Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1893-03-11

lnS tfdfst sfluS v dS sist StttA, AMI ffnS Gttl
uslly some into use to take the place o
hook and line. and today there is not
vessel 10 hc found on our coas, depenain:
upon hook and line. wholly, to take mack
erei.
| Many of the visitors TO our shorcs il
summer from cities and towns far ry4 .,5sr,
from the cosss never saw fish iaksn .
handled In large quantities until they ss,
j; on the coast. and is il any wonder tina
they think il means destruction to the tisi
of the sea. and that they might be ester
Ensiastea, if allowed 10 be caught in saei
wholesale quantities; People OF th,s elas,
object To our mode of fishing with al
honesty and siecerity MIR, President, ther,
is no cause for warriment as to their exter
mina;ion by any means vet thought of by
man,
In the year 1881. before purse sein,
had been used, or though, of the catch o.
mackerei in the state of Massachusetts was
accounting 10 reliable statistics, $50. .opO bar
reis. q take Massachusetts, as we hav,
no record OF the catch In Maine.} In is5i
10, 600 barrels 1851, $4,000 barrels; is6i
$50 600 barrels; ISL. 3la,0so barrels
1851, aaa 900 barrels; 1854, iSo,0Da bar
rels; lsal, a0,000 barrels.
In i>S6 we had commenced using seines.
In 1881, after the purse seine had been il
use for 10 years there was the enormous
catch of tso 600 barrels, the largest eve,
known of which we have any record Thu,
you will see, Notwithstanding the purse
seine was IN use, the maekerel came back
to our shores in great abundance. Il, ex-
amining the Boston Fish Bureau reports,
and looking at the tables showing the
catches since Isl ,one will notice the same
fluctuations 20 years ago as We have now
some years of plen,ifulness, others of re-
markahle scarcity.
Others object to this bill on the ground
that it does not ask that the same law shall
apply 10 one part of our coast as another
To those | II say. DO the same laws apply
to one ponl III our State as another3 Or 10
one river as another.
Menhaden IN late years have never fre-
quented the shores of our State east OF the
Penobscot we have never as yet caught
herring with seine i'll any
quantities in those waters. Most of the
bays east of that point, where mackerel
congregate, are large enough to let us in
without being riolaters, and as the eastern
part of our State have large industries al
ready built up, principally the canned sar-
dimes and smoked herring, which fish are
caught wholly in weirs, the makers of this
bill thought it might interfere and interrupts
this branch of business, and
really be of such slight benefit
to either the menhaden, mackerel or
herring fishermen of the western section of
our State, that they would not include il in
th.,i rI,. ~
dine business in the East have no interest
whatever in seining vessels or the business
of seiuing know of but three vessels
that are now owned east of the Penobscot
that are engaged in mackerel scining at the
present time. The makers of this bill do
not believe in crushing one branch of busi-
ness in order that the other may thrive, but
as far as possible, give all an equal chance
to Il sh on our coast.
Who are the parties that appeared before
the committee during the twelve hours
he aring) in favor and against this bill, and
where are they from! Portland came with
seventy of her large business houses, repre-
sented by such men as Mr.. Weston +. Mil
liken, Mr.. y. Conley, Mr.. John Emery,
Mr.. Trefethen, Mr.. Jordan agd others, all
asking for the passage of this bill. Gen
tlemen from Harpswell, Bristol, Small
Point and Booth5ay Harbor. showing the
committee that they were sent to them
representing hundreds of men in their
towns, who asked for its passage. Now
who do we find before that committee op-
posed to its passage? | II tell you the first
one the one who seemed to be conducting the
case for the other side, was Mr.. Spinney
of Phippshurg in Sagadahoc county, fish
warden who acknowledged to the committee
that he was sent there by no one, and rep
resented no one but himself Next we find
an old gentleman, Mr.. Torrey of Surry
who is also fish warden, and
whom believe was honest in
what he said, but was behind the
times little, and would ike to have us 20
back to the good old times of stage coaches
The next was a gentleman of Georgetown.
Sagadahoc county, who also told us he was
sent by no one, and represented no one but
himself and few of his near neighbors
Fifteen years ago his shad fishery on the
Kennebec river. from which he had gath
cred wealth, failed, and he knew no other
cause for its failure, but that the maekcrel
and porgie seiners had caught all his shad
which made him forever their enemy. |
asked the gentleman this question "lf you
should succeed in putting the seine
fishermen three miles off shore, or beyond
our State waters, what would you then do
with the weir, trap and pound fishermen
on our coast lie replied, "If it wasn't
for the little matter of bait with which they
supply our deep sea fishermen, would put
them off there too" You can readily see
I,a,,. ,,,,nJ, hn h,,, ~, npr on,at
cries had he full sway. These three gentle
before us against this bill, from the whole
coast and interior of our State, and not one
of them was directly interested in the busi.
ness.
Although little unusual, the committee
when they published notices for hearing
upon this questions also published the bill
in detail, in eight different papers in our
State, in order that every one interested
might see what was asked for in the bill,
and notwithstanding all that. but three men
have appeared who oppose this bill. Now,
Mr.. President. it seems to me the bill as
proposed cannot interfere with other inter
ests to any extent, or we should have heard
from them.
firmly believe there Is no necessity fol
the passage of any general Legislative ac,
for the protection Of our sea fish and fish
cries. IF fish have diminished IN any OF
our small bays and rivers, | should have Nc
objection to the passage of local act pro
sided it did not interfere with the rights OF
others, but ! must confess that am slow
to believe that when fish have left a certair
locality, that any act on the statutes viii
bring them back to that locality again.
If we wish to increase and stock our in
land waters, it cannot be accomplished
without protection. Building dams across
streams, throwing refuse matter into the
waters have diminished the fish in certair
inland waters; but in the great sea mar
cannot pollute its waters by anything b,
can do.
Mr. Sw anton of Sagadahoc As one oi
the signers offthe minority report upon thi,
question will make brief statement oi
my reasons for doing so. The protective
legislation Of our State in regard to fishiD.
has resulted in the law as ii nov stand.
which prohibits seining by purse seines in
the bays and rivers Of our coast. The Law
was intended to prevent promiscuous fishing
by seining vessels Of other states upon our
coasts.
Two years ago an attempt was made to
repeal these protective laws altogether
They failed in that, and then they appeared
at Washington and tried to pass the Lsphau
bill, but they failed there. Now, it strikes
me that this bill is an attempt to open our
coasts and to break through our protective
Laws. This proposed law opens the whole
of our coast, practically west of the
Georges river. II is in the same
line as has been attempted for
several years. We believe that the falling
Of Of our fishing ia due to the use Of the
seine, and therefore We have enacted oul
protective laws.
The seining Of maekereI ard porgies i