THE SOUTHERN SPRING MACKEREL FISHERY. 
229 
The consideration of the bill was not reached in the Senate until February 8, 1887, 
when it led to a longer and even more interesting discussion than occurred in the 
House. The debate extended over parts of two days, and was participated in by a 
number of Senators wliose constituencies were affected by the bill. The following 
abstract of the principal remarks is given to complete the history of this important 
legislation. The amendment reported by the committee being agreed to, and another 
amendment substituting 1888 for 1887 in the first clause of the bill being under dis- 
cussion, Mr. Palmer, of Michigan, chaiiman of the Committee on Fisheries, who had 
charge of the bill, spoke as follows: 
Mr. Palmer. I hope the amendment will not ho agreed to for this reason : The committee have 
made the concession wliich has been offered and accepted hecanse they tiionglit otherwise a hardship 
would be inflicted upon those who had made preparation for this year. 
In answer to the Senator from New York as to whetlier I think it proper that these men slionld 
have notice so that their property can he protected, I will say that the hill was drawn and is being 
urged by all the mackerel fleet, as far as the Committee on Fisheries know, engaged in the spring 
catch of mackerel. Their vessels and their equipments have rnn down in valuation from 25 to 50 cents 
on the dollar, and it is to save them from commercial destruction, and also to see if the fisheries can 
not he regulated so that the mackerel will not he driven entirely from our coast and onr peo 2 )le deiiri ved 
of the chief food on which they rely, and upon which they lay very great stress, that this liill is being 
l>ushed. 
Mr. McPherson. If the Senator from Michigan will pernjit me, I wish to ask him a question. I 
see the hill qiroposes that during a certain season of the year, whicli I presume is the sjiawniug season, 
there shall 1)0 no catch of mackerel, and this restriction is to continue for a period of five years. Let 
me ask the Senator if the testimony before the committee, of which I understand him to he chairman, 
was not to the effect that it was impossible under any condition of circumstances to deplete the sea 
fisheries? Certain years you have a run of fish of a certain kind a,nd character. For instance, along 
the Atlantic coast one year we have a great run of hluefish. Again, for a year or two there will ho 
scarcely any hluefish. In certain years we have a great run of the menhaden ; and then for a year or 
two we shall see very many less of them. In my o^iinion — and my opinion is very largely sustained 
by experts in fishery matters— there is no amount of catch of fish which can be taken from the water 
by any process, whether it he by seines or otherwise, that can in any sense or form affect the supjily 
of fish. I think that is a reasonable view to take of the question. 
I wish to know why in certain seasons of the year, when there are in some years extraordinary 
runs of mackerel at the particular season to which the hill relates, it is necessary toxirevent the people 
of the country from having cheap fish food, as they now have in the absence of any law governing 
and controlling the matter, when it does not and can not in the least particular affect the supply of 
fish? 
I suppose it is very well established that not one in a hundred of the germs ever becomes a 
living fish. 
Will the Senator answer the question I have asked him and inform me whether it was not stated 
before the committee that it was impossible to deplete the sea fisheries? If he will answer that 
question, I think he will simply state what ought to be the fate of the hill. Therefore, I will await 
the Senator’s answer. 
Mr. Palmer. We know that the first question scientifically, so far as the fish supjily is concerned, 
is not thoroughly understood, and unless scientists are perfectly sure and can demonstrate a fact so 
that it can not he disproved they are not going to assent to a proposition. The whole theory of the 
impossibility of the siioliation of the sea has arisen from Professor Huxley’s reiiort on the herring 
fisheries of Great Britain. He siient five years in his investigations, but he did not make a report 
that is applicable here. He said that nothing that man could do would tend to deplete the sea of 
fish ; hut that is not the question here. 
We do not contend that there will not he just as many mackerel without this ^iroposed legislation, 
hut we contend that the mackerel will he reduced in quality; that they will he driven off to other 
feeding grounds. 
It is a well-known fact that the anadromous fishes, those fishes that go into the mouths of rivers 
to spawn, are protected by State laws. The large schools of fish that come u 2 )on our coast every year 
