5 654
Ab
Sty

Copy 1 (VENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SIXTY-THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION

ON

Meck. 7774

A BILL TO REGULATE THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF
FISH OR PRODUCTS OR COMPOUNDS WHEN INTENDED
TO BE USED FOR FERTILIZER OR OIL OR IN THE
MANUFACTURE OF FERTILIZER OR OIL

- FEBRUARY 18, 1914

ae

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFIOE
1914

Leow %

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.

Houser oF REPRESENTATIVES.

WILLIAM C. ADAMSON, Georgia, Chairman.

THETUS W. SIMS, Tennessee.

J. HARRY COVINGTON, Maryland.

WILLIAM A. CULLOP, Indiana.
FRANK E. DOREMUS, Michigan.

J. HENRY GOEKE, Ohio.

GEORGE F. O’SHAUNESSY, Rhode Island.
CHARLES A. TALCOTT, New York.

DAN V. STEPHENS, Nebraska.
RAYMOND B. STEVENS, New Hampshire.
ALBEN W. BARKLEY, Kentucky.

Wiis J. Davis, Clerk.

SAM RAYBURN, Texas.

ANDREW J. MONTAGUE, Virginia.
PERL D. DECKER, Missouri.
FREDERICK C. STEVENS, Minnesota.
JOHN J. ESCH, Wisconsin.

JOSEPH R. KNOWLAND, California.
EDWARD L. HAMILTON, Michigan.
EBEN W. MARTIN, South Dakota.
FRANK B. WILLIS, Ohio.

A. W. LAFFERTY, Oregon.

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,
Hovust or REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C., February 18, 1914.

The committee met at 10.30 o’clock a. m., Hon. J. Harry Covy-
ington (acting chairman) presiding.

STATEMENT OF HON. J. CHARLES LINTHICUM, A REPRE-
SENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARY-
LAND.

Mr. Lintruicum. I desire to read to the committee and insert in
the hearings the bill we have before us this morning, H. R. 7774,
which is as follows:

[H. R. 7774, Sixty-third Congress, first session.]

A BILL To regulate the interstate transportation of fish or products or compounds thereof when intended
to be used for fertilizer or oil or in the manufacture of fertilizer or oil.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled, That it shall be unlawful for any person to introduce intoany State
or Territory or the District of Columbia from any other State or Territory or the Dis-
trict of Columbia, or export or offer for export to any foreign country, any fish, parts
of fish, or products or compounds composed in whole or in part of fish, intended to
be used for fertilizer or oil, other than those commonly known and designated as
menhadens (also known as pogies, fatbacks, and mossbunkers), sharks, dogfish,
skates, rays, sea robins, and sculpins: Provided, however, That this act shall not re-
strict the use of fish not herein excepted by any industry now established, or which
hereafter may be established, when disposed of as by-product of such industry in-
cidental to its principal business.

Sec. 2. That whenever any fish, parts of fish or products or compounds composed
in whole or in part of fish are used in the manufacture of fertilizer or oil, every unit
of shipment of such fertilizer or oil so manufactured, before the same is shipped into
any State or Territory or the District of Columbia from any other State or Territory
or the District of Columbia, or exported or offered for export to any foreign country,
shall have securely attached thereto a label in the manner and form hereafter to be
prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce, certifying that the contents of such unit
of shipment contains no fish, parts of fish, or products or compounds composed in
whole or in part of fish, except such as are permitted by this act to be used for fertilizer
or oil.

Src. 3. That any person violating any provision of this act or any regulation made
thereunder, or falsely labeling any unit of shipment for transportation hereunder,
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not exceeding $200 or be imprisoned not
exceeding one year for the first offense, and upon conviction for each subsequent
offense not exceeding $500 or be imprisoned not exceeding three years, or both, in the
discretion of the court.

Src. 4. That the Secretary of Commerce shall make such rules and regulations as
are necessary for carrying out the provisions of this act.

Src. 5. That this act shall not become effective for industries now established and
in operation in the Territory of Alaska until the last day of January, nineteen hundred
and seventeen, but shall become immediately effective for any such industries here-
after established.

3

4 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

Before submitting for your consideration the statements of others,
I wish to explain that this measure is intended to regulate the inter-
state transportation of fish or products or compounds thereof when
intended to be used for fertilizer or oil or in the manufacture of fer-
tilizer or oil. The object of this bill is to discourage the turning of
food fish into fertilizer or oil, and, through the interstate clause, to
prohibit the transportation from one State to another of fertilizer or
oil products or compounds composed in whole or in part of food fish.

e are informed that great catches of fish which ought to be used
as food fish are turned into fertilizer, and this bill is to prevent that.
Now, the gentlemen in these menhaden fisheries interested in the fer-
tilizer business contend that but few food fish are turned into fertilizer
by them. We say, if that is the case, then there ought to be no
objection to this bill; but we are informed, and we know quite con-
clusively, that many food fish of the waters of the Chesapeake Bay,
principally herring, for instance, are turned into fertilizer, and this bill
would prohibit that. This bill, however, would not prohibit the turn-
ing of any by-products into fertilizer. That is to say, where the fish
is used by a packing house for food purposes the heads and tails and
any other part of the fish, or the hecuroners from those fish, could be
turned into fertilizer or any disposition made of them they might wish
to make, and this bill would not prevent it; but it will prevent the
turning of any fish which are food fish into fertilizer, thus destroying
what the people ought to have to eat.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that this statement about sums up the pur-
pose of the bill.

Mr. Montacue. Have you any laws in Maryland to reach the same
end prescribed in this bill?

Mr. Linruicum. We have no laws in Maryland against the use of
food fish for fertilizer because we have but one small fertilizer factory
in our State, and there never has been any necessity for such laws.
But boats come into our waters, purchase in great quantities good
food fish from our fishermen and take them into Virginia—a part of
which State I believe the gentleman has the honor to represent—and
there they are turned into fertilizer.

I have a statement here which I should like to incorporate in the
hearing. It is by the Bureau of Fisheries, of the Department of
Commerce, and shows the menhaden industry of the Atlantic coast
in 1912. It shows that this business is developing into quite a
tremendous industry.

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

“Auvdui09 yo X MAN B Aq PemMo oq ‘pa[jueUISIp

“S[OSSOA PUB SOT10}OVJ 10J [BIO T, +
‘SO10J OBJ 9Y} JNOG*’ pasn S}eoq [Bus pus ‘suOsemM ‘SesioY ‘AroUTyORUL ‘SeATeA ‘spunoss ‘ssUIp[INg sepnpouy ¢
“‘puvlAiey Ul £10408] [[euIs T sepnpouy z

Mou A10}OBJ SUTYVOY B PUL ZIG] SUINp syoes Mey B ATWO poyesedo oUlEy, UI AI0}ORJ T sepnyouy

PASC AON tls | baal ae ea (01:1 ET a Se EIS (Lei pen ORES Some AN ee pe ee a OGB! GRP ind Reese seem els 5( 5's sisisielnlet cisinre cis cinimereolas <le1e'ta sls [@10,L
TI8 ‘OT Fe ee ee 08d | ee te 2 5 came inate a eas 9F6 ‘E Ee ee oe CIT ‘9 ae ee eee CM PA aes eee ee ae ed “""Sploy
VOCCre saa GLE ay eee eee oe ste OS sal > AR he en AIL le al acne [2b | (are aca rat Sape! [ias SSIEe posers **-saseyoed Surddryg
OOupOrie ealteemeumoss a yas fp ann Riis ahaa SEenO0G- Site: Same vos DONT Gee aor ees sey eae SC ERSCIe om teas rete (Saag 5 sgn ee Sle eee ce cae Soe Oral
Oetker ous Mins se ee EP On GTi hep ares oe ONG U [mrt ieee ae es OSCE eo laa oer as oes (A aS a ieee ka a pre ieee Cals seakordure yo soueysIsqng
OSb Ge eae ee Se CSG), Mie ees oaks 5 POONGSe fo Sane RIG OCF wee soe ee (oi al Sheen oes ee be ie OSPR OCC a Q0ULIMSUT Pure SEX®B I,
———— aoe “SUSNAdXD
Che ROGE) || aeaae so a Sa JOSS FOV = |e es wees 269/800) Te= |Zeteas emer as sal SOLE AGL Giz |men eee pee pel iveee gery ie epee oe oe en TOOL,
GET '€8 988 SLL ‘OL 88 cee ‘28 68T 010 6 oF G10 07 = (tt eo Se tee ee $1B0q JOYII}S pus ouleg
000 “TZz kd 000 ‘98 OF 000 ‘eT T2r 000 ‘FE Ge OOORSYE = ||:S rer ite io see Ehies "Turse" """==soT9s OSINg
aia <a Bg ae ae eee fd ne tee £8 ate 9% See ee Sea eee OO GLUON MONT
00¢ EST ¢ 961 iG I 00 z ame ee rial Se ec a ae Cares -*" -9@UT[OSBy)
ree oe EL Sager Sos 622 aca POLO e Riccat xt ha 292 ‘T Pes ie en Piitiiiitttns ss sesemuo9 99N
6c E08" | SIT 002 ‘FT g 269 ‘LEL‘T | 29 000 ‘see ral OOOLCOPAT se POR eae od lnanshies scmrurimee See Oe Spi de 3
S[Ossa A.
oe ‘9292 | 8h i ee a ay ne ‘T 02 10% oe L 6IT on ST -]EB eee Re eee ee a a ie St asta ee
ty oe A a a1) el atom el PESOc Acocks 35 BLOC TOTe eal Rem saee's [pert poe seaierns "> "yeyideo SUD{IOM 10 YsBp
ee | ——— a ees ee | “ING WLISHANI
es re ————— —— ———
FRO SAGs Se go = yeaa OSH OGE Meal ee a 60S 92G8 paseo co etceae 3 HOBLOOT: aaileecas cece pee B2OIZEO = ol eee aac Sega TE SSeS Sas Sei [e10.,
Cee oie ana aca Sa EG s0Gm— hale ae eae i. a he ae cas COL-Z ile welling sass RICESORS eee eee eee eet *"""">>=3uTUSY sjassoA TO,
was URGE alPaseo es WOTROP ae sale ae ne | VEL SGLG aula ay ero oe Prd 7e jee ee es Bae ieee | So ete or ees *"so110}0¥8J PUB Sooo
peer :pred sose
eS eee $68 ‘¢ ue Oar ate ats an OER MG! Tee 3187/4) Lona mee | NOLOST So gts s Lay ane ae ee seam aT STOR
seseeceeeees oer ‘e See aa sl erp ee eet ima )!(3 ona Became a TUTTE EDIT Sargsg sfessea 10
weeeeee --==*) gor 'Z orseeesssenel gay Speegee re lMi) (je ileal i Setar eee Tor resssesssses*=s9110j08) PUB SeOyZO UT
:posesue suOSIOg
"SHDVM GNV SNOSHAd
“One A “IequInN ‘ane, “IaquUInN ‘one A “aq UInN ‘an vA “TequUInN “On BA “TequInN
= “SUIO}T
spt “BpLOLy om “QIVM LOC “yo x
THIOL pue euro) qION BIULL A pue asia MeN MaN pure INoHoeuU0N

[JouO[ssTMMMOD ‘YIfUIg "FL ysn_ ‘eoJeUIUIOD Jo yuouTjIudaeq ‘seLleyst, Jo nveing ‘c6z “ON UNeTNg 18911817879]
“OI6I Ut saqwig 7sp0D 9UDIIP 2Yy? fo Auasnpur uapoyua fy

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

‘Usteysy jou-punod wow yYySnoq youod puv seatmefe oe ysy deasos ‘sosnoy Suryoerd wos S8UI}4NO oJIMoTV JO AYeTyo SysIsuOD ¢g

‘spunod 0¢2‘90T'LE9 1

GOTmNBOke ys silpeee se ee TA RAS Gems. PRS ae GOCEGEOt Tel lgmae ts eee oe OZIGO0SS |seease eee ss GRGHGCS in Tien | eeermeeategs nase elas ge nee teiaT aii cies gE IPSS R101
CL ‘T (0) once Meal |e? ceteneaetrien2R h aie ae Rei ng alinemreicarter scapes | Som ee ahr amt GGL ‘T GO. Lo ee. ear ae vai | Ree OS a call OD ees oe Ere deaios Ue015 10 epnig
OVP ‘£09 | ggg ‘18 FBG ‘8% 099 ‘T aes ll eT FL8 ‘8ST PPL ‘6 SF0 ‘OIF EL ‘9% ee OD eras 8* ca eis tae ~----dedos poyeynplwy
£66 ‘GES ‘T G88 “0S 829 ‘P91 GOF‘S TG ‘80Z‘T | SSz ‘OF OFL ‘16 £26 % GGG ‘89 GHGS PSSM EO “dedos Arq
066 ‘TSS ‘T £02 ‘1¢9 “9 C66 ‘SE €82 ‘ELT SF6 ‘9GF €80°206 ‘T TER ‘LFS Lee°Lc6 91Z ‘8&8 00¢ “E19 “€ PSHOlES = ease Cy vo aetna lo
“SLONGOUd GAYALIVAINNVA
LO RON Gat eallpetn io oy se POONEGe lol sete emoecacss C8 SIGS RESIS Sgpeacwoks BEG CGON, Nodes eee S| PERSE SSE RSP e ee a “**]B]0) PUBL
LPL ‘6S 000 “960 °¢ FOF ‘6¢ QOOS O08 s Ramee eesekese ae al een eee $62 OOO OR Te aa aig eeee Se Sees Bo ae "1840,
0g NO eee aed | Ream OOO OT. n= Sem ecm gees <Sftaer 2 eC SG cae ee ICO SS” Se RRR eae een te ee ane ee “syreys
GZS 000 ‘0ST 000 ‘0ST "2 --Op "777-7777" -YSUTTEMS pus sezexs
89. 00008 ERLE PRO A ye ss, BESS | me ee TS 89 000 ‘0¢ LSE IOP Ss Sea ESG “7 “SUIqOd BAG
POF 6S 000 006 F « POF 6S 000 ‘006 ‘¥ spunod-ssutyjno aimee pure ysy desig
:soToads Tayo
GOT ‘OZ ‘% | OS2‘EF8*190‘T 1] OFT “9ST 009 ‘6¢8 ‘#8 | o9¢*c90‘T | OSO‘T90‘TIE | 0¢z ‘ETE OOF 21S ‘SFI | 68% ‘G02 OO GOP L1G: “eiFes se see ser sees becesrstes tosses [8}0.,
810 ‘8% 000 “F09 ‘ET G68 ‘T 009 ‘ETS “I 008 ‘T 000 °006 080 ‘FZ 000 ‘000 ‘TT 9€8 | OOF ‘O61 SelIoYsy YvOd 10 s1OYs WO’ JYSNOg
LG6 ‘S21. OSE 22S 16 | TSE '8% 0G 66 FI | FI9'9L 0S0 0FL 8 | 826 ‘98 009 18S '8Z_— | FEO AT OUR, L0G: Gie= si pa eaaee ne sae ~“s[@SSaa JOYJO WoIy FYBNOg
091 ‘g00‘Z$ | 00S*2TO‘Z6 | G06 ‘6S 00¢ ‘Ze6‘89 | OFT‘286$ | O00 ‘TZF‘IZF | cha‘secs | OOS ‘SE6‘SOT | 698°289$ | 000°80L°208 |-------77 ca sjessoa UMO Aq JYSNVO
suepeyue
“SGINOLOVA LV GHTIGNVH HSI
ONBA “TaquInN ‘OnTBA “Taq UInN ‘On[BA “Taq UINN “OnIvA *19qUINN “ONIBA *19q UINN
“Suey
[RIOT “BPlIO[ “BIUISITA ‘dIBM PBI “yO

pure vulporeD YION

pure Aesier MON

MON PUB JNoOTooUTOD

“ponuyu0g—Zlér ur sainig ysn0g suunyrp ay? fo husnpur uapoyvayy

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 7

In Virginia, for instance, we find that there were 471,000,421 men-
haden bought, and the value of the fertilizer produced was $987,146,
nearly $1,000,000 worth. But this measure does not seek to prohibit
the catch or menhaden, although it is claimed by some that the
industry being carried on to such a large extent is depriving many
food fish of what they feed upon, as some food fish feed upon these
menhaden and travel along in the schools with them. But we are
not trying to prohibit that; that is an established industry and we
are not endeavoring to do anything to its injury, but what we do
want to protect is the food fish.

Mr. Montracue. Your bill, as I understand it, does nothing else
but prevent the manufacture of food fish ?

Mr. Lintuicum. It is to discourage the turning of food fish into
fertilizer and oil.

Mr. MontaGue. You prohibit food fish, and food fish alone, from
being manufactured into fertilizer and oil?

Mr. Linruicum. Those alone, We have no desire to interfere with
the use of other fish not generally used for food purposes. You wi
find that pogies, fatbacks, mossbunkers, which are but other names
for the menhaden, are excepted, as are also sharks, dogfish, skates,
po sea-robins, and sculpins. It does not interfere with the use of
them.

Mr. Esou. Is the fish oil as valuable to human kind as the meat
itself? If so, ought it not to be barred by statute ?

Mr. Lintrurcum. We think you can get an abundance of fish oil
from these other fish. These menhaden, known also as pogies, fat-
backs, and mossbunkers, etc., are the ones which contain the greatest
quantity of fish oil, and you can get an abundance of that from those
without using the herring, which are splendid food fish and which
our people have used for food purposes for many years.

Mr. Covineton. The second section of your bill provides the
method of making effective this proposed regulation, that the Secre-
tary of Commerce shall attach to each unit of shipment a tag or other
suitable method of designating the shipment as actually oman a: |
no fish of that sort. How do you propose that that regulation shall
be enforced ?

Mr. Linruicum. I should rather that be answered by Dr. Smith, of
the department, but my understanding is that it would be enforced
by inspectors who will inspect the fish that come there, and see that
there are no food fish used in those units intended for interstate
shipment.

Mr. Covineton. But, for example, suppose that these fish are
located in Virginia and that they take fish that are caught within
the waters of Virginia and also fish caught within the waters of
Maryland, and after the product has been entirely converted from
fish into fertilizer, how do you think that is going to be affected by
the fact they are required to attach a certificate or tag to an article
that is about to enter into interstate commerce, under those cir-
cumstances ?

Mr. Linruicum. Do I understand the chairman to mean that if
fish, both food fish and other fish, are caught in the waters of Virginia—
in the absolute State waters of Virginia—-and also in the State waters
of Maryland; how do I propose to regulate that?

Mr. Covineton. Yes, sir.

8 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

Mr. Lintrnicum. If there are food fish contained among them ?

Mr. Covineron. What method would you propose to pursue ?

Mr. Linrutcum. I would propose through a corps of inspectors
under the department, that those fish shall not be shipped except—
that that fertilizer shall not be shipped into any other State. If the
State allows its food fish to be caught and turned into fertilizer,
destroying the conservation which we are endeavoring so strongly to
build up, if any State allows that under its laws, then we propose,
under this law, to prohibit them shipping it into other States, and
thereby to narrow their market, and in that way to the extent of our
noe deterring them from the wrongful use of the food fish of the

eople.
: T want to bring that point out very distinctly. You must recog-
nize that we can not enter into any State to regulate its laws, but we
contend that no State ought to expect this Government to lend its
hand to the shipment of fertilizer manufactured out of food fish, even
though such fish come out of the waters of that particular State.

Now, | understand that some contend that the use of food fish for
fertilizer and oil purposes does not affect the food-fish market. In
answer to that I want to introduce into the hearing a letter I received
from a gentleman, now a member of the House of Delegates of
Maryland, and, may I say, from the district of the gentleman from
Maryland, Mr. Covington, { believe—he can answer that.

ANNAPOLIS, January 26, 1914.

Hon. Cuarwes J. LINTHICUM.

Dear Sir: I have noted with interest the many letters in the open-letter column of
the Baltimore Sun the last six months concerning the fish question in Maryland.

Furthermore, I have read the bills you have introduced in Congress, and, after
giving them careful consideration, I feel that if passed and become laws they will
be a great protection to our food fish

In reference to the herring that are being disposed of for fertilizer, I, a member
of the Sherwood Packing Co for the past few years, have been placed in a position to
take more interest than I would otherwise have taken. Our business of the past year,
like many others, was a very short pack compared with previous years. Fish were
very scarce. We had several freight boats searching for herring in the Chesa-
peake Bay. About April 20 we received word there was a run on at Turkey Point.
I chartered a boat and went the next day and to my surprise found 18 or 20 steamers
loading for fertilizer factories. I offered 50 cents per thousand more than they were

aying and had to leave without a fish. This made a great impression on me, and I
elt something must be done to protect our food fish and feel that your bill means as
much for the fisherman as the packers. In fact, I have talked with quite a number
of the fishermen themselves and find that they are in sympathy with the two bills.

Yours, truly,
Rosert 8. Harrison,
House of Delegates.

Mr. Linruicum. He uses the word ‘‘good’’ fish here. I think he
means the word ‘‘food”’ fish.

Mr. D. V. Stevens. Do you happen to know why he could not get
the fish when he offered 50 cents a thousand more for them?

Mr. Linruicum. I had a talk with Mr. Harrison and I put that very
question to him. He said the reason given him was that they had
been in the habit of dealing with the fertilizer people and as they had
plenty of boats there they could sell to them at all times, and they
did not care to break up their trade with these people by selling the
fish to others.

Mr. Montacur. What sort of fish were these ?

Mr. Linruicum. These were herring.

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 9

Mr. Montacus. You said Turkey Point.

Mr. Lintuicum. Turkey Point.

Mr. Montacur. Where is that?

Mr. Lintuicum. That is up near the Susquehanna, just below the
mouth of the Susquehanna River.

I want to say further that I had a talk with Mr. Harrison several
days ago when I was in Annapolis, and he told me not only were they
selling these fish to the fertilizer people cheaper, but they were selling
them by the tub, and whereas a tub is supposed to contain 1,000 fish,
yet as a rule they contain somewhere around 1,300 to 1,500 fish, and
for the price they were selling to the fertilizer people the fertilizer
people were getting some 1,200 or 1,300 fish for 1,000, yet he could
not buy any fish there, and there was vessel after vessel loading to
carry the fish to the factories of Virginia.

Mr. Escu. Have you another bill?

Mr. Lintuicum. Yes, sir.

Mr. Escu. What is the number.

Mr. Linruicum. H.R. 7775. -

Mr. Escu. Was that the bill referred to this committee ?

Mr. Linrutcum. That is not before this committee. That is be-
fore the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, that regu-
lates the catching of fish mainly, in what manner they should be
caught, and the season.

In connection with Dr. Smith’s reference to the sturgeons I want
to introduce into the hearing at this point ‘The story of the stur-
geons”’ as he gave it to me. I call attention to this article because it
carries with it a valuable lesson, foreshadowing the ultimate extinc-
tion of other species of food fish if we continue to permit their wanton
destruction:

THE STORY OF THE STURGEONS.

[By Hugh M. Smith, United States Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries.]

The story of the sturgeons is one of the most distressing in the whole history of the
American fisheries. These large, inoffensive fishes of our seaboards, coast rivers, and
interior waters were for years considered to be not only valueless, but nuisances, and
whenever they became entangled in the fishermen’s nets they were knocked in the
head or otherwise mortally wounded and thrown back into the water. I have seen
the shores of the Potomac River in the vicinity of Mount Vernon lined with the de-
composing carcasses of these magnificent fishes, witnesses to the cruelty, stupidity,
and profligacy of man, and the same thing has been observed everywhere in our
country.

The next chapter in the story was the awakening of the fishermen to the fact that
the eggs of the sturgeons had value as caviar and that the flesh had value as food.
Then followed the most reckless, senseless fishing imaginable, with the result that in
a comparatively few years the best and most productive waters were depleted, and
what should have been made a permanent fishery of great profit was destroyed. Even
after the great value of the sturgeon began to be appreciated by everyone no adequate
steps were taken by the responsible authorities or insisted on by the fishermen, and
the fish-eating public remained callous.

For a long time after the failure in the fishery had begun and was apparent to every-
one the immature and unmarketable fish incidentally caught in seines, gill nets, and
pound nets received no protection whatever in most waters, and were ruthlessly
destroyed as nuisances, the decline thus being doubly accelerated.

On the Atlantic coast the catch of the sturgeon fell from 7,000,000 pounds to less
than 1,000,000 in 15 years; on the Pacific coast the same meteoric history was enacted, —
a catch of over 3,000,000 pounds annually in the early nineties being followed by a
few hundred thousand pounds in later years of the same decade, with no improvement
since that time, while on the Great Lakes the yield declined more than 90 per cent in
18 years. In the American waters of the Lake of the Woods, one of the most recent

10 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

grounds for the exploitation of the sturgeon, the catch decreased over 96 per cent in
10 years, notwithstanding a more active prosecution of the fishing.

The approximate sturgeon catch of the entire country at 10-year intervals, beginning
in 1880, is shown in the following diagrams:

Approximate sturgeon catch of the United States.

Pounds. 1880 1890 1900 1910

1,000, 000
2,000, 000
3, 000, 000
4,000, 000
5,000, 000
6, 000, 000
7,000, 000
8, 000, 000
9, 000, 000

10,000, 000

11, 000, 000

12, 000, 000

13, 000, 000

14, 000, 000

|

Everywhere. there is a steady downward trend in the catch. Some rivers that
formerly supported a flourishing fishery are now absolutely depleted. The scarcity
of the sturgeon and the demand for their flesh and eggs have run up the price to an
extraordinary figure, never attained by any other fish, either in America or anywhere
else. A mature female sturgeon often brings the fisherman more than a hundred and
fifty dollars, and it is a poor fish that can not be sold for twenty to thirty dollars on
the rivers of the east coast.

The most serious aspect of the sturgeon fishery is that, owing to the decimation of
the schools of breeding fish and to peculiarities in spawning habits, it has been impos-
sible as yet to inaugurate sturgeon culture anywhere in America. Attempts at arti-
ficial propagation have proved utter failures on the Great Lakes, Lake of the Woods,
Lake Champlain, Delaware River, and other waters, and the expenditure of con-
siderable sums of money by the Federal Government has sometimes failed to yield
a.single batch of eggs suitable for incubation.

Everywhere in America, under existing conditions, the sturgeons are doomed to
commercial extinction, and it requires no prophet to foresee that in a comparatively
few years sturgeons will be as scarce as the dodo.

What is demanded in every State in which these fishes exist or have existed is
absolute prohibition of capture or sale for a long term of years, certainly not less than
10. Any less radical treatment would be only trifling with the situation.

For the information of the committee I desire to insert in this
hearing the following communication from Mr. P. H. Pemberton,
secretary of the fishermen’s association at Mathias Point, Va. It
reflects the attitude of the fishermen toward the proposed legislation:

Maruias Point, Va., July 9, 1918.
Hon. CHARLES LINTHICUM:

Dear Sir: At the last meeting of the fishermen’s association; also the farmers’ club,
it. was agreed without a dissenting voice to ask you to have all fishing rights taken
out of the hands of Virginia and Maryland and vested in the control of the National
Government, as both States only use the right to build up some political fence with-
out any regards to the food supply offish. OurNational Government is the night party
to control all rivers, creeks, and bays, as she has to hatch fish and keep these rivers

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 11

dredged out. We are sorry to say it, but we have not a man in Congress from tide-
water Virgiana but we believe is connected with those fish factories, and that is why
weallturntoyou. The farmers of Maryland and Virginia are with the fishermen, heart
and soul. As the price of salt fish is going up every year, the bay fishermen, who fish
for those guano factories, do not care how high fish go to, and they will not let herring
and shad get to fresh water. If you can put all fishing rights under the National
Government control you will do more for the common people than any man has ever
done before, and ninety-five out of every hundred men would call you friend.

P. H. PEMBERTON,
Secretary Fishermen’s Association.

This letter from Mr. J. E. Hall, of Westmoreland County, Va.,
secretary of some farmers’ association, indicates how widespread is
the belief that remedial legislation can be secured only through
Federal control:

WESTMORELAND County, VA., July 31, 1915.
Hon. J. Cuas. LintTuicum.

Dear Sir: The farmers’ meeting to-day of 400 (397) voted to ask you to have the
United States Government to take entire charge of all the fishing rights.

The whole people are disgusted with the way the States are doing. Let the National
Government have the whole power over all fishing rights. If left in the hands of
the States, fish will soon be a thing of the past. No one is against Government owner-
ship except those who are in the fish Guano Trust.

J. E. Hatt, Secretary.

The accompanying letter from Mr. Harry A. Slattery, secretary of
the National Conservation Association, tells of the interest of that
association in this measure. I had hoped to have before this com-
mittee the president of the association, Mr. Gifford Pinchot, but
owing to death in Mr. Pinchot’s family I understand that he will
be unable to appear and give the committee the benefit of his knowl-
edge of the subject.

NATIONAL CONVERSATION ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D. C., October 29, 1913.
Hon. J. CHARLES LINTHICUM,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

Dear Mr. Lintuicum: Your letter of October 22, with copies of proposed bill and
your admirable speech on the ‘‘Protection of our food fish” are received. I shall
hope to get in touch with you at an early date to discuss the proposed legislation.
We have been interested in this question for some time and believe that legislation
to prohibit the use of food fish as a fertilizer is one of the most vital features of the
conversation and protection of our fisheries.

Sincerely, yours,
Harry A. SLATTERY.

The following letter from Mr. G. W. Williams, of Port Deposit, Md.,
is offered merely for the purpose of showing the attitt de tov ard this
measure of those who possess a practical knowledge of the subject:

Port Deposit, Mp., February 9, 1914.
Hon. J. Cuas. LINTHICUM.

Dear Sir: In the spring of 1913 in the upper part of Elk River the fishermen did
nothing, as when herring are scarce they don’t get only in the mouth of the river,
but always quite a large quantity of white and yellow perch, and the fishermen
shipped tons of them by steamer to Virginia to be ground up into fertilizer.

I believe in State rights, but if the State fails to act, then the Government should.
It was a curse to allow pound nets to have ever been set in the United States. I
fished a hauling seine before there was a pound net and have fished pound nets ever
since 1876 and paid as much as $250 rent for a season.

I have seen our rock fish, white perch, also white catfish gradually disappear; also,
yellow perch, until there are none except what are hatched, and they are caught before
they are big enough to market only as fertilizer.

I also hope you will succeed in shortening the season for shad and herring to the
1st of June in each year and not allow any fishing until the Ist of October in each

12 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

year. The cat fishermen during the months of June and July catch small fish, which,
when skinned, it takes as many as 16 to make a pound. Ii the Congress is going to
act, it should before this season opens up, as it will save millions of our herring and
be the means of our farmers getting fish to eat.
Yours, very truly,
G. W. WrtaMs.

STATEMENT OF MR. TALBOTT DENMEAD, 213 ST. PAUL
STREET, BALTIMORE, MD.

Mr. DenmeaD. I represent the Maryland State Game and Fish
Protective Association. I have been an official in the Maryland
Game and Fish Protective Association in one capacity or another for
about seven or eight years, and being an ardent fisherman I have had
opportunity to study this question from one viewpoint in our Chesa-
peake Bay. Of course, my references will be confined to a great extent
to the conditions on Chesspeake Bay, but I think the conditions on
the Chesapeake are pretty much the same as they are in any of the
States that border on or where the waters pass through any two
States.

There is no question, gentlemen, and I do not think any of the
people will deny, that food fish are used in the State of Maryland for
fertilizer, and by food fish I do not mean entirely herring. Of course,
there is » great demand on the part of the fishermen in Maryland to
use the herring. I think the gentlemen will claim that herring are not
entirely a food fish. I disagree with them there. I think herring
should be protected. But they can not also deny that these scow
loads of fish, shipped from Maryland to the Virginia fertilizer fac-
tories, not only contain herring, but also contain our small white
eee and small yellow perch, hardly out of the State hatcheries. We

atch these fish out of the State and Government hatcheries for these
gentlemen to turn into fertilizer. That certamly is not right. There
is no question that they do it.

Mr. Covineton. Have you any reliable statistics showing the pro-
peuen of the so-called fry? I believe that is the term applied to
them.

Mr. DenmEApD. You mean perch, etc. ?

Mr. Covineron. Was the fry distributed by the Maryland State
fisheries or by the United States Bureau of Fisheries ?

Mr. DenmeEAD. I can not say. Probably both. The system is
this: The Virginia people send their boats to the head of our bay at
intervals of, maybe, two or three weeks, and in the meantime the
fishermen put all the fish which they can not sell or use into scows.
You can smell them or see them any time you go there. And those
scows contain, if you examine them, not only herring, but white
perch and yellow perch. One scow may contain a few and another
scow may contain none. There are fishermen there who are violently
opposed to white and yellow perch being used for fertilizer, although
they may do so legally and honestly; and it is impossible for me to
state how many fish of that description go to the Virginia fertilizer
factories.

I requested the Baltimore News to send a man to the flats of
Havre de Grace last summer and investigate the situation for them-
selves, and the News published a very lengthy article—a column and
a balf—on that subject, and they said that they saw evidences of

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 13

at least 5,00,0000 having gone to the Virginia fertilizer factories in
the season of 1912, and at that time—about the middle of May—
over a million herring had already been shipped to Virginia for use
in the fertilizer factories; also many perch and other food fish.

Of course, that continues every season in which the herring run,
and I am speaking more particularly of the herring, because there is
always a glut of herring at the head of the bay in the run.

Mr. Montacur. What do you mean by that?

Mr. DenmMEAD. You can not keep the fish from going up the rivers
to spawn, and they accumulate in large masses at the head of the bay,
and at such times it is impossible for these gentlemen to use those
herring for food fish. I admit that, but at the same time that this
glut is taking place at the head of Chesapeake Bay, there are men
who have nets in our large rivers who can not get herring enough to
supply their own tables, and that is caused by the fact that practically
every river in Maryland is stopped up at the mouth with a string of
pound nets, and the herring which come up the bay simply can not
get up these rivers. They finally push up until they get to the head
of the bay, and that causes the glut.

Mr. D. V. Stevens. Have you no State legislation regulating that ?
Mr. Denmeap. We have to a certain extent. I am sorry to say
we are far behind in the matter of fish protective legislation.

Mr. D. V. Stevens. Are the people opposed to it? Can you not
get it?

Mr. DenmeaD We are trying to get those things. We have no
law prohibiting the use of food fish for fertilizer.

Mr. D. V. Stevens. But you are trying to get it?

Mr. DenmeEaD. Yes, sir; I filed a bill last year-——

Mr. Covineron. Is not the situation in regard to the shad fisheries
partly due to those long pound nets ?

Mr. DenmMEAD. They are after every shad they can get, and the
shad question is a very serious one.

Mr. Covineton. But the herring are blocked as an incident to the
immense shad fisheries ?

Mr. DenmEAD. They take the herring into these pound nets as
well as the shad.

Mr. Covinetron. But the shad are the cause of the blocking in the
mouths of therivers. There are pretty stringent regulations in regard
to the shad fishing? The very nature of the shad fishing, through re-
quiring the use of longer hedging, as they call 1it-——

M.. Denmeap. The hedging should be regulated. Of course, the
shad would go up the Patuxent River to spawn, if permitted, but
the nets are so thick and extend so far out into the bay that the shad
have either got to go into those nets, or go up to the head of the bay.
The nets are there, and the fish want to get up the river.

Mr. Montaausr. Let me ask you one question. Do you use the
word “ blocking’’ ?

Mr. Covineton. That is the word I used.

Mr. Denmeapv. Blocking the mouths of the rivers.

Mr. Montacue. By these pound nets?

Mr. DenmeEaD. By these long nets.

Mr. Monracuer. You mean, to obstruct the river ?

Mr. DenmeEap. That is it, exactly. These long nets extend out.
below the mouth of the river so that the fish coming up the bay can

14 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

not get into the river. Of course, the fishermen’s argument along
that line is if steamboats can get up this river, why can not the her-
ring, but the herring has not charted those nets; the nets are fixed
to stop him, so he must either go mto the nets or go by them.

Mr. D. V. Stevens. Is the supply of herring diminishing in the bay ?

Mr. DenMEaD. Yes, sir; there is no question about that.

Mr. D. V. Srevens. Because they can not get to their spawning
grounds?

Mr. Denmeap. I have not got the figures. Our friend, Dr. Smith,
has; but the shad industry in Maryland and the shad industry in
other waters is decreasing. I have a clipping in my pocket in regard
to the shad industry on the Hudson. I did not take up the question
of shad, because that is a food fish; it does not enter into the question
of fertilizer. You can get more for shad as roe shad than for fer-
tilizer. I understand the shad industry is dead, absolutely, in the
Hudson River; no more shad go up the Hudson River, and every
year fewer shad come up our bay.

Mr. Covineron. Keep on with your explanation with regard to
the conditions at the head of the bay.

Mr. Linruicum. May | say right there, as a suggestion to the wit-
ness, that so far as the shad industry in Maryland and Virginia is
concerned, for the last 12 years it has diminished from 12,000,000
pounds to 2,000,000 pounds.

Mr. DenmEaD. I presume that is a very conservative estimate,
but I did not care to quote the figures from memory. Also I have
gone over the figures in regard to herring; but where there were
5,000,000 herring used in the season of 1913

Mr. Monracue (interposing). Before you leave that subject as
to the constant falling off of the supply of shad or herrmg—do you
not have this blocking process on the ocean at the mouths of your
bays ?

Mr. Denmeap. At the mouth of Chesapeake Bay? That is in
Virginia waters, and I am not quite as familiar with just what they
do as I am with the upper waters.

Mr. Montacue. Do you have these pound nets all up and down
the coast ?

Mr. Denmrap. Yes; but we do not have so many of them along
ie coast in the ocean; they will not stand it to any great extent
there.

Mr. Montacur. If you take the steamer at New York and ride to
Norfolk, Va., you will see them all along the coast.

Mr. Denmeap. Yes; but I do not think they stop the fish coming
in the mouth of the bay. I am not exactly familiar with the Vir-
ginia laws in regard to that, but I understand they are more strict
in regard to their pound nets than we are, and our pound nets are
just one after the other all the way up the bay. I think that is one
reason why these herring are glutted at the head of the bay, and
why they are used as fertilizer.

It seems to me that the use of herring for fertilizer should not be
allowed. This gentleman over here [indicating] suggested whether oil
was not more valuable than the fish as a food. I think the highest
utility to which any food fish can be put is for use as food. There
are plenty of oils on the market; there are plenty of fish oils, and some
of these fish factories in Virginia pay 100 per cent on their capital

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 15

from fish they get out of the ocean, and there are plenty there, plenty
of sharks and things of that sort that they can get for their oil, and
the herring should not*be allowed to be used for oil.

Mr. Rayspurn. Do such fish make as good grades of oil?

Mr. DenmMeEAD. I am not prepared tosay. Iam not an oil expert.
I do not know exactly what the quality of these oils is. Of course,
this is good oil. The menhaden and the herring are both of the same
family and I presume the oil is about the same. The principle fish
is the menhaden, and they—the boats—follow the shore of the ocean.
The Virginia fertilizer factories not only get them from Maryland, but
all the way up the coast to the Banks. They are not after any food
fish. They do not use any food fish of that sort; I do not think they
catch many, but they purchase them from the head of the bay; pur-
chase our food fish and use them in fertilizer factories. The men-
haden that come up the bay are smaller than the menhaden you get
at the mouth. Ex-Senator Dennis has a large fish factory at Cris-
field, and they fish around there, but I do not think they come very
much farther up the bay for menhaden. These boats do not come
up the bay to catch fish; they come up to buy them.

We have in Maryland about 10,000 fishermen who make their living
catching fish. We have a population of over 1,000,000 in our State,
and I think we should legislate for the protection and benefit of the
press of Maryland and not entirely for the benefit of the 10,000

shermen. I come in contact with these fishermen. I like them.
They have always been nice to me, and I do not care to interfere at
all with their business. They have a right to their living, but these
fish they catch they do not sow. They only reap. They are fish
which belong to the million people, and I respectfully submit that
food is the highest utility to which these fish can be put, and I think
that this bill of Congressman Linthicum’s will Aor atls prevent a
certain amount of these food fish of ours going into use as fertilizer.

I am told that the State of Virginia is going to pass a law at this
session—they have already decided upon it—to prohibit the use of
herring, which use they now allow, for fertilizer, so that, of course,
will protect Maryland against itself, because then these gentlemen
will not be allowed to sell herring for the use of the Virginia fertilizer
factories. Virginia now permits the sale of herring to the fertilizer
factory, but prohibits the purse netter from catching them for such
purpose.

I think this is about all I wish to say. Maryland is trying to pro-
tect these fish the best itcan. Wecannotdoso. Virginia and Mary-
land have always been scrapping about Chesapeake Bay, which they
jointly own, and I think that a bill which ea protect these fish the
way this bill does would be of very great advantage to this fish indus-
try. I thank you very much.

Mr. Covineton. How about the sale and manufacture for fertilizer
of the herrings that are stripped for the production of the roe ?

Mr. DenmeapD. And the balance of the herring is used for fertilizer

Mr. CovineTon. Yes.

Mr. DenmeaD. I think they had better use it for fertilizer in our
own State than throw it away.

Mr. Covinerton. It is a fact, is it not, that the most valuable com-
mercial part of the herring is the roe, which is put in the cans?

16 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

Mr. Denmerap. Yes, we have two or three factories in Maryland
which simply can the roe.

Mr. Covineton. Very large quantities of it ?

Mr. Denmrap. Yes, and then they sell the refuse to the fertilizer
men.

Mr. Escu. It would be difficult, would it not, to distinguish the
oil of the menhaden from the oil of the herring ?

Mr. DenmeapD. I could not tell you that.

Mr. Escu. It goes to the practical operation of your law. <A fac-
tory or a fertilizer plant may put oil on the market from these two
species. Now menhaden is all right. The oil from the herring you
want to prohibit ?

Mr. DENMEaD. Yes, sir.

Mr. Escu. How are you going to determine that when it gets into
the channels of interstate trade ?

Mr. DenmeaD. I do not know. I do not think it would be possi-
ble to tell, under present arrangements, because they use every
available fish. I think they just put the loads of mixed fish together
and turn them into oil or fertilizer. I do not think they separate
the different kinds of fish at all.

Mr. Escu. As soon as it becomes oil it would be impossible to dis
tinguish ?

Mr. DenmeaD. So far as I know you are absolutely correct on that.

Mr. Escu. Therefore the enforcement of the law would have to
depend on inspection at the source ?

Mr. Drenmeap. It would be of absolutely no value unless you
could prevent the fish being used at the source, and after they were
turned into oil it would not do the fish any good. I think it should
be stopped by inspectors right at the source.

Mr. D. V. Stevens. What is the chemical element of fish which is
desirable for fertilizer ?

Mr. Denmeap. I do not know. The menhaden is a very greasy
fish. You can handle it and see it is greasy, and the herring is of the
same family.

Mr. D. V. Stevens. You do not know whether it is phosphorus or
nitrogen or what makes it desirable for fertilizer ?

Mr. DenmeEap. I do not.

Mr. Covineron. Do you not think a large part of this matter
ought to be regulated by more effective legislation by the Legislature
of Maryland ?

Mr. Denmeap. Yes; we should unquestionably have a law in
Maryland which prohibits the use of food fish for fertilizer, and our
State laws in regard to nets are very imperfect and we must have
that rectified; but if the United States would give us a start on this
thing we may be able to tell our legislature in a practical way what
they should do. |

Mr. Covineron. But if the State of Maryland would take that step
and the State of Virginia take that step, would not the practical
effect be that the entire use of herring for fertilizer in Chesapeake
Bay would be stopped ?

Mr. Denmeap. If every State would do the same thing and place
the same laws uniformly on their statute books, we could control
that matter; but the States will not do it.

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. Lg

Mr. Covineaton. I am speaking now of the industry as it would be
affected in Chesapeake Bay. Could not the legislatures of the two
States of Virginia and Maryland pass laws that would be ample to
solve the whole problem ?

Mr. Denmeap. No; I do not believe they could. They could pass
the laws, but they would not be able to stop interstate commerce. I
think this legislation is absolutely necessary in addition to our State
legislation.

Mr. Covineron. You would not have to stop interstate commerce ?

Mr. DenmeEaD. No, sir; if the Legislature of Maryland would
prohibit the use of food fish for fertilizer and enforce it; but the
State of Maryland has not enforced its laws which they have on
their books, and we have not passed any such law at present. And
the same question arises, if | may go into the situation, that we had
in regard to migratory birds, in regard to which Congress passed a
law a short time ago. Certain States protect their fish and certain
States do not. These fish migrate from State to State. These
menhaden come up through Virginia into Maryland, and I think it
is an interstate matter, and I think the United States Government
should take a hand, as they have in the bird bill. That is the way
it appeals to me.

Mr. Escu. There is very little oil extracted from the herrings, is
there not ?

Mr. Denmeap. Sufficient for them to pay $2 a barrel for them for
the fertilizer factory.

Mr. Escu. Their principal use would be for fertilizer. It would
be just as difficult to determine whether food fish like herring were
used for fertilizer as to determine whether a food fish was used in
making an oil, would it not ?

Mr. DENMEAD. Yes, sir.

Mr. Escu. And it would have to be determined through inspection
not on the product in interstate commerce but at the factory ?

Mr. DenmeaD. I should say where the fish were obtained, not at
the factory. That would be the place where we, as an association
interested in the conservation of fish, would like to see all the laws
enforced, where the fish are caught, so those desirable fish could be
turned back into the water.

Mr. Raysurn. Where could you tell where a fish was going?

Mr. DenmeAp. We can tellin away. If the fish are caught at the
head of the bay and thrown into scows and lay there in a rotten con-
dition for two weeks, we know where they are gomg. They are
going into a fertilizer factory. If the fish were to be used in the
market as food they would be shipped very quickly to the market,
They would not be allowed to stay around very long.

Mr. Covineton. You do not pretend that there would be a pre-
sumption that fish caught at the head of Chesapeake Bay were going
down into the fertilizer factories, and that therefore Federal inspec-
tion could be made on the chance that they might get into interstate
commerce ?

Mr. Denmeap. I have not gone into the question of the enforce-
ment of this law, but it seems to me it would not be necessary to
investigate every load of fish, but if there was a general trend to
violate the law, why it would be up to the inspector to find out tha}

43049—14——_2

18 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

at the source, not at the factory. 1 do not believe he could ever
find it out at the factory.

Mr. Covineton. You will have the opportunity to correct and
revise the remarks you have made.

Mr. Linrutcum. Before you put another witness on the stand,
IT should like to say apropos of your suggestion that Maryland and
Virginia agree on a law in regard to food fish, that from the time of
George Washington down to two years ago Maryland and Virginia
have tried to get together on the oyster question in the Potomac
River, and only last year did agree upon a bisa after over 100 years
trying to get together on the oyster question. And they never would
have got togetner even then were it not for the fact that the oysters
are all practically gone from the bottoms of the Potomac River.
I do not suppose they would ever have gotten together if there had
been any oysters left.

I want to ask Dr. Smith of the Bureau of Fisheries to speak to you
a few minutes and answer any questions you may have to ask.

STATEMENT OF DR. H. M. SMITH, COMMISSIONER OF
FISHERIES, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. Linrutcum. We are considering H. R. 7774, and I have pro-
duced as a part of the hearing the statement issued by the Bureau of
Fisheries as to the menhaden industry. I would like to have you tell
the chairman and gentlemen of the committee what you know about
the fertilizer industry and the ultimate effect of the use by that indus-
try of food fish in the manufacture of their products.

Dr. SmirH. I have no argument of any kind to make. I should
just like to say that I am familiar with the provisions of this bill. I
think the bill will have a beneficial effect; it will correct some abuses
which now exist, and prevent the occurrence of abuses hereafter; and,
in my opinion, it will disturb no existing industry of a legitimate
nature.

Our interest in this matter in the Bureau of Fisheries arises from
the fact that we do not like to see any fish or other water product
that is suitable for human food diverted, and, furthermore, we do not
think we are justified in maintaining hatcheries on Chesapeake Bay,
or anywhere else, for the propagation of food fish which are going to
be caught in an immature state and converted into oil and fertilizer.
_ Mr. Covrneton. I will ask you to answer the question I asked Mr.
Denmead. What is your information as to the extent of the so-called
fry fish, the young fish you turn loose, which are now caught and used
in the fertilizer factories ?

Dr. Smiru. The only case to which I could refer with any degree of
certainty is that at the head of Chesapeake Bay, where stationary
apparatus catches a very large quantity of small perch of two species,
which fish are being artificially propagated at the hatchery which we
maintain in that same region.

Mr. Covinetron. Are you not maintaining a fish hatchery at the
mouth of the Susquehanna River—a Government hatchery ?

Dr. Smiru. Yes, sir. It has been there for many years; and
recently, at the request of the fishing interests, we have extended the
operations, which were formerly confined to shad and striped bass, to

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER, 19

white perch and yellow perch, which are very desirable minor food
fishes.

Mr. Escu. You do not propagate the herring ?

Dr. Smiru. It has not, up to this time, been necessary to propagate
the herring. The spawning habits of the herring are decidedly in its
favor. The eggs are of a peculiar nature, and even when the ripe fish
have been caught and are retained in a pound net or gill net the eggs
will attach themselves to the netting and are there often incubated
and hatched out quite as successfully, perhaps, as we could undertake
in the hatcheries.

Mr. Escu. Nature is very kind.

Mr. Wriuis. Before you complete your statement, would you care
to make a statement in reference to food fish used as fertilizer taken
from the waters of Alaska? I remember we had a discussion of that
in the House a year or two ago. Probably this committee would like
to hear some statement in regard to that.

Dr. Smiru. The principal abuse in Alaska is of long standing and is
confined to the herring. It is not the herring of Chesapeake Bay,
but the sea herring, which is similar to the sea herring of the North
Atlantic. That herring industry in Alaska, however, has been
recognized as legitimate up to this time. Certain people went to a
remote part of the territory, established their works at great expense,
and have been utilizing the herring. They could not find a market
for them in that region, or in any other part of Alaska at that time.

Mr. Wixuis. Is that an edible fish ?

- Dr. Smiru. It is a highly edible fish. It is one of the most valuable
of all the food fishes. In fact, the herring of that species and the
Jee of the North Atlantic are the most valuable fish in the whole
world.

Mr. Wituts. I asked you that question because in a hearing before
the Committee on Territories a number of gentlemen appeared and
undertook to tell the committee that those fish were of no account
as food fish. I wanted your expert opinion.

_ Dr. Smiru. Practically the identical fish brings $10,000,000 a year
to the Scotch fishermen. This fish supports enormous fleets and thou-
sand of fishermen all over western Europe.

Mr. Wituis. Information was also brought to us that other kinds
of fish, the salmon and others, which are undoubtedly food fish,
were taken and

Mr. Covinaton. I expect we should not go too far into this Alaska
situation, because there are a number of gentlemen to be heard.

Mr. Wixuis. Then the bill takes in other fish industries as well as
those on Chesapeake Bay.

Mr. Covineton. I misunderstood the gentleman.

Mr. Wits. It takes in all within the scope of this bill. Do you
know to what extent salmon and other fish were taken? They say
that all that came to their nets were herring; they did not make any
distinction whatever; they all went into fertilizer.

Dr. Smiru. In this Alaska fishery practically the only fish taken
are herring. The salmon are too valuable to be converted into oil
and fertilizer, and we have no information that this is going on.

Mr. Hamitton. What are the spawning habits of the Chesapeake
herring ?

20 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

Dr. Smiru. There are two species of herring in the Chesapeake of
somewhat different appearance and spawning habits. These fish are
improperly called herrmg. They are alewives, or river herring.

Mr. D. V. Stevens. Are the Chesapeake herring confined exclu-
sively to Chesapeake Bay ?

Dr. Smiru. The Chesapeake herring range from Florida to the
Canadian Provinecs.

Mr. D. V. STEvENs. It is not the same, is it, as the North Atlantic
herring ?

Dr. SmiruH. It is an entirely different fish from the herring of the
North Atlantic, which does not run into fresh water at all, while the
alewife or Chesapeake Bay herring, and the herring of the eastern
rivers, are migratory fish which spawn in fresh water. They come u
in the spring. One species appears a little in advance of the shad,
and the other with the shad or following the shad. They have dif-
ferent spawning grounds, but for all practical purposes they are iden-
tical, even to the fishermen themselves. In many places the fisher-
men do not distinguish between the two species.

Mr. Hamitron. Have they the habit of returning to the parent
stream or to the place where they spawn ?

Dr. SmirnH. I think that is true of all migratory fishes of that
character; not perhaps because they have any instinct of nativity,
but because the parent stream is the one they are most likely to go
into. After their winter sojourn in the sea, they are more likely to
be attracted by the fresh water coming out of the parent stream than
from any other stream. :

Mr. Hamitron. The Alaska salmon is said to have an instinct.
I think you used the term, ‘instinct of nativity,” did you not ?

Dr. SmiruH. Yes, sir.

Mr. Hamiuton. It is said to have that instinct; it is said that it
goes back by almost infallible instinct to the parent stream. You
say these migratory fish have that same instinct, although not so
largely developed ¢

Dr. Smiru. I think it is very highly developed, but I would not
ascribe to the fishes any higher order of intelligence than is possessed
by human beings.

Mr. Hamitron. You are talking about instinct, not intelligence ?

Dr. Smiru. Instinct is intelligence in human beings.

Mr. Hamitron. That would be starting a psychological discussion.

Mr. Covineton. What have you to say about the practicability
of the enforcement of the provisions in this act ?

Dr. Smirn. I think, Mr. Covington, the bill would have to be
enforced through inspection of the fertilizer plants. I fail to see
how the product could be recognized after it entered into commerce.

Mr. Covineton. How many inspectors would that take throughout
the United States ? |

Dr. Smiru. There are 75 or 100 plants of this kind, but many of
them are bunched. There may be half a dozen on one small body
of water.

Mr. KNowxanp. Are there many of them on the Pacific coast ?

Dr. Smirn. There is only one fertilizer plant for food fishes upon
the Pacific coast.

Mr. Knowianp. Where is that located ?

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. Dik

Dr. Smitu. That is located at Killisnoo in Alaska, and I might
say that legislation pending in the Senate has taken cognizance of
this sacrifice of herring in Alaska, and a bill that has been tentatively
agreed upon by the Senate committee permits that plant to close out
after a certain number of years.

Mr. Covineton. Was that the reason for fixing the date of Janu-
ary 31,1917, in this act, as the last day that fish should be caught
for that purpose ?

Dr. Smita. That is my impression.

Mr. Hamiiron. Doctor, do these fish spawn more than once a

ear ¢
; Dr. Smita. Only once a year, and perhaps not every year.

Mr. Hamiitron. Do the fishermen have a habit of intercepting
these fish on the return to the spawning places? Is it a part of their
policy to do that?

Dr. Smitu. The fishing for these migratory fishes is prosecuted
only on their return to the spawning ground.

Mr. Hamittron. Then, they take advantage of this custom we are
talking about to catch these fish when they return to spawn, as is
the case with the catch of Alaska salmon ?

Dr. SmirH. Yes.

Mr. Wituis. Can you give the committee any information as to
the amount of revenue or rental, so called, that the Government of
the United States receives from this Alaska fertilizer company for
the consumption of fish ?

Dr. SmirH. It is published annually in our report, but I would
not be able to give it to you offhand. It is not a very large income,
however.

Mr. Wituis. You do not recall the amount of fish they take for
that purpose ?

Dr. Smiru. I could not give it from memory.

Mr. Wiiuis. When you get those figures, insert them in your
report.

Mr. MonraGus. You spoke of the two classes of herring. You say,
for instance, that which is called herring in Chesapeake Bay some
of the other witnesses here said was not herring, but it was an alewife.

Dr. SmitrH. That is what I said.

Mr. MonracueE. Is that the herring we usually call Potomac
herring ?

Dr. SmitH. Yes.

Mr. Montague. It is an alewife, then. Is the herring in the
North Atlantic a larger fish or a smaller fish than this ?

Dr. Smitu. It averages a little larger than the river herring or ale-
wife. In Chesapeake Bay and other southern waters the confusion
of names is accentuated by calling the alewife herring and the men-
haden alewife

Mr. MontaGue. Sometimes we call them bug-heads and fat-backs ?

Dr. SmirH. Yes; and there are about 30 other common names for
this one fish, the menhaden.

Mr. MontracueE. Is the north Atlantic herring as full of bones as
the alewife ?

Dr. Smiru. All the herrings are notorious for their boniness.

Mr. Montague. Is the sardine a herring ?

ye TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

Dr. Smrru. The sardine is one kind of herring. It belongs to the

herring family.
_ Mr. O’SHaunessy. Did I understand you correctly about the her-
ring industry up in Alaska? Did you say it was sacrificed now?
You spoke about the revenue that Scotland derived from the herring
industry of $10,000,000 a year.

Dr. Smiru. A least $10,000,000 a year, and the other countries
of western Europe around the North Sea get as much more—perhaps
twice as much more.

Mr. O’SHaungsssy. Tell us what you can in a brief way about the
herring industry in Alaska. You say it is sacrificed. In what way?

Dr. Suir. I said the herring itself was being sacrificed for oil and
fertilizer, when it might be prepared for human food.

Mr. O’SHaunessy. That would be more profitable to Alaska ?

Dr. Surru. It will from now on be more profitable. It would not
have been more profitable at the time the herring industry was estab-
lished in Alaska, because there was no local or export demand for that
kind of fish.

Mr. O’SHaunessy. But it can be made a source of great profit to
Alaska, can it ?

Dr. Smirg. Undoubtedly. Alaska can be depended upon to sup-
port a herring fishery perhaps more valuable than that of any other
country. I should not be at all surprised if by the introduction of
the same methods that are followed in western Europe, and to some
extent in Newfoundland and in our own Eastern States, an industry
worth $5,000,000 might be developed there.

Mr. Tatcorr. Doctor, how long has that herrmg work been going
on in Alaska ¢

Dr. Smitru. At least 15 years and perhaps longer. The amount of
- money that has been invested in the plant is considerable, and it was
thought only fatr to let the people gradually drop out so as not to
sacrifice the investement.

Mr. Tatcorr. That plant has been conducted for about 15 years?

Dr. Smiru. It has been in existence for at least that long.

Mr. Linruicum. Are there not many herrings brought down from
Newfoundland to our country and sold ¢

Dr. Smirn. There is a very large fishery carried on by Massachu-
setts vessels in winter. Sometimes a fleet of 30 or more vessels goes
to the treaty shores of Newfoundland, and at the end of the fishing
season the fish are brought down in either a frozen or a salted con-
dition. These fish enter into our food supply.

Mr. Covineron. Does that conclude your statement, Doctor?

Mr. Wituis. Just a moment

Mr. Linrutcum. I want to say that I think this is a matter of great
importance, and we do not like to hurry through it.

Mr. Covineton. I asked the doctor whether he had concluded
his statement.

Mr. Linruicum. I understood the chairman to say I was to pro-
duce my witnesses, and we would have full time to put this matter
before you. It is of very great importance.

Mr. Covineron. The committee, though, has to reserve to itself
the right to determine whether a man has finished his statement or
not. If the doctor has not.finished, he may go on at length.

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. a3

Mr. Lintuicum. I was about to ask the doctor something in refer-
ence to the blueback.

Mr. Covineton. As a matter of fact, I have to state that the
practice of this committee has always been for the man to make his
statement, and at the conclusion of it if there are any questions that
it is desired to ask that may be done.

Mr. Linruicum. Questions have been asked all along. I took it
that I would be afforded the same privileges of which the other gen-
tlemen have availed themselves.

Mr. Covinetron. You will, but I wanted him to finish his con-
nected statement first, because that is the only way we can handle it.

Go ahead, Doctor, and finish your statement. Then Mr. Linthi-
cum, or any member of the committee, can ask any questions they
care to ask.

Dr. Smiru. I thought it might be of some interest to the members
of the committee and to those who are interested in this matter to
know the real food value or market value of these alewives or herring:
in Chesapeake Bay. Within a few days I have made some inquiries.
of a practical fisherman in Maryland, and he tells me that these ale-
wives, such as are being caught in Chesapeake Bay and its tributa-
ries, when cut by the ile their head and viscera, are worth $6
a barrel as the average retail price; these fish run about 650 to 700-to
a barrel. The herring, which are salted whole, as is a rather common
practice, the scales simply being removed by a stirring process, are
worth from $3.50 to $4 a barrel to the fishermen—400 fish to the
barrel. Fresh herring sold on the shores where they are caught in
seines or otherwise, mostly to farmers who come down there from the
surrounding country to get their winter fish supply, bring from $4 to
$5 a thousand on an average.

At Washington and Alexandria, on the Potomac River, where a
considerable quantity of herring is sold in bulk to salters, the price
received is $2.50 to $3.50 per thousand. Early in the season, at the
city markets here, from $5 to $10 per thousand is received by the
fishermen for these herring from the Potomac River; but later, when
the catch becomes larger, the price drops to $2.50 to $3 a thousand
in bulk.

The retail prices to the consumer at the wharves in Washington are
$5 to $10 per thousand, and about 10 to 12 fish would make an
average meal for an average family.
~ That is all I have to say.

Mr. Linitnicum. Doctor, I merely want to ask you two questions,
Congressman Gardner, of Massachusetts, has an amendment he desires
to submit to the committee this afternoon, if the committee is in
session, excluding bluebacks, as he calls them. Will you kindly tell
the committee woat kind of fish that is ?

Dr. Surry. The blueback is one of these same herring that run in
Chesapeake Bay.

Mr. Lintuiccum. Is it an edible fish ?

Dr. Smitru. It is a highly edible fish, and is eaten in Mr. Gardner’s
own State, and also throughout New England after it gets into the
rivers.

Mr. Lintruicum. There is one other question I want to ask you.
That is in reference to the catch of shad. Will vou not introduce

24 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

that [producing a paper] into the hearing so as to have some record
of it?

Dr. Smirn. Yes. This appears to be a memorandum that I sent
to the Secretary of Commerce under date of July 15, 1913, calling
attention to the fact—shall I read it? _

Mr. Linrnicum. You had better read it.

Dr. Smiru. It reads:

{Memorandum for the Secretary.]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

BurREAU OF FISHERIES,
Washington, July 15, 1913.
We have just received from Neitzey Bros., old and experienced fishermen of the
Potomac River, a comparative statement of the catch of shad and herring in their
haul seine at Ferry Landing, Va., for a period of five years ending in 1913. The fig-
ures are so suggestive and so confirmatory of the position of the department that I
think you will be interested.

Number of fish taken.
Year.

Shad. Herring.
Db Ld Da oe ee SP eae ae ee A eS Aa aE ge aoe RE epee oe eT 9,000 1, 400, 000
BY Viger ee 2 iain OS ee ha eR A Shee See 4, 200 517,000
iit S282 PRS OP SE eee Dr ita a A Gi gle es Uh Ge SOE ee Cine Ce A 1,450 310, 000
GEES ES yet Se AONE i eso elite ay ec oooh teeta Src hee eie clo mcrore = ate erauirer toro 900 145, 000
ROL OR: tee eae SRNR Ce ae A Reena 1d eee Meee een sk aac ce cate 700 60, 000

The seine used in this fishery is 1,200 fathoms long, and requires 45 men and two
steam engines to operate it. The entire catch of the two seasons of 1912 and 1913
was not more than one day’s catch in former years.

H. M. Smirx, Commissioner.

That is, the number of shad caught dropped from 9,000 in 1909 to
700 in 1913. The number of herring dropped from 1,400,000 in 1909
to 60,000 in 1913. The entire catch of the two seasons of 1912 and
1913 was not more than one day’s catch in former years.

Mr. Montacur. That was an experiment made, was it not?

Dr. SmitH. No; that is an established fishery. That seine has
been hauled there for about 75 years.

Mr. O’SHaunessy. That is proof that there is a decimation of the
herring due to these practices you want prevented ?

Dr. SmirH. I would not have you understand that we are claiming
that the decrease in the supply of shad and herring in the tributaries
of Chesapeake Bay is due to the use of those fish for fertilizer. It is
due to inefficient protective laws.

Mr. O’SHauneEssy. Where? In Maryland?

Dr. Smiru. In Maryland and Virginia.

Mr. O’SHauneEssy. How long have you been trying to get better
laws in Maryland ?

Dr. Smirn. Ever since I have been in the Bureau of Fisheries—
about 30 years.

Mr. O’SHauneEssy. What is the trouble, are the fishermen stronger
than the people ?

Dr. Smiru. The fishermen are the people.

Mr. Escu. Have you records of the catch of shad and herring in
Chesapeake Bay ?

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 25

Dr. Smitu. We have, for a long series of years, going back at least
as far as 1880, and possibly to 1870.

Mr. Escu. Does that record show a gradual diminution ?

Dr. Smitn. The history of the shad fishery in this region is very
interesting. About the year 1880 there was some such condition as
is now existing, the supply of fish falling off to such an extent that
the abandonment of the fishery was seriously contemplated. About
that time Congress directed the establishment of shad hatcheries on
these streams, and there was some improvement in the legislation,
and there was an almost immediate response on the part of the fish;
so that by 1885, and from then on for a number of years, the catch
was perhaps larger than in any recent time; but for at least 10 or
15 years there has been a steady decrease in the run of shad and
herring and other migratory fishes in Chesapeake Bay and tributaries.

Mr. Hamitron. After you established the hatcheries, did the fish-
ermen increase their means of catching the fish, so as to keep pace
with the increase of fish, so that the result was a decrease of the
supply of these fish ?

r. SMITH. Twenty years ago there were not to exceed 1,000
pound nets between Washington and the mouth of Chesapeake Ba
on the Virginia side. Last season there were probably 4,000 funk
nets, some of them extending in unbroken lines for 7 or 8 miles from
shore.

Mr. Hamiyron. Have you any recommendations to make as to
what sort of law there should be passed, or whether the Federal
Government can intervene to protect the people against the reduc-
tion of the food supply by the destruction of fish ?

Dr. Smiru. I have had numerous conferences on this subject with
the Secretary of Commerce under whom this matter would come.
He is very loath to undertake Federal control over the, fisheries in
State waters, and he would undertake it only out of a sense of re-
sponsibility to the people and cf duty to the industry. We do not
see how governmental interference can be indefinitely deferred if
the States are going to remain apart, as have Maryland and Vir-
ginia in Chesapeake Bay; Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey
in the Delaware Basin; and Washington and Oregon in the Columbia
River Basin. Some kind of governmental control is apparently
going to be imperatively demanded unless the States do differently
from what they have in the past. They have either been unable
to get together and stay together, or they are indifferent.

Mr. Covineron. Doctor, since you have adverted to that subject
of diminution of the fish supply, if it has not been due to their de-
struction by fertilizer factories, what has the immense diminution
of the shad and herring been due to?

Dr. Smirn. The undue destruction of migratory fish on their way
to spawning ground.

Mr. Montacuer. The shad are not used in the factories at all for
fertilizer, are they ?

Dr. Smiru. I have never seen any shad used for that purpose.
They have too a high a value in the market. fay}

Mr. Hamitron. Can you state to the committee the constitutional
grounds upon which you advise Federal regulation and control ?

Dr. Smitu. The apparent inability of the States to enter into any
permanent agreement for the conservation of a product that does

26 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

not belong to the States but is the property of the whole country,
and it is not within the jurisdiction of any State during the greater
part of the year.

Mr. Hamiton. I simply wanted to get that into the record.

Mr. Wits. Doctor, before you finish I want to make a suggestion.
A little while ago I asked a question which was rather unfair as to the
number of milion pounds of fish taken out of Alaskan waters by the
Alaska fertilizer company, and the royalty or rental that the Govern-
ment received from those. Will you kindly, when you revise your
testimony, put tha in so that we will have it in our hearing ?

Dr. Smiru. I will do so.

Operations of Alaska Oil & Guano Co. at Killisnoo, Alaska, for years 1912 and 1913.

| | : | Due
Year. Heeiher Oil product. Fertilizer product. Herring salted for Herring for food. Govern:
| for tax.
|
| |
Pounds. | Gallons. | Value.| Pounds. | Value.| Pounds. | Value.| Pounds. | Value.

1912 | 11,140,000 | 235,000 |$51, 700 | 2,580,000 |$38,700 | 160,000 | $1,600 |..........|.....-..- $728
1913 {112,654,000 | 260,000 | 52,000 | 2,400,000 | 33,000 | 400,000} 4,000 | 112,000 | $4,200 760

| | |

1 Approximate.

Mr. MonracueE. I should like to ask you a question in regard to a
very interesting example you gave of a certain fishery. You said
the number of fish had fallen off so much.

Dr. SmitH. This was a seine fishery on the Potomac River below
Washington.

Mr. Montacue. You gave the actual number of fish.

Dr. SmitH. Yes; the actual number.

Mr. Monracue. Did you count those fish ?

Dr. Smiru. The fish are counted at the fishing shore. The shad
are so valuable that they are counted by hand. The herring are
measured; the fishermen know how many go in a barrel or tub.

Mr. Montacue. You approximate the herring by measurement,
but the shad are actually counted ¢

Dr. Smirn. Yes, sir. The fish are sold by count. Even the
herring, which are brought up to the city in bulk, in bins, or in the
holds of vessels, are sold by count at so much per thousand.

Mr. Montacue. In this particular fishery did they send any of
their herring into the fertilizer industry ?

Dr. Smiru. I have no information on that subject, but as there are
no fertilizer plants very near Washington, and as the price of these
fish is so high, I am inclined to believe that all of them come to the
market.

Mr. Montacur. How far from Washington is this particular net ?

Dr. SmitH. It is about 17 miles—just below Mount Vernon.

Mr. MontacueE. I desire to ask you one further question. What
effect upon the supply of the fish have the pound nets, seines, and
other fishing appliances along the Atlantic coast had ?

Dr. Smiru. That is a pretty broad question, sir, because you are
dealing with so many kinds of fish that are subject to different condi-
tions. There are certain fish that are caught mm enormous quantities
on the Atlantic coast In pounds and other nets whose supply remains

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 27

unimpaired, so far as we can see, fish like the blueish, which spawn
offshore

Mr. Montacur. Doctor, any man who iishes for sport, who handles
a line or rod, knows that he can not now catch fish in Chesapeake
Bay and its tributaries to anything like the amount he could catch
20 or 30 years ago. Take the trout—when you catch them in the sea
what do you call them ?

Dr. Smitu. Weakfish is the proper name.

Mr. Montacue. Take the blue‘ish, take the spet, take the hogfish,
or take any kind of fish in Chesapezke Bay, and the amount of catch
now that any expert fisherman can make with his hands is insignificant
as compared with what it was 20 or 30 years ago. To what do you
attribute that?

Dr. Smirn. I have no doubt in the world that Chesapeake Bay is
overfished. I think the whole history of the fishery in recent years
ee indicate that more fish are being caught than the stock can
stand..

Mr. Montacue. North of Cape Charles and south of Cape Henry
you find these pounds, I think you call them, extending out in the
ocean 3 or 4 miles, 2 or 3 miles, and a mile, just above and just below
the Capes ?

Dr. Smiru. I have been to such pounds.

Mr. Montraauer. You have seen them, have you not?

Dr. Smirn. I know of their extent and their location.

Mr. Montracter. The fish are struggling to come within the Capes
at certain seasons of the year?

Dr. Smiry. Yes.

7 MontaGurE. What effect do these pounds have upon the sup-

y?

: Dr. Smrru. They are set for the purpose of intercepting the schools
of fish that are bound into Chesapeake Bay.

Mr. Monracur. They successfully do that work, do they not?

Dr. Surry. They are exceedingly effective. The pound net is
the latest thing in fishing apparatus.

Mr. Monracue. Those fish are food fish in the main ?

Dr. Smiru. Yes, and they are used for such purposes.

Mr. Monraaur. Do they not injure and kill innumerable quanti-
ties of fish so small that they would not be shipped for food supply ?

Dr. Smrru. All kinds of net fishing are more or less destructive
of the young. An apparatus has not been devised which will take
simply the marketable fish. We have been solicitous about the
destruction of the small fish in the pound nets, seines, and the other
apparatus around Chesapeake Bay and off the mouth of the bay. :

Mr. Monracup. I asked the question not to divert the inquiries
and observation of the department from the bay, but to ascertain,
if you can scientifically, what effect the outside fishing apparatus—
the coast fishing—may have upon the destruction of fish.

Dr. Smriru. The decline of the shad fisheries in the rivers around
Chesapeake Bay is undoubtedly due to the great multiplication of
the fishing apparatus in salt water.

Mr. MonraaueE. In the bay or outside of the bay, or both?

_ Dr. Smiru. Both, and in the estuaries and in the lower courses
of the streams, with the result that in some streams possibly 90 per
cent of the run of spawning fish is intercepted before the spawning

28 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

grounds are reached. Of course under such circumstances the fish
hatcheries are of no good whatever. Fish hatcheries can not operate
unless they get eggs for hatching purposes. That is what we have
been prevented from doing in the fish hatcheries in the Chesapeake
Bay region.

Mr. Hamitron. Are these pounds that Mr. Montague referred to
planted there for the purpose of intercepting the fish on their way
to the spawning ground ?

Dr. Smirx. Absolutely.

Mr. Hamirton. All the fish they catch under those conditions
are stopped on their way to spawn, and they prevent, then, the repro-
duction of the fish to the extent that they catch these fish ?

Dr. Smiru. That is the fact.

Mr. Escu. That would be within the jurisdiction of the States?

Dr. SmirH. Undoubtedly, sir.

Mr. Hamittron. It would also be within the jurisdiction of the
Federal Government, would it not ?

Dr. Smiru. Only to the extent that these fixed forms of apparatus
interfere with navigation. The War Department, through the
Engineer Corps, is going to be busy in Chesapeake Bay and its tribu-
taries the coming season insuring the opening up of ways for naviga-
tion which will also be ways for the spawning fish bound to the head-
waters. The work in behalf of the fish is only incidental, however.

Mr. Tatcorr. In the case of these salt-water nets would not the
Government have jurisdiction outside of low water mark ?

Dr. Smiru. The Government has never exercised such jurisdiction,
and as these nets are attached to the bottom I think they would come
within the jurisdiction of the State. They do extend for long dis-
tances from shore, as Mr. Montague has said. There are some below
Cape Henry that go out at least a mile.

Mr. Covineton. Are they not exercising all the supervision they
can constitutionally exercise when they seek to establish regulations
through the War Department as to placing those pounds and other
nets in the water to an extent that would obstruct navigation ?

Dr. Smiru. That appears to be the only jurisdiction that the
Federal Government can exercise at the present time.

Mr. Covineton. They are now exercising it to the limit of their
constitutional jurisdiction by placing obstructions at the limits of the
navigable waters ?

Dr. Smiru. That is my understanding.

Mr. Escu. When you revise your testimony, will you add the
statistics of your office showing the catch of herring in Chesapeake
Bay since 1880 ?

Dr. Smiru. Yes; for as many years as we have statistics.

Mr. Escon. If you can go back of that, that will be much better.

Dr. Smiru. I will do that if we have the figures.

I would not like to create the impression that I think this net
fishing in Chesapeake Bay or anywhere else is improper. All that it
needs is regulation, and on several occasions we have notified the
State people that if they would be willing to let only 10 per cent of
the spawning shad that they capture every year go by and reach
the headwaters, the supply could be maintained. It is a very small
thing to ask. All the fish need is a fair chance.

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 29

Alewife catch of Maryland and Virginia for a term of years.

Year. | Pounds. Value. Year. Pounds. Value.
Nambasemmatatnt: Decca saa costed 169120872 S210; 967) || T8900. . oe nes cc eo oosce ee oeee 30,828,969 | $194,294
GRR ae i= ee. 5 TE OSL ONG is TTS SHR 1G0Mo ac oe Sona. ene es 27,660,601 | 206,732
TRRGESEPEL elie Us Sta |' 17,064,770 |" 150,660 |) 19042 .00. 6525, hele 29,088,836 | 228,715
1890 Pee tem o'se tiatdeiscas cea coee 30, 408, 692 od AG Te | PIONS ES. oe Sek See ea 66, 690, 000 28,
(GDC Dea ae ee oe | 28,432,335 | 225,150 || 1909... 2... eee eeeeeeee 51, 447,280 | 284,039
Dita 45 eee eo ote me | 30, 011, 962 190, 064

Mr. O’SHaunessy. That was in the nature of a request, was it not?
What did they say to that?

Dr. SmirH. Actions speak louder than words.

Mr. O’SHaunessy. They are indifferent ?

Dr. Smiry. The laws have not been materially changed, and the
conditions have become more aggravated, so that more and more
fish are being killed every year in Chesapeake Bay, and also in other
waters, before they reach the spawning grounds, and unless the
spawning grounds are reached by a fair neice eee of the run each
year the supply is bound to decline and ultimately disappear.

Mr. O’SHaungssy. That is a very big proposition.

Mr. Covineton. Doctor, the provision in this bill exempting the sale
of fertilizer or oil produced from the by-products—is that intended
to be broad enough to reserve the right to sell the herring that
remain after the extraction of the roe therefrom and the roe is pre-
pared for food purposes ?

Dr. SMITH. Teed not think that such herring should be con-
verted into fertilizer. The shad, after the roe has been extracted,
is a marketable food fish. The herring 1s a similar fish.

Mr. Covineton. As an entirely practical ia eee ae if the herring-
roe industry is a large commercial industry and the packer of herring
roe can get no market for the herring after the roe is stripped from
it, would you say that should be thrown away rather than used for
fertilizer or commercial purposes ?

Dr. Smrru. I think the roe should be regarded as the by-product,
and not the herring.

Mr. Covineron. The roe should be regarded as the by-product ?

Dr. Smiru. Certainly.

Mr. Covinetron. Do you think that language would so regard the
roe as the by-product, when that is the principal part of the in-
dustry and not the incident of it?

Dr. SmrruH. The fish itself is the principal part of the industry,
except in certain isolated places.

Mr. Covineron. As a matter of fact, it is in those regions a very
large industry—a large quantity of herring roe is now being canned,
is it not ?

Dr. SmiruH. The industry has attained a considerable importance
in certain restricted localities.

Mr. Covineron. And in those localities the principal business is
the canning of the herring roe itself, and the fish itself is merely the
by-product.

Dr. Smirn. That is the way they so regard it, but I think that is
improper. In the case of various other fishes of which the roe is

30 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

saved, the roe is the secondary product. The fish themselves are
utilized in a proper way.

Mr. Covineton. This section is not broad enough to permit the
sale of the herring after the roe is stripped from it for canning pur-
ses #

Dr. Smiru. I did not construe it to permit the sale of the fish for
fertilizer.

Mr. Linruicum. May I ask the doctor just one question: Doctor,
was not that same contention made with regard to the use of the roe
of the sturgeon? They use the roe of the sturgeon for Russian caviar.
What became of that ?

Dr. Smiru. That is asimilar case. Twenty years ago the fishermen
generally on the Great Lakes, along the Atlantic coast, and in the
Columbia River had a realization that the eggs of the sturgeon had
a great market value.

Mr. O’SHauNEssy. How many years ago?

Dr. SmirH. Just a moment—they began a very active fishery
which had for its object the saving of the roe, while the fish were often
thrown away or regarded as a subsidiary product. In a very few
years the sturgeon ceased to be present in sufficient numbers to
support any kind of fishery. In the Columbia River the sturgeon
was wiped out in about three years by this very roe business, and
now the sturgeon is so scarce everywhere that it has become easily |
the most valuable fish in our waters.

Mr. Witiis. Whether we consider the fish or the roe the by-
product, is it not a fact that this roe industry is extremely destruc-
tive, so far as the fisheries of the country are concerned ?

Dr. Smrru. I should say it is very wasteful if the fish are caught
exclusively for the purpose of saving their roe.

Mr. Wits. Even if they are caught for any purpose at that par-
ticular time when they are about to spawn, it seems to me would be
extremely destructive. Is it not a fact—I am asking purely for infor-
mation—that the roe industry is extremely destructive, so far as the
fisheries of the country are concerned, whether we regard the roe as
the main product or as the by-product ?

Dr. Smiru. As I stated a while ago, these fishes, like the shad, the
herring, the salmon, and the sturgeon, are caught only during the
time when they are in roe. They are running into waters where
they can be caught at that particular season. They must be taken
then or not at all.

Mr. Covineton. Mr. Linthicum, have you any other questions ?

Mr. Linrutcum. No. I want Dr. B. Holly Smith, the president of
the Maryland State Game and Fish Association, to make a few
remarks.

STATEMENT OF DR. B. HOLLY SMITH, PRESIDENT OF THE
MARYLAND STATE GAME AND FISH ASSOCIATION, 1007 MAD-
ISON AVENUE, BALTIMORE, MD.

Mr. Covineron. What is your occupation ?

Mr. SmirH. I do what I please. If you are going to put me down
for any particular occupation, I will say that I practice medicine
and dentistry, and a few other things.

Mr. Chairman, I have been greatly edified especially by the tech-
‘nical information that I have received from my namesake. I am

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 31

only here in a sense as a figurehead, as the president of the Maryland
State Game and Fish Association.

We have recollections of the days in the past when Maryland was
looked upon with envious eyes by all the world where the connois-
seur of all gastronomics lifted his hat and oiled his lips with compli-
ments to us. That day is fast passing away until now there are
perhaps none so poor as to do us honor. Our game fish and our
game birds, especially our game fish, are butchered not to make a
Roman holiday, but just a little mess of dung, and we protest. I
thank you.

Mr. Montacur. You spoke of the diminution of your fish supply.
You suggested it rather, did you not?

Mr. Smiru. I intimated it.

Mr. MontacueE. Well, intimated it. You are willing to affirm it.
That is a fact, is it not?

Mr. Smiru. I think I can.

Mr. Monracur. To what do you attribute the falling off of the
supply in the diamond-back terrapin that you said made the lips of
connoisseurs. water ?

Mr. Smiru. I know three negroes that have farms that are worth
now $8,000 or $10,000 apiece, that have poled diamond-back terra-

ins out of the marshes of my State until there is not another diamond-
ack terrapin left.

Mr. Monracur. You mean they overfish it ?

Mr. Smitu. It is overfished.

Mr. Escu. Doctor, what has your association done in Maryland to
secure legislation that would protect your fish ?

Mr. Smiru. Enough to make it unpopular with all legislators. We
have sought and sought and begged and begged, with small profit.
We have done a great deal. We have had local laws, but now we
are seeking, and I think perhaps now we have some prospect of
securing uniform laws regarding the taking of game. We introduced
mesh laws, but we have not succeeded in doing anything. We have
arrested 30 or 40 men in Baltimore for having small fish in their
possession, but we have not accomplished anything. We have been
doing something all the time, but it seems to me that we have not
done more than — we have really not accomplished much in the way
of legislation for the protection of our fish.

I wish you would come down to the legislature some time. It is a
very nice place to go and attempt to get something. [Laughter.]

Mr. Covineron. That is a place some of us like to keep away from.

Mr. Hamitton. Doctor, I gather that your legislature in Maryland
is not inclined to be responsive to the demands of your people that
your fish should be protected @

Mr. Suiru. Here [indicating] are the gentlemen who own the legis-
lature. [Laughter.]

Mr. Hamitton. I am judging from what you do.

Mr. Smiru. What are you going to do when you go up against a
crowd like that? They stand solidly together—the captain, the ship-
mate, the steward, the lawyer, and the banker—absolutely together.
We can not get anything from them. I would like to see anyone go
down and get anything from that legislature. They are absolutely
estopped. [Laughter.]

32 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

Mr. Hamittron. They have a large number of fishermen as con-
stituents, do they not ¢

Mr. Smirn. You know, in Maryland, when we have not anything
to do we go fishing.

Mr. Hamitron. We do that in Michigan.

Mr. Smiru. We go fishing. A large number of our citizens go fish-
ing, sometimes for pleasure, but very often as a matter of profit, and
the fishing interest is a very diflicult thing to abridge or cut short.
We do not like to do it, because these men make their living off of
the water, and it is a hard thing to get their consent. We do not do
things down in Maryland without consent.

Mr. Hamitton. The protection of the fish would protect them in
the long run, would it not, Doctor ?

Mr. Smrru. If we could persuade them to that opinion, we would
be delighted. That is what we have been endeavoring to do.

(Thereupon the committee took a recess until 2 o’clock p. m.)

AFTER RECESS.

The committee met at 2 o’clock p. m.
Mr. Covineton. Who wishes to be heard? Mr. Gardner, would
you prefer to be heard now ?

STATEMENT OF HON. A. P GARDNER, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

Mr. Garpner. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, this
is a matter which involves the livelihood of a large number of fisher-
men along my part of the coast of Massachusetts, and likewise affects
some other industries. As this bill is drawn it will prevent the selling
of the surplus catch of what is known as bluebacks or kyacks to fer-
tilizer companies. It will also prevent a glue factory or an oil con-
cern from buying the waste from fish canneries or packing houses.
I assume the committee does not wish to hear my views as to the
constitutionality of this bill. I shall discuss the measure on the
assumption that it can be put into constitutional shape. I also
assume that there is no intention of preventing a glue factory, for
instance, from purchasing and using in the manufacture of glue the
waste product of a fish-packing establishment. I think as the bill is
ren it will prevent that, but I take it there is no intention of doing
that.

Mr. Lintruicum. Not at all. .

Mr. GarDNER. Now, as to this question of the disposition to be
made by boat fishermen of their surplus catch of bluebacks or kyacks,
in order to identify the fish completely, I am going to ask Dr. Smith
to give me the scientific name.

Dr. SmitH. The scientific name is pomolobus aestivalis.

Mr. GarpneR. I ask for the scientific name because in different
parts of this country the same fish is called by different names.

These bluebacks are caught at certain seasons when schools of them
come along the coast, at irregular times, and go up the rivers and
sounds in my neighborhood. When the fish are running, a large
number of boats set sail and catch them; as many as 30 sail might

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 33

be out at one time in my neighborhood. ‘They cover many miles of
territory, each one seeking to intercept a school of bluebacks, if they
are so fortunate as to do so. When the fishermen get their catch
ashore—the income they get from the catch of these bluebacks is a
very material part of tlieir livelihood—when they get their bluebacks
ashore, they proceed to dispose of them either for fresh bait for our
fisheries, or else they sell them to the freezers, so called. In the
freezers these fish are preserved for bait. Our deep-sea fisheries
nowadays take a great deal of frozen fish as bait to be used on the
Grand Banks and elsewhere.

Quite often it will happen that simultaneously this big fleet of
30 fishing boats, unbeknown to each other, spread over a large extent
of territory, may all have luck simultaneously. They may all come
ashore with a very large catch of bluebacks. ‘Then what happens?
There is very often an excess after the freezers are full, and after
every fisherman who wants fresh bait is supplied, the excess is sold
to fertilizer factories, to factories that manufacture fertilizer. This
is a great blessing to the fishermen. Formerly when on coming ashore
they found that they had all been in luck, they were obliged to throw
their surplus product overboard. That is what used to happen,
I am told, before these fertilizer factories were established, unless the
fishermen could find farmers who would take that surplus fish and
haul it directly away and put it out on the land without its going
through a fertilizer factory.

Now, the United States Fish Commission takes the ground that
these bluebacks are edible. Perhaps they are. So are skates edible.
So are rays edible. Skates and rays are eaten in England, but the
fact remains that there is no market for them with us. You can tell
my neighbors, until you are black in the face, that a certain fungus
of the mushroom family which grows in our fields, is edible; but you
can not get them to eat it and can not get them to buy it. Therefore
until the people in my part of the country are willing to eat up this
surplus catch of bluebacks, the result is going to be, 1f you pass this
this law in its present shape, that those surplus fish are all going to
be dumped overboard.

Some few years ago the selectmen of a town in the neighborhood
of Boston complained of the vast quantity of herring that was being
washed ashore, thereby spoiling their beach for bathing purposes.
On investigation it appeared that those herring which were washed
ashore had been thrown overboard by the very men who caught
them. Why? Because the fishermen all had had luck at the same
time. They had caught a great many more fish than the market
would stand without forcing them to sell at ruinous prices. In order
not to break the market, they had pitched the herring overboard.
That is exactly what fishermen would have to do under this bill if
_they could not sell their surplus to the fertilizer factories.

Some one has argued: “‘ Yes; but your people need not catch more
fish than they can profitably sell.” Put yourselves in the place of the
individual boat fisherman. I have my boat at the mouth of a river,
and you have your boat at the mouth of another river three miles
off. The shore curves. Between us several more boats are scat-
tered around. They have no wireless apparatus to communicate
with each other. Not one of the boats knows what the other boats

43049—14——_3

34 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER,

have caught. Suppose I run into a school of fish. Do you expect
me to say: ‘‘ Here 1s a splendid school, but I am afraid I have got my
share already, and I should spoil the market if I were to catch any
more.”’ That would be absurd. If I said that, like as not when I
got ashore I should find that the other boats had had no luck. What
a fool I should feel like. No fisherman could support a family if he
undertook to fish on any such plan as that.

The sum and substance of what I have been saying is this: Of late
years this extra catch, which can not be foreseen, is disposed of to
the fertilizing concerns. They have proved a boon to our fishermen.
I suggest that fish used for the purpose of fertilizing the ground go
a good deal further toward helping along the food supply of this
country than fish dumped overboard out at sea. 5

I have introduced some amendments here. One of them is
designed to protect persons who use the refuse of our fish canneries
and fish packing concerns. The other amendments are designed for
the protection of a mighty sturdy class of folks who make their living
by clamming and by lobstering and by boat fishing.

For instance, in the first section of the bill I suggest that kyacs or
bluebacks be included in the list of fishes which men shall be per-
mitted to sell to fertilizer factories. That amendment of course
would meet the problem that I have just presented to you so far as
my fishermen constituents are concerned. Under the terms of the
bill fish may be disposed of for any purpose when they are the by-
product of any industry. I suggest an amendment granting the
same privilege to fish which are the surplus product of any industry.
I suggest, in the amendment which I have sent to the committee, that
the surplus of any fishing industry may be disposed of to a fertilizer
factory or to any other kind of business.

Either of those amendments would meet the particular difficulty
of which I complain.

I do not know to what extent any harm is being done under the
law as itis at present. JI am quite confident that up my way, where,
so far as I know, nobody eats bluebacks, no injury whatever is being
done. As to what may be the injury in Chesapeake Bay, I understand
that the best food herring is sometimes caught there in excessive
quantities. JI am also told that fish fry of all sorts, put out by the
United States Fish Commission, are often caught with the herring.
The circumstances may be different from what they are with my
people. I can not pretend to say that they are not different, because
I do not know. I suggest, however, that if such is the case, and if
this difficulty is principally confined to Chesapeake Bay, there is
nothing to prevent the passage of a law, if a constitutional one can
be devised, which will apply only to the waters of Chesapeake Bay.

Mr. Covineron. You have doubts about the constitutional power
of Congress to do that, however ? \

Mr. Garpner. I have still greater doubt as to the constitutionality
of this particular bill. Most good lawyers think that the States never
gave Congress the right to prohibit the interstate transportation of
the products of child labor. This bill proposes to go far beyond
that step.

I wish that Congress could prohibit child labor; but if we never were
given the power to forbid the transportation of the products of child
labor, we never were given the power to prohibit the transportation
of oil made out of some particular class of fish.

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 35

I am ready to answer any questions on this matter.

‘ an ee: What is the kyack? Does it belong to the herring
amily ?

Mr. GarpneR. Yes, indeed. I think the distinction—I am getting
far beyond my depth—but I think the distinction anatomically
speaking between the blueback and the best food herring is that one
has a black peritoneum and the other has a white peritoneum.

Mr. Escu. You say the kyack is not an edible fish ?

Mr. Garpner. The kyack or blueback is not an edible fish in the
opinion of my constituents; that is, they will not buy it as food, and
most of them will tell you it is not edible, but I told by Dr. Smith,
of the Fish Commission, that it is, as a matter of fact, edible, and that
up my way we have not been educated up to eating it. While I con-
cede that it may be edible, I also know of a great many other fish,
said to be edible, which, as a matter of fact, people will not eat. I
am going to read into the record a letter from one of these fishermen.

NEWBURYPORT, Mass., January 29, 1914.
Hon. A. P. GARDNER.

Dear Sir: I saw an article in the Gloucester Times of January 22, written by Dr.
Fields, of the Massachusetts Fish Commission, speaking of a bill soon to be introduced
by Congressman Linthicum, of Maryland, forbidding the catch of certain kinds of
fish for fertilizer purposes. I wish to call your attention to one kind of fish which is
caught extensively by the fleet of boats out of Gloucester, Newburyport, and Province-
town. They are of no commercial value as a food fish, being caught solely for bait
for the fishing fleet, either to sell fresh or to be put into the freezers for bait for winter.
It is very often the case where there are so very many of these boats fishing (some
50 sail) that when they get in with their fish there is no market for them for bait
or to be put in the freezers. In that case they are obliged to sell them for oil and
fertilizers, which is much better than taking them to sea and bailing these dead fish
overboard again. These fish are a species of herring and are not an alewife. They
are known to the fishermen as bluebacks. I have never known of any of these fish
being sold as food fish, either the fresh or salted. These fish usually arrive with the
menhaden and are, with us, used for the same purposes.

In Congressman Linthicum’s bill it is allowable to use menhaden for fertilizer, and
we ask the same privilege of the bluebacks. I think your attention will be called
to this by the fishermen of Gloucester.

Hoping you can help us in this matter of importance to us, I am,

Respectfully,
GEORGE G. SHORT,
116 Water Street.

The fish which we call an alewife in Massachusetts I think is not
the same fish which you call an alewife in the waters of Chesapeake
Bay. How is that, Dr. Smith?

Dr. Smitu. It is the same fish.

Mr. GarpNER. What is the alewife that runs up the Hudson
River, what is the scientific name ?

Dr. Smiru. Pseud serengus.

Mr. Garpner. That means false herring ?

Dr. SmiruH. That means false herring.

Mr. Garpner. I have here a letter, of which I will only read a
part, from a gentleman who represents Newburyport in the Massa-
chusetts Legislature. This letter is from Mr. James Eugene Fowle, of
Newburyport, Mass: \

Newsuryport, Mass., February 15, 1914.
Hon. Augustus P. GARDNER,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Captain: I am taking the liberty to tell you how anxious the fishermen in
this locality are over the bill prohibiting the sale of bluebacks for oil and fertilizer
purposes.

36 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

I omit some of the letter, which is personal.

I have, upon your suggestion to Capt. Short, written to Senator Weeks, and would
write to others if I felt well enough acquainted with the Congressmen of Massachusetts.
I understand the hearing has been obtained for Wednesday next. If I could be of
any assistance I would come up to Washington.

The rest of the letter is in regard to personal matters, interwoven
with comments on the situation. This bill is very alarming to men
who get their living entirely or even substantially from fishing. They
see one of their sources of livelihood imperiled. It is not fair to keep
those men in suspense. I hope that this committee will arrive at an
early conclusion as to whether or not it is proper to insert in this bill
such language as may permit fishermen to dispose of the surplus
which comes as an incident to the conduct of their industry.

Mr. Linruicum. May I ask a few questions, Mr. Chairman ?

Mr. CovrneTon. Yes, sir.

Mr. Lintruicum. I want to ask you, do you know how many of these
fish are sold for fertilizer and what proportion are used for bait ?

Mr. Garpner. No; I donot. Dr. Field might know.

Mr. Lanruicum. You made the statement a while ago.

Mr. Fieip. There is relatively a small proportion, I think, used for
fertilizer. They are mostly used for bait. The general situation has
been that they have been unable to get sufficient bait.

Mr. GARDNER. The general situation has been they have been
unable to get sufficient bait. In other words, in your opinion, it is
generally the surplusage, not the main business ?

Mr. Freitp. Yes; that is practically true of all the Gloucester
fishermen. However, there are about 300 Sicilian fishermen in Boston
Harbor who sell them in the same way, but they are more inclined to
throw them overboard, if they can not get a certain amount of money
for them.

Mr. GarpNER. They throw them overboard rather than break the
market ?

Mr. Frevp. Yes, sir.

Mr. Garpner. When you speak of the Sicilians, you are speaking
of fishermen who catch the food herring, are you not ?

Mr. Firitp. They use them for both bait and for food, the same fish
you have in mind.

Mr. Lintuicum. Is it not a custom among those fishermen that if
they can not get a certain price for the fish, rather than sell them to
the people as a food, they throw them overboard or sell them to the
factories ?

Mr. Fievp. In the neighborhood of Gloucester, where there is a
market for fertilizer, they sell them that way, but sometimes there are
not sufficient fertilizer factories in Massachusetts to take up the sur-
plus, and I have known cases where these Sicilian fishermen, to the
number of 200 or 300,sometimes throw over a very considerable num-
ber of herring.

Mr. Lintruicum. They do that rather than sell them to the people
at reduced prices ?

Mr iain: Yes. sin:

Mr. Lintruicum. If they were prohibited from catching more than
they could dispose of, would they sell them to the people at a reduced
price ¢

Mr. GarpNneErR. How could they ?

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 3

Mr. Linruicum. I mean to say, if they were prohibited from throw-
ing them overboard, or selling to the fertilizer factories, would they
not put them on the market at a reduced price and let the people
have the advantage of that price?

Mr. Fievp. I do not see how they could.

Mr. GarDNER. May I ask how you propose to prevent them throw-
ing them overboard ?

Mr. Linruicum. Yes; I think I can answer that question by asking
this further question: Is there not a movement in your State to
prohibit them from catching fish in a seine and pulling them up on
shore ?

Mr. GarpneEr. I have heard of something of the sort, I think.

Mr. Lintuicum. They can only catch them in nets and only catch
a boat load ?

Mr. GARDNER. I am not sure.

Mr. Covineaton. That is a matter that has absolutely nothing to do
with the interstate-commerce character of control of fish, to be char-
acterized either in the first place as migratory fish or in the second
place being converted in a commercial aspect and shipped into inter-
state commerce. That is a matter the States Mould have to deal
with ?

Mr. Linruicum. The matter does not come up in this way at all.
It comes up in interstate commerce.

Mr. CovinetTon. I called the attention of the gentleman that there
are only two ways this question could arise.

Mr. GarpNER. Your bill has nothing to do with the movement of
which you speak, which, by the way, is more agitated elsewhere than
in Massachusetts. When a man draws his seine in what is called
a strand fishery, it is easy enough to see what he does with his catch.
The fishermen of whom I speak are not engaged in a strand fishery.
I am speaking of the boat shee.

Mr. Lintuicum. | think I have covered this point, but I will ask
you, do you know what quantity is used in fertilizer ?

Mr. Garpner. Dr. Field answered that.

Mr. Escu. If a bill is to be enacted, Mr. Gardner, do you not think
we ought to put im the scientific names of the fish, in view of the fact
that people have different names for these fish in different sections 2

Mr. Garpner. By all means.

Mr. Escu. You illustrated that by calling herring a blueback.

Mr. GARDNER. Once in a while I go down into this Washington
Market. I find that I call every second fish by a different name from
what the fish dealers call it. By all means use the scientific names
if you report a bill.

Mr. Linruicum. I am told that years ago in your State you used
to catch so many shad that you used those on the land as fertilizer ?

Mr. Garpner. I never heard of it, but I can quite understand that
it may have been so in prehistoric days.

Mr. Linruicum. No; about 30 or 40 years ago.

Mr. Garpner. No; certainly not. Iam too old for that. Ido not
remember any shad in my lifetime on the coast there.

Mr. Linruicum. I do not wish to enter into any controversy with
the gentleman.

Mr. Garpner. I am speaking of my part of the coast.

38 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

Mr. Linrutcum. The Fish Commissioner told me they did use shad
up there on the land as fertilizer.

Mr. Garpner. That may be so, but I say that in my lifetime there
has never been a shad on my part of the coast. A boy can not live
on the coast without knowing what kind of fish is there, you may be
sure of that.

Mr. Escu. Has the shad become more sacred than the cod on your
coast ?

Mr. Linrnicum. Shad would not bite at a hook anyway.

Mr. Garpner. Nevertheless, a boy would know mighty well if
there were any about. ;

Mr. Lintuicum. He would not know it as a fisherman with a hook
and line.

Mr. GARDNER. A boy on the coast would know. Some shad, in

these days, might go up the Merrimac River, but when I was a boy,

before the days of electric cars and automobiles, the Merrimac River
was a very long distance from where I lived. I lived in what is now
the lower part of my district.

Mr. Covineron. You have some doubt as to the constitutionality
qt oe bill as a whole, as I understand you, but you did not go into
that ¢

Mr. GARDNER. I am not a lawyer. If I were to discuss what strike
me as some very obviously unconstitutional features of this bill, I
might be accused of venturing out of my depth. Perhaps I had
better confine myself to the practical side of the question.

Mr. Covineton. Does that conclude your statement?

Mr. GarpDNER. Yes, sir; unless you gentlemen of the committee
have any questions which you wish to ask.

Mr. Escu. You have no doubt as to the jurisdiction of the States
in these matters, have you ?

Mr. Garpner. Not the slightest doubt as to .the jurisdiction of
the State of Massachusetts as to what goes on in Plum Island River.
That is a sound entirely within Massachusetts’ jurisdiction. The
question of the joint jurisdiction of Maryland and Virginia over the
waters of Chesapeake Bay seems to me to be quite a different prob-
Jem. I know nothing about it, however.

Mr. Covineton. I think probably what Mr. Esch is getting at is
that if what is occurring in Massachusetts needed rectifying, Massa-
chusetts, through its legislatiure, would be able to do it?

Mr. Garpner. Unquestionably. Possibly Chesapeake Bay may
peerent an interstate question, inasmuch as it borders both on Mary-

and and Virginia.

STATEMENT OF MR. W. I. WARBURTON, ELKTON, MD.

Mr. Covineron. Whom do you represent in this particular hearing ¢

Mr. Warpurton. [represent the fishermen’s association of Harford,
Cecil, and Kent Counties, Md. Shall I proceed ?

Mr. CovineTon. You may proceed.

Mr. WarBurton. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee,
I assure you that my remarks shall have at least one merit—that of
brevity. I have listened very attentively to what has been said to
this committee in advocacy of this bill, and as far as the remarks and
testimony affect the interests of the fishermen I represent, I have

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 39

been amazed at the inaccuracy of the data. Now, it is admitted
that herring are a food fish, but I am surprised that anybody is
apprehensive that herring are decreasing, and that the demand for
herring as a food fish can not be supplied.

It is a fact, capable of proof, and which we will prove to this com-
mittee by men who are engaged in taking fish from the headwaters of
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, that herring have increased
rapidly and continuously since 1884. In 1884 pound-net fishing
commenced in the Chesapeake and its tributaries. Prior to that time
fishing was carried on by what the gentleman spoke of as strand
fishing, by putting out into the water what is called in that section of
the State hauling seines, extending away out into the river, and then
united at either end to a capstan and by horses driven around, or by
steam applied to the capstan, drawn to the shore. That system of
fishing was gradually abandoned after 1884, and the Legislature of
Maryland authorized fishing by pound nets.

I will digress just at this point. There has been a great deal said
to this committee about the Maryland Legislature and the influence
of the fishermen in that State, and from what has been said you
would suppose that most everybody in the State of Maryland was
engaged in fishing. Now, the fact is that those actually engaged in
taking fish from the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries constitute
numerically a small portion of the population of Maryland. But
as far as character and industry is concerned, they constitute a
most valuable asset to its citizenship.

As I said a moment ago, we are able to show that the herring are
on the increase. We have learned here this morning a fact, which I
believe I knew before, that the Government does not propagate
herring; that there has been no artificial propagation of herring.
The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that herring have continually increased
in the headwaters of Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries since 1884.
Where [ live, in the town of Elkton, to show the gentlemen who are
not familiar with the matter, I will tell them what I have seen. The
herring come up in the spring of the year, as everyone knows, for
the purpose of spawning in fresh water, and not only come up into
the rivers that empty into the bay, but from the rivers go to the
creeks and the runs and go as far as they have sufficient water to
carry them for the purpose of spawning, and I have seen, in the
stream at Elkton, which is not much wider than where I stand to
where you sit, Mr. Chairman, so literally filled with herring that
they smother each other in the water and hundreds were dead
upon the water, floating upon it. That is the condition at the head-
waters, and the only time since 1884 there has been any appreciable
falling off, as far as herring is concerned in the Chesapeake Bay or
its tributaries, was in 1913, and why? Let us look at the reason.
Every member of this committee, and every man within the sound
of my voice, knows the conditions of the weather last spring, and
everyone knows that when such conditions of weather prevail, that
the fish will not come up to the fresh water, but they evidently seek
other waters for the purpose of spawning. Now, every fisherman
knows that. That is practical knowledge, and during that time we
had freezing weather; we had very cold storms and rains and
adverse winds, and the fish did not come up as they did formerly.

40 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

The only thing that these men are interested in, whom I represent,
is this. They are engaged in a lawful occupation under the laws of
the State of Maryland; that State has authorized them by legislation
to fish with pound nets; it has authorized them to begin at a certain
season of the year, and it requires them to discontinue at a certain
time of the year, and they fish for shad and for herring and what is
called the small fry, perch and so on. Just here let me remark, for
fear I forget it, a great deal has been said here about the perch and
such fishes as are called small fry going to the fertilizer factory with
the herring. Now, the people who assert that do not understand
the habits of fish at all, and we will show you by the fishermen.
When the run of herring is on in the waters there are not enough of
that small fry caught to feed the men engaged in the work. The
herring exclude every other fish from the net, and they are taken up
at that time in great quantities.

What is this demand for herring that they are talking about?
What is this demand for herring as a food fish they are talking about ?
I will just read you some letters. We have heard here to-day that
sliced herring with the viscera removed were selling as high as $6 a
barrel; would bring $6 a barrel, and that herring salted down, would
bring $4 a barrel. Now, if that is true, why there is no necessity
for this bill to protect the herring, because this surplus herring that
is caught and sold to these boats by these men are paid for at $1.25
per 1,000, and just as the gentleman who preceded me here said,
who can tell when they put their nets down how many fish they are
going to get, and when these people are engaged in fishing what
are they going to do with this surplus? Shall they throw it over-
board and let it become a stench and nuisance? When all demand
for herring is supplied, and amply supplied at a price, | was going to
say, may it please the chairman—at a price that will scarcely justify
taking it out of the water, why should not these fishermen dispose
of their surplus in this way, instead of throwing dead fish into the
waters? And why should not the people have the benefit of the oil
and the fertilizer?

If it were true that the food fish—the herring as a food fish—was
being destroyed so nobody could get herring, that would be another
Sey but I will just read you some letters that will show what

sh in the year 1913—the year they claim they were scarce—what they
were selling for.

Here is a letter from C. E. Davis Packing Co., Fleeton, Va.:

Mr. Harry L. Harvey,
Northeast, Md.

Dear Str: In May of last year—

That is, 1913, and that is the year that they were scarce on account
of adverse winds and weather conditions—
in May of last year we were offered several thousand barrels and half barrels of cut
and roe herring by Norfolk jobbers and brokers. These herring had been bought

by the Norfolk parties, but they were unable to dispose of them at any price, so we
thought we might be able to make use of them for fertilizers.

These were herring that had been salted; these were prepared.
Now, what happened ? ;
We bought of one particular broker, Charles Sire & Co., 1,570 barrels of cut herring,

at 55 cents to 80 cents per barrel, delivered aboard our steamer, and 1,637 half bar-
rels of roe herring, at 13 to 27 cents delivered.

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 41

Now, what?

We were later offered several thousand additional from other dealers; but after
handling this first lot we found they were not even worth use for fertilizer. With
kindest regards, I remain,

Yours, very truly,
C. E. Davis Pacxine Co,

Mr. Lintnicum. To what price did they afterwards go about two
or three months after that? You saw statements in the paper
about Gen. Vandiver and others seeking out all the herring?

Mr. Warsurton. Yes; and the fishermen will tell you that is not
true.

Mr. Lintuicum. To what price did they go ?
Mr. WarsBurton. I do not know. I am not familar with that.
Of course, I did not sell any.

T have bills of the fishermen who have sent fish to Baltimore City,
for instance, here is four barrels:

We could not sell these herring, arrived Friday; impossible for me to get freight

money.
Epwin S. Hurr, Dock Street Fish Market.

That is Philadelphia. Here is another:
GeorceE R. Finn, Elkton, Md.—
T do not know how many barrels that is—

Freight and charges, 50 cents. Could not sell these herring. Impossible for me to
get freight money. William D. Racine, 3 barrels, freight and charges, $1.50. Could
not sell these herring. Impossible for me to get freight money.

Epwin 8. Hurr.

Let us come to Baltimore.

Mr. Escu. Are those all practically the same thing?

Mr. WarBurtTon. Yes, sir.

Mr. Escu. Was there any condition of the market at that time,
any particular condition which caused this ?

Mr. Warsurton. I do not know at all, sir. These men here can
tell you that. Here is G. D. Buddock & Co., Baltimore, Md.

Messrs. W. J. Witson & Sons—
This is from Baltimore, Md.—

May 13, 1908, total receipts from you so far this season amount of 119 barrels gross;
69 barrels and 50 barrels—119 barrels. We have sold the 69 barrels at $2, and will
sell the 50 as soon as sale can be made. Selling fish is hard work. Nobody seems to
want them.

Mr. Linruicum. That was in June, was it not?

Mr. WARBURTON. That was in May.

Mr. GarpnerR. Do you know the scientific name of the kind of
herring you are speaking about now?

Mr. Warsurton. I do not. In our section we call them herring,
but I have heard them spoken of this morning as alewives.

Mr. GarpnerR. Perhaps, Dr. Smith, you can tell me whether these
are what are called alewives ?

Dr. Smiru. These are what are called alewives and bluebacks, in
Massachusetts.

Mr. Warsurton. Both kinds run together in Chesapeake Bay.

Mr. Tatcorr. The kiacks, are they just the same as the bluebacks ?

Mr. Warsurton. Running through all these bills is the same
story.

42 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

Mr. Garpner. May I ask this question? Are these two different
species of fish both classified as herring ?

Mr. Warsurton. I never knew. You are asking me a question
which I can not answer, for I have no technical or expert knowledge
on the subject.

Mr. H. L. Harvey. They are all the same. We call them the
branch and the glut herring.

Mr. GARDNER. The glut herring is what we call the blueback.
What is the name of the other ?

Mr. H. L. Harvey. Branch herring.

Mr. GarDNER. The branch herring are what we call alewives. Is
that correct, Dr. Smith ?

Dr. Smiru. Yes, sir.

Mr. GarpnerR. | ask you, Dr. Smith, whether the fish which the
Maryland fishermen call the. glut herring is the fish which in Mas-
sachusetts is called the blueback ¢

Dr. Smitru. That is the case.

Mr. Garpner. I also ask you whether the fish which the Maryland
fishermen call branch herring is the fish which is called alewife ?

Dr. Smitu. Yes, sir.

Mr. GarpnER. I ask you, Mr. Harvey, whether the barrels of
herring of which Mr. Warburton is speaking contained glut herring
and branch herring both ?

Mr. Harvey. We very seldom ever sell any branch herring.
They are not so numerous as all that.

Mr. GarpNER. Ordinarily they are entirely the glut herring ?

Mr. Harvey. The glut herring; yes, sir. They are salted.

Mr. GarpnerR. May I ask whether there is a market for them as a
food fish ?

Mr. Harvey. The glut herring ?

Mr. GARDNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. Harvey. There is, at a very small price.

Mr. Warpurton. And a very limited market, is it not?

Mr. Harvey. It is very limited.

Mr. Lantuicum. May I ask the gentleman from Massachusetts a
question ?

Mr. Covineton. He is not on the witness stand.

Mr. GarpneER. I am perfectly willing to answer any questions I can.

Mr. Linruicum. I want to ask the gentleman whether he has
thoroughly demonstrated by those questions that the blueback is an
edible fish and that these gentlemen catch a great many of them and
sell them as edible fish ?

Mr. GarpnerR. I quite agree, so far as the bluebacks being sold as
edible fish in Chesapeake Bay is concerned, I am convinced the gen-
tleman, Mr. Linthicum, is correct in his supposition.

Mr. Covineton. Procecd, Mr. Warburton.

Mr. Warsurton. I am reading now from the Virginia Citizen, a
paper published at Irvington, Va., and I find this:

HERRING IN ABUNDANCE.

That herring and other prolific migratory fish can never be depleted so long as the
ocean does not go dry, is the opinion of Dr. Prince, the eminent scientist at the head
of Canada’s great fishery interests.

This view is also taken by other reliable authorities, and it is only those not
acquainted with fish life or those who have an ulterior motive that persistently

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER, 43

clamor that these fishes are being destroyed by man. Man’s dip from the briny
deep is but like a drop from a bucket. Were it not for shark, bluefish, mackerel,
and such predatory species, the teeming billions of herring, shad, menhaden, and
such like, would literally block all estuaries of the coast in certain seasons, becoming
a stench and a nuisance.

They miss our waters occasionally, but show up elsewhere. A report this fall
from Newfoundland stated that bays up there were being blocked with the runs of
herring; that there was no great demand for them, and the fishermen had to take up
their nets to get rid of them.

Mr. Linruicum. Is there any objection to Dr. Smith asking Mr.
Warburton a question right at that point? I think Mr. Warburton
misunderstands the fish referred to.

Dr. Smrru. I should like to know if he knows the fish Mr. Prince
referred to are not the herring in the Chesapeake Bay, but the sea
herring of the North Atlantic ¢

Mr. Warsurron. I do not. Now, coming down to the practical
part of this, these men, I say, are engaged in a lawful occupation,
made so by the laws of Maryland. They fish for herring and shad,
and the fish by a system called pound nets, and those pound nets are
staked out in the water. There has been a great deal of talk of
blocking up the waters so the fish could not get to their spawning
places. I want to say that under the laws of Maryland they are only
allowed to go out 800 yards from the shore, only allowed to stake
their nets out 800 yards from shore, and where these men fish—these
men whom I represent—it leaves a space 7 to 8 miles for the fish to
pass up the river. Then they talk about blocking up the river. I
do not know what they do down at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay;
I do not suppose they block it up; but I am speaking of the condi-
tions now at the headwaters and tributaries of the bay in our county
and in Harford and in Kent, and the river there where these people
fish, from shore to shore, has a width of 7 to 8 miles, and the pound
nets are only allowed to be put out 800 yards from either shore.

Mr. Escu. Is it the nature of the fish to follow the shore line, or to
go out in the channel ?

Mr. Warsurtron. That I can not say. I stated I was not ac-
quainted with the habits of the fish, and I do not know.

Mr. Escu. Pessibly Dr. Smith would know, and I will ask him
that question.

Dr. Smrru. These fish are attracted by the fresh water, and when
they enter the bay they seek the shore immediately.

Mr. Escu. So in the passage up the bay they would go up the
shores, and not up the channel?

Dr. Smitn. The movements of the shad and herring in Chesapeake
Bay is always toward the shore and up the streams.

The gentleman has misquoted me, and I should lke an opportunity
to correct him. I made no reference whatever to the pound nets at
the head of Chesapeake Bay. My reference was to the pound nets
from Washington to the mouth of the Potomac, and from thence on
to the mouth of Chesapeake Bay.

Mr. Warsurton. I was speaking particularly about the condi-
tions; about their not blocking up the river. Somebody used the
word ‘‘blocking.”’

Mr. Harvey. The Susquehanna Flats are very shoal, they are con-
sidered natural spawning grounds, and there are more herring caught

44 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER,

there than any other place in the river, so it is very evident that the
herring take to the Susquehanna Flats.

Mr. Warsurton. As I said a moment ago, these men are engaged
in a lawful occupation according to the laws of the State of Mary-
land, and it would be presumption on my part, and I am not going
to enter into it—I have my opinion ‘about it, but I am not going to
enter into a discussion of the legal phases of this bill, or its constitu-
tionality, etc. There is one thing, though, that I think no one will
undertake to gainsay or deny, and that is that the State of Maryland
has the right to say how fishing shall be done in her waters.

Mr. CovrneTon. Is it not doing that at the present time?

Mr. WarBurton. Is doing that and has that right.

Mr. Lintuicum. Can the State of Maryland itself prohibit the sale
of these fish for fertilizing purposes in another State ¢

Mr. WarsBurton. No, sir.

Mr. Linratcum. Therefore it must be national legislation ?

Mr. Warsurton. No, sir; but I am speaking about these men here.
They are engaged in a lawful occupation under the laws of the State
of Maryland, and they are taking fish from the headwaters of the
bay, and they‘have a right to take them. Now, there is no proof
before this committee, and I said that they can ransack the United
States for proof, and they will find that-they can not get it, that there
is any diminution of herring as a food fish below the demand, and
you can buy them for almost nothing, and everybody knows the people
do not eat herring. They are not a food fish in the sense of being
universally used.

Mr. Covineton. Let me ask you whether you know that the State
of Maryland has, in the oyster industry, already legislated to prevent
the sale, and the catching and sale beyond the confines of the State
of oysters under a certain size, the so-called planting oysters ?

r. Warsurton. I do. That is true.

Mr. Covrineton. The right of the State to do that has never been
seriously controverted ?

Mr. WarsurrTon. It has never been questioned.

Mr. Covineron. And that law to-day is being successfully enforced
in the State of Maryland ?

Mr. WarBurton. That is so.

Mr. Linruicum. They regulate as to the size of the oyster, though ?

Mr. WarsBurTon. Yes, sir.

Mr. Linruicum. You seem to lay special stress on the point that
these men have the right to do this according to the laws of the State
of Maryland. Has not the distillery business a right to do business
according to the laws of the State of Maryland; yet this Congress
has prohibited the shipping of their product into other States, where
it is local option territory ?

Mr. WarBurTon. Yes; that is true.

Mr. Linrxuicum. So it is not unusual for the Government to pro-
hibit shipment of certain things 2

Mr. Warpurron. But, if you will bear with me, I am coming to the
point. As I stated, these men are engaged in a lawful occupation,
and in fishing for shad, when the glut of herring is on, they take up a
great deal more herring than they can dispose of, and unless they have
the privilege of selling to the fertilizer factories, they must dump
them overboard, because there is no demand for them. Now, if they

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 45

are dumped overboard they become a nuisance in the water, and I
contend that unless the State of Maryland legislates against taking
them out of the water that the United States Government has not
that power. They have the power to prevent them being sold for
fertilizer and oil, but they can not prevent them being taken out of
the water, and when they are taken out in scows, those pound nets
are dipped and put in the scows, what is going to become of the
surplus? Just as the gentleman from Massachusetts was stating
some time ago.

Mr. Taxcorr. Do you think the State of Maryland has the exclu-
sive jurisdiction over that matter, or has jurisdiction only until the
Federal Government acts ?

Mr. WarBurTON. You mean in the matter of taking fish, as to
how they shall take them ?

Mr. Tatcotr. Yes; general control over fisheries ?

Mr. Warsurton. I think the State of Maryland has exclusive
control over that ?

Mr. Linrarcum. You will admit the Government has something to
say about the transshipment of these fish into another State ?

Mr. Warsurton. Oh, yes; there is no doubt about that. The
remarks that I oave made to the committee are for the purpose of
showing that this is not a destruction of food fish to the extent of
diminishing the fish that are necessary to supply the demand, or even
increasing the price. It is only to get clear of this surplus, and how
a any man know who is fishing? I submit, how can any man

ow ?

By the way, that reminds me that there was a letter read this
morning by some one to the effect that somebody wanted fish, and took
a boat down to Turkey Point, and there were 18 steamers loading
fish. Was not that stated here ?

Mr. Lintuicum. The letter speaks for itself. I think that is right.

Mr. WarBurToN. That is my recollection.

Mr. Lintruicum. That is about it; yes.

Mr. Warsurton. Here are gentlemen who fish at Turkey Point
and know that is absolutely false.

Mr. Linturcum. Mr. Harrison is a member of the Legislature of
Maryland.

Mr. Warpurton. Very well, they know that is absolutely false,
and they will testify there never were 18 steamers there at all.

Mr. Escou. There was a letter read by Dr. Smith this morning from
-a fisherman, or from a fish firm of the lower Potomac, showing a very
large reduction between 1907 and 1913. Is that the experience
anywhere in your territory ?

Mr. Warsurton. Not at all. That was on the Potomac River,
and there are conditions on the Potomac River that account for that,
apart from the quantity of fish.

Mr. Tatcorr. Is there any law in the State of Maryland prohibiting
the catching of fish for the purpose of manufacturing them into
fertilizer ?

Mr. Warpurton. No, sir. Now, gentlemen, I have made these
broken remarks as best I could.

Mr. GarpNER. There is such a law in Virginia, is there not?

Mr. Warsurton. That I do not know.

A

46 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

Mr. Linruicum. I say, in answer to the gentleman’s question,
there is no such law as to herring at the present time, but I under-
stood from the State commissioner of Virginia that such a law is
contemplated to be passed.

Mr. Garpner. There is a law now in Virginia which prevents the
catching of herring for fertilizer purposes.

Mr. Linruicum. There is a law in Virginia which prevents the
catching of herring for fertilizer purposes ?

Mr. GARDNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. Linruicum. Then you get them from Maryland ?

Mr. GARDNER. That is a matter up to Maryland.

Mr. Linruicum. That is a very, very good point.

Mr. Warsurrton. I will tell you what I suggest, Mr. Linthicum.
I suggest that if you just accept from your bill the surplus herring
that these men catch, why we will have nothing more to say.

Mr. Linrutcum. You are in favor of that, Mr. Warburton, I take it
from your remarks, that all herring they catch and do not care to sell
for food fish or other purposes, they should be allowed to sell to Vir-
ginia for fertilizer purposes, while Virginia has a law upon its statute
books prohibiting them from catching herring in their State for fer-
tilizer purposes; that we should take out herring and sell them to
their State for that purpose ?

Mr. WARBURTON. I am not particular where they sell them, be-
cause they are no use to us. Dead, rotting fish are a nuisance, a
stench.

Mr. Linruicum. You are in favor of selling them ?

Mr. Warsurton. That surplus catch.

Mr. Linruicum. For fertilizer purposes ?

Mr. WarBurtTon. For fertilizer purposes or for anything they can
be manufactured into.

Mr. Covineton. I wish to insert in the record at this point that the
Secretary of Commerce has just telephoned to the secretary of this
committee that he has examined the bill H. R. 7774, and that he is
in favor of the principle embraced in that bill and desires the com-
mittee to make the matter of record that he advocates and indorses
its passage.

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIS J. DAVIS, CLERK OF THE
COMMITTEE.

Mr. Davis. The Secretary of Commerce has just called me over the
phone and stated that he intended to appear here this afternoon;
that he did come down to the Committee on the Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, thinking this bill had been referred there; that he promised
Mr. Linthicum to appear here this afternoon, but, through error,
he went to the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries and
made inquiry and they naturally knew nothing about it. He then
came out and found somebody outside of the committee room waiting
for him on a matter which necessitated his return to his office, and
when he got back to his office he found he was scheduled to come
before this committee instead of the Committee on the Merchant Marine
and Fisheries; that it was then impossible for him to come back here
this afternoon, but he states that he is heartily in favor of this bill,
and wished me to so state publicly, and that he is ready to come be-

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 47

fore this committee either to-morrow, the next day, or any other time
the committee desires, and to appear before the committee in support
of the bill. He wanted Mr. Linthicum and the members of this com-
mittee to know this.

STATEMENT OF W. S. DOWNS, BAY SHORE, L. I.

The CHarrMAN. State your name and your occupation.

Mr. Downs. My name is W. S. Downs; I live at Bay Shore, L. I.;
I am secretary of the Long Island Gunners and Fishermen’s Associa-
tion, representing practically the entire fishing industry of Long
Island and the salt water business of the State of New York.

Mr. Covineton. Are you taking a position in favor of or in opposi-
tion to this bill ? .

Mr. Downs. There are features of it that I believe we are in opposi-
tion to. There has been a good deal said here to-day in regard to
fish. We, in New York State, from time to time have legislation
introduced detrimental to the commercial fisheries, and, needless to
say, we have to oppose it. I had the honor a few years ago of placing
on the statute books, or of being instrumental in the placing on the
statute books, of the State of New York of a law to prohibit the taking
of food fish and using them for fertilizer purposes. I am in hearty
sympathy with that movement. I do not believe that food fish
should be utilized for fertilizing purposes; that is, of course, food
fish. You make an exception in this bill with respect to fish known
as pogies, fatbacks, and mossbunkers, sharks, dogfish, skates, and
every one of them is a food fish. There is no sweeter fish that swims
in salt water than this same mossbunker, and it is used by a great
many people as a food fish. The herring is in the same class.

When we passed that law in New York we did not think of the her-
ring being what we commonly term a food fish. We classed it with
the other fish that you have named in the bill. But to-day sharks,
dogfish, and skates especially are being sold and utilized in the markets
of the State of New York, every one they can get hold of. The Ital-
ians think more of a shark than they do of a Spanish mackerel. The
Englishman thinks more of the skate than any other fish that swims,
They call it a delicacy; therefore they are food fish as well as the her-
ring.

My objection to this bill is the possibility of hampering the fishing
industry of the State of New York—that is. the menhaden industry—
by having in there that no food fish—so-called food fish, as you please
to term them; that is, the herring—should be ground up for fertilizer.

Now we all know that herring, bunkers, and other fish travel some-
times close together. Menhaden fishermen will catch a school of men-
haden in which there will be a few herring, or maybe a weakfish or
two, and the possibility of a bluefish. In a boatload of say five or
six hundred thousand they might not be seen. They take them to
the factory; some inspector stands there, and as they scoop out the
fish they discover a weakfish or a herring and they go over into the fac-
tory as food fish in that boatload of herring. That is all night. You
do not pretend to stop it, if caught and used in that State, but you do
pretend to stop it being transported into any other State. Is that the
idea; that is, unless it is tagged ?

48 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

Now, I am very zealous of putting laws on the statute books to
prevent people from being lawbreakers. There is not a man in this
room, be he a scientist or a layman, that can pick out a herring
from a mossbunker after it has been through a fertilizing plant and
dried. Believe me they can not tell whether it contains herring or
bunkers; they are all together.

Mr. Escu. That is just as true of the oil.

Mr. Downs. That is just as true of the oil. If you go down into
a restaurant and ask for a bluefish or a weakfish, if you are not
pretty careful and look at its skin, you do not know what you are
eating. You do not know whether it is a bluefish or a weakfish
when you get it at a restaurant. I am very zealous with regard
to the man behind the gun, and that has not been brought out to-day.

Now, if this bill is honest and wants to conserve the fish, all right,
but I have not heard anybody in favor of this bill to-day, except
the gentleman who is the introducer, but who has been representing
the sporting interests. I am very zealous of the people who repre-
sent the sporting interests in favor of a bill because I am always
afraid they want to put the commercial industry out of business.
This does not appear, on the face of it, to do it but here is a section
which reads:

That the Secretary of Commerce shall make such rules and regulations as are neces-
sary for carrying out the provisions of this act.

I am not a lawyer, but what is to prevent the Secretary of Com-
merce from saying, ‘‘ You shall not set nets,” if it is to carry out
the provisions of this bill? It is well to think how much power you
are putting into the hands of one man.

Mr. Linruicum. You have read the bill carefully, have you?

Mr. Downs. Quite carefully.

Mr. Linraicum. And you do not find that it is limited entirely to
the question of using food fish for fertilizer ?

Mr. Downs. It says: ‘‘Food fish for fertilizer.” It also says that
the Secretary of Commerce shall make such rules and regulations as
are necessary for carrying out the provisions of this act. What is to
prevent him, if he deems it necessary to carry out the provisions of
that act, from saying, ‘‘ You shall not catch fish’’ ?

Mr. Linrutcum. The whole provisions of the act.

Mr. Downs. That is carrying it a good way; but, nevertheless, I am
always zealous. I know that our conservation people in New York
will tell you when they introduce a bill there is nothing in the bill
that hurts you, but when we sift it down it puts us out of business,
and I do not care to be put out of business because I am a fisherman.
I fish in Long Island, and fish with these pound nets that you hear
about. There is only one way to catch edible fish for the market, and
that is with pound nets, and that is the only way by which the market
can be continually supplied with fish. You can not depend upon a
hook and line. You can not depend upon a set net. There are days
and days that they are not catching anything. The only proper way
to catch edible fish for market purposes is with a pound net. That is
the only way by which the market can be supplied and supplied
regularly.

sae our way we are under a permit from the War Department. I
believe the War Department has done the same thing with the Jersey

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 49

Beach; they have done the same thing with the Chesapeake. If those
pound nets are such a menace, as you have heard, to navigation
and life, do you think the War Department would stand for them for
a moment? They would. not. They would take them out very
quickly. There is nothing to that.

Dr. Smiru. Have you seen a certificate that the War Department
has issued ?

Mr. Downs. In regard to the Chesapeake !

Dr. SmirH. Yes.

Mr. Downs. No, sir; not this year I have not.

Mr. Covineton. Dr. Smith, do you mean to say that the War
Department has not issued a very elaborate circular regulating fishing
in the Chesapeake ? ?

Dr. Smiru. I meant to say that it had, covering the very point
the gentleman is speaking upon.

Mr. Covrineron. It was susceptible of the other conclusion.

Mr. Downs. I did not yale say that there was anything in the
suggestion about their being a menace. In considering the fishing
question from time to time—and I may say that I have attended our
State legislature, and I am the agent of the War Department for the
waters of the Great South Bay, as far as navigation is concerned—
it is a remarkable thing that so far as we laymen who follow the
water and study the fish, and the scientist who has made a complete
study of it, as well as the expenditure of money, are concerned, it
is not what we know about fish, but it is what we do not know.

A good deal is said about the spawning habits. It was mentioned
to-day that there are no shad ever in the North River. There are
not and there will not be any more until the North River is cleaned
up of its pollution. A fish is not a dirty animal, and he will not go
there as long as the sewers of New York are going to be dumped into
the North River. As long as that continues there will be no more
shad there.

Two years ago—whether they were caught in the Chesapeake or
Delaware River I do not know—but I do know this, that two years
ago there was the biggest lot of shad fish in history in the markets of
New York. There were more shad there two years ago than they
had ever known before in their lives, and still they say there is no
shad. The same could be said of the herring in certain places. We
have some herring up north in the Great South Bay, but not very
many. The same thing applies to what you have here, with regard
to the bluefish. In all these years that we have been catching blue-
fish they came up, in the last three years, with more bluefish on this
coast than were ever known before in the world.

Mr. Linruicum. May I ask you a question. I think you have
probably got this bill somewhat confounded with another bill. The
question in this bill is as to whether food fish shall be used for fer-
tilizer, and that is what I would like to hear the gentleman express
himself upon—as to whether he is in favor of the use of food fish as
a fertilizer, or not?

Mr. Downs. I am not—not food fish, but I do not consider the
herring in a class with the food fish. I consider him in the class we
have of bunkers, sharks, and dogfish, because it has no commercial

43049—14—4.

’

50 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

value to speak of as a food fish, and yet the bunker is just as good
eating as the herring.

Mr. Linrnicum. Whether you are in favor or not of using food fish
as fertilizer, you do not consider herring a food fish?

Mr. Downs. I do not—that is, in the class we speak of as food
fish. I do not consider them in the class of bluefish or weakfish,
spots or perch, and that character of fish, but I do say there is no
great diminution in the number of those fish. I have not got the
two bills mixed. I know the one you speak of, and that is the one I
am to speak on to-morrow. I am more particularly interested in
that other one.

STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE W. FIELD, BOSTON, MASS.,
COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES AND GAME.

Dr. Freip. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, while I
am in favor of the general proposition that food fish should not be
captured expressly for the purpose of use as fertilizer, I believe that
some provision should be made whereby fish, which under the present
relatively crude and incoordinated conditions of capturing and dis-
tributing fish, are by circumstances rendered unfit for food, should
still be available for use as fertilizer. I am in favor of preventing
so far as possible, the deliberate and systematic taking of valuable
food fish for fertilizer purposes, and am strongly in favor of any legis-
lation which will make possible the utilization for fertilizer and oil,
those species of fish such as the dogtish, sharks, and the other species
enumerated in this bill, which are of little value as food for the
people, but which destroy in the aggregate an enormous quantity of
valuable fish, and thus do an incalculable inju¢y to the commercial
fisheries.

The one point which has not thus far been brought out is the
important fact that apart from the value of the adult alewives taken
in the spring on the way to the spawning beds, the small alewives
and herring are of very great value to the sea fishermen from the fact
that, coming out from the streams and estuaries, they attract to our
shores large quantities of bluefish, striped bass, weakfish, and other
species of valuable fish upon which the market depends for its supply.
For this reason the supply of herring of all species, particularly the
young, should be conserved very carefully for the benefit they confer
upon fishermen and upon the ultimate consumer in making possible
other valuable fisheries.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM A. JONES, REPRESENTATIVE
FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA.

Mr. Covineton. The committee will be glad to hear from Mr.
Jones now.

Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, I regret very much that I did not have
the opportunity of hearmg the author of this bill, and the other
gentlemen who spoke in favor of it this morning. Iwas informed that
the committee would not commence the hearings until 2 o’clock in
the day, and therefore I went to see my doctor this morning, and

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 51

when I returned to my office I found that the hearings had been
going on for some time. So that I have heard very little of what has
been said in favor of the passage of this bill.

Mr. Gardner, of Massachusetts, said he did not know whether this
bill was constitutional or not, but that if so, its operation should be
confined to the Chesapeake Bay. I would like to go a little further,
and to suggest that its operation be confined strictly to such waters
as are wholly within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of
Maryland. Virginia has already passed a law prohibiting the catching
of herring to be manufactured into fertilizer and oil, and therefore
there is no need for Federal legislation upon this subject in Virginia,
even granting the constitutionality of such legislation.

So, if my colleague, Mr. Linthicum, wants to prevent the use of
herring for fertilizer purposes, it seems to me that the thing for him
to do is to apply to the legislature of Maryland and have his State
cooperate with Virginia by passing a law prohibiting the catching
of herring in Maryland waters for other than food purposes. Such a
law would moreover have the advantage of being free from constitu-
tional objections, which the bill of which he is the patron does not
possess.

Mr. Linruicum. May I ask you a question there ?

Mr. Jones. You can, if you desire to.

Mr. Linruicum. You state that you would recommend that it be
confined to the waters of Maryland, and that the legislature pass an
act upon the subject. Do you not realize that the legislature can
not pass an act which prohibits the fishermen from catching herring
and selling them in your State for fertilizer ?

Mr. Jones. No; I do not.

Mr. Linruicum. You do not?

Mr. Jones. No, sir; I do not. But that is not the question here.
Mr. Chairman, I am thoroughly in accord with what is stated to be
the object of this bill. I am opposed personally—as are the people
of my State—to the manufacturing of food fish into fertilizer and oil,
and we have a statute which prevents it. And yet it is nevertheless
true, as has been stated here, that frequently herring are so numerous
in the waters of Chesapeake Bay, and so many of them are caught
that the herring packers can not handle them and consequently they
must either be sold to the fish factories or thrown as dead fish into
the bay. The herring packers sell their herring in advance, and
when they have put up as many as they think they can dispose of,
they cease packing them, and the fishermen who supply them must
then sell what they have in-their boats to the factories or throw them
into the bay. While this is unquestionably true, most of the men-
haden fishermen realizing the existence of the prejudice against con-
verting any food fish into fetilizert, petitioned the Legislature of
Virginia to prohibit it by law.

But, Mr. Chairman, my chief objection to this bill is that it seeks,
in an indirect and roundabout way, to invade the rights of the vari-
ous States of the Union. It seeks to accomplish in an indirect way
what can not be done directly. I think it will be admitted by every
man who has given any thought to the subject—anyone who has
read the decisions of the courts of the United States bearing upon
it—that the States have the absolute right to control and manage

52 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

the fisheries within the limits of their respective jurisdictions. I do
not think there can be any doubt as to the correctness of this propo-
sition. There is an unbroken line of decisions of the courts of the
United States from the foundation of the Government down to this
time which has settled this question so far as it is possible for the
courts to settle anything. The gentleman who introduced this bill
realized that this was true, and so he is attempting, as I have said,
to do in an indirect and roundabout way what he can not possibly
do in a direct way. It is this that I seriously object to. I object to
the invasion of the constitutional rights of the people of my State,
and the fact that this invasion is by indirect methods does not make
it less obnoxious to me.

Mr. Lintuicum. Did you not vote for the migratory-birds bill?

Mr. Covineaton. That is not a proper inquiry.

Mr. Jones. If authority be needed in support of my contention, I
will gladly furnish it in abundance, and I suggest to the author of
this bill that he read the case of Smith v. Maryland, a case that went
to the Supreme Court of the United States from his own State. He
will find in that decision ample confirmation of my contention. I
also commend to him the opinion of Chief Justice Waite in the case
of McCready v. Virginia (94 U.5.).

It is not within the power of Congress to prohibit the catching of
herring in the waters of the various States by the citizens of those
States, and yet this bill seeks to accomplish this very thing indirectly;
it seeks to do it by destroying the market for these fish. Under this
bill the products of herring caught in the waters of Maryland, for
instance, can be lawfully sold in Maryland but not in Virginia. It
is only when they become the subjects of interstate commerce that
the bill attempts to reach and control them, and yet the obvious—
yes, the avowed—purpose of this bill is to prevent the catching, not
the shipment and sale, of herring for fertilizer purposes. The object
of this bill is not to protect the people of the interior States from the
introduction into those States from the seaboard States of fertilizer
and oil injurious to the public good or the public health. That is not
the object. It is to prevent the catching in Maryland, or in any other
State, of herring for fertilizer purposes. Congress has no power to do
this by direct legislation, and therefore it is asked to do so in this
covert and disguised way.

This is what I most object to. It is not an honest, fair, square,
and open way of meeting this question. At the same time I wish it

distinctly understood, Mr. Chairman, that my State does not permit
the catching of herring to be manufactured into fertilizer and oil
and if the patron of this bill will but induce his State to follow the
example set by mine there will be no excuse, even from his stand-
point, for its passage. I do not agree with some of those who have
addressed this committee that herring are not food fish. They are
not only food fish, but they furnish excellent food for those who can
not buy the more expensive varieties of fish.

I will not take up the time of the committee to discuss the other
sections of this bill—those that impose new duties upon the Secre-
tary of Commerce. I think the Federal Government has enough to
do now, and that the powers of Congress should be confined within
the sphere prescribed by the Constitution of the United States.

TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 53

I repeat that the proposition embodied in this bill is not only
unconstitutional, but that there are no conditions which would jus-
tify its passage, even were it free from constitutional objections. I
represent, I may say, the district in the United States in which more
fertilizer and oil are manufactured than any other district in the
United States, but I am not opposing this legislation chiefly because
it would injuriously affect my constituents. I oppose it because it
is vicious in principle. I regard it as dishonest, and I know it is
not direct, and that it is an attempt to do in a roundabout and
improper way what can not be done in a straightforward, open, and
honest way.

Mr. Linrurcum. I would like to ask you a question. I want to
say in the first place that I am not trying to enforce or trying to put
td pa any legislation that is not honest, square, and above-

oard.

Mr. Jones. I do not mean to convey the idea, Mr. Linthicum, that
you would do anything dishonest, but I do mean to say that this
character of legislation is, in my judgment, an attempt to evade the
provisions of the Coustitution, to invade the rights of the States and
to do in an indirect way and roundabout way that which is not
justifiable.

Mr. Linruicum. You were at the hearing before the Secretary of
Commerce some time ago ?

Mr. JonEs: I was.

Mr. Lintuicum. Did you not hear Mr. Lee, the fish commissioner
of your State, say they were not enforcing the law as to herring in
Virginia ?

Mr. Jones. I can not remember that I did. He may have said it,
but if so, it seems to me that it was and admission on the part of the
chairman of the commission of fisheries of my State that seriously
reflected upon himself. I do not know that he made any such
admission.

Mr. Linruicum. That is my recollection of it. He may have
referred to the herring from Maryland and not from Virginia.

Mr. Jongs. I have no recollection that he made a statement that
would reflect:so seriously upon the efficiency of his administration
of our fishing laws.

Mr. Linruicum. You represent the district in which most of these
fish factories are located, do you not?

Mr. Jonzs. I do.

Mr. Linraicum. Do you know anything about how many herring
they use in them; is there any data that you can give us upon that
subject ?

Mr. Jones. I can not. I know that before the passage of the pro-
hibitive statute of which I have spoken a few factories purchased
from the pound-net fishermen their surplus catch of herring. This
was after the packing concerns had been fully supplied. These fish
were dead and could then only be utilized by the menhaden. factories.
Many of the factories, especially the larger ones, did not buy herring.
In order to utilize the herring the factories were obliged to operate
their factories in advance of the opening of the menhaden season, and
this was expensive. When it was discovered that herring were being
bought in some considerable quantities by the factories the menhaden

54 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER.

fishermen themselves asked for the passage of the Virginia law, of
which J have spoken.

Mr. Linruicum. I desire to ask just one more question. Mr. Jones,
you stated in your statement that they were not allowed to catch
them for fertilizer purposes. What do the fishermen do with their
surplus; how do they arrange it, do you know ?

Mr. Jones. I do not know what they do with them now. It may
be that they carry some of them into your State and sell them there.

ou have no law on the subject.

Mr. Lintruicum. We have not any factories.

Mr. Jonss., You have at least one. J imagine that the people who
are engaged in the pound-net business stop catching herring when
they see they can binacer sell them to the packers. They doubtless
raise their nets and allow the fish to escape—when they have them in
their boats and can not sell them there is nothing left them but to
throw them into the bay. They probably exercise more foresight
now than they did when they could sell their surplus catch to the
factories.

Mr. Escu. Does Mr. Green, of Massachusetts, want to be heard ?

Mr. Green. I do not care to be heard.

Mr. Covinerton. If there are no other parties who desire to be
heard, the committee will adjourn.

Mr. Linruicum. I do not care to be heard upon the merits of the
bil. I came here on the constitutional side of it and will discuss
that in the future.

(The committee thereupon adjourned.)

hi