PLEADINGS. 197 



William 0. H. Whaley, 0. H. Bassett, John Steere, John D. Swan, and 

 George S. Burleigh, because all the evidence presented in that report 

 ought to have as strong a claim to be considered as much of the tes- 

 timony presented by the other side. 

 But before entering upon the subject, I wish to give a brief 



HISTORY OF THE INVESTIGATION AS TO TRAPPING. 



This question has been before the general assembly five times at least ; 

 was referred thrice to a committee of the house, once to a joint commit- 

 tee of both houses, and it is now before your honors as a committee of 

 the senate. 



In 1856 a petition was referred to Samuel B. Wheaton and others, a 

 house committee, as would appear from the report, in relation to the 

 effect of trapping on other fish; and in said report, made in 1857, recom- 

 mending that the petitioners have leave to withdraw, it is stated — 



"Your committee were satisfied that the fisheries * * should not 

 be interfered with or restrained unless it seriously interfere with the 

 fishing in the other waters of the State, or some other very important 

 reason." 



Again : 



"But there was no evidence submitted to the committee that the num- 

 ber or size of these fish (scup) were injuriously affected by the trap or 

 seine-fishing." 



The inquiry, as now asked for, was not entered into by that committee, 

 nor, so far as I can learn, by another committee, appointed in 1861, of 

 which the late Hon. Samuel Ames was a member. I understand that 

 the report made by this committee cannot be found among the files of 

 the proceedings of the general assembly, and I have been unable to find 

 any printed report in the papers of the day. 



In 1870, upon a petition signed by a large number of citizens of the 

 State, a third committee was requested to investigate and inquire into 

 the scarcity of scup, and to report whether any legislation was proper. 



After a long and patient hearing of the parties interested, four out of 

 five joined in a report recommending the passage of an act prohibiting 

 the use of traps and heart-seines, but excluded Seaconnet Point from the 

 operation of the law, for the reasons, as are to be inferred from the 

 report, viz, that — 



"It was contended by remonstrants that the fish caught by the traps 

 at Seaconnet icere leaving the ivaters of the State and would not return. 

 Also, that they were never known to go up Seaconnet Elver and through 

 Stone Bridge into Mount Hope Bay]" 1 &c. 



And the majority of this committee could not decide whether this was 

 so or not, from the conflicting evidence, but they "were of the opinion, 

 from the evidence, that the impurities in the water did not interfere with 

 the fish spawning, feeding, or staying in the bay below Nayal Point." 



The act recommended, after being amended, was passed by the house, 

 but defeated in the senate. 



And the matter was then referred to a joint special committee at the 

 same January session. 



This committee made a unanimous report, in which it is stated — 



"It appears to the committee that some legislative restraint as to the 

 use of new instrumentalities for fishing, which impair or destroy indi- 

 vidual rights, should be provided and enforced. 



"After a careful and anxious investigation of the subject, the com- 

 mittee have come to the unanimous conclusion to recommend that the 



