254 
BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES FISH COMMISSION. 
We Iiave acted judicially in this matter. The men who arc pushiiijj this hill have come to Congress 
and said that their business was languishing; it was in danger of being destroyed unless some 
protective measure was thrown around it. They asked that the close season be established. They 
are reaching out in various directions to lind some remedy for the evil under which they labor, and it 
seems to me thoj^ make a very good case against the purse-seine lishing and in favor of the close 
season. 
So much for that charge of jihilanthropy. Now, the Senator gets up and ho takes this table, and 
I know that if he had had time to read it over critically he would not have made such an exhibition 
as he did in reading these iigures this morning. 
The Senator gets np and says that in 1803 the price paid for mackerel was $2,878,000, but ho says 
that owing to the purse-seine fishing in 1883 the price had gone down $1,619,000. If he had looked at 
the question critically, he would have seen that the price has been affected more by the degradation 
of the fish, by the quality running down, than by any other cause. For instance, in 1863 the percentage 
of No. 1 mackerel was 22 per cent, and in 1883 it was 14 per cent. He will find also that in 1885 
215,000 barrels sold for $1,230,000, whereas in 1883 154,000 barrels sold for $1,619,000. There was a 
larger amount, 215,000 barrels, against 154,000, and the 215,000 brought $1,230,000 and the 154,000 
brought $1,619,000; and what was the reason? The reason was that in 1883 the percentage of No. 1 
mackerel was 14 per cent, and in 1885 it whs 7 per cent. If there is anything in figures, it seems to 
mo that that is very fully jiroveu. 
Mr. Miller. 1 think the Senator has proved my proposition exactly. They want to reduce the 
amount of fish caught aud therefore increase the price, and that is what they will do if the bill is 
passed. 
Mr. Palmer. That is not the animus of the bill, nor is it fairly inferable, it seems to me, from any 
of the arguments used or any of the statements made before the committee. It is the running down 
of the quality that they complain of, and that causes the present state of their business aud the present 
low prices that they receive for mackerel. It seems to mo that they are right. The Committee on 
Fisheries have no interest in the matter, save to see that justice is done to a great and important 
interest. 
Now, who arc to be benefited by this bill? Primarily those men whom the Senator from New 
York calls monopolists. They have the monopoly of the business now. It makes no difference to 
them whether they take their fish down on the coast of New Jersey or up on the coast of Massachu- 
setts if it is equally profitable; but it makes a great ditference if it is not profitable, and if it is the 
cause of the decrease of the profits in their business. It also is a matter of interest to the people along 
the shore of Delaware aud New .Jersey that they shall be disturbed in their fisheries along the borders 
of their States with hook and lino. This is merely a crusade against luirse-seino fishing in the spawn- 
ing season; and, taking all the statements from the different gentlemen who appeared before the 
committee, it seems to me that the Senate can not come to any other conclusion than that the proj)er 
thing to do is to p.ass the bill. 
Mr. Miller. The Senator seemed to make an entirely different statement in regard to the danger 
of the destruction of this fish as a fish called mackerel. I want to ask the chairman of the committee 
now, in all seriousness, whether there is a particle of scientific evidence anywhere in the world going 
to show that it is i)ossible for man, with all the modern devices aud means of fishing, to in any way 
l>erceptibly diminish the number of fish in the sea? 
Mr. Palmer. I am coming right to it, aud I can best illustrate it to the gentleman by a little 
figure of speech. 
The conclusion arrived at by Professor Huxley, when he made that investigation in regard to the 
herring fishery, seems to be the bulk of the o^jposition. Now, Professor Baird has said, aud the Senator 
read so on Tuesd.ay, that it might be well to try the experiment; that it is 2>"8sible that the purse- 
seine fishing might in time lessen the quantity of mackerel. Professor Goode, the next highest in 
authority, said that if it did not destroy the mackerel it might dellect them from their ordinary route 
aud course. Cajitain Collins, ^lossibly the best i)ractical man in the Fish Commission, a man in whom 
Professor Baird has the highest confidence, believes that it does deflect them from their course. But 
I was going to answer the gentleman’s question liy another, or rather by a little illustration. 
What diirereuce would it make to him if a lot of Apache Indians came to his farm in Herkimer 
County, New York, aud killed his cattle and carried off the heel', or whether they drove the cattle 
down into Mexico, and over the border; he loses his cattle in either case. In one case the country is 
not dejileted of cattle; there are just as many cattle, but they are not where they are available to him. 
