210 
BULLETIN OE THE UNITED STATES FISH COMMISSION. 
That it is a damage to the mackerel lishiug is heyoud question. My friend from Arkansas 
[Mr. Breckinridge], when interrupted yesterday as to whether he had consulted the Fish Commission 
on this subject, replied, as stated in the Record, that he had been talked with, but had not been 
consulted by the Commission. 
My friend’s memory must have been rather short on that occasion, for I hold in my hand a letter 
addressed to him from Frofessor Baird 
Mr. Bkeckinhidgh, of Arkansas. If the gentleman will read my remarks in the Record ho will 
lind that they are entirely in harmony with the statement that I had made no specific inqnirj^ as to 
the pending bill. I refer the gentleman to the Record. 
Mr. Hewitt. I iinderstand what the gentleman said: it ajipears in the Record; and if yon will 
give me the Record I will (jnote the exact language so that there can be no question as to the 
accuracy of it. 
I hold in my hand a letter addressed to the gentleman from Arkansas as a member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, signed by Siiencer F. Baird, Commissioner, being an official answer 
to the inquiry addressed to him; but lirst I read from the Record the lemarks of the gentleman in 
answer to the inquiry as to whether the Fish Commission had been consulted with reference to this 
bill or not: 
Mr. Lore. Let me ask the geutleman trom Arkausas whether the Tish Couimissioii of the United States have favored 
this bill? 
Mr. BRECKlNRinoE, of Arkansas. I will state in response to the genlleniau from Delaware that the Fi.sh Commission 
of the United States has not been asked speeitieally about the hill; thongli I have talked fully with the Cominissiouer and 
others of the service, and had some corrcsi)ondeuce with them about the propositions involved; and I have here in my 
hand a very interesting letter from the specialist emj)loyed by Professor Baird to study and observe the habits, etc., of the 
mackerel. Captain Collins, a gentleman whom I am assured by Professor Baird is the best living a'uthority on the subject, 
and his statements of facts strongly sustain this hill. 
In wbicb it will be seen that the gentleman has omitted altogether every reference to the letter 
of Professor Baird himself. Now I will read to the House that letter, and I suppose it will not be 
questioned that Professor Baird is recognized throughout not only the whole of this country but the 
habitable globe as second only to one man whose authority I shall also produce. Professor Huxley, in 
regard to the effect of fishing in any form or shai)e upon the catch of deeji-sea fish. He says: 
UNirEi) States Commission of Pish and Fisheries, 
. Washingtoii, D. C., February 15, 1SS6. 
Dear Sir: I have received your letter asking for an opiuion as to whether “the jireventing of mackerel fishing 
during the spring months is necessary for the maintenance of an abundant supply of that fish upon our shores." 
I have never been convinced that the abundance of mackerel has been in any way affected through the agency of 
man. The catch in 1884 and 1885 was far above the average for the past fifty years. It is not impos.sible, however, that 
the continuance of tlie use id' the great purse-seines may in time have an appreciable effect in decreasing their numbers. 
The statistics of the next few years will doubtless enable us to form a definite opinion upon this question. 
Naturalists are obliged to admit their ignorance in regard to many portions of the life-history of the mackerel and 
other fishes of similar roving habits. We do not yet know definitely where they go in winter, nor by what routes they 
approach our shores in spring. AVe are equally ignorant of their habits during the breeding season. .So important has the 
study of these matters been considered that I asked some years ago for a schooner especially adapted for their investigation. 
Congress at its last session acceded to this request, and the vessel has been built and is now nearly' ready for service. I 
hope that in the near future the habits of the mackerel, the menhaden, and the hluefish will be as thoroughly understood 
as are now those of the trout and the cod. > 
The bill before you would appear to aim at the proliibition of mackerel fishing prior to and during the spawning 
season. In reality, however, the time of spawning, especially on the coast of New England, extends considerably beyond 
the 1st of June. 
So that the bill would not effect the object, for the only spawuiug of value which takes place is 
ill and after the months of ,Inne and July. 
The probable effect of the passage of this bill upon the extensive pound and weir fisheries of southern New England 
is worthy of your consideration, since the iiound fishermen can not exclude mackerel when they admit the other species 
which are swimming in company ivith them. 
So that if this were adoiited the pound fishing ivonld have to be stojiped; and I leave that to my 
Massachusetts friends to determine its value. 
In conclusion, I regret to say that in the present state of knowledge of the life-history of the mackerel I am unable 
to express a positive opiuion as to -whether or not the passage of the bill under consideration would have a beneficial effect. 
Very respectfully, 
Spencer F. Baird, Commissioner. 
Hon. C. K. Breckinridue, 
Committee of Ways and Means, Mouse of Representatives. 
