THE SOUTHERN SPRING MACKEREL FISHERY. 
257 
INTERPRETATION OF THE CLOSE-TIME LAW. 
Wheu the time came for the euforcemeiit of the close-time law, some doubt arose 
in the minds of the officials of the Treasury Depaat.ment as to the interpretation to 
be placed on the words in the act exempting from its provisions traps and weirs 
connected with the shore.” It was evident that a strict application of the law, as 
worded, would result in a very serious drawback to the important pound-net, trap, 
and weir fisheries along the coast of the Middle and New England States, in that very- 
few of the nets of this character are actually connected with the shore (that is, the 
land); mackerel constitute, in most cases, only a part of the catch, and when taken 
could not be returned to the water without much trouble, granting the wisdom of such 
a procedure by supposing that the fish could be released in an uninjured condition; 
and the expense and labor necessary to extend the leaders of the nets to the land 
would be useless so far as the fishery would be benefited and would result in no pos- 
sible good, so far as compliance with the law was concerned. 
Aside from 'the interpretation of the law, the matter possessed considerable 
interest in view of the question that was lueseuted as to the power of Congress to 
legislate for fisheries prosecuted in shore waters usually regarded as being under the 
jurisdiction of the several States. 
The petitions presented to Congress and the discussion of the matter by that 
body indicated that the proposed legislation was intended to restrict only the vessel 
fishery carried on with inirse seines, which alone, in recent years, has constituted the 
southern spring mackerel fishery. The amendments to the original bill, exempting 
from its provisions the boat fishing with hook and line and the fishing with pounds 
and weirs connected with the shore, were clearly designed to prohibit any interference 
with the shore fisheries of our coast. The wording of the bill was, however, ambig- 
uous, or, at least, was susceptible of a construction which was evidently not intended 
by most of those favoring the measure. 
The following correspondence, passing between the Treasury Department, the 
United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries, and private persons as to the 
construction to be put on the part of the act referred to, possesses considerable interest 
and importance. It will be seen that the ruling of the Treasury Department was based 
on a literal interpretation of the law and that the word shore” was regarded as being 
the line of mean low water. 
[Messrs. T. J. Jones &. Co., Boston, Mass., to tbe Secretary of ihe Treasury, April 30, 1888.] 
We are iuformed that the United States consul at Liverpool, Nova Scotia, holds that the words 
“traps and weirs connected with the shore,” in the act of Congress relating to the importation of 
macketel caught between the Ist of March and the 1st of June, can be construed to include nets 
anchored to the bottom, even at some distance from laud, and the interpretation of the collector 
of this port is that a trap is a technical designation and does not cover nets and seines. 
[Acting Secretary of the Treasury to the Comuiissiouer of Fish and Fisheries, May 4, 1888.] 
I inclose herewith a letter dated the 30th ultimo, received from Messrs. T. J. Jones & Co., from 
which it would appear that a difference appears in the construction placed upon the words “traps 
and weirs connected with the shore” (as contained in the act of February 28, 1887) by the United 
States consul at Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, to the collector of customs at Boston, and will thank you to 
return the inclosure with an expression of your views in the matter. 
