The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1889-02-16
FISH STORIES TOLD AT AUGUSTA.
Nearing on 1.-THE Proposed Change In
the SeIning Law.
Mr.. Freeman's Bill to Protect Meh
Who Want to Work.
Trying to Adjourn In Time for the
Inauguration.
Especial to the Press.1

| lSpeclal 10 the freSS.l
AUGUSTA. Feb. 15.-Before the fisheries
and game committee this afternoon there
was an important hearing on the question
involved In Representative Whitten's bill to
exempt mackerel from the provisions of the
bill which prohibits seining in the bays and
and mouths of rivers in this State. This
question is one of great Importance and
there were present several gentlemen from
various parts of the State.
True p. Pierce. Esq, appeared for those
who want the law retained as it is. The
looked out for their case
ExARepresentative N. f. Huston of Bel
fast, opposed the repeal of the law on the
ground of public interest, which demand the
preservation of fish In the bays. Formerly
persons living around the shore had been
able to catch more or less fish for their own
use. Now fish are very scarce In the bays
and probably seining in former years had
contributed greatly to this scarcity. The
proposed Change of the law would be against
the future public interest.
Mr.. j. Wyman, of Millbridge, appeared to
testify that many remonstrants from Mill
| bAAA6o Uuy uCAO hot houCluiCus Uub tlduClc,
etc.
Abner johnson, Jr., of Phipsburg, spoke
for the weir fishermen of Small Point. He
said they felt that they wanted the seining
prohibited in the bays. He would also like
to have 1t prohibited altogether, as 1t was
running the weir fishermen. In former years
there were plenty Of mackerel in the bays
and they could be caught on hook. That time
was gone by. When questioned by Mr..
Whitten hesaid he would like to have seining
prohibited around Half Way Rock. He was
against all seining. He thought the scarcity
| of mackerel was caused by the seiners that
had ''scooped them in" Seining he said.
was destroying the mackerel, porgie and
| shad. He said the seiners were sneaking into
| the bays, and taking the bread out of the
| mouths Of the poor fishermen on the shore.
| Mr.. Whitten asked the witness why it was
| that mackerel were so scarce one year on
| this coast, and at the same time so plentiful
| in the Bay of Chaleur, and vice versa. The
| witness could not tell unless it was that they
were all caught up. Mr.. Hinckley asked the
witness IL he had any knowledge of large
| the season of 1888. The witness did not;
| but he had no doubt that seining was de-
structive to the mackerel.
Mr.. j. ii. Kimball of Bath said he had
come to tell what he knew about the original
act, which was passed In 1878, to preserve
the fishing in the bays and mouths of rivers.
The legislature of 1877 had authorized CON-
mission, which examined the shore Fl -heries
and recommended bill prohibiting the
seining Of poreies, herring and mackerel in
any bay or inlet with mouth less than
three miles wide. The committee on fisher
les made two reports, the majority infiu-
enced en- by the pergy men, ,g against the bill, and
signed by Mr.. Kimball and one other, was
SO amended that the limit Of width
should be one mile instead of three,
This was in 1878. The porgy. men repre-
the law would ruin them. and they wanted
year to settle up the business. So the law
was made to go into effect in one year. In
1873 the porgy men tried to get the bill re-
pealed but failed; Instead the bill was so
amended that all bays were put under two
mile limit. This showed how public senti-
ment was In favor of the protection of the
fish. Mr.. Kimball contended that the strik-
ing out Of the word "mackerep' from the
present law would destroy the effect Of the
whole law, as it would open a gate by which
all seiners would be fishing for mackeral
whether after shad OF other fish.
Mr.. w 5. Todd, of Georgetown, and Mr..
M. @, Spinney, of Small Point, also appeared
as remonstrants. Mr.. Luther Maidocks, of
Boothbay, spoke in favor of the measure,
referring to the fact that the word "mack-
erel" had been stricken out of the statutes by
the Legislature in 1883, and got back again
by an error in revision.
After this hearing was had on the petit
tion of Thomas Boyd and others, who asked
that law may be passed prohibiting the
catching of menhaden, or any other kind of
fsh'f0r conversion into oil or scrap, ana the
manufacture OF oil or guano within mile of
any dwelling. No one appeared for the
petitioners. True p. Pierce appeared for the
rem0Dstrants and probably the petition will
not receive favorable recommendation.
To Prevent Intimidation.
The following bill was introduced by Sena-
to Freeman today and referred TO the judic-
iary committee:
AN ACT RELATING TO THE EMPLOYMENT OF
LABOR.
Section 1.-Whoever by threats, intimidation
or force, alone or In combination with others, pre-
vents or seeks TO prevent person, 1ourneyman or
apprentice, from entering into or continuing in
the employment of person, firm or corporation,
shall be punished by Imprisonment not more than
two years, or by fine not exceeding $500.
Sec 2.-Any person injured in his pe.son or
property by being preve1 ted from laborng or EN-
ploying labor, by reason OF the means named in
the foregoing section, may recover for such in
juries by an action OF debt.
Sec. S-This act shall take effect when approved.
Senator Freeman says in relation to the
bill that it is intended to put an end to in
timidation. Il will tell you," said he. "of a
case in point. c. j. Hall of Belfast, one of
the largest granite manufacturers in Maine,
had IN his employ man & whom he had
brought up in the business. That man was
not trades union man. He was, however,
a very fine workman, and he made him fore
man of one of his departments. One day
Mr.. Hall was waited upon by delegation of
trades unionists, who informed him that he
must discharge that man. He refused. In
few days after he was waited upon by
larger delegation. who informed him that un-
less he discharged that man his yard would
be "scabbed." that no union man would be
allowed to work in the yard. At that time
Mr.. Hall had upwards of $400, 900 worth of
work that must be done within a certain
time, and was obliged to discharge the fore
man. The bill, it is hoped, will put an end
to such performances, from which every
granite man in the State has suffered more
or less"
Shall Mechanic Falls be incor-
porated?
The controversy over the incorporation of
| Mechanic Falls began yesterday, and is one
Of the principal contests of interest in the
| Capitol this afternoon. Weston f. Thomp-
son, Esq. Of Brunswick, appeared yester-
day before the legal affairs committee, in be-
half of those who petition for incorporation.
On the other side are Judge Symonds and
| Charles S. Cook, Esq, of Portland, and
Judge Savage of Lewiston. The petitioners
presented their side yesterday, and complet-
| ed their testimony this afternoon. Mr.. Cook
| then opened the case for the remonstrants,
explaining the school complications which
arose from the existence Of the union dis
trict at Mechanic Falls. part in Minot and
| part In Poland, and which finally led to the
abolition of the district system. The bill
for incorporating the village now provides
for virtual re-establishment of the old dis
/ trict relations. But aside from this there
are provisions for the maintenance of fire
apparatus and village Improvement. "But
these are mere side issues" said Mr. Cook,
ito distract attention from The real purpose,
which is to re-establish the old order of
| school affairs and the old drain from the
town treasury to pay for the schooling of
scholars whose only school is the paper mill
and shoe shops" The boundaries fixed in
the bill, he also said, were such that Minot
people could control il in direct opposition
to Poland people.
The difficult task of explaining the intri-
cate questions involved in the controversy
YVES admirably performed by Mr.. Cook. The
hearing occupied all the afternoon and eve
ming, Judge Symonds and w. f. Thompson,
Esq, making the closing arguments this
evening