222 
BJLLETIN OF THE UNITED STA.TES FISH COMMISSION. 
until thcu. I submit, tlierefore, the argument I make against this bill is a perfectly legitimate one; 
and, as my friend from New York (Mr. Beach) suggests, you do not want us to have them fresh while 
jiassing in schools before our eyes, but want us to wait until you catch and salt them down and then 
get them from you. Now, I do not believe that you can salt down this House with that kind of 
mackerel su 2 )ply. [Laughter.] 
Mr. Milliken. What we desire is to give you healthy mackerel in good condition; not permit- 
ting them to be taken when, as we believe, they are not suitable for food. We want to save the 
mackerel alive until it has sjiawned, in order to furnish a supply every year, and not exhaust them 
and destroy the ijossibility of a supi)ly, as you wish to do. Now, we do not care whether they be 
caught on the coast of Maine, or Delaware, or Florida; all we ask is to protect them from destruction 
and to protect the mackerel during the S 2 )awuing season. We do not use the mackerel until they are 
in a good, healthy condition. 
Mr. Lore. There is another reason why this bill should not i)ass, and it is a strong one in my 
mind. The catch of mackerel from the 1st of March to the 1st of June along our coast does supply a 
cheap article of food that is perfectly palatable, food that is nourishing and that is fresh. 
The mackerel we thus get from the 1st of March to the 1st of Juno is far superior to the salt 
mackerel, even No. 1, that we get from Maine and Massachusetts, and is much more palatable. Then 
why should we be deiirived of the fresh lish that are jiassing by our doors, and wait until thej' get up 
to Maine and (Massachusetts to be caught and salted and sent back to us in a salt state? It used to 
give the sailors the scurvy to eat salt lish. Now, in Delaware we want to have some fresh mackerel 
occasionally. And we do not want to be conlined by a bill like this to Spanish mackerel. You are 
willing, in your generosity, we should have Spanish mackerel. I supijoso that is because they are not 
caught by your tishermeu in sutticieut quantities to be profitable. 
All we want is to have the privilege of catching a few' of these fish as they pass us. Seriously 
this is a question of cheap food ; and it is cheap food for the people who live along the Atlantic coast. 
There are at times 75,000, aye, 100,000, barrels of fresh mackerel caught off the coast and taken into the 
city of New York, into the city of Philadelphia, and other cities, which sell all the way up from 5 
cents a bucket or basket full. The poor w'oman can take on her arm and carry to her home a large 
supply foi' lier family at 1 or 2 or 3 cents a jmund. By this bill you would take away that su[)ply 
at this season when the people need Just that kind of food; when they have come through the 
w'inter and have not got the vegetables of sin'iug and summer, .lust at that time nature has provided 
this bounteous inflow of food from the ocean. And yet we are told, “Do not lay your hand uyjon it; 
keey) off and let it get uj) to Maine and Massachusetts.” 
As a question of cheap food, I hoyje this House w'ill not be willing to prevent the people of the 
Middle States from getting these fish all along the coast by passing a bill of this kind. The whole 
question is clouded with doubt. The scientists who are engaged in the careful study of this question 
tell you there is doubt about it. Thej' tell you there is doubt about its decreasing the suyiply. In 
fact, it is not decreasing the catch. They tell you there is doubt about every iioint which has been 
raised in support of this measure. On the other hand, in ojiyiosing these unjust restrictions which 
are sought to be imposed upon our people we present the fact that by this industry we obtain a cheap 
supply of food. 
I will not w'eary the House with a further detailed presentation of this matter, but I desire to 
read just for a moment, on the question of cheaper food, what is stated by Capt. J. W. Collins, who 
is Assistant Fish Commissioner. He w'as questioned liy the Committee on Ways and Means. Some 
eight or nine questions were addressed to him. In reply to one of those questions he said; 
Tlie “ effect .as rebates to the cheapness of mackerel a.s measured by its real qualities as food” has been partially 
answered above. That the fish caught after J une 1 will bring a higher price tb<an those taken before that date goes without 
saying. 
It goes without saying that fish are cheayier that are caught before the 1st than after the 1st day 
of June. He says further; 
One of the largest dealers in mackerel in the Lnited States has told me that in his opinion the demand for good 
mackerel could not be supplied if the “ inferior trash ” could he kept out of the market. 
Pursue this plan, keeji these fish out of the market, and this expert frankly tells you that the 
demand can not be supplied. Where would the price go to? Yet you talk of suj)plying and making 
abundant this article of food, which for years has been used all over the country. 
Let me say, in conclusion, not only am I thoroughly satisfied that the reasons adduced for the 
passage of this hill are not warranted by the facts, but that the reasons against it are overwhelming. 
