Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1881-03-03
I'm reoara TO seines In the main river

sets and those wltnln uista"ee VI
five miles. He gave the dimensions OF these
seines and of the space left for fsn 10 pass
nm. and said they were down only SIX hours
opt of the twenty. four. and then only on the
ebb of the tide. when the fish are going down
and not coming up. 1t was folly to assert
that this would hinder fish from reaching the
upper Kennebec. He attributed as a reason
able cause for the non-appearance OF smeits
above Richmond, the presence OF hundreds
of horses and men on the river engaged III
cutting ice.
Mr.. RowELL of Hallowell said the general
tendency of legislation in regard to fish had
been for its protection. Large sums had
been expended for the erection of fishways so
as to afford spawning beds up the rivers And
now a large number of petitions had come IN
asking for protection to the smelts on the
kennebec and its tributaries. To be sure
tl,sy had no counsel before the committee.
They had not thought it necessary; BUT
the remonstrants employed counsel. tie
had no fault to find with the commit
tee. He thought they had acted hon
estlv with the light they had. But
he did not think the report of committee IN
fallible. Smelt fishing was not a very lucra-
tive business, but in years past, poor men had
made quite a respectable living by catching
them along the river for the market. These
men as well as the rich, desired their rights.
They did not want the owners of nets to scoop
fish up by scores of barrels, not only keeping
the smeltS from coming up the river. but
destroying many other kinds of fish.
Mr. EASTMAN of Dennysville opposed the
amendment Those who had watched the
course of the Committee on Fisheries he
thought would concede that they had done
everything in their power to foster the fishing
interests of the Stat. They had at first ac-
tually thought that the petitioners had grlev-
ances. and it was with this feeling that they
entered into careful examination of the
matter. The conclusion was that the rights
of the petitioners were carefully guarded.
Only three nets were on the main river, and
they were down only six hours ont of the
twenty-four when the tide was going out.
The fact that the smets were caught while
coming down the river, was conclusive proof
that they had chance to go Hp.
Mr. ROwEIL replied that smelts ascend the
river on the flood tide, and then fall back in
to the eddes during the ebb, and prepare for
another start up river on the next flood tide.
But it was impossible for them to ascend
very far without being bagged in a net
Mr.. Goss of Bath thought the petitioners
had no case. The report was unanimously
against them. and now the gentleman from
Gardiner desired to compromise. There was
othing TO compromise on his part. He
thought the course taken by the gentleman
from Gardiner remarkable, when taking into
consideration the history of the subject
since referred to the committee. The gen.
tleman from Hallowell had referred to poor
fishermen up river. But there were poor
fishermen below who had rights. He knew
of one on tributary who would be glad to
sell out if he could get what his nets were
worth. 1t looked reasonable to him that the
horses and men on the river cutting ice were
the cause of scarcity of smelts above Rich
m0nd, and not the nets below. If the report
of the committee was to be ignored then he
submitted that the House should go into
committee of the whole and give the petit
TONERS and remonstrants an opportunity to
appear and plead their cases.
Mr.. MORRILL, of Augusta said the matter
was one which somewhat interested his con-
stituents, and those all along the river: and
he believed there was merit in the PROPOSE
ton to place some restraint upon those gen.
tlemen below, in the vicinity of Bath who
are now taking smelts by the wholesale.
The gentleman from Bath Mr.. Goss
and his friends were very happy in
this matter. They caught all the
fish they wanted, and good many more
They made a profitable thing out of it, and
he did not think it strange that the gentleman
should say, eve are well enough off. Pray
let us alone. We are getting fish down here.
1t you don't catch them at the head waters
it is not so very important, to us, at least"
Laughter. The gentleman had said that all
confidence should be given to the investiga-
ton of the committee. 1t was unanimous
report. But he had known unanimous re-
ports to be rejected. His friend from Bath
only few days ago had argued against the
acceptance of a unanimous report of a COM
mittee, on a much more important matter
than this.
Mr.. Gos>: What committee was it?
Mr.. MORRILL,; Nearly unanimous. Nine
out of ten is pretty unanimous. Laughter.
His friend from Bath had had the utmost
faith that the stubborn nine were wrong, and
argued that their decision ought to be set
aside. and the House did it, But that had
gone by and he had no objection to it. 1t
was the sense of the House to do it, and he
presumed it was right. He only alluded
to this to show the consistency of his
friend from Bath. Laughter and
applause. The truth was, the people in Au-
gusta, Hallowell and Gardiner got no smelts
although they had plenty of them down
river. A few years ago we had them in abun-
dance at two cents a pound. We get none
now. And the chairman of the Committee
on Fisheries rises up and tells us, 'syou trot
your horses too much over on the ice in the
day time, and in that way keep the smelts
from coming up Laughter. And the
gentleman from Bath says ''they are a very
timid fish, and if they hear the cutting of ice
they won't come These matters were urged
as reasons why they did not come up. These
weirs and nets which were catching them by
| scores of barrels every day were no impede
ment at all! That was all right. He thought
himself that the petitioners asked for too
much. and the bill was intended as a com.
promise giving the fishermen below all
the chance they ought to have and allows an
experiment above.
Mr.. SPRAGUE of Phipsburg advocated the
report without amendment. He attached a
good deal of Importance to the fact that the
committee was composed of men who had had
experience as fishermen, and knew what thew
were about when they made their report. He
argued at some length that the cause of the
smelts not coming up the river was not weirs
and nets but other causes over which the re-
monstrants had no control. He charged that
the people up river were selfish in the mat
ter. They not only had the benefit of the ice
cutting, but wanted to destroy the fishing in
terests of their neighbors down river.
Mr.. MCCLELLAN of South Thomaston advo-
Gated the amendment. He contended that
al.