THE PROTECTION OF FISH.
Mr. Claypool's bill S. 40-see pages 46, 164 and 170 of these Reports-was read the third time.
Mr. SLACK moved to recommit, with instructions to amend so as to except "any other stream, river, bayou or pond in the State of Indiana."
Mr. CLAYPOOL objected to any amendment. It seems to be the desire of Senators to pass some bill of this kind; the one under consideration had been perfected in Committee, and was probably as near right as it could be made.
Mr. MILLER submitted additional instructions, viz : to exempt the St. Joseph and Kankakee rivers.
Mr. COBB made an ineffectual motion-yeas 18, nays 22-to indefinitely postpone the bill.
Mr. SLACK. I think the bill is unconstitutional, and that the catfish, dogfish, suckers, and other fishes dwelling in the streams that are excepted, have no more rights than the fish in other streams. [Laughter.] It is giving privileges and immunities to one class which are denied to another. Seriously, I do think the bill is a local one, for it makes exceptions in certain localities.
Mr. CARNAHAN. I regard this law as not only a local law, but a foolish law. Such laws are not required, and are only a source of contention and strife.
On motion by Mr. LINE, the motion to re-recommit was laid on the table-yeas 21, nays 15.
Mr. MILLER asked, but failed to obtain leave, to amend the bill by unanimous consent, so as to except the St. Joseph river.The bill was then rejected by yeas 16, nays 22, as follows :
YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Bearss, Beeson, Blair, Claypool, Craven of Madison, Cravens of Jefferson, DeHart, Grubb, Hull, Line, March, Mellett, Newcomb, Steele, and Wagner-16.
NAYS-Messrs.Berry,Campbell, Carnahan, Cobb, Jones, Landers, Lomax, Miller, Ray, Robinson, Shields, Shoemaker, Shoulders, Slack, Stone, Studabaker, Tarkington, Teegarden, Turner, White, Williams and Wolfe-22.
