The Portland daily press., 1893-03-09
Was the Cry that Defeated the
Fisheries Bill.
A VERY LIVELY DEBATE In THE
HOUSE YESTERDAY.
Mr.. Luther Maddocks Makes His Plea
One of Major Dioirey's Aphorisms-
Friends of the Bill VIII Renew the
Battle in the Senate.
Especial to the Press.l

Friends of the BIZ VIII Renew the
Battle in the Senate.
Especial to the Press.l
AUGUSTA, March 8.-The cry of an un-
holy alliance or, as one member put it,
that the East didn't care damn what
the West got if the East was let
alone, defeated the general fisheries bill
in the House this morning. The bill is
the one to establish certain lines within
which the use of seines shall be lawful.
1t does away with the three mile clause
in the law. But the lines are so drawn
as to prevent the use Of seines east of
the Penobscot and it was this provision
which raised much of the opposition.
Representative Luther Maddocks of
Boothbay probably knows as much about
the ocean fishing interests of the State
of Maine as any man within the borders
of the state, and in an interesting speech
this morning he gave the House the BEN
eft of his knowledge. Among other
things he told the House that there were
few rich men in the fishing business.
Mr.. Maddocks called up the majority
and minority reports of the COMMITTEES
on the matter and moved that the ma
jority report of the committee in favor
of the measure be accepted. The bill
was to modify existing law SO as to give
the coast fishermen right to earn a live
lihood. 1t was asked by 2200 fishermen
and also had the backing of nearly every
business man on Commercial street. in
the CITY of Portland. The law restrict
ing the use of. purse and drag seines was
passed in 1873 While it was enforced
by deputy sheriffs. it was practically a
dead letter, but when the fish warden
came onto the scene with no bonos be-
hind him things were different and the
fishing grounds were so restricted that
the business of the fishermen was en-
dangered. Under the present law as
could not follow their calling, and these
men were class of great value to the
state.
Mr.. Maddocks then described the gen.
eral bill which has been drawn to govern
the coast fisheries. On the eastern por-
ton of the coast the fishing was mainly
for sardines, caught in weirs, and there
purse and drag seines were not used.
Consequently the lines established by
the bill were so drawn as to leave this
portion of the coast to the free use of
the man engaged in catching small fish.
The law also shut the seine fishermen
out of rivers and small bays. The mack
erel, menhaden and herring were the
fish chiefly caught by the coast fisher
men, and Mr.. Maddocks believed that
if the law was not so framed as to ham
per the fishermen, the men of Maine
could still gain livelihood by their call
ING. and this would keep in the state
many young men who might otherwise
60 elsewhere in pursuit of livelihood,
Mr.. Maddocks also spoke of the use of
seines as necessary in fishing in these
days, and argued that their use did not
endanger the fish supply. He spoke of
the decrease in the Importance of Maine
as a fishing state, from the time when
she was second until now, when she was
ninth in the list. If the prayer of the
fishermen, who wanted only the privi-
lege of earning their living by the sws at
of their brows, was not needed the coast
towns would be threatened with depopu-
lation.
The bill had been advertised in eight
different papers of the state but no class
of fishermen had protested against it..
Only three gentlemen had appeared in
opposition and they had nothing to ad-
vance but the exploded theory that
legislation could regulate the supply of
the migrating fish of the broad ocean.
Representative Cook of Yarmouth
spoke in opposition to the bill. He said
that it had been said that this bill was in
the interest of the fishermen of Maine.
He thought it's defeat would be more in
their interest and opposed the measure
on that ground. He thought that if this
bill was passed the fishermen of other
states with their strainers and large
seines would come ON to the Maine coast
and deplete the fisheries at the expense
of the local fishermen. He admitted that
the fishermen of the state had not been
represented before the committee but
they were men OF slender means while
those who had been represented in it's
favor were men of wealth. Mr.. Cook
also thought the bill had beenframed, to
exempt the eastern portion of the coast,
in order to get the votes of members
from that section while it threw open
practically all of Casco bay. The people
of his town of Yarmouth and the sur
rounding towns, were opposed to the
bill. Mr.. Cook could see how the mer-
chants of Portland were interested in the
DdSSd26 Ol UlilS JILL opo tlICy SOlu CoSlU dllsi
bait and wanted the opportunity to make
and mend seines.
In reply to Mr.. Cook, Mr.. Maddocks
said that the bill was drawn to protect
Maine fishermen and if it passed another
bill would be presented to limit its bene-
fits to Maine people.
Mr.. Twitchell of Bath read protest
from the Sagadahoc Fish and Game
Association against the bill and said that
the people of his city did not favor the
measure.
Mr.. Maddocks said that the Sagadahoc
Association had always opposed such
legislation and it had generally been
here to lobby against it. He was sur
prised that he had not seen them this
year.
Mr.. Shaw of Bath said that city was
opposed to the bill Notwithstanding the
gentleman's statement to the contrary.
Mr.. Shaw thought If the people Of the
ship yard city had never seen a porgy
net, they would be better off.
Mr.. Dutton of Windsor opposed the
bill. He called it the result of an unholy
alliance. As it had been expressed to
him the eastern section had said to the
o,4,,,,, eoo+,o1 stYo,, oJ,,o -. .,,L,+ x,ra