A FOUR-LEGGED FISH.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 843, 16 January 1883, Page 3

A FOUR-LEGGED FISH.

The question whether any four-legged creature can properly be described, as a fish may not at first sight seem vety debatcable,andyet it has occupied for some lime past the serious attention of certain transatlantic authorities. The discus-

sion arose out of a rather curious trade

which has been going on for years be- ■ , tween Canada and the cities of the -Republic. Our American cousins have, as it seems, quite got over those prejudices which in this benighted island ; . still militate against the admission of frogs to the cuisine, and they are now , ■, so fond of the delicacy which was ohce considered the distinctive food of Frenchmen, that the produce of

their , own ponds and ditches 1 does not suffice for the demands of the market Accordingly, the Canadians whose waters seem to be

specially prolific in these creatures, . have been driving a large and flourishing trade with the towns across the border, and especially with New York, in supplying them with edible parts of the frog, which until lately were transported free of Customs duty under the designa- . tion of “ Canadian fish.” Some official busybody at last found fault with this easy-going definition, and claimed duty on the imports ; and the Treasury, on ' appeal, decided that frogs are not Canadian fish within the meaning of trffHthe Washington Treaty, and, therefore, we mot free of Customs duty. The Canadians were, however, not discouraged,'' and possibly may have : thought tfcat as.;.the, rmummy ( of a S Pharaoh travelled under the name of 1 aglt fish in Egypt, so a dead

frog might fairly be allowed to travel in America as fresh fish. As “fresh fish destined for immediate consumption ” they accordingly essayed to pass their valuable commodities, but without success, as the Secretary of the Treasury at Washington has again rejected their claim. Still the exporters are not convinced, and are now hoping to get their goods admitted as “ fish to be used for bait,” which is also exempt by virtue of the treaty. So obstinate a conviction that the creature which “ would a-wooing go ” belongs to the tribe sometimes described as “ finny,” seems to show that the distinction between beasts, reptiles, and fishes is not quite so clear as naturalists ought by this time to have made it.