THE SOUTHERN SPRING MACKEREL FISHERY. 245 
Massacliueotts fishermen alone, then yon have got no such product from the fishery as you had years 
ago, and therefore the fishermen themselves ought to be restricted. 
Mr. President, there is ouly one interest that is opposing this hill. I say again that not a fisher- 
man opposes it, not one upon any coast; they are all cared for. But in March aud in April, when this 
great fleet drives into the schools of fish and lauds 60,000 barrels in New York, which can not take care 
of 30,000, it may be a part of which are consumed, then the fishmonger, who is at the bottom of the 
opposition to this bill, comes in and buys. I have statistics here, which if necessary I will put in 
before the debate closes. He buys the fish at a cent and a half per pound. The men who are engaged 
in fishing, who work on those vessels that catch them, do not average $6 a month for their pay ; but 
the fishmongers in New York — three or four there hold control of the market — buy these fish at a 
nominal rate and retail them out, poor as they are, at 8, 10, 12, aud 15 cents per pound, and make 
that enormous profit, and they form the whole opposition to this bill. I know how it was before the 
committee. The whole voice that was expressed against it there was expressed by the fishmongers 
and the men they sent down from New York. It is an attempt to stand in the way of legislation 
which Congress has adopted for years, which every State has adopted, of having a close time in order 
to protect the food products. 
There never was a time when you attempted in a State to fence round, as the Senator from New 
York says (using that phrase to prejudice this bill), there never was a time in a State when it was 
attempted to fence round a lake, or the water of a river, or any water under the Jurisdiction of a 
State, that it was not said that it was interfering with the liberty of the citizen, and undoubtedly 
that raises prejudice; and unless it be shown that it is for the good of the iieople afterwards in 
protecting the supply of food, the citizen ought not to be restrained in his liberty. If anything has 
been shown, that has been shown here. 
I repeat that the opposition here comes right from the center of New York City, where these 
fishmongers are. Let anybody examine the document that the Committee on Fisheries has presented 
to this body, which the chairman holds in his hand, aud which every member can get, and he will 
find that the inspiration of the opposition comes from there and there alone. I for one will not sit 
here aud allow this wise measure to be prejudiced by being placed before the Senate in a wrong 
manner. 
More than one Senator has asked me, “Does not this prohibit the catching of all these fish until 
they get up to the shore of Maine?” No, sir; not in the least. That is not the theory of it. The 
Maine fishermen, as I have said, catch these fish at all times, whether good or not, and every fisher- 
man that comes out from the coast below New England is jealously guarded in the provisions of this 
bill. He will go out and fish and he will catch the larger fish, because in fishing by boat and seine 
he will get those fish aud they will be brought into the market, and Philadelphia and Baltimore aud 
Wilmington and Now York aud Hartford and the cities along the Sound will get them under these 
provisions. 
Mr. Miller. The Senator has said that this bill does not prohibit the catching of fish until they 
reach the coast of Maine or Massachusetts. What does the bill do? I would like to have the 
Senator tell us. 
Mr. Hale. The bill leaves all the fishing that the local coasts are engaged in unmolested and 
protected and guarded. It then provides that at this period when the fish are poor, approaching the 
spawning season, then outside of our waters (not raising the question of what can be done in the State 
waters, but dealing with goods imported into the United States as we may deal with any imported 
jiroduct), for the months when the fish are in that condition they shall not be caught. The reasons for 
this I do not need to repeat, because by so catching them you destroy the great portion of the mack- 
erel fishery, which is the portion that comes later in the year and in which the people of the United 
States are interested everywhere. The people of New York City and the little neighborhoods around 
there are interested in the fresh fish that are brought in in those months in great quantities, but the 
people of the United States are interested, Kansas is interested, Nebraska is interested, Michig.an is 
interested, Iowa is interested in this groat food product that is caught later, that is salted, aud then 
finds its way to the table of everybody, aud it is the interest of everybody that that should be kept up. 
The Senator from New York says it is not everybody that oats No. 1 mackerel. No, sir; but 
when you destroy the catch of fish that are now produced aud that make the supply of No. 1 mackerel 
small, you bring back the old price at which No. 1 mackerel was put on the table of the inhabitant 
of Michigan years ago; you apply that same price to No. 1 mackerel which is now paid for No. 3 by 
