amount we have been producing; and we are assured beyond question that an abundance of fish, quite equal to these demands, swim along our shores, and that the capture of a sufficient number of them would not appreciably affect their plentifulness. Surely the legislation that prevents the development of this source of wealth must be at fault somewhere. Such legislation exists in Maine, Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia; and the conditions under which these laws were passed deserve to be cited here. In considering these repressive enactments it will be apropos first to examine the arguments urged in favor of them. Three principal objections to the menhaden fisheries are made: First, that fishing for menhaden, mackerel, or any other fish with a purse seine (the appliance now used) depletes the supply of these fishes; second, that menhaden is the food of many of the food fishes, and the depletion or "driving away of the shoals" of this species by seining, forces the food fishes-mackerel, striped bass, bluefish, etc.-to seek other waters; and, third, that the enormous captures of menhaden for the purposes of making oil and guano prevent the procuring of bait for our cod and other fisheries; it being included in the third objection that inasmuch as cod, mackerel, bluefish, and other species are captured with menhaden bait, this latter fish is a natural food of the food fishes. It is also claimed that the shoals of fish are frightened by the purse seines, so much so that they cease to frequent the shores in the same abundance. These constitute in brief the objections to the capture of menhaden for oil and guano, and form the basis of the reasons why the States of Maine, Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia passed prohibitory laws. Let us now examine the other side of the question. Before the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the United States Senate, February 17, 1892, Mr. William F. Brown, of Philadelphia, said: "The annual value of our" (the Menhaden Association) "product for the last twenty years has averaged $1,500,000, more than two thirds of which is paid to the two thousand men employed. And when you consider that every dollar of this-more than $25,000,000--is a permanent clear addition to the wealth of the nation, because the crude material is taken from the sea; and when you have seen how generally the whole people are interested, directly and indirectly, in our success or failure, you will stand amazed at the recital of the persecutions and legislative wrongs to which we have been subjected." Further on Mr. Brown made a general denial of all the objections claimed by the opponents of the menhaden industry. This statement is backed up by the evidence of Mr. Eugene Blackford, of New York; of Captain Nathaniel Church and his brother Daniel T. Church, of Tiverton, R. I.; and by the opinions of Captain J. W. Collins, of the United States Fish Commission, Prof. G. Brown Goode, and many others scientifically and practically engaged in deep-sea and coast fisheries. For instance Captain Collins says: "The researches and inquiries made by the Fish Commission, I think, show conclusively that certain species of migratory fishes, like, for instance, the mackerel and menhaden, are subject to influences which determine their abundance outside of anything that can be done by man-influences that are much more potent than man's are." In proof of this statement both Captain Church and Mr. Collins have drawn attention to the facts that, in the case of mackerel-and menhaden are, like mackerel, migratory and similarly influenced-seasons of scarcity may be and are followed by years of comparative plenty; and a series of seasons of scarcity may be followed by a gradual increase until an abundance is reached that is very surprising. This disposes of the claim that purse-seine fishing affects the natural scarcity or abundance of fish on the coast. Mr. Church and Mr. R. E. Earle authoritatively deny the statements that food fishes are taken in the nets of the menhaden steamers. And Mr. Earle says that, when engaged, as an expert of the United States Fish Commission, to inquire into the menhaden fisheries, he did not see enough food fish taken for the table of the steamer as the result of several hauls of menhaden. Right here it will be interesting to describe the method of seining menhaden, showing how it is almost impossible to capture food fishes other than migratory fishes in the purse seines. The steamers used in the menhaden fishery average about seventy-five tons register and have a carrying capacity of nearly one hundred and fifty tons. Each steamer is manned by twenty to twenty-five men, of whom sixteen are fishermen. When a school of fish is sighted, two hoats put out from the steamer, each boat containing eight men. From one of these boats the net is "shot "-the other holding the top and foot lines of one end. The usual length of a purse net or seine is about eighteen hundred feet and the depth sixty to one hundred and twenty feet. As one of the boats rows around the school of fish, the net is thrown out from the other, and when the circle is made, both ends of the "bottom line" are drawn. This makes the "purse"; but it also allows the "bottom fish," which are practically all food fishes, time to escape; so that as a rule no fishes except the menhaden, or whatever kind of fishes are inclosed on the surface, are captured by the purse seines. The top lines are then drawn, and the bag or purse completed. The contents are then towed along to the steamer, where they are hoisted by steam, and the seine emptied into the "hold.” It should be stated here that the meshes of every purse seine employed in the menhaden industry are two and seven eighths inches square, so that it is practically impossible to capture any immature fishes in these nets. Aside from the operations of the factories, menhaden are used as bait for food fishes; a small quantity is salted and exported to the West Indies, where it is eaten by the negroes; and many more are plowed into the soil by farmers along the Atlantic coast, as has been the custom for centuries. The question of the menhaden being used as food by the food fishes is practically disposed of by Dr. Bean, the ichthyologist of the United States Fish Commission, who testified that, having examined the stomachs of numbers of bluefish and other food fishes, he failed to find any evidence of the menhaden except in the form in which it is used as a bait for "chumming," and only in a very few cases was it present at all. Mr. Atwood, of Bristol County, Massachusetts, whose experience as a practical fisherman extends back to 1816, makes the following interesting statement: "The great changes in our fisheries have been caused by the bluefish. . . . When they first appeared in our bay I was living at Long Point (Provincetown), in a little village containing some two hundred and seventy population, engaged in the net fishery. The bluefish affected our fishing (mackerel, menhaden, etc.) so much that the people were obliged to leave the place. Family after family moved away, leaving that locality, which is now a desolate, barren, and sandy waste." Passing over the depredations of the bluefish, Mr. Atwood says, "I firmly believe there is no necessity for the passage of any general legislative act for the protection or regulation of our sea fish and fisheries." J. M. Rimbaud, a famous French ichthyologist and practical fisherman, says that the migratory fishes can not be diminished by overfishing; but that local fishes might be exterminated by constantly fishing for them. The Royal Commission appointed by Her Britannic Majesty's Government to inquire into the condition of the fisheries of Great Britain and Ireland, which consisted of Prof. Thomas Henry Huxley, Right Hon. James Caird, and the Right Hon. George Shaw Lefevre, after three years of exhaustive inquiry reported: "We advise that all acts of Parliament which profess to regulate or restrict the modes of fishing pursued in the open sea be repealed, and that unrestricted freedom of fishing be pursued hereafter." I heard Prof. Huxley state positively, in 1883, that after many years of study of the question he had come to the conclusion that the supply of migratory fishes, especially the herring, was inexhaustible. I think I have now told enough about the non-edible fish in |