FIFTIETH CONGRESS, 1887-1889. 1063 
The scientific work of the Commission has always been conducted with reference to 
definite and practical results, and thé economic side of the work of the Fish Commis- 
sion is comparatively in a still more advanced condition. 
It seems scarcely necessary to dwell upon the results in fish-culture attained by the 
Commission under Professor Baird’s direction. You are thoroughly familiar with 
the manner in which certain fisheries, such as the shad fishery of the Atlantic coast, 
the salmon fishery of the Pacific coast, and the whitefish fishery of the Great Lakes, 
have been saved from destruction; how the Asiatic carp has been planted in the 
20,000 or more ponds and lakes in almost every township in the United States; how 
the shad fishery has been established in unfamiliar waters, such as the Ohio River 
and Pacific Ocean; and, in addition to this, how many other steps of great magnitude 
have been made in the art of fish-culture. 
I dare not attempt to estimate the practical value of the work of the Commission 
to the country, but can not doubt that it amounts to very many millions of dollars, 
I presume you are familiar with Mr. Goode’s ‘‘ Review of what has been accomplished 
by the Fish Commission in fish-culture and in the investigation of American fisheries;”’ 
but I venture to send herewith a copy of this pamphlet, and to direct your special 
attention to pages 26 to 34, in which are quoted numerous commendations of the Fish 
Commission from the principal authorities of Great Britain, Norway, Holland, Ger- 
many, Belgium, France, and other European nations. Professor Huxley, in an ad- 
dress at the London Fisheries Exhibition, said that he did not think ‘‘that any nation 
at the present time had comprehended the question of dealing with fish in so thorough, 
excellent, and scientific a spirit as that of the United States;’’ while M. Raveret- 
Wattel, the principal French authority on this subject, states that ‘‘to this day 
pisciculture has nowhere produced results which can be compared with those obtained 
in the United States.’’ No one can question that the peculiar excellence of the work 
of our Government has been directly or indirectly due to the presence of Professor 
Baird at the head of.the Commission. He had no rivals, and during his administra- 
tion no word of criticism was ever uttered by competent persons. 
All this, it may well be remembered, was accomplished while filling effectively the 
distinct duties of an officer of the Smithsonian Institution, for which alone he was 
paid. And it may be added that during the first half of his term of service as Com- 
missioner, and while he was assistant secretary of the Smithsonian, his entire salary 
was less than that received by several of his assistants during the last few years. 
In reference to the possible precedent of the action of Congress in the case of the 
late Professor Henry, I would state that a communication from the Secretary of the 
Treasury was received by the House of Representatives June 4, 1878, and by the Sen- 
ate June 5, 1878, recommending an appropriation of $500 for each year during which 
the late Professor Henry was employed as a member of the Light-House Board, for 
the benefit of his family. On June 20, 1878, an act was passed ‘‘to pay to the legal 
representatives of the late Joseph Henry, for services rendered by him as member 
and president of the Light-House Board, $11,000.’’ (Second session, Forty-fifth 
Congress, p. 214. ) 
In the absence of time for a fuller statement, let me ask your attention to the few 
words in which the benefits to his country of Professor Baird’s labors were described 
by a recent most competent biographer: 
“‘The Fish Commission was an agency of research; but it was more. He made it 
an agency by which science is applied to the relief of the wants of mankind; by 
which a cheap, nutritious, healthful, and luxurious food is to be given to the millions 
of men. .He affirmed that for the production of food an acre of water was more than 
equal to 10 acres of land, thus giving to the gloomy doctrine of Malthus its ultimate 
refutation, and clearing away the veil of despair from the horizon of the poor; for 
when the sea shall serve man with all the food that can be gathered from its broad 
expanse, the land will not contain the millions whom it is thus possible to supply.” 
