214 
BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES FISH COMMISSION. 
Now, these lishermen know something about this matter. 
J uiie and J uly are the principal spawning montlis . 
Third. Mackerel are increasing .and not di:uinishing in qu.antity. 
Fourth. The passage of the bill would turn out of employment during the prohibited season over two thousand of 
our fishermen, who are dependent thereon for the support of themselves .and their families. 
And we ejirnestly ask th.at the passage of tlie said bill he defeated. 
Now, this petition is a genuine article— not the kind made to order. Here are the signatures of 
hard-working, honest, diligent fishermen, who only ask to he let alone, to be undisturbed in the pur- 
suit of an honest livelihood. They are the. gentleman’s constituents, not mine, for whom I appeal to 
this House. They sell to my constituents what my constituents want to buy; but they want to be let 
alone in their honest industry. Yet, in ignorance of the facts of the case, and in the presence of the 
scientific testimony, so far .as it goes, that no good can come from this measure, this House is asked to 
pass it when there is every reason why, out of regard to the food of the poor, the occupations of the 
industrious, and the general good of the whole country, we should not only go slowly, but if necessary 
vote the measure down. I have no desire to subject these gentlemen of the committee to the humilia- 
tion of h.aving the enacting clause of this bill struck out. I prefer th.at it shall be recommitted. I 
w.ant them to study this subject a little more thoroughly than they have studied it, although they 
seem to be satisfied with the knowledge they have thus far obtained. I am not s.atisfied with what I 
have been able to get within this short time; but I say, so far as the facts .appear, there is abundant 
reason to apprehend that this proposed legislation is not only unnecessary, but dangerous and 
destructive to interests which are entitled to the consideration of the House. 
Mr. Hammond. This seems to be the application of game laws to food-fishes. I wish to ask the 
gentleman whether such a thing has ever been done before by the United States. 
Mr. Hewitt. There h.as never been .any such measure as to open-sea fishery. There has been the 
application of the close season to those fishes that seek the fresh waters to spawn; and even there 
the Government of the United States has had to keep its hands oft', because the State jurisdiction in 
almost every case comes in. The Fjsh Commission has sought for the cooperation of the States 
wherever it could be obtained, and has in most cases been able to get it. 
Mr. Reagan. As the attention of the gentleman from New York has been directed to this question, 
I wish to inquire whether the Government of the United States has ever heretofore uudert.aken to 
regulate fishing upon the high seas outside of the marine league, and whether Congress has authority 
to regulate fisheries on the borders of States within the marine league. 
Mr. Hewitt. I have not given my personal attention to that matter. It is a legal question; 
and such questions I always prefer not to di.scuss. But I think in this House, so largely composed of 
lawyers, that question can be readily answered. I know of no power on the part of the United States 
to control fishing within the jurisdiction suggested by the gentleman ; but I do recognize the fact that 
in licensing fishing boats, the Government of the United States might put in the licenses a provision 
limiting the operations of such boats. I suppose that might be done. 
Mr. McAdoo. As the gentleman from New York has given this subject some investigation, I will 
ask him whether it is not the fact that the menhaden fishing is doing more harm than any other class 
of fishing on our coast? 
Mr. Butterwokth. I understand the point in this case to be that the supposed danger against 
which this bill is directed does not exist. 
Mr. Hewitt. It does not exist according to the testimony of every intelligent man who has 
examined the subject. 
Mr. Milliken. Mr. Chairman, I desire to say, if the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hewitt] 
has at last got through, that I do not purpose to discuss the constitutional objection which is raised 
against this measure, as it is raised against every measure which is called up for consideration in this 
House and which certain gentlemen wish to defeat. Indeed, I do not purpose to discuss the question 
at length in any of its aspects; but it seems to me to be a question whether we will legisl.ate to save 
the source of supply of a valuable article of food, the source of a great industry, or allow iieople for 
immediate gain to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. 
And in this controversy the same old question arises, .and it arises between the same parties as 
when I first heard it discussed; that is, between the fishermen and the fishmongers. I know how it 
was in my own State. We had all these arguments against the protection of the menhaden. They 
told us menhaden could never be lessened on the coast of Maine by the baud of man. I have gone 
down to the shore and have seen at one time thirteen steamers fishing for menhaden, a single steamer 
taking 800 barrels of these fish at one haul. 
( 
