REGULATION OF THE SEA-FISHERIES BY LAW. 105 



of Barrington, a very intelligent man. In answer to interrogatory 38, lie 

 says, " I bave caught scnp both side of Stone Bridge. These fish spawn 

 in this bay ; the fish caught in Kickamuit Eiver had never been out of 

 that riv^er; they were spawned there, and if not disturbed would have 

 returned there the next sprhig, as sure as the bird comes back to its old 

 haunt." In answer to question 58, he adds, " My opinion is, these fish 

 follow along the coast and would fill all the bays and rivers, where no 

 obstruction was placed ; as a drove of cattle going along the road will 

 come into your fields if the bars are down, so these fish in their migra- 

 tion would fill our bay w^ere it not for the traps." A portion of his 

 answer to question 80 is, " For a fortnight past I have fished nearly every 

 morning for two or three hours on Barrington Bridge, and have conversed 

 with a great many carpenters, shoemakers, and other workmen who come 

 to the bridge to catch a few tautog, if possible, for a dinner before going 

 to their day's work 5 they say formerly they were able (when scup and 

 fish were plenty) to come down here and catch all the fish they wanted 

 before they went to their day's work. They all tell one story. Before 

 traps were allowed, there weve plenty of fish ; could catch enough in 

 half an hour. One very intelligent man thought it made one hundred 

 dollars difference in the cost of living to those persons living on the 

 shore and in the small towns on the bay, and, from my own experience, 

 I have no doubt there are a thousand persons living near the shore to 

 to whom it would make this difference, amounting to a loss to them 

 amounting to one hundred thousand dollars each year, the loss in the 

 high price offish in Providence market not being taken into account." 



It w^as in evidence that such vast amounts of scup were sent to New 

 York, Philadelphia, &c., that the increased catch did not reduce the 

 price for home consumption. Mr. Bassett, in his answer to the 50th 

 question, states that "in former years Providence market was almost 

 wholly supplied with fish from the bay. The bay and river was a vast 

 reservoir from which Tve took out fresh fish from day to day, as we 

 wdshed. I remember seeing a fisherman salting down a car-load of blue- 

 fish, because all he could get offered was one and a half cents per pound. 

 A fish he was then glad to sell for twenty cents would to-day sell for 

 $1 25. Under the hook-and-line system, we had scup from five to six 

 months in the year at a very low price ; now we get scuppaug for about 

 fourteen days, and stale at that; when the fish were allowed to come in 

 the bay, we had them near the city, and they came to our market 'live 

 and kicking.' Under the present destructive system of trapping, not 

 only is all our summer supply sent off', but the fish not being allowed to 

 spawn, the natural increase is cut oft'." According to the testimony of 

 Daniel L. Church, of Portsmouth, "up to noon of this 16th day of May, 

 1870, between nine and ten thousand barrels of scup, and about three 

 hundred barrels of other fish, including fifty barrels of striped mackerel, 

 have been caught between Brenton's Eeef and here, (Seconnet,) and 

 about two-thirds of this whole catch have been caught at Seconnet 

 Point." 



The scarcity of fish in the bay has by some witnesses been attributed 

 to the impurity ot the water arising from deleterious water poured into 

 the bay from Taunton, Fall, and Providence Eivers, and J)ther sources, 

 w^here the residue of chemicals, &c., is permitted to mingle with the 

 pure waters of the ocean. On tins point, as on others, the evidence is 

 very inconclusive and contradictory. In certain localities doubtless the 

 waters are impure; but the pollution does not extend so far by any 

 means as some persons in. all honesty contend. 



Mr. Bassett, in his answer to interrogatory 57, says, " As to the im- 



