Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1879-02-19
legislative Proceedings.
Continued from first page
AFrrRNooN SESSION.


/ Mr. SmTH said this was a matter of great
intcrcs st TO the county he represented. His
sympathy was always with the laboring men.
His county had a large shore front covered
all along with shore fishermen, and he OBJ
served among the numerous petitions pre-
scented to the Legislature that there was but
few from those towns fayoring the bill while
there were many asking for repeal OF the
law ot Last year.. The Legislature last year
gave this n long and fair hearing, and finally
passed the law which is about to 20 into force,
and II seemed to him but fair that the act
should have a fair trial. If the new bill was
passed it would inevitably drive from his
county one of its most important industries.
: lie had no personal interest in the matter 9th
or than to see justice done. He moved that
the bll be indefinitely postponed.
MIR CooMBs of Hancock said that he would
try TO support the rights of the fishermen
along the shore. lie was chairman of the
! Committee on Fisheries, and hundreds of
names came before them praying for protec-
ton from the porgie steamers. The commit
/ tee presented a bill it was ably discussed in
| the House and now comes here for action.
! lie rcfutcd the idea that the porges were as
| plenty rs ever. He would try to show that
| they were growing scarcer from year TO year.
/ In 1873 the number of steamers employed in
| the business was II. and the amount of oil
Welded was 20I 0jj gallons. In 1877 the
number of steamers was As while the Weld
/ of oil was but G62 2l3 gallons. or a falling
/ of Of ~ s42 gallons between the production
| of the wears 1873 and 1877. This falling off
/ of quantity. taken into consideration with the
increase of facilities. would plainly enough
show that there was falling off in the sup
ply of porgies The bill is not hardship to the
porgie fishermen, but is protection to the poor
fishermen along the coast The two first porgie
factories in the State were built in 1864, but
in 1855 n law was passed prohibiting fishing
within three miles of the shore and under
that law l6 new factories were put in opera
ton Thus showing that under three mile
limit the porgie business must have been
profitable. In 1871 the porgic companies
were powerful enough to have the law of 1865
repealed. He appealed for the protection Of
the poor fishermen so that they might be able
to get bait and thus have chance to carry on
their business. The few barrels of oil from
the Il Al they took enabled them to go quite a
wav IN buying bread for their children. The
steamers with their extensive equipments
catch every porgie and other fish besides.
He rc9f y letter from a resident of Hancock
county which maintained that in 1864 the
shore fishermen brought into that county oil
and clium to the value of 5000, 900. II had
seemed % be the disposition of the Legisla-
turc 10 protect the shore fisheries, and the bill
for the protection of Holsters had injured his
business TO the extent of $4,000.
Mr. VNToN of Cumberland had no person
al bat perhaps an indirect interest in the bill
lie would not say word but for the legisla
Of la,t year. The questionwas one of con-
fict of interests. The large business harms
individuals. But the porgie business could
not he ignored as an industry, an industry
valued at from one million to one million and
Il half of dollars, employing more than 600
men and 30 steamers What should be done
when this great business is placed beside one
man with his fish and line He doubted if
the business Of the small fishermen was in
iured. He referred to a rcmonstrance from
many rich Portland firms against this propos-
ed law, and maintained that it was of great
weight. He protested against the bill as
matter of business. But his chief objection
to the bill was this. Last year the legislature
passed bill so that the porgie steamers
should not enter a bay or inlet one mile from
headland TO headland. But as compromise
between the porgie fishermen and the shore
fishermen, the law was not allowed to go into
operation for year After enactng such n
law, with no chance for n trial, another law is
proposed changing the limit to two years
lie thought the law of last year should have
some trial, and that the newly proposed law
| should be referred to the next Legislature
| He alsounderstood that English steamers could
not be stopped from entering the harbors and
inlets to take fish, even if those of Maine
could.
Mr.. CooMBs again urged the passage of the
bill before the Senate. The law of last year
was of so little protection to the fishermen
that they better not have any.
Mr.. MApIGAN of Aroostook, thought that
the poor fishermen were better off now than
ever before They were asked to put on the
back of law, not yet in effect, another law
which is more stringent a sort of rider. This
he styled a most extraordinary thing in legis-
ation. It was treating the legislature of last
wear with contempt. If the evil to the fish
ermen is a terrible one it will correct itself
For if the law does not work well it can be
repealed by the next legislature.
! Mr.. LINN Of Somerset was in favor of pro-
tecting the larger interest, and especially so
since the shore fishermen are so well of.
Mr.. MORRISON of Franklin said that such
legislation as was proposed was not unheard
of. 4 Legislature has often passed law and
before adjournment has amended or repealed
it, 1t would not be an insult to the Legisla-
ture 1873 to pass the new law He was in
yor of giving the greatest good to the great
est number. One thousand men might be
benefited by not passing the new bill, but
how about the 10000 fishermen along the
coast, who depend for their livelihood upon
fishing? The great corporations would not
be harmed by the bill. When the
pogic business first began they were kept
three miles from shore, and this bill was one
mile better for them He objected to legis-
lating in favor of the capitalists from other
States, who are engaged in the pogie business
here.
Mr.. ANnREws Of York, briefly opposed the
measure before the Senate.
Mr.. ROBERTS of Waldo, said that he was
called upon by gentleman at the beginning
of the session who urged the interests of the
porgie business upon him. He afterwards
learned that the person thus referred to was
a native of Rhode Island, who was here look
ing after the interests of these corporations
He said the reason why the law of last year
did not go into effect then, was because the
porgie fishermen did not desire it to. Petit
tons have come from 10000 fishermen to
protect them this year. The porgie steamers
take every species Of fish. He asked for fair
play and that these steamers should be kept
from their door yards.
Mr. ELLIS of Waldo, desired to know why.
II 1t was necessary to protect, there should be
anY discrimination in the size of tho hay. a. VI, "A