NEWPORT 
SANITARY PROTECTION ASSOCIATION. 
REPORT 
OF COMMITTEE ON GARBAGE AND HOUSE OFFAL 
DUMPING IN THE SEA, OFF THE HARBOR; 
THE EFFECTS ON SHELL AND FOOD 
FISHES, LOBSTERS, &C. 
NEWPORT, R. I. : 
F. W. MARSHALL, PRINTER. 
1891. NEWPORT 
SANITARY PROTECTION ASSOCIATION. 
Incorporated April 9, 1879. 
OFFICERS FOR 1891-2. 
President: 
ANDREW B. ALMON, ESQ. 
Vice President: 
WILLIAM C. RIVES, M. D. 
Treasurer : 
DANIEL B. FEARING, ESQ. 
Corresponding Secretary : 
H. R. STORER, M. D. 
Secretary : 
H. GOODWIN MAC KAYE, B. A., M. D.* 
Council: 
The above named officers, and 
OLIVER WOLCOTT GIBBS, M. D., LL. D. 
C. A. SIEGFRIED, M. D., Surgeon U. S. N. 
J. J. VANALEN, ESQ. 
WILLIAM BINNEY, ESQ. 
FRANCIS H. RANKIN, M. D. 
PROF. C. E. MUNROE, B. S., U. S. Torpedo Station. 
Consulting Engineers: 
GEORGE E. WARING, JR., ESQ., Hon. Member R. I. E. (Holland). 
I. C. E. (England), Fellow Sanitary Institute, G. B , &c. 
JOSEPH P. COTTON, ESQ., C. E. 
Inspecting Engineers: 
WARING, CHAPMAN & FARQUHAR. 
(George E. Waring, Jr., C. E., W. H. Chapman. Esq., C. E., F. W. Farquhar, Esq.) 
Analyst : 
PROF.fWILLIAM B. HILLS, M. D., Harvard Medical School, Boston. 
Honorary Counsel: 
HON. SAMUEL R. HONEY. 
* iz8 Mill Street, Newport, R. I., to whom all communications should be addressed. SANITARY PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, 
NEWPORT. R. I. 
REPORT 
OF COMMITTEE ON GARBAGE AND HOUSE OFFAL 
DUMPING IN THE SEA, OFF THE HARBOR; 
THE EFFECTS ON SHELL AND FOOD 
FISHES, LOBSTERS, &C. 
SUMMARIZED FROM THE ANSWERS TO A SERIES OF QUESTIONS ; 
INCLUDING THE EVIDENCE OF LOCAL FISHERMEN, PUBLIC 
OFFICIALS AND SANITARIANS HERE AND ELSEWHERE. 
J. J. Van Alen, Chairman. 
COMMITTEE : 
Charles E. Munroe. 
Charles A. Siegfried, Secretary, 
SEPT. 14, 1891. PREFACE. 
The immediate cause of the question in the Association, and of 
this report, was the action of the city authorities, during the present 
summer, in commencing the dumping of garbage in the sea off the 
harbor, the nuisances attendant on transport to and loading on boats at 
a wharf in the center of the harbor, the fear of injury to fishing and 
other industries, shore pollution, and the snarl which the negotiations 
for a garbage crematory had gotten into. 
It is not presumed that the matter here presented is final, yet so 
far as came within the powers and opportunities of the Committee, 
the Report is believed to embody fairly accurately the present gen- 
eral belief on the subject; a position certainly safe on sanitary and 
economic grounds, and one held by nearly all the chiefs of the Health 
Boards of the cities of the Union, and officials connected with fishing 
interests. REPORT. 
The committee began by sending to fishermen in this 
vicinity, to chairmen of health boards in other cities, and 
to public officials, the accompanying explanatory circular 
and postal card, with a series of questions. From these 
answers the basis of our report was formed, but much val- 
uable information was given us by longer letters, and we 
hereby beg to return grateful thanks for the aid thus freely 
given. 
The committee was appointed at a meeting of the Asso- 
ciation on July 20th and reported on September 14, 1891, 
as follows:— 
The committee not wishing to delay their report any 
longer, beg leave to offer the following. We have waited 
some time for important communications from sanitarians, 
promised, but in the summer months it is difficult to get hold 
of men. A later report will be given if the matter expected 
from these sources justifies it or adds anything to our pres- 
ent knowledge of the subject. From Boston we are informed 
that the Health Board are making observations on this same 
subject and will send us the same when completed. They 
are dumping garbage off their harbor and at greater distances, 
yet complaints of shore pollution constantly spring up, and 
the whole subject of garbage disposal remains to plague and 
perplex the authorities. 
The term garbage is here meant to include kitchen refuse 
matter only ; portions of food left over and unfit for further 6 
REPORT. 
use, and slops therefrom; breads and cakes, vegetables, 
meats, bones, cheese, coffee grounds, tea leaves, rinds and 
seeds of fruits, and all such remnants and remains of our 
food stuffs that cannot be of service again in our ordinary 
domestic economy. This material is stored in receptacles 
at back doors, and within a few hours in summer, becomes 
a sodden, offensive mass, and is in a state of fermentation 
and putrefaction. It is collected usually four times weekly, 
and transported in poorly devised and offensively odorous 
wooden box carts, during the day, to the city wharf, in the 
centre of the busy, populous harbor, where it is loaded 
on a vessel, which daily, or every other day, proceeds out- 
side the harbor, and is supposed to dump it on a beginning 
ebb tide. 
The number of replies we have received is about (25) 
twenty-five. Some were unsigned and are evidently based 
on but little observation and experience; hence are of ques- 
tionable value to us. The great majority of the answers to 
our requests for information on the five principal questions, 
believe that garbage, as commonly deposited in the sea, here 
and at other seaports, is not a food for fishes that come to 
our markets, this class preferring undisturbed their usually 
clear and clean waters and their normal or usual food. 
Scavengers such as sharks and dog-fish seem to be attracted 
by the practice. It is remarked by some of the corres- 
pondents that crustaceans, after some time, when further 
changes have occurred in the material that has sunk to the 
bottom, will consume it. This is probably a correct obser- 
vation, and denied by few. One of our local practical fish- 
ermen, corroborating the wide experience of the fish com- 
missioner of the state of New York, says it gives shell-fish 
and lobsters a strong taste — that is feeding on garbage and 
refuse,— another says “lobsters will not go into the pots.” 
Many assert that the practice of garbage dumping “ spoils 
fishing grounds,” and that “ it damages fishermen.” 
School fish, or those going about in great masses, such 
as menhaden, herring, and mackerel, avoid garbage or offal REPORT. 
7 
of any description (see the laws and petitions on this subject 
in the appendix, one from Block Island fishermen), they 
preferring clean waters; and as these fish are in turn food 
for larger varieties, many of our food fishes will thus avoid 
such waters. Bass and other game fish, that is, such as 
furnish sport by hook and line, are easily turned aside by 
any pollution of their waters; so that it is found that they 
disappear from localities where the practice of garbage dump- 
ing is followed. 
It must be borne in mind that there is as yet no liter- 
ature on this subject, and much laborious and painstaking 
investigation remains to be done regarding the whole matter, 
and out of the testimony and observations available at the 
present time, some may in time prove baseless; but, it is 
reasonably certain that the inhabitants of the sea are just 
as nice in their tastes and choice of food as the generality 
of land animals are; that they will not as a rule touch such 
material as rotting and fermenting house offal and garbage, 
preferring their usual live food, in clean uncontaminated 
water. Nor can they breathe as well in the areas of cloudy 
waters following the dumping and sinking of the stuff,—finely 
diffused particles choking up their gills,— and probably also 
some difficulty in respiration, resulting from the alteration 
in quality and amount of the oxygen present in the water. 
Scavengers such as sharks, dog-fish (and sturgeon, large 
cat-fish, &c., in fresh waters), are the exception, but these 
are not considered to be food for man, any more than 
are vultures, hyenas, and similar land scavengers, rats, &c. 
The mass which is dumped in the sea, and which composes 
this city’s garbage refuse, is a loathsome material, a mixed 
animal and vegetable repelling stuff, fermenting, acid, greasy, 
and in a state of putrefaction. Animal life or organic well 
being is unquestionably injured by its consumption, if not 
by its presence in the medium in which they live, without 
much if any exception. 
As a rule fish live upon each other, broadly speaking, 
(and most species are predaceous) and on lower animal life, 8 
REPORT, 
so that as we go down the scale of animal life in the sea, 
we finally observe that even the jelly fishes enfold other 
simple celled masses of transparent “jelly,” the lowest visible 
water forms of sea life. Such is their habit, the larger on 
the smaller, even adults of the same species consuming the 
smaller ones. The amount of food of a vegetable character 
used by them is very small indeed. They roam about sea- 
plant life, in some instances, mainly for the smaller forms 
of lower animal life found in and around such plants. Sea 
water swarms with minute unicellular and infusorial forms 
of life, and these compose the vast food supply for countless 
millions, from the lowest types and species to well up in 
the scale, where we finally find a fully grown adult fish, 
equipped with powerful muscles and spinal column, and jaws 
armed with sharp teeth, preying upon another by direct 
attack. 
Thus, from the evidence we have been able to collect, 
and from our correspondents, who have so generously aided 
us, your committee believe that the position taken by the 
Association is based upon good grounds, and we are able 
to formulate the following propositions. 
1. Garbage cannot be considered as food for our edible 
fishes. 
2. It does not attract food fishes; it repels desirable 
varieties. 
3. It spoils fishing grounds. 
4. When consumed by lobsters it spoils their flavor. 
5. It destroys shell-fish beds. 
6. On the other hand it is liable at any time, and 
unexpectedly, to return to shore, and pollute beaches. 
The president of the Fish Commission of the state of 
New York, one of the most experienced men in this matter 
in this country, Mr. Eugene Blackford, says in his letter, 
with no uncertain sound, that his experience proves that 
fisheries, and shell-fish beds, are destroyed by garbage 
dumping in a short time, that lobsters and crabs are sim- 
ilarly affected. By his direction an inspector guards regions REPORT. 
9 
of fisheries and shell-fish beds, in the vicinity of New York, 
with the result that with the cessation of garbage dumping, 
these valuable interests, which had been ruined, are now 
reviving. The appendix contains copies of a number of 
laws of foreign states, on this matter; in relation to the 
herring fisheries mainly, such deposits in the sea keeping 
away those fish from coasts, and causing widespread disaster 
to the fishing populations in consequence. 
It is proved that garbage will return and foul beaches, 
unless taken a long distance out and dumped with a begin- 
ning ebb tide, and even then it will occasionally be found 
upon the shore again. The occasions when the floating 
material is found unexpectedly on neighboring shores, are 
due to the occurrence of unusual currents and winds, and 
such occasions are not unknown in this locality. Our 
neighbors stand ready with injunctions the moment the 
next fouling of their beaches occurs, and the city may at 
any time be compelled to seek another plan of garbage 
disposal all unprepared. It is not always practicable to carry 
this city’s garbage far out to sea, for obvious reasons — 
storms lasting several days not unfrequently — and after all, 
this method is not real disposal of it, quoting the language 
of the editor of the Sanitarian, Dr. Bell. 
The farther consideration of beach pollution, the scums 
and material floating about on the surface, the wide areas 
of contaminated water below the surface, caused by sinking 
matter; and the avoidance of such localities by sailing and 
fishing parties ; these are all well known and are not sub- 
jects especially in your committee’s province. To say that 
the amount of garbage dumped by the city is so small as 
to make no difference one way or another, is an easy way 
of begging the question, yet we do know that the effects 
of the practice are cumulative, and in time will be apparent 
to every one. That the popular opinion is averse to the 
practice is generally conceded ; that people concerned with 
fishing, boating, and the interests commonly of these waters, 
are, as a rule opposed to it, is equally plain. That it is a 10 
REPORT. 
poorly performed and offensive method (as now done), and 
that it is not economical nor the best method for this city 
to follow, your committee believe is pretty generally felt 
to be the case now. 
Appended will be found the forms (questions and circu- 
lars), and the methods of procedure. We are disappointed 
in not being able to offer more in this report, the time being 
somewhat limited, and the summer vacation months being 
probably the main causes of any deficiencies in this respect. 
Private correspondence was also carried on and some infor 
mation gained in that way, besides much intercourse with 
watermen, fishermen and others familiar with these waters. 
Personal inspection, so far as was possible, was not omitted. 
The field is a large one and just attracting workers. Besides, 
the subject enters deeply into natural science studies, the 
habits and food of fishes and lower forms of sea life, and 
kindred matters, all requiring much time and careful labor, 
and unusual facilities. Appended will also be found copies 
of very interesting old colony laws, showing, that even as 
far back as 1668, it was considered a harmful practice to 
throw offal overboard on fishing grounds. Also extracts 
from Fisheries Laws of Great Britain and Canada to the 
same effect (kindly contributed by Mr. Almon and Dr. 
Storer). So, from many sources, and with few contrary 
indications, we find that the practice of garbage dumping 
in the sea, and especially near populous seaport towns, is 
wrong both in principle and fact, and for the reasons we 
have striven to show above. These reasons and conclusions 
refer to all sides of the question, and include the economical 
and best interests of this community we believe, and call 
for a speedy change in methods; they indicate plainly a 
trial of the plan by cremation or destruction as heretofore 
recommended by this Association. 
The only conditions that permit of garbage dumping in 
the sea are : the open sea, as far out as possible; a begin- 
ning ebb tide; away from shallows, beaches, and fishing 
grounds; and a due regard to winds and currents. Under REPORT. 
11 
these conditions, invariably observed, and with the present 
quantity (daily average not over 15— J6 cubic yards) the 
damage to be apprehended to the various interests concerned, 
would probably be minimized. This does not take into 
account the nuisances incident to the handling and transport 
of the material before it reaches the dumping grounds. With 
it all, it must be borne in mind that injunctions are always 
imminent because of unlooked for deposits on beaches; and, 
the impracticability of proceeding to sea at all times because 
of unusual stress of weather. 
Coming now to the question of cremation or destruction 
of garbage, it may be said that up till quite recent years, 
the method has not been satisfactory as a whole, and prin- 
cipally because the appliance would not carry out its prom- 
ise. But there is good and sufficient reason to look upon 
this problem as now solved, and cremators are now in 
satisfactory operation in many municipalities both here and 
abroad. At the International Hygiene Congress at London, 
Mr. Charles Jones, an engineer of note, stated that the 
problem of refuse destruction by cremation was solved, de- 
scribing also the form of construction, in which the gases 
and vapors being completely consumed, no nuisance resulted. 
There are in this country more than twenty (20) cities and 
towns using cremators of one form of construction, and it 
is asserted, by responsible parties, successfully and satisfac- 
torily. There are also other companies equally willing to 
construct cremators for garbage and refuse destruction, and 
including sewage and dead animals; without payment if they 
do not prove efficient. Surely it would seem as if cremation 
of garbage had gotten beyond the experimental stage, and 
were not impossible of accomplishment here. 
Sewage, or organic waste matter, has a distinct value as 
a land fertilizer, and applied as is now done at Croydon, 
England, on the principles introduced there by Dr. Alfred 
Carpenter, is a benefit. It provides increased food supplies, 
and avoids pollution of river and water courses. There is 
however no profit derived from the Croydon sewage farms, 12 
REPORT. 
as the tax rate is increased twopence to make up the bal- 
ance of cost. Berlin and Paris sent their experts to Croydon, 
and have adopted that plan of sewage farming. But it is 
otherwise with the material we know as garbage. It cannot 
be applied to the land similarly, for the reason that its 
composition is radically different. But there is a profit to 
be gotten from it otherwise. The city of Providence in this 
state (and Cincinnati, Ohio) disposes of much, or all of its 
garbage to a company, who at first extract the grease; and 
by desiccating and grinding up the remainder, find a ready 
sale for the product as fertilizer. It is questionable whether 
the amount of material in this city would justify such an 
industry here. In a previous report by this committee, it 
was shown how unwholesome garbage (as commonly col- 
lected in cities) is, as a food for animals; how distinctly 
deleterious it is applied to the land; and how great the 
nuisances have been in the past from the trailing carts on 
their way to and from the city, and at all hours, on our 
streets and driveways. 
There is a manner of disposal that would solve the 
problem easily enough, and one not at all difficult of appli- 
cation. It is that each householder destroy his own garbage 
in his, or her, own domestic fires. This can readily be done, 
and if systematically carried out, is surprisingly easy and 
effectual. But this seems to be impossible in our ordinary 
wasteful domestic kitchen economy. It would imply care 
and some management, separation, and prompt destruction 
in the fire from time to time, not allowing of any accumu- 
lation. There are also manufactured special contrivances 
to attach to large ranges—“garbage destructors”—answer- 
ing the purpose very well. All large establishments where 
fires are continually kept up, should have no difficulty in 
making way with garbage or refuse of any description ; and 
it is now done so in many places. When we arrive at the 
careful and economical management of our kitchens in this 
country, common on the continent of Europe ; and, when 
our era of waste and often unnecessary extravagance shall REPORT. 
have passed away, we will probably hear less of garbage, 
and of the receptacles at our back doors, and of the slowly 
trailing carts in the streets, all .more or less reeking with 
the bacteria of fermentation and rot. 
As, however, we are dealing with matters as we find 
them, your committee are forced around to the only really 
sanitary and effective method of disposal — in the proper 
sense of that word — and hence recommend for the city, 
cremation of its garbage. REGARDING THE GARBAGE QUESTION ELSEWHERE. 
New York. Bureau of street cleaning has entire charge of the 
work. Collected by city carts, loaded upon scows, towed to sea and 
dumped about the coast in vicinity of port. Chronic complaints, and 
from all sources. Neighboring towns and beaches trying to get redress 
by legal means. 
Philadelphia. Present system a failure from sanitary point of 
view. A number of small contractors remove it in an unsatisfactory 
manner. It is fed to hogs, mixed with manure, and buried in the soil 
in pits. “ There is no longer any doubt as to the remedy for these 
multifarious nuisances. It is cremation. It is so done by an ever 
increasing number of cities both in this country and abroad, and 
satisfactorily. It has everything to recommend it. It is economical, 
prompt, efficient, inoffensive, and sweeps out of existence offensive 
nuisances which harass communities that employ old plans.” 
Brooklyn. Same as New York. 
St. Louis. Existing methods objectionable. Collection and trans- 
portation to existing dumps, both on land and in the river, create 
nuisances and engender disease. The river dumps are dangerous, 
the garbage floating a short distance and lodging in greater or less 
quantity. “The subject of the disposition of garbage and refuse mate- 
rial is now receiving the attention and earnest consideration of sani- 
tarians everywhere, and is one that should be taken into consideration 
by the authorities of the city. Of late years a number of cities have 
constructed crematories, furnaces and extractors, attended with varying 
success. Some aim at destruction by fire in the easiest manner ; others, 
looking at the commercial value as well as the final disposition, claim 
to be able to dispose of them by inoffensive and sanitary methods, 
and at the same time utilize their products. We lack sufficient infor- 
mation (Report of 1890) to give a definite idea of the best method to 
be pursued without a personal inspection of the process in operation. 
Such observations should be made at once.’’ 
Boston. Costly and unsatisfactory method. Suggests destruction 
by each household and in the kitchen fires. The cost of garbage 
collection, transport, and dumping, is a hundred thousand dollars annually. The expense grows with the growth of the city, and coin- 
cidently the offenses attending storage in houses and yards, and the 
transportation of it in the streets. It is reported that the city is also 
dumping at sea, using much precaution with regard to distance out 
and tides. 
REPORT. 
15 
Baltimore. Same complaints common to American cities, in 
storage, collection, and transport. The dumps a long distance. Dr. 
Chancellor, chairman of State Board of Health, writes of fisheries’ 
destruction by refuse dumping in the waters (May ’91 meeting of 
American Medical Association, Washington, D. C). 
Cincinnati, Ohio. Has a contract with a desiccating company, 
for a period of ten years, receiving twenty-five hundred dollars annu- 
ally for the privilege. This company removes all garbage and offal, 
animal and vegetable, including dead carcasses (paying additionally 
for these), at least three times per week, and from slaughter houses, 
daily. There must, however, be no mixing of ashes or other waste 
material with the garbage and offal. 
(This contract indicates a profitable business. No details are at 
hand, but grease, and products of use, as fertilizing material, are 
probably the sources of profit. It would be useful to know if any 
offensive effluvia or nuisances exist with such works.— Committee.) 
Cleveland. The usual complaints of inadequate service and many 
nuisances. Has no system or proper method. “A long delayed san- 
itary necessity remains unprovided for in this city, to wit: a satisfac- 
tory gathering of house garbage. No city of this size can be considered 
well taken care of which makes no public provision for this purpose. 
It is an old topic in the annual health reports, but must continue to 
be urged until some relief is obtained.” 
Chicago. Contract system generally. System is unsatisfactory, 
the difficulty being lack of dumping places. Some is put in “clay 
holes” near city, and some is cremated. Efforts are made to induce 
householders to consume it in kitchen stoves. “ It will be necessary 
to set aside part of the annual appropriation (for ’91) to pay for the 
destruction of garbage and refuse. A garbage reduction works will 
soon start in operation, and I trust (chairman Board of Health) this 
department can foster and encourage the only sanitary method. 
The reduction works are a private enterprise ; they propose to destroy 
without expecting a profit from the product. The question will be 
simply at what cost per ton can garbage and refuse be destroyed. 
Fuel oil will generate the heat which is expected to reach 3800° F.” 
(From Health Report, Chicago, 1890.) LAWS AND OFFICIAL REPORTS BEARING ON 
THE SUBJECT. 
The Rhode Island law passed at the instigation of citizens of 
Middletown to prevent any more of Newport’s garbage coming to that 
town : 
January Session 1887, Chapter 622. 
An Act to prevent the carrying of swill and other offal 
INTO THE TOWN OF MIDDLETOWN AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 
It is enacted by the General Assembly as follows: 
Section i. No person shall hereafter carry any house offal or 
swill into the town of Middletown, or permit the swill or offal so 
carried to be fed to swine on his premises, or to be deposited on or 
spread upon his land in said town ; but nothing in this act contained 
shall be construed to prevent the carrying of swill or house offal 
through the said town of Middletown to any other town. Any person 
violating any of the provisions of this act shall be for every offence 
fined not exceeding twenty dollars or be imprisoned not exceeding 
three months. 
Sec. 2. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent herewith are hereby 
repealed. 
Sec. 3. This act shall take effect from and after June 1st A. D. 
1887. 
Offal of Fish. 
Report of the U. S. Fish Commissioner for 1878. Washington, 
1880, p. 36. Petition to U. S. Fish Commissioner from the Block 
Island fishermen. 
“ In cleansing fish at sea, when the offal is thrown overboard it 
sinks to the bottom and there decays. This putrid matter drives the 
fish away as long as it remains.” If thrown over on the tideward 
side of the grounds, “ it is swept slowly over the whole fishing grounds, 
poisoning them for the time throughout their entire extent.” REPORT. 
17 
Reports on the fisheries of the Great Lakes. U. S. Fish Commis- 
sioner’s Report (1872-3), Washington, 1874, p. 19, Milner. 
“ It is the uniform testimony of all fishermen that throwing offal 
or dead fish in the vicinity of the fishing grounds is offensive to the 
white fish, and drives them away.” 
Annual Report Department *of Fisheries, Dominion of Canada 
(1889), Ottawa, 1890; part iv, Report of Commissioner upon the Her- 
ring Fishing Industry of Great Britain and Holland, page 62. 
“Throwing offal or refuse of herring into the sea in the neigh- 
borhood of the fishing grounds is a reprehensible practice, certain to 
drive the herring away, as they appear to be very sensitive to offen- 
sive sights and smells. It appears that in Sweden this had something 
to do in scaring away the fish.” 
Mr. Mitchell says :— “ Those vessels which, after getting the her- 
ring on board, throw the refuse into the sea, ought not to be permitted 
to fish where there are herring shoals ; and this law ought to be en- 
forced by the Dutch Government (whose fishing vessels cure on board) 
which might order that the portions taken out of the herrings at 
gutting be barrelled up for use, for the purpose of making oil, or for 
manure, or for both purposes. 
“The quantity of herring fished in Sweden, prior to 1809, was 
about as great as that fished in Scotland, yet by allowing the refuse of 
the herring which had been boiled at places on the coast, for the pur- 
pose of obtaining the oil, to reach and taint the sea, the shoals left and 
did not return for sixty-nine years.” 
Mr. Mitchell further says :—“ We are of opinion that any operation 
which tends to disturb or scare the herring may drive away or dimin- 
ish the shoals, such as * * * throwing the refuse into the sea after 
gutting the herring, as is done by the Dutch busses, or allowing the 
refuse of the soil of the herring to go into the sea, as was done on 
the Swedish coast.” 
Annual Report Department Fisheries, Dominion of Canada, 1890. 
Ottawa, 1891, p. 70. 
“ Nothing whatever is said in the Regulations of 14th March, 1890, 
with reference to the prevention of fish offal being cast into any of 
the waters of British Columbia. This restriction, it is presumed, was 
considered unnecessary to be inserted in that Order in Council, as a 
clause referring to it is embodied in the General Fisheries act of 
1886, where a penalty is imposed against any person who causes to 
be thrown, or deposits in any water where fishing is carried on, 
‘remains’ or ‘offal of fish.’ 
“The forbidding of throwing the remains or offal of fish or any 18 
REPORT. 
other deleterious matter into waters frequented by fish is not only 
the law of Canada, but of almost every other country. It is needless 
to dwell upon the pernicious effects which must result from this evil 
practice. The strongest evidence of this view of the matter is the 
stringent legislation in Britain and other European countries against 
the pollution of their waters from this cause.” 
Interesting Old Colony Laws. 
Laws of the Colony of New Plymouth, 1668. 
“Wheras great complaint is made of great abuse by reason of fish- 
ermen that are strangers, who fishing on some of the fishing ground 
on our coast in Catches, dresing and splitting theire fish aboard 
through theire Garbidg overboard to the great anoyance of fish which 
hath and may prove greatly detrementall to the Countrey : It is or- 
dered by the Court that something be directed from this Court to the 
Court of the Massachusetts to request them to take some effectuall 
course for the restraint of such abuse as much as may be.” 
Colony Laws of Massachusetts Bay, 1668. 
“It is ordered by this Court and the authority thereof that no man 
shall henceforth (no fish to be killed when they go to spawn) nor 
shall any fisherman cast the garbage of the fish they catch overboard 
at or near the ledges or grounds where they take the fish ; nor shall 
any of the boat’s crew refuse or neglect to obey the order of the 
master of the vessel to which they belong for the times and seasons 
of fishing ; nor shall they take or drink any more strong liquors than 
the master thinks meet to permit them : the breach of these three 
last being under the penalty of twenty shillings for the first offence ; 
for the second forty shillings ; for the third three months’ imprison- 
ment, one third part of the aforesaid fines to the informer proving 
the same.” [ Copy of Circular.] 
The Committee appointed by the Newport Sanitary Protection 
Association to report upon the methods for the disposal of the gar- 
bage of the city of Newport have been especially instructed to inquire 
into the effect produced upon the fishing industry by the casting of 
the garbage into the sea as is done at present. 
We desire your assistance in drawing a report on this subject, and 
we beg that you will fill out the blanks on the enclosed postal card 
and forward by mail at your earliest convenience. 
If you will give us your views upon this matter, at length, we shall 
esteem it highly. 
J. J. Van Alen, Chairman. 
C. A. Siegfried, Secretary 
Charles E. Munroe. 
[Copy of Questions on Postal Card.] 
The Dumping of House Offal or Garbage in the Sea. 
1. Do fish (including all varieties crabs, &c.) consume it? 
2. If so what effect, if any, does it have on them ? 
3. What effect on fishing grounds does garbage dumping have ? 
4. Does such dumping attract or repel fish from localities? 
5. From a fisherman’s point of view do you think it injurious or 
otherwise ?