THE SOUTHERN SPRING MACKEREL FISHERY. 
239 
Mr. Miller. I said oue-lialf. I did not say tlie whole. 
Mr. Dawes. I say the Senator was mistaken when he said I stated that one-half had been 
dumped off the wharves. I said one-half of them were disposed of in some way; that is, dumped off 
the wharves, sent to express offices, and thence away off at a distance in such large <|uautities that 
they became useless and could not be eaten at all. 
Mr. Miller. The statement of Mr. Rlackford does not bear out that statement of I he Senator. 
Mr. Dawe.s. The whole statement in the book the gentlemen has before him on that subject 
bears out what I said. 
IMr. Miller. Perhajis it may; I will not undertake to say in regard to that; but I say the state- 
ment of Mr. Blackford, who has more information about it than any other man in this country, does 
not bear out the statement of the Senator; and even if it did it would bo no argument at all in favor 
of this bill, for there is nothing in this bill that will prevent the 170 or the 400 vessels, as I think the 
Senator from Maine said, engaged in this business from catching, after the 1st day of June, all the 
mackerel that go to their seines, it may lie 120 barrels in one haul. There is not anything in the bill 
to prevent that. 
It so happened that two years ago this fishing fleet went south, and off our coast it struck the 
mackerel as they were coming in to our shores, and, like wise fishermen, they filled their nets and 
filled their ships, and brought them into port, and they lirought in 60,000 barrels and they were 
distriliuted over the country, and the estimate of Mr. Blackford is that perhaps 6,000 liarrels out of 
them all were wasted because thej^ were spoiled before they could be properly distributed, but that 
is a thing that never happened before and may never happen again, and there is nothing in this bill 
to prevent its happening every year. 
I was attempting to show that it was impossible for man, in any way, to control the fishes of the 
sea and their supply, or that we had any exact information regarding them, and therefore that it was 
worse than folly, that it was criminal on our part to attempt to curtail the su^iply of food to our 
people by fencing in the Atlantic Ocean for three months and preventing; our fishermen from fishing. 
I was reading a letter from Professor Baird when I was interrupted. I will go back In the letter. 
I have never been convinced that the abundance of mackerel has been in any way afl'ected through the agency of 
man. The catch in 1884 and 1885 was far above the average for the past fifty years. 
The Senator from Michigan told us that purse-seine fishing began in 1873. Twelve years after it 
the catch was the largest that had been made within fifty years. Certainly this purse-seine fishing 
has not diminished the supply of mackerel very much in the high seas during the thirteen or fourteen 
years it has been in operation. But that does not prove anything positively. The Senator may be 
right in his projihecy that if purse-seine fishing goes on uninterruptedly for a term of years it will 
entirely destroy mackerel fishing. My only answer to that is that if it is true he should have brought 
in another kind of bill, a bill forbidding jmrse-seine fishing at alh That he has not done. 
Professor Baird says further; 
It is not impossible, however, tliat the continuance of the use of the great X'urse seines may in time have an appreci- 
able effect in decreasing their numbers. The statistics of the uext few years will doubtless enable us to form a definite 
opinion upon this question. 
Would it not be wise to postpone the operations of this bill, not for one year, but for five or ten 
years, in order that we may get some statistics to show whether it is decreasing it or not? Only three 
years ago, perhaps four years ago — the Senator from New Jersey will know — the jiersons engaged in 
menhaden fishing, a fish which is taken only for oil and fertilizing purposes, came here and demanded 
an investigation by this body, and asked that we pass laws curtailing menhaden fishing, if not to 
entirely suspend it for a term of years, upon the ground that the menhaden were entirely disappearing 
from our coast, and that a great industry was being destroyed. While that investigation was going 
on, while this liody was considering the proposition as to whether it would limit menhaden fishing or 
not, the menhaden fishing tleet, which was out looking after its freight, was struck by the greatest 
school of menhaden that had ever been known off' our coast, made the largest catch it had ever made, 
and made the largest profits it had ever made. And then what? Those wise men, who had lieen 
demanding of Congress that it should stop that kind of fishing, came here and humbly inayed us that 
we would quit our investigation and not pass any legislation. That is what resulted that year. 
Here I show you that in 1885 the largest catch of mackerel was made that had been made in fifty 
years, and still gentlemen come here demanding that we shall yard up the Atlantic Ocean and jirevent 
mackerel fishing for three months of the year. 
