THE SOUTHERN SPRING MACKEREL FISHERY. 
217 
tlie 1st (lay of June all dwellers on the coast up to Massacliiisetts and Maine are prevented from catching 
mackerel, for this time covers the exact ]»eriod of their passage from Hatteras to New England. 
Mr. Rekd, of Maine. Will the gentleman allow me? 
Mr. Lore. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Reed, of IMaine. J’here are none that go out to catch these schools of mackerel. There arc 
only fishermen that go out within 10 miles of the shore, and those we jiropose to provide for. The 
only ones that are interfered with hy this hill after the amendment is made are people from Maine and 
Massachusetts. 
Ml-. Lore. Then this is an attempt to prevent your Maine and Massachusetts men from taking the 
fish at that time? 
Mr. Reed, of Maine. It is an attempt to stop that kind of iishery during the spawning season. 
Mr. Lore. I do not know that that alters very materially the point I make as to whether or not 
the hill benefits the fisherman. If the amendment to the hill corrects the first defect of which I spoke 
and deprives the Maine and Massachusetts men of the power to catch aud bring the fish into Now 
York, it deprives them of Just such profits as they may make during that season ; and I do not see that 
it would he a material advantage even to them. 
Now take the other ground, which the genrleman from Maine jiresented with considerable force 
and which strikes me as the one upon which ho rests his argument mainly for the passage of this bill : 
lhat fishing during these months diminishes the catch ; that it diminishes the supply of mackerel. 
Let us examine this position? 1 kuowmy friend from Maine says that tlie Maine and Ma.ssachu- 
setts lislnu-men, liy almost unanimous consent, say as a matter of fact it does. The gentleman from 
New' York [Mr. Hew’itt] jiresented aud read petitions of these very men, largely signed, maintaining 
the oiiposite view^. Congress has at considerable expense established a Fish Commission. The head 
of that commission is Prof. Spencer F. Baird, tvlio has devoted iiiueli of his life to this work. So has 
Professor Goode, associated with Professor Baird as Assistant Fish Coinmissioner. Captain Collins, 
Professor Baird, Professor Goode, Professor Huxley of England, all say that they are not satisfied that 
the catch of mackerel during this time of the alleged spawning, from the 1st of March to the 1st of 
June, does diminish the supply. They say they do not know, and in effect that it is not known. 
Mr. Boutelij:. Professor Baird, as I understood the reading of his opinion, states that ho is not 
satislied the use of the purse seine will not materially diminish the projiagation of mackerel. 
As I understood the reading, what he said W'as ho w'as not satisfied that the intervention of man 
w'ould materially diminish the supply of sea fi.sh. But fui-ther on he said he did not leel sure that tlie 
use of the jiurso seine, which is a modern contrivance, might not very materially affect it, .and that it 
might retpiire some years to determine that. 8o that -wo have the scientists in doubt aboni, the 
matter, while the practical fishermen, who have been eng, aged in this business for years and w'hose 
whole avocation depends on the plenteonsness of the fish, unanimously, or with practical unanimity, 
declare the catching by the seine in this elosi* time is materially affecting the supiily. 
Mr. Lore. 1 think my friend will agree, and I am sure the reading of Professor Baird’s lettm- w ill 
satisfy any member of this House, that he does not believe that the catching of the mackerel during 
that time does interfere w'ith the supply. Professors Goode and Huxley are (jnite clear on this ]ioint, 
and the petitions of fishermen presented by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hewitt] show the 
fishermen do not agree. 
Now, Mr. Chairman, in order to show that the committee itself had evidence before it tending 
to contradict that proposition, I re.ad from their report w'here they say: 
That tlic iiiaclcercl cmitiinu'.d to alioiiinl, anil tlie inilu.stry (if catcliing them to increase, is to lie accounted for ratlier 
by the fact that it is not an anadrninons lisli, and by reason of the ]irimitive devices of the day, than bccan.se ol' f he laws ol' 
the jieriod. In 1831 the catc.b reached its maxinmin, being tda.K.-id barrets. It then steadily fell olf each year, until in 1838 
it was only a little over 138,000 barrels. With varying fortune it fell in 1877 to nearly 127,000 barrels. Kacli jioriod of 
decline in tlie catch, and consoiiuently of comparative exemption from molestation of tliis fisli, lias .app.areiii ly led to tlie 
batebing and m.aturity of sullioient numbers to fully restock our waters. Thus, in 1881 the catch rose again to over 301,000 
barrehs. 
In 1883, 1883, and 1884 the catch has lieeii increasing, and yet during this time not only have the 
fishermen been catching the mackerel hetween the 1st of March and the 1st of .Inmy hut they have 
been catching them with the jmrse net. We h.ave, therefore, right here in the reiiort of the committee, 
evidence that instead of the amount of the supply deerea.sing it has actually increased. 
Mr. Boutelle. Is it not ])()ssible that this gentleman mistakes an incre.ased catch for an incre.ased 
supply? Is an increased catch necessarily an indication of a,n increased siijiply of these fish? May 
not the increased catch he the result of the employment of a larger number of vessels aud the use of 
improved appliances ? 
