THE SOUTHERN SPRING MACKEREL FISHERY. 
241 
It is with that view, and that view alone, iiotwitlistanding the insinuation of the Senator from 
New York, that this hill is reported hack from the committee with a recommendation that it pass with 
the amendments proposed. 
Mr. MrLLKi!. The Senator states that this hill is hronght in hero hocauso of the great diminution 
of the (piantity of mackerel. I fail to find any such proof in the testimony snhmitted hy the com- 
mittee. On the contrary. I have read here from Professor Baird a statement showing that the catch 
of 1885 was the largest of any year for fifty years hack. 
Mr. Gray. The evidence taken hy this committee and before ns to-day shows, if it shows any- 
thing, that notwithstanding the improved methods hy which fish are taken, notwithstanding the use 
of purse seines, hy which whole schools of fish are taken at one time hy a fleet, the catch of fish has 
not increased in anything like the proiiortion in wliich the moans of catching them have been 
improved, hut on the contrary there is 
Mr. Miller. I ask for a reference to the statement showing that the number of fish or the amount 
of fish caught has decreased. 
Mr. Gray. If the Senator will read the report and if other Senators will read the report — I have 
not time to refer to it now — ho will find and they will find that the proportion of the fish caught is in 
no wise equal to the imiiroved method of catching them. That is what I mean to say. I do not mean 
to say that there is an enormous disparity between the actual catch now and the actual catch some 
twenty or twenty-five years ago; but there has been an enormous improvement in the method of 
catching these fish, by which, instead of the old hook-and-linc methods, they take in a whole school 
of fish at once, and the degradation in the (piality of the fish is established beyond all peradventnre, 
so that the quantity of No. 1 mackerel taken by these fleets ran down from 20, 30, and as high as 35 
per cent to 7 per cent, 8 per cent, and 9 per cent in the last three or four years. 
But, Mr. President, is it not worth while, even if this bo a doubtful question, even if there is a 
difference of opinion— and I admit that there is snch a difference among those who are experts in this 
matter of fishing as to whether anything that man can do can diminish the suiiply of fish in the 
Atlantic Ocean — in the face of this difference of opinion, is it not worth while to make the experi- 
ment for five years as to whether a close season, during the period of spawming and up to the time in 
the summer when the fish drop their spawn, wdll not improve the quality and conserve for the great 
consuming masses of this country this most important food product of our Atlantic coast? For, after 
all, as I said before, that is the object which this commif^ce have had in view all along in their 
investigation of this subject and in their approval of this House bill. 
I said there was nothing anomalous in this sort of legislation. Wo are constantly upon the 
land endeavoring to conserve and protect from destruction the great food supply of the forests and 
the streams. Our State statute books are full of enactments that tend to restrict the natural liberty 
of man in the taking of fish and in the killing of game, in order that the snpiily may not bo reck- 
lessly and wantonly destroyed; and it is upon that principle that I am in favor of this bill; and it is 
upon that principle, as I understand, that this committee have reported this bill favorably that they 
may, in the interests of all, endeavor, by the restriction of a few, to preserve a great food supply 
for the masses of our countrymen. 
We heard very fully the constituents of the Senator from New York, who represents a very 
small portion of this country of ours after all. We heard very fully those gentlemen describe how 
their interests would bo affected by this restriction — I mean the fishmongers of the city of New York. 
If there is any private interest being advocated upon this floor, as the Senator from New York seems 
to insinuate, it appears to me it is the interest of those fish merchants in the city of New Y'ork and 
the other large cities of the Atlantic coast that were being advocated by him when he opposed this bill. 
Now, sir, special interests must give way. The honest industry of these fishmongers must be 
subordinated, I submit, to the interests of the great consuming masses of this country. And if this 
experiment should turn out to be a failure, I do not think that the price wo have had to i)ay for it will 
be a very costly one. It is only for five years. I believe that the experiment will result advanta- 
geously. I believe that it will vindicate itself and that the restriction of fishing on the Atlantic coast 
will have the same eft’ect that restrictions upon fishing in our streams in the States by the State legis- 
latures have had in improving the quality and the quantity of the lish supply to the country at large. 
It is for this reason that I am willing to vote for this bill, and believe that it ought to pass. 
Mr. Miller. Mr. President, as I have shown conclusively from the evidence taken before this 
committee, the amount of mackerel in barrels, the catch has never been so great as it bas been since 
purse-seine fishing began, and, as Professor Baird says in his letter, the catch in 1885 was greater than 
F . C. B., 1898-16 
