REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. IX 



nominee of that party for lieutenant-governor, being looked upon as 

 opposed to the abolition of the trapping of fish, was defeated by the 

 popular vote, although subsequently elected by the legislature. The 

 prevailing sentiment throughout the greater i)art of the State appeared 

 to be in favor of the prohibition of trai)s, a measure which was confi- 

 dently anticipated by all parties, although the propriety of such a course 

 was contested by many persons whose judgment was entitled to cousid- 

 eratiou. Among these was Mr. Samuel Powel, a member of the State 

 senate, who insisted that the question was too little understood to war- 

 rant such action, and that it should first be made the subject of inquiry 

 on the part of scientific men before a proper decision could be reached. 

 In the accompanying foot-note I present a communication from Dr. 

 Hudson, received as this report is going through the press, in regard to 

 the action on the same subject taken by the State of Connecticut.* 

 This has more particular reference to shad and salmon, but has a 

 part in the general inquiry. 



*State of Connecticut, Department of Fisjeieries, 



Hartford^ Connecticut, January 2, 1873. 



Dear Sir : You ask for a short history of the efforts made to secure a law prohibit- 

 iug pounds used for the taking of shad, or prospectively of salmon. In 1866 the Commis- 

 sioners of fisheries of the New England States met at Boston to discuss measures for 

 restoring salmon and increasing the number of shad in the different rivers of the 

 States. The Connecticut River of our State was the only stream under special discus- 

 sion, as four of the States, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut 

 were all equally interested. An agreement was finally made that the commissioners 

 of Vermont and New Hampshire were to furnish all the salmon-fry necessary to 

 restock the river, Massachusetts was to furnish fish ways for all dams on the river in 

 the State, and the Connecticut commissioners were to procure a law abolishing pounds 

 at the mouth of the river. In accordance with this agreement, our commissioners suc- 

 ceeded in having a law passed in 1838, approved July 31, 1868, section 2 of which is as 

 follows: ''That from and after the year 1871 it shall be unlawful for any person to 

 erect, construct, or continue in the waters along the northerly shore of Long Island 

 Sound, in this State, any weir or pound for the taking of fish." You will notice that 

 no penalty is provided in case of non-observance of the law. To remedy this defect a 

 law (which I inclose) was passed in 1871, approved July 24, 1871, making a penalty 

 of $400, but giving a majority of the commissioners authority to grant permits. As 

 Massachusetts had built no fishways, and New Hampshire and Vermont did not pre- 

 tend to live up to their promise in consequence, permits were granted under certain 

 restrictions, and in 1872- the legislature passed a new law by which pounds may be 

 allowed to fish except from sunrise on Saturday until suiarise on Monday, with a few 

 hours' allowance for tides. All restrictions on fykes have been repealed. 

 Yours, very truly, 



WM. M. HUDSON. 



Prof S. F. Baird, Washington, D. C. 



AN ACT iu addition to an act for encouraging and regulating fisheries. 

 Be it enacted hy the senate and house of representatives, in general assembly convened : 



Section. 1. That upon a written request of the fish commissioners, or a majority of them 

 the selectmen of any town in the State shall appoint two or more such persons as shall 

 be approved by such fish coinuiissioners to be fish wardens, whose duty it shall be to 

 assist the fish commissioners in detecting and prosecuting offenses against the fishery 

 laws of the State, and who shall be paid a suitable compensation from the treasurer of 



