1086 . CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS. 
I presume you are familiar with Mr. Goode’s ‘‘ Review of what has been accom- 
plished 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 commenda- 
tions of the Fish Commission from the principal authorities of Great Britain, Nor- 
way, Holland, Germany, Belgium, France, and other European nations. Professor 
Huxley, in an address 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.” 
Until Professor Baird took hold of it we had done nothing worth | 
mentioning in that direction; we did not even know our own resources; 
we had taken no steps to develop.them, and yet in a few years the 
energetic, intelligent action of this single man, oné of the few scien- 
tific men I ever saw who could do all he talked about, who knew how — 
to show others how to do it, who, knew how to pull off his coat and do 
it himself, until he impressed the world with his great efficieney and 
the greatness of this people in a great enterprise that all the world 
was struggling to carry on. 
Professor Langley goes on to say: 
While M. Rayeret-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 dur- 
ing his administration 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 this same letter he shows how Professor Henry was employed as 
a member of the Light-House Board, and how Congress recognized 
the value of the work done by him. In relation to that he says: 
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 Con- 
gress, page 214.) 
These payments were made, and purposely made, in recognition of 
the eminent services of that distinguished gentleman. Congress was 
under no legal obligation, if you please, to Professor Henry, but for 
the benefit he had done the country, which was well known, Congress 
paid for his services as a debt, not a legal but a moral and equitable 
