igog] ^^estion of State Rights 



question by its attorney as to the legal right of the 

 national government to deal with fisheries of indi- 

 vidual states. 



Meanwhile, the Department of State apparently 

 took little interest in the matter, left over from a 

 previous administration. Bryce, moreover, had been 

 succeeded by Sir Cecil Spring-Rice,^ an estimable SpHng- 

 gentleman of fine literary tastes but not connected ^"^^ 

 with these negotiations. And Mr. Huntington Wil- 

 son (then Assistant Secretary of State) to whom I 

 presented the papers, being entirely uninformed also, 

 was taken aback and quite at a loss as to what he 

 should do. At his request, therefore, I dictated the 

 letter of transmission to the Secretary, who then 

 suggested that I go to the Senate in person and ex- 

 plain the treaty to individual members. This I was 

 unwilling to undertake; my official letter of appoint- 

 ment distinctly confined my duties to the preparation 

 of regulations and it could be no part of my mission Not a 

 as fishery expert to try to influence legislation, '"^^y"' 

 Furthermore, Gifford Pinchot, former United States 

 Forester, had just then been dismissed ostensibly 

 for writing letters to Senators in behalf of forestry 

 conservation. 



Within the Senate, the only expressed opposition 

 rested on the argument of states' rights. This had 

 its origin in Michigan, where the legislature at once Michigan 

 passed a new fisheries statute of its own, admirable •^^^^J''^ 

 in detail — based, indeed, on our proposed regula- 

 tions, and having a few additions which really im- 



1 Spring-Rice told me an interesting story. In earlier days he had served as 

 attache of the British Embassy in Berlin, and once the Empress Frederick, 

 referring to young Wilhelm, remarked to him: "The education they are giving 

 that boy will be the ruin of Europe!" 



n 271 '\ 



