The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1875-03-27

Is A correspondent, who signs himself
ga poor fisherman, makes an earnest pro-
test against the law which dscrimnates
against all stake nets being used in the
river at the head of Chesapeake Bay. AL
though his reasoning is most erroneous, as
we will attempt to show, his opinions are
worthy of more than casual notice, for he
speaks for large class, and with an earn
estness which shows that he believes his
demands are founded in justice, and that
"poor fishermen are most thoroughly
abused and wronged class of people.
He starts out by expressing doubts re-
garding the genuineness of the law which
was published in The Wing. We can as
sure him that the law is exactly as we
stated it, and it applies to all stake nets,
whether pound nets or other kinds. He
boldly asserts that "this law takes away
the rights and privileges of many poor
men," And here is the most impol tant
mistake of our correspondent and all that
class who reason from his standpoint
Neither rich or poor men have rights in
fish which may be detrimental to the pub
lie welfare. These poor men, who gain
precarious subsistence by setting fish traps
in the rivers, have no more rights invested
in the waters than every farmer in Cecil,
Kent and other counties in the State; and
suppose they all should claim and attempt
To hot Gcha
claims as the right of "many poor men,"
In a very short time would there be sim
gle fish left for anybody? Fish are great
food supply, in which the whole people are
deeply interested, and hence it becomes
the duty of government to protect the fish,
and prevent "poor men," as we'll as rich
men, who use drift nets and hauling seines,
from entirely destroying them. Fishing
to an extent not to diminish the annual
catch should be permitted and regulated
by law, but an indiscriminate fishing, as
has been the practice, should be put down
with strong hand. The complaint of our
correspondent that great abuses are per-
petrated by the haulers and gillers, we
believe is true, but these abuses are no ex-
cuse for other abuses which the law pro-
hibits. The law should be extended to in
clude other modes of fishing, and establish
necessary safeguards over the business,
which would be a great benefit to both
"poor fishermen " and the rich aristocrats
the writer so severely declaims against.
Our rivers used to TEEN with fish of all
kinds, especially shad and herring, but I'M
restricted fishing carried on through a sue.
cession of years reduced the fish SO that
the most of the fisheries became useless
property and were abandoned. Since the
stoppage of this indiscriminate slaughter
of fish, they have begun to recover, but as
they show signs of increasing more nets
are put into the waters, which will deplete
their numbers and keep down the increase,
if the law does not protect the fish by reg
ulating fishing.
1t is the interest of all poor men, whether
fishermen or not, to have cheap fish. They
cannot have this if fish are scarce and re-
main so for the want of proper laws to
protect and increase their numbers yearly.
Fish and game are cheaper in the markets
of England than in any other country, and
they are made SO by most stringent laws to
protect both. Suppose everybody were
allowed to fish Unfortunately in the rivers
of England, how long would it be before
there would not be single salmon found
in that country? would that state of affairs
benefit poor men?
Our indignant correspon dent, like many
others, condem Sportsmen's Associations
without knowing anything of their object
or use. Doubtless this "poor fisherman
had he and his class chance to supersede
the numskull" lawmakers, would rival
the Paris Commune. Did space permit, We
might say much more on this subject, for
which our correspondents letter furnishes
many texts, which is a strong argument
well expressed from his point of view, but
which, however, is founded entirely on
error. That the law was not enforced for
merly does not make it any less law,
which may be enforced i'll future, and ap-
pealing to higher courts would not help his
side of the case. Men who depend on fish
ing almost exhausted streams as the sole
support of their families will always remain
poor. Fishing has not been "free to all
men since the world began as our CORES
pondent supposes, except by suflerance of
the State. Government has control of all
navigable waters and one of it's most i'm
portant duties is to so restrict and place
safeguards upon the taking of fish, and also
attend to the stocking of streams, as to
keep up an abundant supply, in order that
fish may be cheapened by their abundance,
and afford a bountiful source of wholesome
and cheap food within reach of all poor
men, and not merely few "poor fisher
men,"
ST. NICHOLAS FOR APRIL has for one of
its principal features an article by Mr. Joel
Stacy, entitled "John Spooner's Great
Human Menagerie." The two serials, 'The
Young Surveyor" and Eight Cousins -
though doubtless equal in popularity, are
quite unlike in character; altogether there
is variety enough in the April instalments.
We find i'll this number also bit of history
concerning the famous " Bunker Pow