June 10, 1893] 
THE EI8HING GAZETTE 
437 
AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE IT LEGAL 
TO SELL ARTIFICIALLY-REARED 
TROUT DURING THE FENCE 
MONTHS. _ 
We are delighted to see, from Shooting and 
Fishing, that the hill known as the “ Gilbert 
Trout Bill,” has been finally, thotigh not by large 
majorities, rejected by the Massachusetts Legisla¬ 
ture. 'The object of the bill icas to allow artifi¬ 
cially-reared trout to be sold in the markets as food 
during the trout fence months, or some of them. 
But the matter is so interesting that we repro¬ 
duce the whole report. 
“THE GILBERT TROUT BILL. 
“ The bill known as the Gilbert Trout Bill, 
before the Massachusetts Legislature, which pro¬ 
vides that trout artificially reared may be sold 
during the months of February and March, and 
which has passed the House and two readings in 
the Senate, was brought before the Senate on the 
question of the ordering to a third reading on 
March 28. Perhaps no question has aroused so 
much interest among sportsmen in Massachusetts 
for many years as the proposed law, and the dis¬ 
cussion on the bill in the Senate on Tuesday last 
was as important a one as was ever considered by 
the Legislature of Massachusetts in fish and game 
legislation. A large number of persons were 
present to listen to the speeches on this question. 
The first speaker was Senator John Read, of the 
Third Middlesex district. Senator Read spoke as 
follows:— 
“ This bill is very like the one presented to the 
Legislature last year, and, like that bill, ought 
not to pass. The present law on trout is from 
April to September, this law dating back to 1870. 
For sixty-one years the date has not been fixed 
as early as the bill presented last year provided 
for. It has been found necessary in all countries 
to enact laws for the protection of fish and game. 
In England, in France, and in other foreign 
countries, this has been considered of the greatest 
importance, and in our own State we are even 
obliged to extend protection to lobsters. The 
honourable gentlemen will consider before passing 
such a law, that, if we want to preserve our 
game, we must take some decided stand. In 
New Hampshire, at the present time, a bill is 
before the Legislature to make the opening date 
later, while here in Massachusetts we are pro¬ 
posing to open the season earlier. New Hamp¬ 
shire has found it necessary to open the season 
later. Why should we want to change the law to 
an earlier date ? If we want to do away with the 
wild trout of this Commonwealth, we should pass 
such a law. This bill says that artificially reared 
trout may be sold ; but trout are trout, and if we 
pass such a law, it will be the entering wedge, 
and wild trout will be caught and sold. This 
bill gives to an individual, who has already 
grown rich in the business, special privileges. 
He charges an exorbitant price for his trout, 
sixty cents to a dollar a pound. It is special 
legislation, and should this bill become a law, the 
poor farmer’s boy, you or I, can’t catch trout, 
but Mr. Gilbert may sell his trout when the rest 
of the citizens of this Commonwealth are not 
permitted to fish. The State of Massachusetts 
has always stood by the laws for fish and 
game protection, and if there is a time when 
we need laws for fish and game protection 
it is now. Should this bill become a law, 
artificially reared trout may be sold February 
1st. It will be an easy matter for poachers 
to go to favoured places and catch the wild trout, 
and he can clean out a brook in a short time. This 
bill is nothing but special legislation, just a,s 
much as the one presented last year, and it is 
simply a law to permit an individual to sell trout 
at a dollar a pound. The farmer is obliged to 
wait for a certain season to market his product. 
Every man has to wait for the market, and no 
privileges should be given to anyone that inter¬ 
feres with the laws of this Commonwealth. We 
have laws governing the sale of oleomargarine 
and other artificial products, and why should we 
make a law to permit the sale of liver-fed trout 
for wild trout ? Let us call them liver-fed trout, 
Gilbert trout, or some other name that correctly 
represents them. As one who has always believed 
in fish and game laws, I think we had better not 
try this experiment. Who will determine whether 
a trout is one-half or one quarter of an inch over 
the length provided for in this bill P There is 
everything in this bill to tempt people to break 
this law. No, gentlemen, the game laws should 
not be changed this year. If there is to be a 
change it should be for the protection of trout 
throughout the entire year, for at least a period 
of two years, and I should vote for such a bill 
were it under consideration. H we legislate let 
it not be for the benefit of individuals. 
“ Senator Luther Dame of the Third Essex 
District was the next speaker. Senator Dame 
referred to a convention of Fish Commissioners 
held in New York last year, and read from a 
report the testimony of one of the commissioners 
who had been engaged in trout raising artificially. 
This gentleman had been in the habit of sending 
trout to a friend in the city each year. Last year 
he sent him a lot of wild trout, and his friend 
wrote him stating that he did not like the trout, 
because they were reared artificially, when, as a 
matter of fact, they were wild trout taken some 
distance away from where the artificially reared 
trout were hred. The friend declared that he 
could always tell the difference between the wild 
trout and the artificially reared trout, but in 
several tests, he had always selected the arti¬ 
ficially reared trout as wild trout, and, finally, he 
was forced to admit that tame trout were the 
best he had ever tasted. As a matter of fact, 
wild trout feed on much disgusting food, while 
the artificially reared trout partakes of the same 
food as people. The bill last year had been 
favourably considered, and the restrictions in 
the present bill gave the proper protection to the 
wild trout. The principles in the bill are right. 
The farmer to-day who has an article ready for 
the market is not obliged to go to the Statute 
books to see when he can sell his green peas or other 
products. He expects to be protected. He pays 
taxes, and he has the right to sell what he raises. 
Artificially reared trout deteriorate by over¬ 
growth after a certain time. They are ready for 
the market two months before the native trout, 
but if kept later they become inferior for food; 
therefore, it was an unjust discrimination against 
the trout breeder to forbid his selling his trout 
when they were fit for the market. There is in 
the State of Massachusetts 196,000 acres covered 
by water, much of which is fit for the rearing of 
trout artificially, and that can be readily con¬ 
verted into trout ponds. This property would 
develop and bring a large income to the State. A 
fair valuation of the territory would be §100 an 
acre, the taxes upon which would bring to the 
State §200,000 annually. The bill now under 
consideration was for the interests of people not 
only engaged in the trout industry, but those 
desiring to enter the business. When the exist¬ 
ing laws were enacted, the artificial trout 
industry had not been developed, but if the 
proposed bill became a law, a sufficient number 
of persons would embark in it to bring down the 
price of trout. Question by Senator Read: Do 
you know of Mr. Gilbert selling any trout for 
less than sixty cents a pound F Senator Dame; 
No, but I think by this law that many persons 
would engage in the business, and soon lower 
the price of trout, and it would give many poor 
people, who had never tasted of this delicious 
fish, the privilege of doing so at a low price. The 
constitutionality of this question will be raised. 
“ Senator Henry Parkman of Boston was the 
next speaker. It was difficult to say anything 
new on this subject. It was not a question of 
liver-fed trout and wild trout. The question 
does not depend on those arguments. The State 
of Massachusetts desired to benefit all its citizens, 
and it was considered wise to enact laws which 
would place a proper close season on all fish and 
game. Without such laws the fish and game 
would disappear. It was recognised that fish 
and game must be protected for the benefit of 
the citizen, and it is a question of the greatest 
advantage to the greatest number. The fish and 
game laws of Massachusetts had been of great 
benefit, and it can’t be figured in dollars and 
cents. Every senator that has had anything to 
do -with trout-fishing, well knows that proper 
protection to the trout brings to the Common¬ 
wealth a class of people of great benefit to the 
community. Anyone who has felt the thrill when 
a trout is taken with the fly rod, can understand 
the pleasures of angling, and, to secure that, we 
need game protection. Every trout caught now 
in the Commonwealth costs more than its weight 
in gold to the State. Where does that money go 
to? (Laughter.) To the farmers chiefly. Trout, 
in winter, congregate in deep holes, and all that 
is necessary for their capture is to break a hole 
in the ice, when one can catch them rapidly with 
a worm. It may be said that with this bill the 
wild trout are still protected. This appears so, 
but it will not be so in reality. We should pro¬ 
tect fish and game at the market. Notwith¬ 
standing the best intentions and efforts of the 
Fish and Game Commissioners, after the passage 
of this bill, the close season would be practically 
removed. The fish and game of this Common¬ 
wealth are too good an investment to be sacri¬ 
ficed. 
“ Senator Wm. M. Butler of the Third Bristol 
District (New Bedford) was the next speaker. 
It has been argued that any opposition to this 
bill was unnecessary, for it would be vetoed. 
That was no argument at all. We should be 
rea.sonable about legislation. It is not for us to 
consult sportsmen alone about the fish and game 
laws. Laws should be made for the benefit of 
the people. Those opposed to this bill are sports¬ 
men, pure and simple. An every-day man can’t 
catch trout at the present time unless he has 
some rich friend controlling waters. Nearly all 
the brooks at the present time are posted, and a 
city person attempting to catch fish is amenable 
to the law. The laws are made altogether too 
much in the interest of the sportsmen, and too 
little for the benefit of the people. The argument 
that, if the bill under consideration becomes a law, 
the wild trout will not be protected, clearly shows 
that the sportsmen have no confidence in the Fish 
Commissioners. The Commissioners were put in 
office to protect fish and game, and this argu¬ 
ment shows lack of confidence in them. Last 
year the bill was vetoed by the Governor, and 
that veto is another reflection on the Fish Com¬ 
missioners. The words in that veto are the ex¬ 
pressions of a sportsman. If an important food- 
fish can be produced by the passage of this bill, 
it is for the interests of this Commonwealth that 
it should pass, rather than consider the wishes 
of a few sportsmen. 
“ The remarks by Senator Butler brought 
Senator Read to his feet, who regretted that the 
honourable senator should drag politics into this 
question. He objected to the reference to the 
Governor because he saw fit to veto the bill last 
year. For heaven’s sake, said Senator Read, let 
us lay aside politics in this question, and not take 
into consideration whether a man is a Republican 
or a Democrat. He would repeat what he had 
said before. Why cannot Mr. Gilbert wait as 
other producers do? (Question to Senator Read.) 
Can’t any one else go into this business? No, 
not upon such advantageous conditions as Mr. 
Gilbert now enjoys. That is beginning at the 
small end of the question. It is legislation for 
one individual. Should the bill become a law, 
during February and March the farmer’s boy 
would say: ‘ Father, may I go and catch some 
trout to sell ? ’ The reply would be: ‘ No, you 
can’t; but Mr. Gilbert can.’ The sale of these 
liver-fed trout was an imposition upon the public, 
for they were supposed to be wild trout. Liver 
was a good article of diet, but he preferred to eat 
his straight. Should the proposed bill become a 
law, it would tempt poachers from other States to 
send wild trout for our market. 
“ Senator Arnold, of First Plymouth District 
(North Pembroke), said that it was his duty as a 
Representative to do what he could to secure the 
passage of the bill. This rearing of trout artifi¬ 
cially was a new industry, and not understood 
by the people from a business standpoint. 
Artificially reared trout were in first-class con¬ 
dition for food in February and March, but 
the wild trout were not fit to eat till. April, 
A man has God-given rights to dispose of the 
products of his industry. Mr. Gilbert knew 
nothing about the present bill until it was passed 
by the Committee on Fisheries and Game. Did 
Senator Read, who was fond of wild trout, know 
that they devour spiders, snakes, lizards, and 
about everything that swims? Question (by 
Senator Read) ; If I prefer that kind of food 
why should the Senator impugn me? Senator 
Arnold continued that there were some thirty 
people engaged in the artificial rearing of trout 
in the State, and that there would probably be 
fifty people in his district should this bill become 
