113 
fish caught is a fish gained and every fish saved is one 
lost to the community; that the fish destroyer is the 
“poor man’s friend,” and that fish preservation is the 
work of ‘‘dudes” and ‘‘sportsmen;” that the State and 
National Commissions, searching for truth from reliable 
sources, without bias or improper motive, are ‘‘theorists,” 
while those who are endeavoring to support foregone 
conclusions, intensely profitable to themselves, by the 
best evidence they caught, are the “practical” men 
relying on demonstrated facts; that if “free fishing” 
were only ordained, the farmer would raise unlimited 
cotton, wheat and other crops -with cheap fertilizers ; 
the shoemaker get cheaper oil, and everyone be 
content and happy; such is the literature with 
which the combination is flooding our people and 
driving into their heads. All these constitute what 
these gentlemen call a “record,” and is implicitly 
appealed to as such. 
(2) This shrewd and careful, farseeing and persistent 
work can only be carried on by organzzatzon. An 
association of poachers would have been as unheard of 
as “Coxey’s Army.” But the “Commercial Fisheries” 
firmly believe in organization. No trade interest is 
better organized. To all the natural instincts of self 
interest urging union for mutual protection, is added 
that of acommon danger—that of restrictive legislation. 
It was a significant circumstance to my mind that at 
the New York Conference at the Gerlach House, in 
December, 1893, while those in favor of fish preservation 
came largely as individuals, the pound fishermen, the 
net and twine men, the fertilizer men, the wholesale 
market men, the fish commission merchant, etc., usually 
appeared as the representatives of Associations— 
National, State or Local—and frequently by excellent 
counsel. The trust aggregation called the “United 
States Menhaden, Oil and Guano Association,” under 
