Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1923-03-29
ly and squarely and submit the de-

ly and Squarely and submit the de-
cision to you people.
have nothing to say about Cum
fberland county. They will decide
for themselves whether they want
to have this matter of close time SO
near to their borders across their best
fishing ground. They will probably
speak for themselves either in per-
/ son or by their votes. 1T is q wise
thing, gentlemen, to let those most
interested when their vote is almost.
unanimous,-to listen to their request
of what they consider to be Just.
These people are living up to the law
better than they did and they SIM
ply ask to be left alone.
Mr.. CAKES of Portland: Mr.. Speaker,
l have been requested to say a few
words on this bill. although l am not
IN the lobster business and have no
particular interest. 1t strikes me that
the majority report. fought not to pass,
'shoul be accepted, because the law is
emlnently unfair. it seems to me, to
bring the line from Portland, where ]
, understand nine-inch Holsters are al
lowed up to Scarboro and draw the
line between Scarboro and Old Orchard
and have the competition between York
county and the Cumberland county fish
! ermen, and the fishermen further up
the State, handicapped by a difference
of an inch and half in the length Of
iobsters which they can sell. l con-
slider this to be emnently unfair to the
different sections of this State. and it
seems to me that that alone is sufficient
to warrant the acceptance OF the ma
l'jority re-, -rtt
In addition to that we have in York
county large number of fashionable
summer hotels, and in other counties
Throughout the State we have many
summer resorts. If the York county
fishermen are allowed to sell nine-inch
Holsters to these hotels, and they in
turn are allowed to serve them in their
hotels. they can buy them at cheaper
rate than the hotels in the other parts
OF the State. and they can compete
with the other parts of the State OF
shore dinners on an entirely unfair
basis. 1t seems to Inc that that in it.
self is q sufficient reason for refusing
to pass this law. Also it seems to me
that the fishermen along the coast who
are now obliged to turn back their
short Holsters. will in this way be
given means of disposing Of them
where the New Hampshire line is only
fifty miles off. and that we will have
off our three-mile limit a line of boats
taking short Holsters down from the
northern counties and disposing of
them in York county. l think this is
the strongest reason why we should
refuse to accept the minority report,
and accept the majority report.
Mr. LAMSON Of South Portland: Mr..
Speaker. this bill, to my mind, is most
unfair. giving York county. as it does,
an advantage over the other counties.
L think that perhaps the county. of
Cumberland would be most affected by
a measure Of this kind. perhaps more
than any Of the others. We gave this
question most exhaustive hearing in
our committee. and we had about
twenty or more fishermen come here
fro, my county to protest against this
lew. They said that 1t would only
move the line that now obtains be-
tween York and New Hampshire and
bring it down to York and Cumberland.
Now the Atlantic ocean is not like a
COW pasture. You cannot fence it off.
Boats going along there do not look
| to see Where the line is or where GER
| tain marks are. and your fishermen
frAl one county can very easily slip
ovVr into another place, catch what
short Holsters they want, and go back
into their own county and sell them.
II seems to me that that is a very I'M
fair proposition.
Now as has been said. the law at the
present time. so far as it appertains
to the nine-inch matter is satisfactory.
No one is complaining about it from
enc end of the coast to the otner. and
so I say we shoGld let we'll enough
alone, and let our good York county
fishermen do as they have done in the
past and leave us alone down in Cum
berland county. IN this way we will
get along very well.
Mr.. LITTLEFIELD of Kennebunk:
| Mr.. Speaker and gentlemen of the
| House. l wish to say Just a word in
regard to the term short Holsters" l
notice Cumberland county is very
much opposed to this bill. Now it is
not fishermeA at all who are opposed
to this bill for this reason: Both sides
| IN Cumberland county have sent to this
Legislature letters asking support.
Now why do they do that? They all
tell YOU that the fishermen in their
county are honest. Well. ours are hon
est but here is where the danger is
and l can see why Cumberland county
is against it. The Cumberland fisher
men they are not trying to protect.
They are trying to protect the man ON
| the shore who receives the Holsters
from the fishermen. They arc afraid
! their fishermen will not be as honest if
this law passes as they are now. Any
| member of this Legislature can see
how easy n fisherman in York county
could go out and haul his traps, put
his nine-inch Holsters in his boat with
his tCn-inch Holsters or his twelve
inch Holsters so straight to York
county and sell them, instead of taking
them into Portland. ] can see that of
| course he is against the law in Cum
| berland county. waters, but when he
| gets into York county and they have
| got proof that these Holsters were
taken in Cumberland county waters
, why he is all right. SO much for that
| Now the gentleman from Steuben.
| Mr.. Baker, says that Holsters are fast
depicting. Every single fisherman
who came before that committee. as
remember was not there at all the
hearings. they might have had some
1 did not attend-but everyone admit
| ted that Holsters were on the increase.
Now it seems to me that that would
have some effect Down in the eastern
part of this State, from York county
down. there has been all kinds Of law.
short laws. alewive laws. clam laws,
| close time on Holsters and open time
| on Holsters in certain places. which
has nothing to do with York county
fishing. We did not protest against one
thing Of that kind. We allowed them
to have exactly what they asked for.