226 
BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES FISH COMMISSION. 
food to my people and to all the people of the country and yet good for the fisherman, whose recom- 
pense is a part of the proceeds of each catch. The advantage is the difference between system and 
no system. If it were not so, 1 should oppose the bill. If it sought to restrict anybody’s occupation 
in order to enhance anybody’s income, I would oppose it as a piece of class legislation. 
It Is asserted, ajjparently with good reason— 
Says this same authority, whom Professor Baird says is second in practical knowledge to no oue- 
in the world — 
that the expensive operations carried on with purse seines in the spring, when the mackerel are migrating north, has a 
tendency to divert them from their intended course — 
The same idea which was advanced by Professor Goode in the Loudon address— 
they are driven off shore, and frequently fail to reach their natural feeding and spawning grounds in the Gulf of Maine. 
They are dispersed at the very inception of their rising from the depths of the sea. They are not 
permitted either to fatten or to assemble upon their feeding grounds. How can you net fish or birds 
if they are dispersed before they get to the trap? Captain Collins further says: 
This is believed to be especially the case with the larger mackerel, which, as the season advances, grow fat and 
become the best qualities known to our market. Where these fish go is not clearly understood, and this is one of the 
problems which the Fish Commission hope to solve in the schooner now being built with the approimiation made by Congress 
last winter. 
The practical ‘effect of the present system is that the fish are driven away from our people and 
beyond a point where they can be economically caught by our fishermen. Then further: 
The effect upon the quality of the catch, should a restriction be put upon the spring fishing — 
Says this same gentleman, who is the best authority, according to Professor Baird, in the world — 
the effect would be to improve it very materially. This is well known to everyone who has any knowledge of the species. 
The improvement in quality would be due to two causes: First, fish taken before June are poor and thin, hut after 
that date they fatten rapidly and soon reach their maximum of fineness as an article of food; second,-if the fish are undis- 
turbed in the spring and allowed to dejmsit their spawn during the most critical period of their existence, it is believed that 
the size of the fish will improve very materially and that No. 1 mackerel of full size and best quality may again become 
fairly abundant in our markets — 
Our people being deprived of them now— 
May again become fairly abundant in our markets and an article of food for any person of ordinary means. 
That is what they are notnow, and that is exactly what this bill seeks to make them to the public 
and to the laboring poor of this country. I should not expect that four or a half dozen fishmongers in 
the city of New York would see their necessities or show that they sympathized with them in that 
respect; but it is my belief, on the statement of the best authority, although the gentleman from New 
York says there is no authority in favor of such a course as this, that such would be the result. 
It will be accessible for any per-son of ordinary means, instead of being so rare that they have become a luxury and 
attainable only by the wealthy, if attainable at .all. 
That is the present condition, just the reverse of what is stated by the gentleman from New 
York : 
One thing is certain, whereas mackerel now taken before J une 1, as above stated, are always poor and generally small 
or medium size, those taken .after that date are mostly fat fish, and very much more valuable for food, containing a far 
larger amount of nutritive qualities in proportion to the .actual weight of the fish when taken from the water. 
He goes on to answer another of my iiuestions: 
You ask [said he] will this make mackerel no higher to consumers, but more suitable for eating, hence insuring 
consumption and the popularity of the fish, followed by the unlimited supply of good fish? 
That was one of the questions that I asked and to which I sought au answer, because anything 
that tends to make food cheaper to our 2 >eople commends itself to me, and that was the object I had 
in view in framing this bill. 
I have already said something of the price. It should bo understood that the price, in accordance with the laws of 
trade, will be governed largely by the supply and demand. 
It is claimed by many, both dealers and fishermen, that a direct result of putting a better average qu.ality of fish on 
the market would be to increase the popularity of the ra.ackerel with our people, a popularity it once enjoyed in a preeminent 
degree, and as a consequence the consumption of this species would be much larger than now. 
