THE SOUTHERN SPRING MACKEREL FISHERY. 
2t>3 
Ami I do most lieartily and earnestly support the proposition of the gentlcinaii from New York 
[Mr. HewittJ that this wliole matter should go hack to the Fish Commission. They tell you that 
they have a vessel equipped to go out upon the ocean to investigate the habits of these fish and liiid 
out if possible whence they come and where they go, and settle all these questions of supply and 
modes of fishing. Therefore, I say, send this subject back to the Commission, and when we get their 
reijort we shall have something intelligent to act upon, and wo shall be enabled to pass laws that 
will be wise in their inception and Just and equitable in their execution. 
Mr. S roNis, of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words upon this bill before the 
vote is taken. As has been said by the gentleman who has just taken his seat, this is a question of 
cheap food, and if I did not believe that the passage of this bill would improve the quality of this 
character of food and eventually cause the people of the country at large to have a better sujiply 
than they have now, I should not support it. 
Professor Baird has been quoted in this debate as not being in favor of the bill, and a letter from 
him has been read by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hewitt] which seemed to imply that Ije 
was not in favor of the bill, and that he had serious doulMs as to its eH'ect. AVithin a day or two I 
have seen I’rofessor Baird and talked with him j)ersonally upon this very subject. I spent consider- 
able tiuie with him discussing the subject, for, Mr. Chairman, I rei)resent the most important fishing 
town in the United States, and have been familiar with fishermen ever since I was a boy, and have 
known, so far as they are known, the habits of the mackerel and the modes in which they are caught. 
Professor Baird has told me within two days that while he did not feel clear in resi)ect to the effect of 
this legislation upon the quantity of fish that might bo taken hereafter, jmt that u|)on the whole he 
thought it was wise to pass this bill, because it might have a favorable effect upon the mackerel upon 
our coast in the future, and that, at all events, he was in favor of trying the exiieriment. 
That was Professor Baird's statement to me within two days. It has been said here, among other 
things, that there is no proof that the quantity of mackerel has diminished during tbe last few years 
by reasori of purse-seine fishing. I do not claim, Mr. Chairman, that there is anj' satisfactory proof 
upon that point; but I wish the members of this House to take notice of one fact which bears directly 
upon the question. That fact is that the business of fishing as now prosecuted is conducted very 
differently from what it was twenty years ago. The lishermen now have the very best and most 
costly boats ; they are all supxdied with the best eiiuipments ; they are all, or nearly all, supplied with 
these purse nets. The purse net, so called, is 1,200 feet — nearly a quarter of a mile — long and twenty- 
odd fathoms deep, and when it is cast around a school of mackerel, embracing as it does an area of 
1,200 feet one way and 120 feet the other, gentlemen can conceive of the immense quantity of mackerel 
it is possible to take at one haul. Now, observe, the fact that the supply for the last ten or twelve 
years has not decreased does not go to jn-ove that the mackerel may not be diminished by tliis method 
of fishing, for the new method has been adox)ted because it is an improvement iqion the old one and 
enables the men to make a greater catch. 
A seine is worth from $1,000 to $1,200, and the ffshermeu now put into a single adventure $10,000 
or $12,000 where they formerly put only $3,000 or $4,000 at the outside. Therefore, the business is 
now so conducted that the take is not diminished, but it is because these new methods are so effective, 
and therefore so destructive. Not only are more mackerel, by a great many thousand barrels, annually 
taken into the city of New York now than were taken there ten years ago, but thousands of barrels are 
wasted and destroyed because the men take so many fish at a time that they can not handle them all. 
The quantity that goes into New York is really no indication of the total (piautity taken, but 
it is clear that the amount taken now in the southern fishing grounds is very much greater than it 
was ten years ago. The effect is noticed particularly in relation to the (xuality of the fish. The 
gentleman from Maine [Mr. Reed] cited evidence as to the quality of the fish in one case, showing 
that it had very much deteriorated. However, a single instance of that kind is not entitled to much 
weight in determining the general question, beca’use it may be exceiitional. But I hold in my hand 
the annual report of the Fish Bureau of Boston, giving the quantity and quality of fisli taken for more 
than fifty years, and also an annual statement of the (piality of the fish from year to year. The reirort 
covers the period from 1809 to 1884. 1 have made an abstract of it. It appears that for the ten years 
ending 1885 the amount of No. 1 mackerel taken, as compared with the whole catch, was 225,253 
barrels out of 1,880,767 barrels. For the ten years previous, from 1865 to 1875, the number of barrels 
of No. 1 mackerel was 103,630 out of 317,096 barrels. Thus it will be X)erceived that from 1865 to 1875 
the amount of No. 1 mackerel was little short of 50 i)er cent, while from 1875 to 1885 it was from 14 
to 16 per cent. This shows a very important change for the worse in the character of the fish. 
