236 
BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES FISH COMMISSION. 
Mr. PaLiMEK. Will tlie Senator from New York permit me to interrupt him? Is not that essen- 
tially the effect of the hill? The Senator seems to ho confused on that point. If the Senator will 
read the proviso at the end of the lirst section I think he will he enlightened. 
Mr. Mili.eu. I have road it two or three times, and we all understand it. That permits fishing 
with hook and line during the three months specified, hut after that time is up, for the other nine 
months in the year, purse fishing goes on uninterruptedly off the coast of Massachusetts and Maine; 
hnt it can not take place off the coast of any other of the United States because the fish are not there 
except during those three months. That is the meat in this little bill. I say if the committee had 
come in hero with a bill providing that no mackerel should be landed upon our coast save mackerel 
taken by hook and line, it does seem to mo that the Senator might have stood upon some scientific 
ground, upon some just ground, and said to the Senate that he was afraid the entire species of mack- 
erel would be blotted out and withdrawn from the sea, and he was doing this to x»reserve the species. 
But that is not the case at all. Mackerel can be taken by purse seine any time after the Ist of June, 
any time after the fish have gone as high up as Massachusetts and Maine, but not before. 
The catch of fish is not falling off at all. The Senator says there have not been as many No. 1 
mackerel taken recently as heredofore. Qxiite likely that is true, but, as I have said, the masses of our 
people are not Imying No. 1 mackerel; they want cheap mackerel and cheap food of all kinds. I do 
not know that the entire catch of mackerel is given here. I suppose not, but it is the amount inspected 
in Massachusetts only that is stated in the repoi t. In 1876 it was 225,000 barrels. The next year it 
fell to 105,000 barrels. Evidently that was a bad year for mackerel. The next year it went up to 
144.000 barrels, and the next year 155,000 barrels. In 1880 it got up again to 243,000 barrels. The 
next year it was 256,000 barrels, and in the next 258,000 barrels. The next year — another bad year — 
in 1883, it was 154,000 barrels. The next year it went up to almost its largest xmiut. In 1884 it was 
283.000 barrels, and the next year it fell to 215,000 barrels. 
There is not aiiything to show in the statistics of the country (for there are no such statistics) 
that we are dejileting the seas or that we can in any way destroy or xierccptibly affect the supply of 
food-fish in the sea. What are caught by all the human race constitute a mere nothing in comparison 
to the vast jnultitudes that inhabit the S(‘a. 
Here is a food suitable to all our jieoiile. It costs no man anything to cultivate or raise. It roams 
at its will through the sea. It costs us nothing and never has cost us anything. We have be' n 
approi)riating a few thousand dollars from year to year to enable our scientific men to study the 
habits of sea fish and to see if they can do anything to bring them closer to our shores and to make 
our fisheries more effective. In the increase of our food-fish iu our interior waters they have undoubt- 
edly been very successful, and are doing much to resupply the streams and lakes which were giving 
out. But thus far they have produced no results whatever upon sea fish. They have been enabled to 
make some studies which are useful and I hojic will lead to beneficial results, but in regard to mack- 
erel they have not been able to arrive at any conclusion about their habits. They do not know where 
they go to nor where they come from. They simply know that during certain months they are off a 
certain portion of our coast and that we can then catch them, and that is all they know about them. 
Let me read from a letter written by Professor Baird on this subject: 
United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries, 
Washington, T>. C., February IS, ISSC. 
Dear Sir: I have received yom- letter a-sliing for .m opinion as to wlietlier “the preventing of mackerel fishing 
during the spring montlis is necessary for the maintenance of an .aliuudant suppB^ of tliat fish upon our shores.” I have 
never lieeii convinced that the abundance of mackerel has been in any way afl'ected through the agency of man. 
Here comes this committee, and it iiroposes to say that for three mouths in the year no mackerel 
whatever shall be landed ujion our coast. There can be no possible excuse or detuaiid for such legis- 
lation unless it be upon the ground that it is necessary tc xiroserve the fish and to x>reventthem from 
being obliterated. 
Mr. Palmer. Will the Senator permit me to make a statement? 
The Senator seems to have gotten up a fog hank, and thinks it is a positive clay bank, and he is 
pelting that. There is no charge that there has been a diminution in the exuantity of mackerel. That 
is not the charge, although I believe that will follow the purse-seine fishing if kept uxi for many 
years, but the charge is in the degradation of the cpiality. 
Mr. Miller. May I ask the Senator what is the reason for this bill? Why is it brought in here? 
Mr. Palmer. In answer I will state that it was brought here at the instance of men who are 
engaged in the mackerel fishery, who rexn esent 400 vessels and 5,000 seamen, who say that by reason 
i 
