THE SOUTHERN SPRING MACKEREL FISHERY. 
251 ) 
be consullicd — you are informed that seizures under this act should he proceeded with in the manner 
prescribed by the Regulations for other seizures. (See articles 1098 and 1107, Regulations, 1881.) 
The limitation of one week prescribed in article 1104 as to notice by advertisement may, if 
circumstances necessitate, be waived and the fish sold under such due and timely notice as will 
answer the purposes intended to be secured by the provisions of the Regulations in that respect. 
[Assistant Secretary of the Treasury to the Coiumissioner of Fish and Fisheries, June 14, 1889.] 
Referring to your letter of May 23, relative to the definition to be placed upon the words “ trajis 
and Aveirs connected with the shore,” as contained in the act of February 28, 1887, I inclose herewith 
a communication, dated the 6th ultimo, received from Mr. A. F. Crowell, of Boston, requesting a 
ruling hy the Department as to the right of traps and weirs in waters Avithin the limits of the States. 
The matter was referred to the Solicitor of the Treasury for his opinion by Department’s letter 
of May 13, 1889 (also inclosed), and that officer’s reply of the 28th idem has been received, in 
which he intimates that Department’s decision of May 26, 1888 (S. 8864), which was based upon 
your letter above referred to, is inconsistent with what he considers the proper construction of the 
act in question. 
The Solicitor’s opinion is also inclosed, and I will thank you to return all the documents herewith 
transmitted with an expression of your views on the question involved. 
[Mr. A. F. Crowell, Boston, Mass., to the Secretary of the Treasury, May 6, 1889.] 
On hehalf of the Net Fishermen’s Association, who are engaged in fishing Avith traps and weirs, 
would respectfully ask a ruling on the meaning of that part of the act of February 28, 1887, relating 
to the importing and landing of mackerel caught during the spawning season, Avhich reads : 
Provided^ however^ That nothing in this act shall he held to apply to mackerel caught ■with hook and line from boats 
and landed in said boats or in trai)s or -weirs connected with the shore. 
It is reported that a ruling has been made that in order to conform to the law a traq) must have a 
connection Avith shore to Ioav- water mark. We feel that if this is true it i« not a correct ruling and 
Avorks harm to the fisherman, as it is an unnecessary expense for him to set a leader to traqi in shoal 
water, as no more fish are caught therel)y. The bill itself was passed to jirevent the taking of mackerel 
by seines and purse nets, as reqiorted by Hon. Thomas W. Palmer, from the Committee on Fisheries, 
submitted to the Senate July 29, 1886. 
Again, the Committee on the .ludiciary, to whom Avas referred House bill 4690, reqAort (see Bulletin 
of the United States Fish Commission, 1886, page 117) : 
Your committee, therefore, being of opinion that the navigable waters Avithin each State belong to it, subject to the 
paramount right of uavig.ation for the benefit of its own people, it has the right to secure the exclusive right of fishing in 
them to its own citizens by virtue of their common property in said waters, and that the citizens of other States have no 
constitutional right, nor can Congress confer any, to particiijate in fishing in them. 
This matter of right of Congress in regard to the fisheries having been reported upon at the time 
of the committee reqiort on the “close season bill,” it would indicate the close season for catching 
mackerel was for the purpose of prohibiting the catching of mackerel outside of the limits of State 
waters, and the wording “connected with the shore” Avas in reference to the “shore fisheries” as defined 
from “deep-sea fisheries,” and Avas limited to the waters of the State and not confined to the low-water 
mark, as the decision of the Suq)reme Court of the United States has been that Congress or the United 
States has no authority over the fisheries in the waters within the limits of each State as referred 
to above, and as the State of Massachusetts grants licenses to set traqjs and weirs in the navigable 
waters of the State, and as the United States license to vessels is for deep-sea fishing, we hold it 
was not the intent of Congress to control the shore fi,shing, and that it has no constitutional right 
to do so. 
We therefore resqiectfully ask that a ruling be made in reference to that part of the bill as has 
reference to fishing by traps and weirs. 
[Assistant Secretar 3 ' of the Trea.surj' to the Solicitor of the Trea.sury, May 13, 1889.] 
I inclose liereAvith a letter, dated the 6th instant, received from A. F. Crowell, of 28 State street, 
Boston, asking, in behalf of the Net Fishermen’s Association, a ruling as to the meaning of that part 
of the act of February 28, 1887, entitled “An act relating to the importing and landing of mackerel 
caught during the sqiawning season,” Avhich refers to mackerel caught with hook and line from boats 
and lauded in said boats or in traps or weirs connected with the shore. The matter has been to some 
