Penobscot River -- Fishway Battle of 1838
Records from 1830s show the refusal of Penobscot mill dam owners to
build fishways, particularly at the newly constructed Veazie and Great Works
dams on the Penobscot's main-stem, and the resulting collapse of the river's
shad and alewife runs, spurred the call for a tougher fisheries protection
law. The proposed legislation was met with enthusiastic support from commercial
fishermen and others; and vehement opposition by those with interests in
the mill dams. A selection of citizen petitions to the Legislature are provided
below. Not surprisingly, the supporters of fish passage were predominantly
from the commercial fishing district in the lower Penobscot River; and opponents
were from those towns where the mill dams resided.
Petition of inhabitants of Orland -- 1838
"To the Honorable Legislature of Maine assembled at Augusta, A.D. 1838.
The undersigned citizens of Orland, County of Hancock, respectfully represent
that the fisheries of the Penobscot River and its tributary waters have
formerly been a great benefit to all the Inhabitants in this section of
the State.
But for some years past the Salmon, Shad and Alewives, which were formerly
abundant, have greatly diminished already, and unless a remedy is provided
by law the benefit derived from the said fisheries must be entirely lost
-- and many poor people in consequence be deprived of a great part of the
means for their support.
We therefore pray your Honorable Bodies to give this subject (which to the
people in this vicinity is of vast importance) your impartial consideration
and pass a law which will preserve Salmon, Shad and Alewives in the said
River and tributary waters.
Orland Jany. 15, A.D. 1838"
Asa Torrey and numerous others.
Source: Maine State Archives. Legislative PL. Box 158. File 101.
Petition of inhabitants of Bucksport -- 1838
To the Legislature of Maine in session at Augusta, Jan. 1838
The undersigned citizens of the town of Bucksport in the County of Hancock
respectfully represent, that the Act passed in the year 1835 for the preservation
of Salmon, Shad and Alewives in Penobscot Bay and River, and their tributary
waters, does not accomplish the object for which it was intended. Many Mill
Owners on the said waters refuse or neglect to open fish ways through
their dams and other obstructions, and threaten the County Fish Wardens
with a suit at law if they proceed to open them.
The said Act requires the ward or wardens to open fish ways through dams
and other obstructions (where the owners or occupants refuse or neglect
to do it,) but does not sufficienctly guarantee them against the strong
combination of interest, which would in many instances be brought to bear
upon them. Being doubtful how a suit against them might terminate, and not
being prepared to encounter Lynch Law, they have neglected to do
(as well they might) what one clause of said act makes their imperative
duty. Hence the fish in many places are obstructed in their passage up the
aforesaid waters, and must soon become extinct unless a radical remedy
is provided.
Believing as we do, that this section of the State could not have been settled
and brought forward as it has, had it not been for the primitive blessing
of taking fish in Penobscot Bay, river and tributary waters -- and knowing
as we do, that there is an ample sufficiency of water in Penobscot river
and its tributary streams; for moving all necessary machinery, and for the
preservation of fish; we earnestly pray your honorable body, to give
the subject your candid and unprejudiced consideration, and pass an Act
which shall ensure the preservation of Salmon, Shad and Alewives in the
aforesaid waters, as long as 'Old Penobscot rolls his current on.'"
Daniel Buck and numerous others.
Source: Maine State Archives. Legislative PL. Box 158. File 101. Italics
are in original, printed petition
Petition of inhabitants of Orono and Milford for repeal of all fish preservation
laws on the Penobscot River -- 1838
"We the undersigned inhabitants of Orono, Milford and elsewhere on
the Penobscot River beg leave to remonstrate against the passage of a bill
for an Act entitled, "an act additional to an act for the preservation
of Fish on the Penobscot River and Streams tributary thereto" -- copies
of which were ordered to be printed and are now before the Legislature.
For the following among the many reasons that may be offered why said bill
should not be passed.
First, because it is provided therein that the fish wares constructed in
the tide waters and which have ever been the means of obstructing the passage
of Fish in said River, are allowed to be maintained without any material
curtailment of privilege and which are constructed at short distances from
each other and starting from opposite shores so interlock as to render it
almost impossible for fish to escape. We do know from experience and observation
that whenever these wares are erected and maintained for two or three years
in succession (which is even the case when fish are plenty) it has diminished
and nearly destroyed the run of fish so as to render the maintenance of
wares unproductive and they have consequently with few exceptions been abandoned
until by such abandonment (facilitating the passage) the run has become
restored.
Secondly, we object to the passage of the bill because it confers extraordinary
powers which are to be vested thereby in men to take away and remove what
they may deem obstructing to the passage of fish regardless of the establishment
so to be removed and its bearing on the vital interests of the Community
and on which supposed obstructions such interests may altogether depend,
thereby prostrating enterprise by demolishing establishments on which is
founded not only individual interest of great magnitude but the best hopes
of the Country and on the very basis of its advancement and prosperity,
and which should not we deem be subject to the caprice of any man or number
of men having minor and conflicting interests to promote and thus be clothed
with impunity.
We would cheerfully secure if practicable and consistent with interests
of far greater moment the unmolested passage of fish in said River. But
we cannot but hope the inquiry will be made and duly reflected upon whether
the enterprise and resources of the valley of the Penobscot shall be forgone
for the sole purpose of securing the privilege of taking for a few days
or weeks in the season a small supply of paltry fish which we may venture
to say for the fifteen or twenty years past has occupied the Husbandmen
about all of that season, which should have been devoted to Agriculture
in order to secure a Harvest and have thereby been rather a curse than a
blessing to our Country.
With these suggestions we have the subject to the wisdom of the Legislature
to be properly investigated and hope and pray that this contemplated Acty
so apparently obnoxious to the course of improvement on the Penobscot may
be refused a passage and that all Laws respecting fish on said River, above
Franfort, may be repealed."
Jesse Wadleigh and numerous others.
Source: Maine State Archives. Legislative PL. Box 158. File 101.
Petition of inhabitants of Orono, Milford and Bangor for repeal of all fish
preservation laws on the Penobscot River -- 1838
"To the honourable Senate and House of Representatives of the Legislature
of Maine,
The undersigned inhabitants of Orono, Milford and Bangor would respectfully
represent that they have seen published and act entitled an act for the
preservation of Fish in Penobscot River, now before your honourable bodies
and believe that many provisions in said act is predicated upon the principle
that fishing interest is paramount to all others.
The undersigned believe it would be injurious to the public interest and
subversive of private rights to compel mill owners to remove their dams
for the preservation of Shad, which are of little importance compared with
their interests and the taking of which is now very limited.
Your memorialists would inquire of your honourable body whether it would
be right to subject the mill owners to the sacrifice of their main interest
that supports this section of the State in order preserve one that supports
none. The undersigned would therefore pray your honourable bodies to repeal
all laws respecting Fish on said River above Frankfort believing the public
interest requires it."
Salmon Hackett, Jr. and numerous others.
Source: Maine State Archives. Legislative PL. Box 158. File 101.
Back to Penobscot River main page.
Back to Atlantic Salmon History
Project page.