116 
or ‘facts’ from New Jersey or Massachusetts, and the 
latter have, in their turn, to fear a united resistance to 
any attempt to protect their waters. 
“The difficulty extends to the different sections of 
the State. Excellent organizations protect fish in many 
of our States, but seldom is there any general union of 
such organizations capable of delivering a blow with 
united strength and knowledge ofall. In my own State, 
if Buzzard’s Bay is attacked, she fights her own battle 
single handed, and renders no assistance to any other 
_waters. In fact, our people would hardly know how or 
where to appeal forassistance. No section has adequate 
means of knowing who its friends are in other sections, 
or how a suitable influence can be applied by a non- 
resident legislator’s constituents to quicken his zeal. 
Therefore, in matters of general legislation, the friends 
of fish usually do nothing to oppose bad legislation until 
it is too late. Just here organized devotion to a single 
end shows its superiority to spasmodic efforts, however 
spirited. The personal interest of the Commercial 
Fisherman is sufficiently intense to enable him to take 
time by the forelock. 
DEFENSIVE ORGANIZATION NECESSARY. 
“Fish preservation must organize, and its armory of 
weapons must be equally good as its cause is infinitely 
better. It is always easier to criticise than to create. 
But I venture a suggestion. Each State needs a 
federated organization of local clubs. These local clubs 
should still control and carry on the work in their 
respective fields. 
“But for the general interest of the cause, every local 
club should have a representation in some central 
organization, proportionate to its membership; should 
contribute a stated sum per member to the treasury of 
the central organization, which should employ and 
