KEGULATTON OF THE SEA-FISHEEIES BY LAW. 91 



Perchance this is one of those cases where the stopping the practices 

 complained of is the only means of accurately knowing- what the ultimate 

 effect of their continuance will be. 



Should the trapping and pounding of these fishes be suspended for a 

 time, and the fish should thereafter steadily increase in numbers, the 

 question would be settled. 



The matter is of consequence enough. Would it not be worth while 

 to try the experiment % 



In this view of the case, all we have to show is, that these novel, and 

 what we claim are improper, methods of catching* fish, are a probable 

 cause of the scarcity complained of, having first shown that the scarcity 

 exists. The burden of proof is then logically shifted, and it is for the 

 trappers to show that their methods do not consume these fishes faster 

 than their natural increase. 



They have then one further point to make — that by their wholesale 

 modes of fishing they do not interfere with the rights of others, for 

 nothing is clearer settled in the law than that all men have the right 

 to catch fish in the bays, inlets, and arms of the sea, and that no man 

 has the right to catch fish to the injury of others in their rights. Then 

 we inquire — 



Firstly, have the fishes under consideration become scarce ? 



Secondly, are the methods of catching them, by pounds, weirs, and 

 traps, a probable cause of such scarcity "? 



In answer to the first, we claim that they have. 



Both in Massachusetts and Rhode Island it was at first stoutly de- 

 nied that there was any scarcity of the fishes named, yet it was testified 

 to, by most of the witnesses in both States, and Mr. Atwood finds him- 

 self at last compelled to admit it, and then goes on to try to account 

 for it. 



The interrogatories put by the joint special committee of the general 

 assembly of Ehode Island were in writing, and were eighty-two in num- 

 ber. They were answered in so far as they severally knew, by thirty- 

 nine witnesses, under oath. 



Twenty-eight of these interrogatories bear directly upon the question 

 of scarcity, and thirty-seven of the witnesses swore that they had 

 grown perceptibly scarcer j^ear after year, except during two years, 

 when the traps had been broken up by storms. 



The testimony of the Massachusetts witnesses is not in print that I am 

 aware of, but from my notes I find that every hook-and-line fisherman 

 among them, except one, agreed with the Ehode Island witnesses upon 

 this point. 



Add to this the testimony of every amateur fisherman with whom I 

 have conversed, many of whom are men of superior knowledge, accus- 

 tomed to observe everything with regard to the fish they catch, some of 

 whom have made their opinions public in works of standard merit, and 

 we have evidence sufficient to establish the fact of the increasing scarcity 

 of these fishes, beyond a reasonable doubt. 



Again, and more conclusive than the testimony of all these witnesses, 

 the scarcity of these fishes has become notorious. All along the shore, 

 from Point Judith to Monomoy, it has been and is now a general cause 

 of complaint. Everywhere you go, in any seaport town, the fishermen 

 will tell you what they used to do, and all the inhabitants are lamenting 

 the time when they could go out and catch a " mess offish at any time.' 1 

 But now it is not so. 



If there remained any doubt as to whether it was proved that these 

 fishes have become scarce, the Massachusetts committee, in their report 



