remember that at one of the hearings before a 
packed and adverse Committee of our Massachusetts 
Legislature on Fisheries and Game, | had seen a Fish 
Commissioner for the State of Maine, Doctor Edwin W, 
Gould, who seemed somehow to have the idea firmly 
rooted in his mind, that it was part of the duty of a Fish 
Commissioner to preserve fish as well as propagate them. 
I telegraphed for him. I told him that matters were cri- 
tical. He notified me to hold on and he would come on. 
He did so and personally I felt the situation change. 
He brought to the work energy, determination, an 
official position and some little money. The Doctor is a 
physician in active practice; yet for almost three consecu- 
tive weeks he staid on in Washington. The days were 
spent in the Congressional Library, I working on the 
legal, he on the scientific aspects of the question. Eve- 
nings and Sundays were spent at his hotel. The head- 
quarters of the “Fisheries Defence” were Room 8, 
Hotel Hamilton, Washington, D. C., for weeks. A 
brief on the law and a memorial of facts were prepared, 
printed at the expense of the State of Maine, submitted 
to Congress and distributed through the country. We 
desired to visit certain places on the coast, New Jersey, 
Virginia or Maryland, to enlist support we were sure to 
find, but the funds were not sufficient. What could be 
done in other States through the mails we did, and valu- 
able results followed, as we have ventured to hope. 
From this or other causes, representatives began to hear 
