EEGULATION OF THE SEA-FISHERIES BY LA^y. 95 



upon the spawn of haddock when the hand-lme only was in use. 

 Whether the flat-fish did feed upon the spawn of haddock we do not 

 know as a matter of fact; but if they did, we shall see with what pro- 

 bable effect when we come to consider Mr. Atwood's remarks on the 

 fecundity of fishes. 



Reasoning from analogy is, after all, only showing a probability, and 

 cannot be regarded as a very safe method from one class of fishes to 

 another. 



^h\ Atwood admits, with respect to the halibut, that they seem to be 

 decreasing on all the fishing-grounds, and leaves the senators, who of 

 course are not expected to know much about it, to decide whether or 

 not over-fishing is the cause of it. Whether the senators ever have de- 

 cided I do not know, but the fair inference would be, in the absence of 

 any ex[)lanation of the matter, that the fishery of them, prosecuted as 

 extensively as Mr. Atwood says it is, had something to do with it. 



Mr. Atwood says : "It appeared in evidence before the committee 

 that the fish known as the squeteague is increasing in the vicinity of 

 Buzzard's Bay, and aloDg the south shore of Cape Cod. Some sixty 

 years since it was vastly abundant in the southern part of Massachu- 

 setts Bay, and though absent for so inany years, it seems to be returning 

 to its former haunts." 



From such knowledge as we have of its habits, it seems to be one of 

 the wandering fishes, and likely, therefore, to appear or disappear at any 

 time. 



One other fish concludes the list referred to by Mr. Atwood, a species 

 of flat-fish, the Flatessa oMonga. 



What he says of the blue-fish will be passed here, as it comes more 

 properly under another head of my subject. 



This species, (the flat-fish,) he says, was exceedingly abundant along 

 our shores before the blue-fish came. " It is a bottom fish, and does not 

 come so directly in contact with the blue-fish as top-water swimmers ; 

 still, it has almost wholly disappeared, owing to the blue-fish having de- 

 stroyed its favorite bait, which is the common squid.'' 



Here, again, the scarcity of the fish is admitted, and here, again, the 

 question of the cause is begged. Mr. Atwood, it is true, states it as a fact 

 that the squid is its favorite bait, and that the blue-fish has destroyed 

 the squid. Could he think of nothing else which destroyed its "favor- 

 ite bait," after all the testimony before the committee showing the vast 

 quantity of squid taken in the pounds and traps ? 



This, then, is all there is going to prove that the decrease of the spe- 

 cies of fishes now under consideration is absence and not scarcity. We 

 may now consider the evidence as all in, for if there had been any more, 

 Mr. Atwood, with his declared purpose of "trying to show the danger 

 of exterminating the race of fish, if there is any," would have stated it. 

 From it, what are we fairly to conclude! 



First. That a certain class of fishes, called wandering fish, appear in 

 and disappear from certain localities without our being able always to 

 assign the cause j that their decrease is, or may be, absence^ not scarcity. 



Second. That a certain other class of fishes, called bottom fish, includ- 

 ing the scup, tautog, sea-bass, and striped bass, are domestic in their 

 character, coming annually into the same waters to breed and dwell, 

 migratory, and not wandering, in their habits, concerning which, if they 

 decrease, it must be scarcity^ not absence. 



2. The decrease of these species of fish is accounted for by reason of 

 the scarcity of food. 



