21G 
BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES FISH COMMISSION. 
reqnire mucli more time tliaii I would caro to consume in this House aud much more I am sure than 
anybody would like to occupy in listening to me. But the testimony to the contrary of the statement 
of the gentleman from New York is abundant and overwhelming. 
The gentleman from New York has quoted Professor Baird and others, and what does it all amount 
to? When he gets through, it amounts to the fact that he admits that he knows nothing about the 
habits of these tish, and notwithstanding this he has talked to the House almost an hour, and has 
succeeded in giving us such lack of information as we should have a right to expect from one making 
such an admission. 
Sir, I say in conclusion that the question is whether we shall allow men for immediate gains — 
men who do not regard the future of this great industry, nor the necessities of our peoi)le so largely 
benefited by this article of food — to impair its supply, as has been done in the case of the menliaden 
aud lobster, or shall we, by administering a timely and effective remedy, preserve it? 
The importance of both cheap and wholesome food for the people demands that the mackerel, 
which is almost universally used, should he allowed to perpetuate itself and should be taken only 
when in good condition, and I lielieve that the provisions of this hill, designed to secure these objects, 
will meet with the approval of this House .and the country. 
Mr. Lork. Mr. Speaker, with .all due respect to my friend from Maine, I m.ay be permitted to 
state that since the days of wooden nutmegs and Waterbury clocks I have not seen such an ingenious 
piece of mechauisni aa the construction of this bill. I am not abusing my New England friends, only 
suggesting a historical fact. I have .always admired Yankee ingenuity aud skill in devising sueh 
mechanism. 
But, Mr. Speaker, let us examine this bill section by section and analyze its provisions and effect. 
This ffrst section provides that no mackerel, other than Spanish m.ackerel, caught between the 1st day 
of March and the 1st of June of each year sh.all be permitted to be imjiorted or landed on our shores. 
'I'he next section provides that the license to be granted by the United States shall be made to 
conform to th.at condition of facts, and sball not authorize the person holding the same to violate 
the lirst section. 
The third section provides for the forfeiture of the vessel if it violates the provisions of the 
act, if it bo an American vessel, and if not, then it provides for the forfeiture of the mackerel or the 
fish that are landed. 
You will observe that the bill as it stands is an absolute prohibition against catching mackerel 
from the Ist of March to the 1st of Juno of each year all along our coast from Cape Hatteras to New 
Enghaud. Let us consider it. This mackerel question is an exceedingly interesting one. The mack- 
erel is ill a great degree the most mysterious fish in its habits and haunts. Tliey first approach our 
shores in March ott'Cape Hatteras in North Carolina in immense shoals, and p.ass northward until they 
strike the coast of Maine, which they reach about the month of June. Now, I am not responsible for 
the truth of what a very intelligent gentleman said last night, but will give it in passing. He said 
that the ingenuity of my friends from Maine and Massachusetts is so great that they secure the kind 
of food the mackerel are accustomed to, watch their coming, spread it bountifully on the way, toll 
them all along the coast from Cape Hatteras until they get them up to Maine, and when they get them 
up there they fee<l it out in such abuiidance as to keeii them from going farther, to the fishermen of 
Nova Scotia aud Newfoundland. 
I presume this is a myth, hut is illustrative of the popular opinion of the skill .and foolhardiness 
of our New England friends. But, judging from the mechanism of this bill, it would not strike one 
as ail impossibility. 
These tish, as they pass along the coast from Hatteras up to Maine, are caught by the dwellers on 
the coast in every direction. They are caught by men who go out in boats aud bateaus, and as the 
bill now stands it would prevent a irerson in North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New 
Jersey, or New York from going out in a canoe or aboat and catching and landing lish for his own use. 
That I understand they propose to correct by an amendment. If the bill is so amended, that 
objection would be removed. But there is a broader objection than that. As the bill now stands it 
would be open aud vulnerable to that attack. But if amended, it is vulnerable in other points. But 
first let me consider the reasons urged for this bill, and which were presented by my friend from Maine, 
Mr. Iveed, in his usually vigorous, terse, .and exceedingly fonuble style. The first one is th.at it benefits 
the fisherman. Now I say to the gentleman in all frankness that there are other fishermen than those 
on the coasts of Maine and .Massachusetts, 'flie mackerel run from Hatteras up to Maine. They get 
up to the coasts of Massachusetts and Maine in .June ; so if you prevent the catching of mackerel up to 
