EEGULATTNG THE FISHEEIES BY LAW. 147 



As these complaints have usually been brought against one class of 

 fishermen by others, who, rightly or wrongly, conceived themselves to 

 be unjustly injured in their most important interests ;. and as they have 

 been rebutted by persons whose means of living, largely or wholly, de- 

 pend upon their power to continue the alleged wrongful practices, it 

 will not be a matter of astonishment tliat the evidence, so far as it re- 

 cords merely personal convictions, and assertions that can be neither 

 proved or disproved, is of the most conflicting character. 



In making this remark, we have no wish to reflect in the slightest de- 

 gree upon the veracity of either side. On the contrary, we desire par- 

 ticularly to acknowledge the frankness with which the fishermen gener- 

 ally gave their evidence, and the intelligent manner in which they 

 stated their views. But fishermen, as a class, are exceedingly unobserv- 

 ant of anything about fish which is not absolutely forced upon them by 

 their daily avocations ; and they are, consequently, not only prone to 

 adopt every belief, however ill-founded, which seems to tell in their own 

 favor, but they are disposed to depreciate the present in comparison 

 with the past. Nor, in certain localities, do they lack the additional 

 temptation to make the worst of the present, offered by the hope that 

 strong statements may lead the state to interfere in their favor, with 

 dangerous competitors. 



Leaviug out of consideration the comparatively few cases in which 

 private rights of sea-fishery exist, it may be laid down as a broad prin- 

 ciple that, apart from the restrictions prescribed by international law, 

 or by special treaties, the produce of the sea is the property of the people 

 in common, and that methods of fishing are fitting subjects for legislation 

 only so far as such legislation can be shown to be necessary to secure 

 the greatest possiblte advantage to the whole nation from thesea-fisheries, 

 either by suppressing wasteful and uselessly destructive modes of fishing, 

 or by removing legislative obstacles in the way of improved modes of 

 fishing, or by preserving peace and order among fishermen. 



Keeping these principles in view, all the tenable complaints against 

 methods of fishing which have been brought before us may be classified 

 under two heads : 



I. Complaints that a given mode of fishing is wasteful, and tends to 

 diminish the supply of fish permanently. 



II. Complaints that a given mode of fishing interferes with the lawful 

 occupations of fishermen of another class, or of other persons. 



In discussing the first series of complaints, three distinct issues will 

 have to be considered : 



a. Does the alleged waste take place, and to what extent ? 



b. Can the waste which occurs be shown to have affected the supply 

 of fish « 



c. If waste have occurred to a sufficient extent to affect the supply of 

 fish, how far is it desirable to interfere by direct legislation, and how 

 far is it better to trust to natural checks ? 



And as regards the second series, we shallfind it necessary to inquire — 



a. Does the alleged interference occur, and to what extent "? 



b. If the interference occurs, does the public interest require the in- 

 tervention of the state "? 



I. Complaints that a given mode of fishing is wasteful, arid tends to 

 diminish the supply of fish permanently. 



The chief methods of fisheiw against which complaints of this kind 

 have been brought are — 



1. Beam-trawling in the open sea. 



2. All kinds of sweep-net fishing, (beam-trawling, shrimping, seinings 



