Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1879-02-15
For the Journal.
The Menhadcn Fisheries.
ATGusTA' Feb. u. 1873

The new bill asking for greater restrictions
upon the mcnhaden fishery, will be acted up
on shortly. Persistent effort is being made
by certain parties, to carry through said bill,
which will have for its tendency the serious
crippling of an industry now, to use the Ian
guage of Prof Baird, "of great interest to
the whole country"
And all this, rs is claimed, To protect the
shore. or hook and line fishing. This new
bill asks that SEEMING shall not be permitted
in any bay, harbor or river, the entrance TO
which is two miles in width SEEMING shall
not be done within one mile of the coast nor
within one mile from any inhabited island.
50 that where an island is two miles off the
coast, between it and the main land menha-
den could not be taken by seining.
If enacted, but two ways would be left
open to the menhaden operators first, to
violate the law, and test the case in
the courts, which would put the State to
large expense or. secondly, toplace therves-
sells under the British flag, employ British
subjects for crews, and under the Washington
treaty of 1871, take menhaden in all the bays
and harbors, and close up to the shore as
that treaty expressly stipulates British sub
jects may do.
This latter mode is no scare, for know of
one citizen of Lincoln county. gentleman
who has lived there all his life, man of
wealth, who has large sums invested in the
business, is already preparing to do this should
this bill pass. That there should be no ques-
tiou of this, give the name of T. j. Merrill,
Esq. of Damarscotta, as the party. Does
the Legislature of Maine wish to drive one
of the citizens of this commonwealth to that
test?
1t never has been proved that this seining
for menhadcn has materially injured other
fisheries, certainly not to an extent calling for
this severe hostile Legislation. Cod and hake
fish were caught in great abundance along
the Maine coast last year, there are large
amounts of them now piled up in the State,
that cant find a market. Does any one dis
pute this? How then can it be claimed the
shore fisheries have been destroyed?
Why not decide this controversy as it was
decided by Great Britain ? That government
appointed II commission consisting of three
gentlemen. one of them Prof. Huxley. They
spent three years in the investigation and re-
ported for free fishing. This question has
many times been before the legislatures of
several coast States, and every time petition
ers have been granted 'leave to withdraw,
and in no State of the Union, save in Maine,
is there any restriction Why not suspend
the law of 1878 so far as relates to harbors
and bays, then have a commission as follows
each fishing interest to select one, and the
two to select third. all to be appointed by
the Governor, and let them make thorough
and exact investigation into all this dis
puted matter and report to the next legisla-
ture?
One thought more. During the year 1878
the mcnhadcn fisheries sold fifteen thousand
barrels of fish for bait and probably gave
away as much more. Certainly somebody
obtained bait. Now, suppose you arbitrarily,
by hostile legislation, place severe menaces
upon that business, where will shore fisher
men stand in connection with the seners
What would any man do in such a case:
Would he sell, or give bait to the other side
while such legislation existed? There is a
better way. Let the two exist together, and
let the legislature take this step (provide fol
II commission), and ascertain just what is
right and just. J. A. II.