Ne tenga stint Sartor sya “ pone okt ee 7 Me * 3 Presta ae theres peetrecctan ond reyes aye pete rae Veceg ek Deen tat did shee one oy : wy iyi) peat itt teeta copes | ee = apenas aeaetbrerenty Sein ; = Wittitn Ae ee aaser pb hs 9 <3 im aoe pesesels Meret ais patios, Sort ty ji : . 4 eth, J wns: As wife Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from Microsoft Corporation htto://www.archive.org/details/awardoffisherycoO2haliuoft ea Halifax Commission, Vey (730 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. _- DOCUMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE HALIFAX COMMISSION, 1877, UNDER THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON OF MAY 8, 1871. IN THREE VOLUMES. _ VOLUME II. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. ES ot AP PEN DIX G. AFFIDAVITS PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT. No. 1. DoMINION OF CANADA, Province of Prince Edward. Island, Queens County, to wit: I, ALEXANDER M. MCNEILL, of Cavendish, in Prince Edward Island, farmer and fisherman, a justice of the peace for Queens County, Prince Edward Island, make oath and say : 1. That I have been actively engaged in the fisheries off my farm at Cavendish since the year 1851, and have personally carried on the fish- ing. 2. I have had three boats engaged fishing every season, employing seven hands besides myself, and at the same time cultivating my farm. 3. The first few years my catch was not very good, owing greatly to the presence in such great numbers of the American fleet. 4, The numbers of this fleet throughout the gulf—I don’t know bat I have counted from my own shore over one hundred sail of American fishing-vessels, and that within three miles of the shore. 5. 1 attribute the poor boat-fishing of years gone by, during the Re- ciprocity Treaty, to the presence of the American fishing fleet. 6. Their custom was, to the number of from sixty to one hundred sail, to harbor in Malpeque, and then start out in the morning for the fishing grounds. If they saw a small boat taking mackerel, they would steer straight for them, going to windward and drift down, throwing bait, and either take the fish away or injure the boats: This was common for years, and very largely and materially prejudiced the boat-fishing. 7. During the past four or five years we have not been much annoyed with them. The British and Canadian cruisers had sumething to do with keeping them in order, and during the last two years only a small fleet has frequented the gulf. 8. The consequence has been that the catch by the boats has been very largely increased, and also the number of fishing-boats, which has more than doubled during the past four years. Many new boats are being built, and my opinion is that their number will increase every year. _ 9. During the past nine years my catch would average about one hundred barrels each season ; but I do not make a business of fishing. In fact, I only prosecute it about two months in the season, combin- ing fishing and farming. ; 10. I would think the number of fishing-boats at Rustico harbors would number about one hundred and fifty. 11. My twenty years’ experience has proved to me that the best mack- ' erel-fishing around our coasts is about a mile from the shore, in from seven to ten fathoms of water. 12. All the tish caught by the boats are taken within a mile of the coast, many of them within half a mile, during the months of July and 1092 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. August; but during the months of September and October the boats take their catch further out, say two miles or two and a half. Itisa very rare occasion that they go out three miles, or beyond it. 13. Of the total catch in the boats, over nine-tenths are caught well within the three-mile limit. 14. The American fishing-fleet have always fished on the same ground as the boats. They go in as close and closer to our coast than half a mile, commence throwing over bait, and drift off, taking fish with them off the shore, and when they lose the fish tack for the land again and renew operations. I can’t say the proportion of their catch taken within the limit, because they sometimes make a good catch outside in deep-sea waters. The fleet have always fished within the three miles before the abolition of the Reciprocity Treaty and afterwards. They never gave up. The cruisers frightened them a little, but as soon as they were past, the fishing-vessels went right to work again and fished as before. 15. I prosecute the herring-fishing in the spring for bait, and get enough for that parpose, and to a small extent the cod-fishing, but my previous statements have entire reference to the mackerel fishery. The herring are all taken close to the shore. ALEX. M. McNEILL. Sworn to at Charlottetown, in Queens County, Prince Edward Island, this 18th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. E. JAMES SALMER, Commissioner for taking Affidavits in the Supreme Court, and Notary Public for Prince Edward Island. No. 2. DOMINION OF CANADA, Province of Prince Edward Island, Queens County, to wit: I, HuGH JoHN MONTGOMERY, of New London, in Prince Edward Island, merchant, make oath and say: 1. That Iam aged thirty-six, and have resided all my life, excepting the last four or five years, on the north shore of this island, and have prose- cuted the fishing business both in boats and schooners, and profess to have a good knowledge of the business, having been mixed up in it all wy life. That during the past four or five years I have resided at Clifton, about four miles from the sea-shore, and have traded a good deal with the fish- ermen, and acquired, from actual experience, and from a prolonged and constant intercourse with the fishermen, a thorough knowledge of the different branches of fishing, as carried on along the shores aud coasts of this island. That one season I commanded a schooner of my own, and fished in her along the north side of this island, and up the Bay Chaleur. That during the last few years the increase in the boat-fishing around this island has been enormous, between fifty and sixty boats fishing out of the New London Harbor, and from one hundred and fifty to two hundred out of Rustico Harbor, while other harbors with which I am not so minutely acquainted, such as Malpeque, Cascumpec, Tignish, Nail Pond, Mimenegash, Egmont Bay, Murray Harbor, Souris, Tracadie, and Saint Peters, send out, every season, very large numbers of well-equipped fish- ing boats. That during the past winter still larger preparations were made for the coming season, and I fully believe the number of boats fishing uround the coasts of this island will be, this year, largely in excess of Oe ee eee AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1093 previous years. That the increase in the number of fishing-boats does not seem in the slightest to lessen the number of fish ; on the contrary, from the increased quantity of bait used, the effect is rather to keep the fish within the fishing limits where the boats fish. That from my experience I would be prepared to swear that at least three-fourths of the total quantity of mackerel caught in the schooners are taken within the three-mile limit, while of the boats I believe almost the entire catch is taken within such limit. That for the past two years the American fishing fleet in the gulf has been small, while for many years previously it would average six hun- dred sail. That the presence of the fleet along the shores injured the boat-fish- ing because of the mode of fishing, which was, with the wind off shore, to approach the shore as closely as possible and commence fishing, keeping constantly throwing. bait and drifting to sea, taking the mack- erel off the shore with them and away from the boats. That, as a general rule, my experience has led me to conclude that the American fishing-vessels usually secured two fares during the sea- son in the gulf, and in some cases as many as three fares would be secured. The vessels ranged, as a rule, from sixty to seventy tons, and a sin- gle fare would be in the neighborhood of six hundred or seven hundred barrels. That in the spring of the year large quantities of herring are taken around our shores, which are used chiefly for mackerel bait. That during the season I myself commanded my little schooner, whose tonnage amounted to twenty-seven tous, my catch was 190 barrels of mackerel only, but this I accounted for because I only fished two months out of the season, the vessel being engaged during the rest of the sea- son in the carrying trade; and during the same season my catch of codfish was one hundred and seventy-five quintais of codfish, and three hundred and fifty barrels of herring. HUGH J. MONTGOMERY. Sworn to at Charlottetown, in (Jueens County, this 18th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me, the erasures opposite my initials being first made. M. McLEOD, Commissioner for taking Affidavits in the Supreme Court : of P. E. Island. No. 3. DOMINION OF CANADA, | Province of Prince Edward Island, Prince County, to wit: I, Jonn D. WHITE, of Alberton, in Prince County, in Prince Edward Island, cooper and trader, make oath and say: 1. That I have now resided twenty-five years on Prince Edward Island, during twenty-three years of which I have been engaged in the fishing business. ' 2. Before coming to Prince Edward Island, namely, in the years forty- one and forty-two, I fished off the American coast. The result of the first year’s catch was one hundred and sixty barrels, and of the second, Seventy-three barrels. Both catches were all made nearly thirty miles _ from land. No mackerel were then taken by the American fleet off the coast of the United States excepting a long distauce from land; none _ were taken within three miles of the coast. 3. In the year 1852 I came to Prince Edward Island, and in the year 1854 settled at Tignish and engaged in the business of coopering and 1094 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. fishing. I kept a fishing-stage and employed a number of boats and men, and have continued steadily in the business ever since. _4. In 1860 I removed my business to Alberton, and I am now largely engaged in the business, employing one schooner, ten boats, and fifty- six men. 5. The increase in the boat-fishing has been large of late years. The numbers and the catch of the boats have more than trebled since 1854. 6. From Hardy’s Channel to Kildare Cape, a distance of about thirty miles, there are seven fishing-stages, and in the harbor of Cascu mpec alone there are thirty-nine large fishing-boats, the average cost of which is about three hundred dollars. 7. All the mackerel taken in and around this part of the coast, for many miles, are taken at a distance between one-quarter of a mile and two miles from the shore. A few may be taken outside of two miles from the shore, but none are taken outside of three miles. 8. The average catch of the boats fora period of twenty years has been from seventy to eighty barrels of mackerel each every season. 9. The American fleet have largely frequented this coast. I would say that from 1854 to 1874 the average number of the mackerel fleet of American vesse]s frequenting the Gulf of St. Lawrence ranged between four bundred and four hundred and fifty per season. 10, A large portion of this fleet frequent the shores around Cascumpec and take their catches there. They catch their fish close to the shore, about the same distance as the boats, that is between one-quarter and two miles from the shore. A very small proportion of the catch of the American fleet is taken outside of the three miles. The practice of the fleet is to run in close to the shore, throw out bait and drift off, some times taking the schools of fish with them. 11. The boats fishermen dislike the presence of the American fleet very much. It interferes sadly with the catch of the boats. The Americans dress their fish on the deck and throw the offal overboard, and this offal destroys the fishing- grounds. 12. In my opinion, nine-tenths of the fish taken by the American fish- ermen are taken within the three miles from sbore, and I am quite sure if they were excluded from these limits they would have to abandon the fisheries in the gulf altogether. It would be useless and senseless for them to prosecute the business. 13. If American fishermen were excluded from our waters I would not care for the duty of two dollars per barrel levied in the United States. ‘The demand for mackerel is well known, the quantity required is known, and we would have the business to a large extent in our own hands if the Americans were excluded from our shores. If they increased the duty the consumers would still, in my opinion, have to pay the increase. 14. The privilege of landing to get supplies and transship is a very valuable one. The mackerel season is very short, and this privilege is equal to an extra trip and is so looked upon by the Americans. 15. The new mode of fishing with purse-seines has a very bad effect on the fishery. It not only entirely disturbs and scares away the fish, but a very large number of small mackerel and other kinds of fish are taken and destroyed, thrown away dead, and the waters thus polluted. JOHN D. WHITE. Sworn to this third day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. STANISLAUS F. PERY, J. P. for Prince County, Prince Edward Island. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1095 No. 4. I, SYLVAN F, ARSINEAUX, of Tignish, in Prince County, Prince Ed- ward Island, inspector of fish, make oath and say : 1, Ihave had charge of a fishing-stage for the last twenty years on this shore. I used, during that time, to be myself actually engaged in fish- ing, always in boats. I am now fish inspector for this county. 2. There are over two hundred and thirty boats engaged in the fish- eries between Mimnigah and Kildare; 1 know this from my own actual experience. The average catch of mackerel would be about forty-five barrels for each boat; for codfish and hake, the average for all the boats would be about forty quintals each. The average catch of herring for all boats would be about twenty barrels; the fishermen only try to get enough herring for mackerel bait and for home use. 3. The boats have trebled in number in the last ten years, and they are three times better boats; they are larger, better sailers, better rigged and fitted out. There is a large amount more money invested in the boat business than there was ten years ago. The business has enor- mously increased. 4, The boats carry, on an average, crews of four men each. 5. I would account for the increase in the number of boats, and the increased attention given to the business, by referring to the increase of population. There are greater numbers of fishermen springing up all the time; they are more enterprising, and they find the business pays. The boat-fishing also affords employment to numbers of men. G6. With some few exceptions, the boats get their fish close to the shore. The best fishing-ground is looked upon as inside of three miles of the shore. 7. For the last ten years the American fleet-fishing off the coast has averaged, I should say, about five hundred sail. When the cutters are not bere, the Americans must catch three-quarters of their fish inshore. When the cutters were here they also caught more fish within three miles of the shore than outside, but not so much as when the cutters were away. They used to dodge the cutters and get inshore. There were not enough cutters to keep them off altogether. The Americans were frightened off a good deal by the cutters. If the Americans were prevented from fishing within three miles of the shore, it would not be _ their while to fit out for the gulf fishery. It would not pay them. 8. When the Americans come down they do a great deal of harm to the bdats, as they throw a great deal of bait and draw the fish out. They come inshore, throw out bait, and draw the mackerel out after them. This leaves our boats without fish and destroys their chance of a catch. They have better bait than we have, and are enabled to do this damage. _ 9. Our fishermen look upon the coming of the Americans as an injury to the boat and island fishermen; the vessels draw away the fish. The fleet, in fact, puts an end to the good fishing, and are the cause of great loss to us. -10. The Americans, when they see boats getting fish, come up and “lee bow” them, thus depriving the boats of the fish. ‘ Lee-bowing” is . getting to windward of the tide or current and throwing out bait and drawing off the fish. The American schooners also frequently drift down upon our boats, when the latter have to get out of the way. The boats are often injured by the vessels drifting down on them. _ 11. It would certainly be an advantage to the Americans to be able 1096 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. to transship their fish here. They would thus be able to fit out again for fishing and go back to the grounds without losing much time ; where- as, if they had to go home with their loads they would lose from three to four weeks right in the middle of the fishing season. It would be also a great advantage as enabling them to watch the fluctuations of the mackerel market, which is very variable. 12. The mackerel season here lasts from about the end of June till the middle of October. The Americans get here about the end of June. Some of them are off here now. 13. The mackerel I believe come down from the direction of the Magdalen Islands, or from the southward and eastward, and work north- ward and westward till some time in August, and then work back, and they strike this island both ways. The Americans follow the course of the fish. S. F. ARSINEAUX. Sworn to at Tignish, in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, this 28th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JOSEPH MacGILVARY, J. P. for Prince County, Prince Edward Island. No. 5. I ALEXANDER FRANCIS LARKIN, of Nail Pond, in Prince County Prince Edward Island, fish-trader and fisherman, make oath and say 4 1. That I have veen engaged in fishing and in the fishing business practically for over twenty years, in both boats and vessels, and know the fishing-grounds right round this island, particularly the north end of this island. I have been on board of fishing schooners four years, in one of which I owned an interest, and the last year I was master of her. 2. The first two years that I was on board a schooner was in the Pearl, with Captain Champian one year and with Captain Fidele Gal- lant another year. Our catch of fish that year was small, as we were not fitted out for the business, and were only out a small part of the season. That was eighteen or nineteen years ago. 3. That I fished in the schooner Rechabite for about two years, but only for part of the season. I owned a third interest in her, and the second year I was master of her. She was thirty-seven tons burden. She was only out about five weeks that year, as we took freight both spring and fall. We caught in that time about three hundred quintals of codfish each year. All these fish were caught within three miles of the shore. 4. The American schooners often very seriously interfere with our cod- fishing schooners, as they often carry away the nets our schooners have out for catching bait. The greater part, I should say nine tenths, of our island-catch of codfish are caught withip three miles of the shore. An- other very serious trouble that the Americans cause our cod-fishing with- in three miles of the shore is, that when we put out our set-lines the Americans, when springing their vessels up to anchor for the purpose of fishing mackerel, often in getting in their gear interfere with our set- lines, and this trouble is increasing, as we are going more in for set-lines now. The set-lines are now taking the place of hand-lines, and the island coast will soon be a perfect network of set-lines. I myself have now about three thousand hooks out in set-lines. 5, That the Americans interfere very seriously with the cod-fishing and with our set-lines within three miles of the shore by their seining. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1097 They throw a purse-seine of sometimes one hundred and fifty fathoins in length, and sometimes twenty in depth, and sweep the bottom, thus often causing great loss to our cod-fishing, besides disturbing our boats lying at anchor. This I look upon as a most serious trouble, and it is increasing. 6. That when mackerel strike in here and we have a biting school of them, I consider the coming of the Americans as the end of the fishing; they interfere with our boats and draw the school right off the coast, and break up the school. They do this by throwing bait and drifting away, drawing the mackerel after them. In a number of cases they drift down on the boats, and I have known a number of boats to be dis- masted by them. Often the boats have to get under way to get clear of them. 7. The privilege of transshipment I consider is a very great one to the Americans; they are thereby enabled to come into our harbors, pack out and send home their fares by railway, without losing much time, and I believe they can refit here much cheaper than at home. This must save them at least three weeks in each trip, in the matter of going home, which would be equal to another trip in the course of the summer. They also get their fish home much quicker, and can take advantage of the fluctuations of the markets. I have known instances of Americans making as much as three and four trips a season into Charlottetown to transship. ' 8. Since having the Island Railway, they can pack out in Alberton with greater facility than in Charlottetown, and without leaving the fishing-ground. 9. The cleaning of large quantities of mackerel on our coast by the Americans, aud throwing over the offal, injures our cod-fishing. 10. The American schooners often cause great injury and annoyance to our boats fishing mackerel, by drifting down upon them and taking away the mackerel, and compelling the boats to give way. 11. To my own knowledge a large fleet of American schooners fish around this island, from New London Head to North Cape, and thence to West Point, and generally within three miles of the shore. Masters _ and crews of American vessels look upon it as a very great privilege to be allowed to fish near shore, and if they were not allowed to do so, I do not believe many of them would fit out for the gulf fishing. 12. When the cutters were about, the American captains used to run the risk of capture and loss of vessel and outfit, in order to fish inshore, and some of them were taken. The cutters did protect our fishermen a good deal and our boats enjoyed greater security, but our coast was not sufficiently protected; there were not enough cutters. I believe that about ten schooners, as cutters, would protect the fisheries from Scat- terie, in Oape Breton, all the island coasts, and up the New Brunswick coast to Misko, and probably up the Bay Chaleur. Schooners of fifty or sixty tons would be the best cutters. In fact, that number would cover the whole mackerel fisheries for Cape Breton, Magdalen Islands, and New Brunswick, and would effectually keep the Americans out of the three-mile li mit. _13. Large quantities of herring are now seined every year at Magda- len Islands by American fishermen, and they ship these herring away to Sweden, Norway, and southern markets. 14. The Americans derive great benefit from being able to go down to the coast of Newfoundland, to Bay Fortune, and up to Bay of Islands, ' where they catch large quantities of herring, which they freeze and send down to bait their George’s fishing fleet, and also to their city markets. 1098 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 15. After the Magdalen spring fishing is over the Americans often go up to Antiesti and fish and seine herring there. 16. The Americans, also, both at the Magdalens and at Cape Breton, land and seine for bait for their cod-fishing, and they even go into the rivers and catch gaspereaux for bait. ; 17. Taking our coast from Mimnigash to Nail Pond, in this county, I believe that the fishing outfit has increased five or six hundred per cent. in the last ten years; that is, in the number of boats and .their cost. I would estimate the number of boats between Mimnigash and North Cape at from one hundred and fifty to two hundred; and from North Cape to Alberton I should estimate the increase during the last ten years at from three to four hundred per cent. I wonld reckon the num- ber of boats in that distance at from one hundred and fifty to two hun- dred; there must be fully that many. I should say that the whole number of all these boats take crews of three men each on board of them, and that they furnish employment to one man for each boat on shore. 18. Our fishing at this end of the isiand is only in its infancy; our men are only getting skilled and trained to it. 19. The reasons for the increase in the number of boats are that men of capital and experience, seeing the fishing to be a fruitful source of trade, have invested capital, and have encouraged men to build and go into the boat-fishing. 20. I consider that after this we will have a distinct fishing class of people, that is when the lands are all taken up, which they are now. At present, and in the past, the men fished when they had time for farming. Now, we have men who depend entirely on the fishing, and these secure large quantities of fish, and their number is increasing fast. I consider that we are now at the beginning of a new departure in trade in this country owing to the fishing. In my experience, I depend upon men who depend entirely on the fishing to get fully three times as many fish as those who look partly to other means of support. 21. With regard to the value of our fisheries, [ consider them very valuable. We have herring in early spring; immediately after, and during the herring-fishing, we have codfish. The herring-fishing lasts from about the Ist of May to the 5th of June. At times there are Jarge quantities of herring on our coast, and they are about the same quality of fish as the Magdalen Island herring. They never yet have been fished as an article of export, but only as mackerel-bait and for home consumption. Very much larger quantities can be generally pro- cured than are required for those purposes. 22. After the cod-fishing we have fish consisting of mackerel and ling, or hake, right through till late in the fall, till about the beginning of November. So far as I know, from actual experience, this part of this island is one of the choice spots for fishing in the Gulf of Saint Law- rence. Large numbers of the Nova Scotian shore fishermen come right round here to fish. We never have had a complete failure of fish, although in blustery years we catch less than in other years. The reg- ular fishermen, even in the worst years, have always made fair wages. 23. I should put the average catch of mackerel per boat, for all boats engaged in fishing, at about fifty barrels, and for those engaged in cod- fishing, taking one year with another, for ten years past, about fifty quintals of codfish and hake. Until late years our boats and outfits have been of a very rude kind, not to be compared to that of the Nova Scotiaus or Americans, and that is one reason I think our fishery is only in its infaney. 24, 1 look upon our lobster-fishing here as of very great, in fact of AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1099 inestimable, value. We have an inexhaustible supply of them. This branch of the fishing might be pursued here with very great advantage. A great advantage in this fishery would be the abundance of fish offal which we have for bait, and which is now going to waste. 25. Hake sounds here are a very valuable article in our fishing. They are procured from the hake or ling. Each quintal of 280 pounds of ling will give on an average about 35 pounds of sounds. Within the last ten years the price of these has ranged all the way from 25 cents to $1.50 a pound, making an average value of 75 cents, in gold, a pound. The value of the sounds is, on an average, worth from 75 to 100 per cent. morethan the fish from which they are taken, and the sounds are, therefore, a very important consideration in fishing. 26. With improved winter-communication, large quantities of trout, smelt, and some bass might be exported. The value of these fisheries, if the means of trade were opened up, would be greatly enhanced, and would be well worth going into. 27. We have had one or two instances in this part of the island of men attempting the salmon, and they have proved that it may be made a success in fishing. Our people do not yet know the value of this fish- ery, which I believe will become very valuable. 28. Our men are now becoming more and more acquainted with the babits of the fish and with the general laws by which their movements are governed, aud with their improved knowledge of the habits of the fish and increased facilities for taking them they are now much more able to get catches. A. F. LARKIN. - Sworn to at Frog, or Skinner’s Pond, in Prince County, Prince Ed- ward Island, this 28th day of June, A. D. 1817, before me. JOSEPH MaAcGILVRAY, J. P. for Prince County. No. 6. I, JAMES Conroy, of Kildare, lot or township No. 3, in Prince Ed- ward Island, farmer and fisherman, make oath and say: 1, I have been engaged in fishing and farming for over twelve years. I have fished all the time, except one summer, in boats. 2. The number of boats fishing off this part of the shore is increas- ing. The number has more than trebled in the last ten years. The boats are a great deal better now than they were formerly. They are in better shape every way—more suited to the purpose. There are $10 spent in the business along this shore now to the $1 spent ten years ago. } _ 3. The boats around about here are small, as the people do not make a specialty of the business, but farm as well. The boats carry about _ three hands each. 4, All the mackerel caught along here are caught within three miles of the shore. The greater part are caught within a mile and a half and one mile of the shore. Near the shore is by far the best fishing ground. In the spring and fall the cod-fish are caught close to the shore. Inthe summer they are farther off. The mackerel is the principal and most valuable part of the fishery. 5. When an American fleet comes in they certainly do injury to the ‘fishing. The more vessels that come down, the more damage is done to the fishing. I have seen a fleet of some hundred Americans fishing off this shore within a couple of miles. 1100 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 6. The year the cutters were about the Americans were pretty well kept off. It is a great inconvenience to them to be kept out of the shore fishing. With an off-shore wind they often throw over bait aud draw the mackerel off. Certainly the shores around here are a benefit to the Americans. 7. The mackerel fishing begins about the first of July, and lasts till the end of September, any way. 8. As a general thing, people here with nets can get as many herring as they want; they are used for bait. Every boat uses on an average seven or eight barrels for the season, that is, the small boats along here, The large ones use much more. JAMES CONROY. Sworn to at Kildare, in Prince County, in Prince Edward Island, this 27th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JOSEPH MacGILVRAY, J. P. for Prince County, Prince Edward Island. NO. 45 I, JAMES F. WHITE, of Alberton, in Prince County, in Prince Edward Island, merchant, make oath and say: 1. That I have been engaged in the fishing business for the last fifteen years as the owner of boats and vessels. I know the fishing grounds well, and I know where both boats and schooners fish, and the best fishing grounds. At the present time I have one schooner and ten boats, carry- ing about fifty men, engaged in fishing. 2. That about forty boats are fishing out of Cascumpec Harbor during the present year. These forty boats are manned by about one hundred aud fifty men. The average yearly catch of each boat is about seventy- five barrels of mackerel, fifty quintals of codfish, and fifty quintals of hake. Herring are caught along the shore, and are used for bait. Each fishing stage, in an average year, uses about three hundred barrels of herring for bait. 3. The American fleet generally enters the bay during the month of June or the beginning of July. The mackerel are then generally on shore. The Americans are often afraid to follow the mackerel as close to the shore as the fish come, owing to the water being too shoal, close to the shore, for their vessels, and then they launch their boats and follow the mackerel inshore in them. 4, The mackerel generally move off shore about the first of October. The off-shore catch is very uncertain, owing to the weather in the fall being often bad. 5. Daring the summer months the Americans invariably fish within three miles of the shore, and do very much damage to our boat-fishing. They come in among our boats and draw off the mackerel. For the past ten years I think the average number of American vessels would be two hundred and fifty, and they average five hundred barrels each year. The year before last (1875) some vessels took eleven hundred barrels out of the bay in three trips. Last year the mackerel were scarce, and the highest catch about three hundred and fifty barrels. I never knew the inackerel so scarce in the bay as they were last year. This year (1877) pr in a are good, the mackerel plenty ; the bay appears to be full of them. 6. When the cutters were about, watching the fishing grounds, the American fleet would go out of the harbor, send one of their number to AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1101 keep watch off Kildare Cape, while the balance of the fleet would fish inshore, and the watching-vessel would signal if there was any sign of the cutters. Whenever such signal was given, they would stop fishing and stand out to sea. When the cutter was gone they would come in again. I have seen this done myself. 7. Fully three-quarters of the schooners’ catch is taken within three wiles of the shore, and I may say the whole of the boats’ catch. 8. The number of boats fishing here has trebled in the last three years. The reason of this inerease is that other business is depressed, and fishermen from the United States, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia are coming here to settle, attracted by the good fish- ing, so that we are now able to get crews to man our boats, which for- merly we were unable to do, Another reason is that the year 1875 was a very good year, and owing to the successful prosecution of the fishing that year people’s attention was turned to the business, and they were incited to go into it. 9. The boat-fishers all look upon the arrival of the American fleet as the end of the good fishing. Too much bait is thrown from the vessels, and the boats have to give way to the vessels. The shore fishermen always look upon the arrival of the fleet to fish among them as a great loss and injury to them. 10. Generally there are more than enough herring caught aiong the shore for bait ; this year, however, the herring fishery was a failnre. 11. The Americans land here a good deal and transship their fish. This is a very great advantage for them. The advantage is that, when a vessel starts for a trip, she can only fit out for a short time, some five or six weeks, and having the right to transship, they are able to refit. They in this way save about a fortnight each trip, which amounts to an additional trip, for the summer. They can also generally buy their bar- rels and salt here cheaper than at home. They often come here and buy all their barrels, bringing none from home. I have supplied them myself. The right of transshipment saves them time. 12. The mackerel season is short, lasting, at the outside, from about the middle of June till the middle of October. 13. The mackerel, in spring, come down the Nova Scotian shore, and then strike up the bay to the Magdalen Islands, from there some shoals move toward the bend of this island, and others toward Bay Chaleur, Gaspé, and round there. The Americans are well acquainted with this habit of mackerel and follow them. They have very smart schooners, and follow the fish along the shore, taking their cue, to a great extent, from’what they see our boats doing. 14, In average years, the shores of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence are lined with mackerel. Itis their home. American skippers of long ex- perience say that they never want to go fnrther than three miles away from Cascumpec H arbor to catch mackerel. - 15. It isa very great advantage for the American cod-fishermen to be “ allowed to come inshore to get bait, ice, and other requirements. 16. The mackerel are the principal part of our fishery, and when our men go out the mackerel are the principal object they have in view. JAS. F. WHITE. Sworn to at Cascumpeg, in Prince County, in Prince Edward Islan, this 26th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JOSEPH MacGILVRAY, J. P. for Prince County. 1102 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 8. I, MEDDIE GALLANT, of Big Mimnigash, in Prince County, in Prince Edward Island, tisherman and fish-dealer, make oath and say : 1. That I have been engaged in fishing for the last twelve years. I have fished myself entirely from boats. I also owned a vessel called the “ Break-of-day,” for two years engaged in fishing. I am acquainted with the fishing grounds from this part of the island round Tignish, New London, Rustico, and nearly round to the east point of this island. I have also been in the herring fishing at the Magdalen Islands. 2. That there about two hundred and forty boats now engaged in fish- ing between Campbellton, on this shore, and the North Cape of this isl- and—a distance of about twenty-two miles. From the North Cape to Cape Kildare there are at least one hundred and sixty boats engaged in fishing. From Kildare Cape to Cascumpec Harbor there are at least eighty boats engaged in fishing. 3. In the last five years the number of boats engaged in fishing in the above distances has at least doubled. At this run alone there has been avery great increase. Eight years ago there were only eight boats belonging to this run, now there are forty-five. The boats are twice as good iu material, fishing outfit, in sailing, in equipment, in rigging, and in every way, as they were five years ago. There isa great deal more money invested in fishing now than there was. Nearly every one is now going into the business about here. The boats, large and small together, take crews of about three men each. That is besides the men employed at the stages about the fish, who are a considerable number. 4, The reasons for the increase in the number of boats and in the capital invested in the business are, that people find it pays. It has always, even in the worst years, paid us here. Another reason is that people are getting so numerous that they have to go into fishing as a means of support. They cannot get employment in other ways, and there is not enough land for them, and they are always able to make good wages. I never yet knew a year when a man would not make good wages if he stuck to the fishing. When I was fishing myself in a _ boat I used to make from fifty to sixty dollars a month off my own ine. 5. That there is a class of men springing up who are entirely devoted to fishing, and make their living by it and by nothing else. This class has only begun to come on within the last few years. 6. That in the sammer of 1874, which was a good fishing year, my own boats, four in number, caught eleven hundred barrels of mackerel, or two hundred and seventy-five barrels each boat. One man in one of these boats caught twenty-six thousand three hundred mackerel on his own line, and the lowest number caught by any fisherman on board my boats was about seventeen thousand mackerel. Three of those boats carried three hands each, and the fourth boat carried four hands. In the year 1875 my boats, six in number, averaged eighty barrels each ; they also got some ling and codfish. Last year, which was the worst year we ever had, we caught in my boats, seven in number, an average of seventy barrels of mackerel each boat. We do not do much in cod and hake fishing here. This year gives good signs of good mackerel fishing, as the mackerel are now much thicker than usual in the bay, and we have already caught some. Taking one year with another, for the last five years, the average catch of mackerel for each of my boats has been one hundred and twenty barrels. My average catch is, I AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1103 believe, the largest on this shore; the other boats would average about one hundred barrels each. This is on the south side of the North Cape. 7. The best mackerel fishing we ever have here is about two miles oft the shore. Three-quarters, and in fact nearly the whole, of the mack- erel are caught within three miles of the shore. 8. The American fishing-schooners generally come down here fishing about the 1st of July, and stop till October. I have seen three or four hundred sail of them out here fishing. Last year there were not quite somany. They fish right in among the boats. When the Americans see the boats getting fish they come right in among them, and the boats have to move away and give them room. They take the school of mackerel from the boats, and the boats have to move away somewhere else to try to raise the fish. I have often seen this done by the Ameri- can schooners. I have seen boats come ashore with their spars knocked out by the Yankee schooners. The-way they take the mackerel off is that they come in among the boats and throw their bait, which is gen- erally better than ours, and then, instead of lying to anchor, they drift off, carrying the mackerel with them. They thus cause great loss and injury to our boat-fishing. 9. Before the American schooners come around we generally have good fishing, but when they come we find our fishing begin to slack off; it is not so good. They throw so much bait that small schools of mack- erel are sunk and feed on the bottom, and we sometimes have bad fish- ing for a fortnight after that. Tbe Americans clean their fish ou board of their vessels and throw the offal overboard, and that destroys the fishing. When we used to gib the mackerel on the fishing ground and throw the gibs and refuse over, we always found that the fish left the place, so that we had to give up cleaning out on the fishing ground, and now we bury the offal on shore, so that it will not get into the ran and be carried out to the fishing grounds. I therefore believe that the American practice of throwing the offal overboard does great injury to the mackerel and other fisheries. It surfeits the fish and frightens them off. 10. When the cutters were about here they used to frighten the American schooners off a good deal, but the cutters that were here were too big for the purpose. Their smoke could be seen ten and fifteen miles off, and that gave the schooners plenty of time generally to escape. IL have often seen the American schooners clearing out to sea on an alarm of the cutter’s approach. I believe a few schooners of sixty or seventy tons each, well fitted out and well manned, would, as cutters, be quite sufficient to protect all the inshore fisheries. Ten would certainly be enough. The reason the schooners would make the best cutters is that they could not be readily distinguished from the American schooners, and some of them could always be on the ground. 11. The right of transshipment is of very great value to the Ameri- -cans. It saves them at least three weeks each trip, and that right in ‘the very best of the fishing season. That, in the season, would be fully equal.to a trip saved to the schooners. They can come into our ports and discharge their catches, and take out another outfit, and lose little or no time, not more than two or three days. They can always get refitted here. They can get their fish into the market much quicker owing to this right. They are enabled to catch good markets. The mackerel-market is a very uncertain one, and it is a great advantage to be able to send the fish into it on short notice; and owing to the right of trans-shipment, mackerel can now be sent to Boston in four or five days, instead of taking three or four weeks. The fish are also better by 1104 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. being sent in quick. I have found, by actual experience, that the longer mackerel are kept on board of the vessels the worse they get, and a week or ten days less on board makes a big difference. When left on board long the mackerel get knocked about and get to look bad; they also get warm and the pickle often sours on them. 12. The herring fishery around this island is very valuable, as to it the island fishermen owe their supply of bait, and they also use the herring for home consumption. 13. At the Magdalen I have seen the Americans seiping herring and loading large vessels with them. They seine the herring close in to the shore, and get large quantities of them. In the spring of 1876, when [ was down herring-fishing at the Magdalen Islands, there were over two hundred sail of American vessels fishing for herring, and they were all fishing right inshore. The Americans not only take the herring home from the Magdalen Islands, but also ship them away to the West Indies and to other markets. That herring fishery is a very valuable one. 14. The mackerel generally strike the Magdalen Islands first and then come down here. Experienced fishermen know how the mackerel come, and take advantage of that knowledge. The Americans know all about the habits of the mackerel and follow them. As soon as the mackerel get scarce at the Magdalen Islands the Americans come right down to this island after them. MEDDIE GALLANT. Sworn to at Big Mimnigash, in Prince County, in Prince Edward Island, this 30th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JOSEPH MacGILVRAY, J. P. for Prince County, Prince Edward Island. No. 9. I, JAMES SKERRY, of Cascumpec, in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, fisherman, make oath and say: 1. That I have been in the fishing business, one way or another, for over ten years, most of the time in boats and three years in American schooners. 2. That the number of boats along this shore has increased in the past few years, and the boats are a great deal better. The boats, taking one with another, average about four hands each. 3. That I sailed in the fishing schooner Lady Franklin, of the State of Massachusetts, on a fishing trip in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, about eight years ago, and two years later in the American schooner Game- cock of Boston. 4, That we came intothe bay in the Lady Franklin about the twentieth of July, and fished until sometime in November. She was about sixty- four tons burden, and carried sixteen hands. We caught about two hundred and seventy-five barrels of mackerel in her; that was a poor season. 5. That I went into the bay in the Gamecock about the Ist of August, and stopped in the bay till sometime in November. She was about 90 tons burden, and carried 18 or 19 hands. We landed one load of fish in Charlottetown out of her and then went into the bay again. The trip we Janded in Charlottetown we had about 400 barrels of mackerel. The second trip we did very badly; only taking about 50 barrels. 6. There is certainly a great advantage to be able to transship. Auother trip could very nearly be made while going home with a load of fish and refitting. By being able to transship here that time is saved, AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1105 and when the markets are up it is a great advantage to be able to trans- ship and catch the market. The schooners can refit here just as cheaply as at home, and without losing much time. 7. The fishing grounds are best near the shore. The best catches the Americans ever make is in near the shore. The best fishing grounds are at the Magdalen Islands, up the Bay Chaleur, and at the north side of Prince Edward Island. In all these places they fish in near the shore. I should say that fully three-quarters of the mackerel caught on board the vessels in which I fished were caught close inshore. The way the Americans do is to come inshore, throw bait, and drift off, carrying the fish off with them. The Americans could never make good catches when kept from fishing within three miles of the shore. It would not be much worth their while to come into the bay at all, if they could not fish within three miles. 8. When the cutters were about they did a great deal of harm to the American fishing. When the cutters hove in sight the vessels, even if they were getting the mackerel, had to leave and make off the land. Half a dozen schooners, as cutters, would keep the American fishermen clear of the fishing places off this island. 9. The American schooners do a great deal of harm to the island fishermen. They come in and heave quantities of bait and drift off the shore, drawing the mackerel after them. They are also a great nuisance, as they come in and lee-bow the boats: that is, they run up to leeward of the boats, and throw bait and sail up under the lee-bow of the boats, drawing the fish clear away from the boats. 10. This year promises to be a good year for mackerel. I have seen more schools of mackerel this year already than I have seen any year during the last six years. JAMES SKERRY. Sworn to at Cascumpec, in Prince County, Prince. Edward Island, this 30th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JOSEPH MAcGILVRAY, J. P. for Prince County, Prince Edward Island. No. 10. I, Joun CHAMPION, of Cascumpec, in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, fisherman, make oath and say : 1. That I have been engaged in fishing for ten years, and have a practical acquaintance with all its details. Part of my experience has been in boats, and four years iu island schooners, of which I was master, and one summer in an American fishing schooner. 1. That there are fully fifty boats sailing out of Cascumpec Harbor engaged in fishing. During the last five years the number of boats along this shore engaged in fishing have fully doubled. The boats are very much better than they were then; they are now a splendid class of boats. I do not think they can be much better. They are cid in sailing, better sea-boats, and better equipped in every way for - fishing. 2. That the reason I would assign for the increase in the number of -boats is that people find that the fishing business is a paying one. 3. The average crew of the boats all through, large and small, would be four men each, clear of the men employed about the fish ashore ; there are a considerable number of men employed on shore in connec- tion with the boats. 70 F 1106 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 4, That the average catch of codfish per boat, out of this harbor, would be about one hundred quintals. They would average at least twenty-five barrels of herring a boat, but all the boats do not go in for herring- fishing, or the average for each boat would be much larger ; if all fished the average would be one hundred barrels, worth $3 a barrel. The average catch of mackerel per boat would be about eighty barrels, some catch more and some less, worth $8 a barrel. 5. The mackerel are nearly all caught inside of three miles of the shore, that is the best fishing for both codfish and mackerel. The half of the codfish are caught within three miles of the shore. 6. The sounds of the hake are an important item in fishing, there are about three pounds of sounds to the quintal of hake. Each boat lands onan average about one hundred and fifty pounds of sounds in a year. The sounds are worth from eighty cents up to a dollar and a quarter per pound. There is also about a gallon of oil, worth about sixty cents, to the quintal of hake, so that the sounds and oil are worth considerably more than the fish from which they are taken. 7. That thesea lobster-fishery is very valuablein this part, and is now being pretty extensively prosecuted. The best and nearly all the lob- sters are caught out to sea, from half a mile to one mile from the shore. The lobster-fishery is increasing. There are now about five thousand lobsters a day caught. here. 8. That I commanded the island schooner Alberton for three years, commencing in the year 1868. She fished each year, but only for about two months each season. She wastwenty-eighttons burden, and carried a crew of ten hands. The first year she took about two hundred barrels of mackerel; the second year she did about the same. In fact, she averaged two hundred barrels of mackerel each year. She did not fish the whole season any year. 9. That I commanded the island schooner Bay State in the year 1873. She was also of twenty-eight tons burden, and carried ten hands. She did not fish quite two months. She took one hundred and seventy-five barrels of mackerel. 10. That in the year 1872 I fished for two months in the bay on board the American schooner Flying Fish, of seventy-five tons burden, carrying eighteen hands. She landed five hundred barrels of mackerel, only making the one trip. 31. The principal part of the schooner fishing is done within three miles of the shore. Some of the American vessels do all their fishing inshore. About three-quarters of the fishing done by the Flying Fish was done inshore. 12. That I do not think that it would be any advantage whatever for the Canadians or islanders to have the right to fish on the American coasts. We would not bother with it, as our own fisheries are so much better. There is an occasional good year for fishing on their shores, but not very often. Last year was a good year on their coasts. _ 13. On an average, there are eight hundred American vessels engaged in the cod, hake, and mackerel fisheries in the bay—that is, including this island coast, the Magdalen Islands, the New Brunswick and Nova Scotian coasts. There have been as many as fifteen hundred sail in a season, according to their own accounts. I myself have seen three hun- dred sail of them in a day. 14. That the American schooners do a great deal of harm to the boat fishing. They have run into boats; they come in and lee-bow the boats regularly ; they also come in and throw large quantities of bait, and AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1107 drift off drawing the mackerel after them. They sometimes spoil a a boat’s summer’s work. 15. Their cod-fishermen do harm to the fishing by throwing overboard the offal to the codfish. We know well enongh when we see the Ameri- can fleet coming that there is an end to our good fishing. The fisher- men here look upon the arrival of the Americans as a serious injury and damage to the island fishing. 16. That there is, on an average, three hundred sail of American vessels every year engaged in herring fishing at the Magdalen Islands; they seine the fish, and take, on an average, about one thousand barrels each vessel. The herring fishing there is right inshore. I were herring fish- ing at the Magdalen Islands three years, and each year there were about three hundred sail of Americans there fishing. They send some home and more they ship away to foreign markets. That herring fishery is a very important trade to them. 17. That the right of transshipment is a very great advantage to the Americans, in two ways: they can ship their fish in time to catch good markets, which is very important to them, as the mackerel market is a very fluctuating one; they also save ten days clear fishing, right in the heart of the fishing season, thatis clear of the three days they would take to unload and refit her. In good years that would amount to an- other trip in the course of the summer. The fish are also better and command higher prices by being sent up quickly; if kept in the vessels till they get to market, they are not nearly so good nor worth so much. JOHN CHAMPION. Sworn to at Alberton, in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, this 30th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JOSEPH MacGILVRAY, J. P. for Prince County. Nei 23. I, SEBASTIAN DAVIDSON, of Tignish, in Prince County, in Prince Ed- ward Island, accountant, make oath and say: 1. I have been connected with the fishing business as accountant and bookkeeper in different establishments for over twenty years in this part of the country. The business, so far as I have been engaged in it, has always been with boats. 2. There are a hundred boats fishing from Kildare to the North Cape of this island. The number of boats, I should say, has doubled in the last ten years. The quality of the boats has very much improved; they are fitted out better, have every requisite for fishing, and are better sail- ers than formerly; they can now stay out, instead of being obliged to return to shore every evening. 3. The American fleet is not now so numerous as it was a few years ago. A few years ago, before the Reciprocity Treaty was done away with, I-should say it numbered from three to four hundred sail. I have seen them as thick as bees all along the shore. They used to fish all along this shore, up Bay Chaleur, at the Magdalen fslands, at Port Hood and other places, within three miles of the shore along here. 4, The herring fishery is important for bait about here; it was a fail- _ure here this year except in traps. 5. The right of transshipment is a great advantage to the Americans, inasmuch as they can land their first, refit, and be on the grounds again without much loss of time. They are also enabled by virtue of this right to take advantage of the fluctuations of the markets, and can even 1108 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. sell their fish “‘ to arrive.” Under ordinary circumstances, I should say that the right of landing their fish, instead of taking them to the States in their own vessels, \ ould be a saving of a fortnight each trip. They used to make two trips a summer. SEBN. DAVIDSON. Sworn to at Tignish, in Prinee County, in Prince Edward Island, this 27th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JOSEPH MacGILVRAY, J. P. for Prince County, Prince Edward Island. No. 12. I, WILLIAM CHAMPION, of Cascumpec, in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, fisherman and fish-dealer, make oath and say : 1. I have been engaged in fishing for over ten years in both boats and schooners, one summer of which time I fished on board the American schooner Banner, of Belfast, Me. 2. There are fifty boats, I should say, fishing out of this harbor (Cas- cumpec) at the present time. The number has trebled in the last ten years. But Kildare, Tignish, Mimnigash, Nail Pond, and that way generally, the number has increased at a greater rate than here. The boats themselves are also very much better than they were some years ago. The numberis still increasing; has increased ten boats this spring in this harbor alone. 3. The average catch of mackerel for each boat is about seventy-five barrels, and about fifty quintals of codfish, and the same of hake. 4, Each boat carries on an average a crew of four men. _5. The boats fish along the shores, mainly within three miles of the shore. There are about nine-tenths of the mackerel caught by the boats caught within three miles of the shore; the best ground is within that distance. About two-thirds of the codfish and half the hake caught in boats are caught within three miles of the shore; in fact, the best ground for the two last-mentioned fish is about three miles out or thereabouts. Down eastward on this island, and about Port Hood, Antigonish, Cape George, and other places in that direction, the boats, and also the Ameri- can schooners, fish close inshore. . 6. I fished two summers in an island schooner, and one in the Ameri- can Banner; the Banner was about eighty tons burden ; I was fishing in her the year the cutters were around for four months; we had a license to fish, so the cutters did not disturb us. She carried a crew of six- teen hands; we caught four hundred barrel of mackerel, of which we transshipped three hundred at Charlottetown ; we were only three days out of the bay landing and transshipping the fish, and saved more than a fortnight in time. 7. The year I was in the Banner she and other American vessels used often to drift down on the boats, and used often to “lee-bow” them, thowing out bait, and taking the fish away ; there were about four hun- dred Americans fishing that year; we fished right up in the Bay Cha- leur and around the other shores of the provinces; there were also a great many seiners out that year. 8. The average number of the American fleet each year is between four and five hundred. They catch on an average between five and six hundred barrels of mackerel each; the Americans fish as a rule near the shores; I do not think it would be worth their while to come down to fish unless allowed to fish within three miles of the shore ; the AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1109 fishermen and captains say they would not come down if kept away from the shore fishing; our captain insisted on getting a license be- fore he would fish, and he and the crew paid for it; if there were enough cutters about, the Americans would keep away; ten or twenty small vessels fitted out as cutters would keep them off; schooners would be best for cutters. 9. By fishing near the shore the Americans do a great deal of harm to the mackerel, they chuck out so much bait. They have the very best of bait, and can carry the mackerel off shore with them, as the mack- erel follow the bait. They ‘“‘ lee-bow” the boats and prevent their catch- ing fish. The Americans often get right in among the boats fishing and spoil their chances of a catch. 10. Fishermen in boats look upon the arrival of the American fleet as the ruin of the good fishing, and I know it to be the fact. Their coming is thus a very great loss and injury to boat fishermen. The boats lie at anchor and the schooners drift down upon them, when the former have to get out of the way. 11. The mackerel fishing begins as a rule about the twenty-fifth of June and lasts till about the end of October. 12. The right of transshipment is a very great advantage to the Americans. They are thus enabled to take advantage of the markets. When we transshipped the three hundred barrels at Charlottetown we got twenty-four dollars and fifty cents American currency a barrel for them ; had we been obliged to take them down ourselves we would have got to the market more than a week later with the fish than they ar- rived by transshipment, and then the price would have been seventeen dollars American money a barrel, so that by the transshipment of those three hundred barrels we saved exactly two thousand two hundred and fifty dollars American money, or seven dollars and a half a barrel, be- sides being able to remain on the fishing grounds. There were a num- ber of other Americans at the same time who transshipped at the same time and gained in the same way. The right of transshipment also enables them to refit and save a great deal of time during the fishing season. 13. The mackerel come in here in the begining of the season from the southward and eastward, and work northwardly and westwardly till about the middle of August, and then work back, striking this island both ways. The Americans know all about this and follow the fish. They know the course of the fish so well that they occasionally lay in wait to meet the schools of mackerel. I have known them go into Georgetown and wait in this way. 14. The Americans seine the fish and do a great dealof harm. I have known them off the Nail Pond shore, while seining for mackerel, strike upon a school of herring and take about five hundred barrels, which they threw away and the herring were destroyed. WILLIAM CHAMPION. Sworn to at Alberton, in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, this 26th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. ; JOSEPH MacGILVRAY, Justice of the Peace for Prince County, Prince Edward Island. 1110 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 13. DoMINION OF CANADA, Province of Prince Edward Island, Kings County, to wit: I, James McDonaLp, of East Point, in Kings County, in Prince Ed- ward Island, mariner and fisherman, make oath and say: 1. That I have been personally engaged in the mackerel and cod fish- ing since the year 1848, and since the year 1854 I have been master of a fishing vessel. From the year 1848 to 1853 I was fishing in American vessels. I commenced the mackerel fishing in 1850. At that time the number of American vessels engaged in the mackerel fishery would be about 500 sail, and that year their average catch would be 600 barrels per, vessel, of which fully nine-tenths would be caught inshore, within the three-mile limit. 2. From the year 1853 to 1860 I was fishing in British vessels. Dur- ing that time there would be an average of 450 American vessels in the gulf engaged in the mackerel fishery. 3. That since the year 1860 I have still been engaged in the mackerel fishing. That the average number of American vessels during the four- teen or fifteen years next succeeding the year 1860, in the gulf, engaged in the mackerel fishery, has been 400. The average catch of these ves- sels during that time would be about 500 barrels per vessel. And I have no hesitation in saying that nine-tenths of all the mackerel caught within the last fifteen or seventeen years has been caught within the three-mile limits. 4, That when the mackerel arrive at the gulf they first strike the Mag- dalens, but there are none caught till they reach the Bay Chaleur and Seven Islands, where the first fare of the season is generally ob- tained. They then cross over to North Cape and along the north side of the island, keeping inshore. 5. That in the latter part of the season, from the middle of Septem- ber to the first part of November, the weather will not permit of fishing any distance from the shore, being too rough; and during that part of the season not one barrel in 5,000 is caught outside the limits. 6. That during the last two or three years the number of American vessels fishing in the gulf has fallen away considerably, owing partly to the mackerel not frequenting our coasts during these years in such large quantities as in former years, but this year the prospects are good. 7. That the right to transship is of great advantage to the Americans, as they thereby save time, and gives them an extra trip which they would not otherwise have. 8. That the large amount of offal thrown overboard by the Americans poisons the mackerel, and is an injury to the fishing ground. 9. That when we saw boats fishing near the shore we made a practice of sailing down on them, and with our good bait took all the mackerel, and the boats would have to give up till the mackerel came back again. The vessels coming in among the boats are also likely to scatter the mackerel, and the boats not being able to follow them any distance, lose them altogether. 10. That the Canadian and British cutters and men-of-war did not pre- vent the Americans from fishing within the limits, for when they saw one of them coming they stood out to sea till she passed, and then re- sumed their fishing operations within the limits again. 11. From an experience of nearly thirty years spent in mackerel fishing I would say that the best mackerel fishing ground is close inshore, say AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1111 from one-half a mile to two and one-half miles from the shore, off the north side of the island, and that if the Americans could be prevented from fishing within the three-mile limit they would not frequent our shores at all for the purpose of fishing. During the last six or seven years the mackerel have kept more inshore than ‘in former years. In fact, during the last few years, scarcely a mackerel would be caught outside the three-mile limit. 12. There is also a large fleet of American vessels engaged in the herring fishery off the Magdalens, Labrador, and Newfoundland; [ should say about two hundred and fifty sails. These vessels are gener- ally of a larger class than those engaged in the mackerel fishery, some of them carrying as many as three thousand barrels. From my experi- ence and personal knowledge I would estimate that the Americans catch and take from these shores 150,000 barrels of herring annually, all of which are caught close up to the shore and well within the three mile limit. They also buy large quantities of herring from the shore-fisher- men in Newfoundland, but these are not included in the above estimate. JAMES McDONALD. ~ Sworn to at Souris, in Kings County, in Prince Edward Island, this 26th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES R. MacLEAN, J. P. for Kings County. No. 14. I, JAMES H. DaAvinson, of Tignish, in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, fish-dealer, make oath and say: 1. I have been for the last seven years running a fishing stage at the North Cape, and have been engaged in fishing all my life, as a practical fisherman, in boats all the time except one year, when I was on board the schooner Frank of this island. 2. That I believe there are fully two hundred boats fishing between Cascumpec Harbor and North Cape. During the last seven years the number of boats engaged in fishing has certainly trebled. The boats are better models, better rigged, better equipped, are better sailers, and are superior in every respect to what they used to be. During the last ten years the capital invested in the boat-fishing business along this coast has multiplied tenfold, and that is a moderate statement. 3. The boats will average three men to a boat, all round, for crew, and one man on shore, so that the two hundred boats would give, during the summer, constant employment to eight hundred men, and the num- ber of boats is constantly increasing. I believe that the fishing in this part of the island is still in its infancy. 4, I should put the average catch of mackerel per boat, taking one year with another for the last ten years, at seventy-five barrels, and the average catch of codfish and hake at fifty quintals. The boats nearly always catch as many herring as they require. They get abundance for mackerel bait, for home use, and some to export. The boats would re- quire, on an average, fifteen barrels of herring for bait, each boat, during the mackerel season. 5. Seven-eighths of the boat-fishing is done within three miles of the shore. All the mackerel and herring are caught within that limit, the codfish sometimes further out. 6. The reason for the increase of the number of boats is that people find it a profitable bnsiness, and the young men are going into it more and more. Thereisaspecial class growing up now, whoare entirely de- voted to and altogether dependent on fishing. Those men who devote 1112 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. themselves entirely to it and study the habits of the fish, are by far the best and most successful fishermen. The business of fishing is now be- coming respectable, whereas formerly it was not considered so. The fish- ery affords employment to an increasing population, which has not land of its own to farm. People gather from the inland parts to the fishing parts, in order to get employment in fishing. People come from other provinces here attracted by the fishing. It is particularly the mackerel fishing that is increasing. 7. The year I was out fishing in the Frank; we made a poor year’s fish- ing. We made two trips in the bay and caught only three hundred barrels of mackerel. The Frank was about sixty-three tons and carried seventeen hands. 8. The year I was in the Frank was the year the cutters were around, and there were a good many Americans kept away and sometaken. We were all in and about the American fleet that year, and they would num- ber three hundred sail. They know the inshore fishing is the best and they will run risks rather than not have it. I do not think it would be worth their while to come down here to fish in the gulf if they could not fish within three miles of the shore; and it certainly would not be worth their while if they could not fish within the three-mile limit. I should certainly say that seven-eighths of the catch of the American catch is caught within three miles of the shore. 9. They lie among the boats. When they see the boats getting mack- erel they come up and lee-bow the boats, throwing bait and drawing off the fish, when the boats have to leave. They certainly do harm to the fish- ing by throwing the offal overboard. By it the fish are glutted and poi- soned. They also interfere with the bait-nets and get foul of the set-lines and trawls. The set-lines are now being used very much along here, and are increasing very fast, and as they increase, the damage done by the Americans is becoming greater. 10. The right of transshipment is of very great consequence to the Americans, as they save the time they would otherwise consume in going home with their fish, and that right in the middle of the fishing season. The time saved in this way would certainly be equal to another trip for the vessel during the season. By having this right they are also enabled to take advantage of the markets, so that if the price of mackerel is up they can at once send their fish up to take advantage of the high price. They can do this even if they have only a few fish. - The mackerel market is one of the most fluctuating in the world, so that it is a very great advantage to get them into market quickly. The mackerel also get worse-looking the longer they are kept and command a smaller price. If they are keptin the hold of the vessel they are get- ting peer all the time. By being transshipped this deterioration is avoided. 11. There are plenty of salmon off this shore, and since attention has been directed to them, the salmon fishery is found to pay, and when properly attended to it will become very profitable. They are caught off this coast in nets and traps. It is only recently that they were known to be there. There are also plenty of shad and some bass off this coast, which can be caught in traps. The sounds taken from hake are now very valuable. For three years here the price of sounds averaged a dollar a pound, and the lowest price they have sold for was thirty-five cents. They would average seventy- five cents a pound one year with another. I would say that about four pounds of sounds are got to a quintal of green hake weighing two AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1113 hundred and eighty pounds. The value of the sounds is greater than the hake from which they are taken. 13. Codfish tongues and sounds are also put up and sold to some ex- tent out of this island and are valuable. 14. The oil taken from the codfish and hake is of considerable im- portance, and there would be, on an average, about half a gallon, worth twenty-five cents, taken from every quintal of hake and codfish. JAMES H. DAVIDSON. Sworn to at North Cape, in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, this 28th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JOSEPH MacGILVRAY, J. P. for Prince County, Prince Edward Island. No. 15. DOMINION OF CANADA, Province of Prince Edward Island, Kings County, to wit: I, JoSsEPH CAMPBELL, of Souris, in Kings County, in Prince Edward Island, master mariner, make oath and say: 1. That I have been personally engaged in the fisheries since the year 1855. From 1855 to 1858 I was fishing in boats off the north side of the island. We caught all our fish at that time within three miles from the shore. 2. That from the year 1858 to 1867 I was constantly and actively en- gaged in fishing aboard American vessels, and during that time I fished on all the fishing-grounds. 3. We got our first fare generally in the Bay Chaleur. Fully nine- mere of this fare would be caught close inshore, within the three-mile imits, 4, The mackerel, after leaving the Bay Chaleur, strike across to the North Cape of Prince Edward Island, and some of them return to the Magdalenes. We generally got our second fare from the north cape of the island to East Point and at the Magdalenes, generally catching the fish within the limits. I would say that fully seven-eighths of this fare is caught within the three-mile limits. 5. From the year 1863 to 1867 the average number of American ves- sels fishing for mackerel in the gulf would, in my opinion, be about five hundred sail, and during those years the catch was good, averaging about six hundred barrels per vessel per season. 6. From my personal knowledge and actual observation I would say that fully seven-eighths of that quantity of mackerel were caught in- shore, that is, within three miles from the shore. 7. Our usual mode was to go in close to the shore; if in bold water, close up to the rocks, throw our bait and drift off, the mackerel follow- ing after the bait. When we lost the mackerel we again tacked for the shore. . 8. That the American fleets of fishing-vessels very materially injure the boat-fishing off shore. The Americans have always made a prac- tice of sailing down among the boats, and by throwing bait and drift- ing off draw the mackerel away with them. This is a very common _ occurrence, and must have been a great injury to the boat-fishing. 9. I think that the large amount of offal thrown overboard by the fishing fleets has a tendency to injure the fishing. The fish eat up this dirty and poisonous food and they will not then follow or take the bait. In this way this practice must be very hurtful to the fishing-grounds. 1114 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 10. That the American vessels fished within the limits almost as much after the expiration of the Reciprocity Treaty as before. The treaty did not seem to make any material difference. The cutters did not to any extent prevent the Americans from fishing within the limits, as we could always see them coming, and had time to get outside the limits. Sometimes we merely pulled up our lines and fishing-gear, and as soon as the cutter would pass we would resume our fishing. 11. From the year 1867 to 1872 I was master of a British fishing- schooner. During these years there would be about four hundred and fifty American vessels in the bay, and their average catch per vessel would be about four hundred and fifty barrels per season. Fully seven- eighths, in my opinion, of all the mackerel caught in the bay by Amer- icans during the years between 1867 to 1872 would be taken within the three-mile limit. 12. The American vessels in large numbers would often sail down on the few British vessels fishing in the bay and lee-bow them and by their larger numbers generally succeeded in drawing away the fish from the British vessels. 13. The right of transshipping is a great benefit to the Americans. They thereby save time enough to make an extra trip, which they could not otherwise make without this right. 14. That I have also been engaged for several years in the herring- fishery off Labrador in American vessels. There are about two hun- dred and fifty to three hundred American vessels engaged on the coasts of Labrador, Newfoundland, and the Magdalenes in this fishery. These vessels are of a larger build than those engaged in the mackerel-fishery. The average quantity taken from these coasts by these vessels would be about one thousand barrels per vessel per season, making a total of from 250,000 to 300,000 barrels per year. A proportion of this quantity is bought from the fishermen along the coasts of Newfoundland. I would say about one-half are bought. All the herring are caught close in- shore, from one-quarter to one-half mile from the shore. JOSEPH CAMPBELL. Sworn to at Souris, in Kings County, in Prince Edward Island, this twenty-seventh day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES R. MACLEAN, J. P. for Kings County. No. 16. DOMINION OF CANADA, Province of Prince Edward Island, Kings County, to wit : I, ALEXANDER CHIVERIE, of Souris, in Kings County, in Prince Ed- ward Island, formerly fisherman, now merchant, make oath and say : 1. That I commenced mackerel fishing in the year 1847, in an Amer- ican schooner named the “ Triton.” In those years there would be from 500 to 600 sail in the bay. The schooner I was in was generally in company with 100 to 200 sail. At that time I did not hear anything of the three mile limits. It was not till the year 1852 that I first heard any talk regarding the limits. 2. The first year I was fishing, we left the American ground in the fall in September, and came to the bay. We fished off the north part of Cape Breton and caught the whole of our fare within three miles from the shore. 3. The custom generally adopted by the fishermen is to go within a mile of the shore, heave our bait and then drift off, taking the fish with us. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1115 4, The cutters did not to any extent prevent the Americans fishing within the limits. They would simply sail off till the cutters had gone by and commence fishing again within the limits. 5. L remained fishing in American vessels till the year 1867. I would say that the average number of American vessels fishing mackerel in the bay, between the years 1847 and 1867, was from four hundred to five hundred sail each year, and that the average catch per vessel during those years was 400 barrels each season. 6. That without a doubt two-thirds of the above quantity was caught within three miles from the shore. 7. That in the year 1867 I was master of a British fishing-schooner. The first trip of that season we fished between the Miramichi and Bay Chaleur. During that trip the fish played ehiefly inshore, about a mile from the shore. At times during that trip I would be getting a good catch, when the American vessels, to the number of fifty or sixty, would come along, and by drawing off the fish spoil my fishing. During that trip the Americans, I would say, caught fully three-fourths of their fare within the three-mile limit. During the second trip of that season I was fishing on the north side of the island and caught all that fare within three miles from the shore. On several occasions during that trip a fleet of American vessels would come up alongside and spoil my fishing. ; 8. That since that year I have not been personally engaged in fish- ing, but I have owned fishing-stages and have had boats engaged in shore-fishing. 9. That I have noticed the American vessels come in among the boats fishing from one to two miles from the shore, heave their bait, and draw off all the mackerel. The boats would then be obliged to give up fishing for that day. This is a very common practice among the American vessels, and I have noticed it on several occasions during the last few years. ; 10. That the numbers of boats engaged in prosecuting the mackerel fisheries have largely increased during the past few years. 11. That fully three-fourths of all the mackerel eaught in the boats is caught inshore well within the three-mile limits. 12. Without a doubt the Americans would not come to the bay at all for fishing purposes if they could be kept outside of the three-mile limit altogether. ALEXANDER CHIVERIE. Sworn to at Souris, in Kings County, in Prince Edward Island, this twenty-seventh day of June, A. D. 1877, before me 2 JAMES R. MacLEAN, J. P. for Kings County. Noy a7. I, JAMES J. MoRRISAY, of Tignish, in Prinee County, Prince Edward Island, fish-stage proprietor, make oath and say : 1. I have fished for four years and have been proprietor of a fishing- stage at Frog Pond the whole time. The first year I had one boat, and caught about forty-five barrels of mackerel in her; that year I also got about one hundred and twenty barrels of herring, worth about three dollars a barrel; I caught about ten quintals of codfish in that boat the same year ; she was a small boat. 2. The second year I had five boats, and caught about four hundred barrels of mackerel. I also caught about eighty quintals of ling the 1116 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. same year, in those boats, and about sixty of codfish, and about two hundred and fifty pounds of sounds, then worth sixty cents a pound. 3. The third year I had six boats, and caught about one hundred and sixty barrels of mackerel, and about forty quintals of codfish and hake, and about fifty-five barrels of herring. That was a really poor year. 4. This year (1877) I have nine boats, and have caught about fifteen barrels of herring. I have also more codfish already caught than I had the whole of last year. This promises to be a good year, so far as I can judge. : na At Nail Pond I should say the number of boats has increased about one-fifth during the last three years. I think the boats are now much better built, rigged, and fitted out than they were. 6. The average crew of the small boats is about three men, of the large boats the crew would be fourmen. There are twenty dollars now invested in the business to the one there was ten years ago. ; 7. The boats get near about the whole of the mackerel caught by them within a mile and a half to two miles of the shore; the boats very sel- dom go beyond two miles out. The hake are generally caught within three miles of the shore, and the codfish generally further out. 8. About three years ago I have seen as many as three hundred American schooners anchored off this shore, within a mile. I have seen some of them fishing so close inshore that they got aground. The principal part of the fishing that I have seen the Americans do, has been within three miles of the shore. Taking one year with another, I do not think it would be worth their while to fit out for the gulf fishing if they could not fish within three miles of the shore. I have heard the American captains say so. 9. I have seen the Americans drift down on the boats, not minding the latter, on several occasions, and on several occasions the boats, lying at anchor, had to cut their cables to save themselves from being sunk. 10. The Americans spoil the fishing in this way: they see the boats fishing and drift down on them, when the boats have to get out of the way and thus lose the mackerel. They have also better bait than we meh by its means draw off the fish, and they throw out a great deal of bait. 11. Very few Americans fished within three miles of the shore the year the cutters were here. I saw them within three miles of the shore, when they saw the cutter’s smoke, clear out. 12. Whenever the Americans heave in the fishermen from boats grumble and complain that the good fishing is at an end, and that the Americans sink the mackerel with bait. The boat-fishermen look upon the arrival of the Americans as a serious loss and injury to themselves. 13, The mackerel season here lasts from about the 20th of June till about the middle of October. 14. I would look upon the right of transshipment as a very great privilege to the Americans, as they could ship away their mackerel without losing much time going with them, and by this right they would be enabled to catch the markets, two or three days often making a very great difference in the mackerel market. They are also enabled through having this right to refit here instead of losing time going home for that purpose. 15. About three years ago the Americans did some seining here, but I have not seen them doing any since. 16. I would give as a reason for the inerease of the number of boats that the young men think they can do better in it; and also because the AWARD: OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Pb ew population is increasing, and also the spirit of enterprise among the people. JAMES MORRISAY. Sworn to at Tignish, in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, this 27th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JOSEPH MacGILVRAY, J. P. for Prince County, Prince Edward Island. No. 18. I, EDWARD HACKETT, of Tignish, in Prince Edward Island, merchant, and member of the Local Parliament for the first district of Prince County, make oath and say: 1. That previously to the last two years I was personally engaged in the fishing business for about fifteen years. Part of this time I carried on a fishing business, and part of the time I was engaged as a practical fisherman. 2. There are now about one hundred boats fishing out of Tignish Harbor alone. The number has increased very much within the last few years. There are larger and better boats now than there were ten years ago; they are better built, rigged, and equipped now than they were then. There is also more capital, by a large amount, invested in the bus ness than there was ten years ago, and the crews are more ex- perienced in fishing than the crews were then. 3. The boats would average about four men to each boat, some hav- ing more and some less. The boats, taking one year with another, would have an average catch of fifty barrels of mackerel to each boat, and they would also average about fifty quintals of codfish and hake to the boat. This is taking the average for both big and small boats. 4, The reason of the increase in the number of boats is, that more people embark in the business and invest capital in it, because they found the fishing to be a remunerative business, and also from the in- crease of population and of enterprise. 5. The herring fishery, as a general thing, is a very reliable fishery ; the fishermen generally catch enough for bait and for home consump- tion. About ten barrels to a boat, of herring, are required for bait dur- ing the. mackerel season. This year the net fishing of herring was a ailure. 6. The boats invariably fish for mackerel, and almost invariably within three miles of the shore. The best mackerel fishing-ground is from one mile to two miles and a half from the shore. _ 4%. The American vessels generally come off here in June, and are re- ported to make generally two trips inthesummer. They generally also fish within three miles of the shore. They take a very large quantity of mackerel in among the boats and are a great annoyance to the boats.. They come in among the boats and throw bait and drift off, car- rying the fish with them. They come in among the boats and often ran them down; they are careless to the injury they may-do to the boats. When they see a boat getting mackerel they make straight for it and draw off the mackerel] by every means they can employ, throwing out bait in large quantities. ' 8. I have often counted a hundred American vessels fishing between North Cape and Cape Kildare, a distance of not more than ten miles; and that would be only a small portion of the whole fleet. ; 9. The right of transshipment is a very great benefit to the American 1118 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. fishermen. When they land their catch of fish they can at once fit-out again and be on the grounds again without the loss of time they would incur by being compelled to go home with their loads. They thus save from two to three weeks in the trip, and that in the very best of the fishing. That would amount to a trip saved in the course of the sum- wer. They are thus enabled also to watch the fluctuations of the mar- kets, the mackerel market being a very variable one, and a few days often making a very great difference in that market. 10. The boat fishermen always rave when they see the Americans come here in numbers, and look upon their arrival as a great loss to themselves. EDWARD HACKETT. Sworn to at Tignish, in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, this 27th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JOSEPH MacGILVRAY, J. P. for Prince County. No. 19. I, MAURICE O’ConnorR, of Kildare Cape, in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, fisherman, make oath and say: 1. That I have been engaged in the fishery as a business for the last eight years; befere that I had been fishing for about two years. I have fished in boats out of Kildare, Nail Pond, and Rustico in this island. 2. There are about forty boats fishing off this shore, this side of any harbor. These are mostly smaller boats than those that fish out of the harbors. They are made small so that they can be easily beached in case of a storm or any other necessity, there being no place of refuge for them on the shore. They are mostly owned by farmers, who want to haul them up often. The number has trebled within the last ten years, and the boats themselves are far better. There is more than twelve times the capital invested in the business on the shore now that there was ten years ago. These boats carry on an average a crew of about three men each. 3. The Americans used to fish off this shore in large numbers. I have seen hundreds of them fishing right inshore among the boats. They stretched right up the shore from this cape as far as one could see. 4. The Americans sometimes run in among the boats and hurt them. If they see the boats getting fish they run in and “ lee-bow” the first thing, throwing bait and taking the fish away. Unless there is a very large body of mackerel where they are fishing, the boats have no chance. 5. The Americans prefer the shore fishing. They fish close in when the wind is off shore, drifting off and taking the fish with them. They throw very much pogie and clam bait, which enabled them to take off the mackerel. I do not think they would come down here to fish if not al- lowed within three miles of the shore. The boat fishermen always look upon the arrival of the American fishermen as a great injury to the boat fishing. The Americans throw so much bait that the mackerel get gorged and will not bite, but go off, the Americans following them. 7. The cutters kept the Americans off the shore a good deal, but they used always try to steal in again. They used to come in then and drift off. When acutter was anywhere near, the Americans kept off; that was a great advantage to the boatmen, as they then had all the shore fishing to themselves. 8. The best fishing-ground for mackerel is near shore, within three miles of it. 9. One reason for the increase of the number of boats is that the popu- lation is increasing and there are plenty of young men about who want AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1119 employment, and they find the fishing pays them fully as well as farm- ing. 40. There are large quantities of herring caught along here as a gen- eral thing. Probably ten barrels of herring to a boat are used for bait in the mackerel fishing. 11. Off Nail Pond the Americans often seine for mackerel, and I have seen them off here looking for the mackerel in order to seine. 12. This year I am engaged in the salmon fisheries off this coast. The salmon are caught in nets and traps. The salmon here are very fine. The average weight of those caught by me this year has been twelve pounds each. They have been caught on this shore weighing thirty-six pounds. The salmon-fishing has only lately been started here. It will pay I believe, and the trade in salmon is springing up. When properly looked after this branch of the fishery will become very valuable. The salmon are all caught off the shore and not in the rivers. MAURICE O’CONNOR. Sworn to at Kildare Cape, in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, this 27th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JOSEPH MacGILVRAY, J. P. for Prince County, Prince Edward Island. No. 20. I, ALEXANDER LARKIN, of Alberton, in Prince County, Prince Ed- ward Island, merchant, make oath and say: 1. That I have been engaged in fishing for twenty-five years, princi- pally in the boat-fishing; I have had vessels in the business. I have been carrying on the business at stages. 2. There are about two hundred boats engaged in fishing from Cas- cumpec to the North Cape. The number has greatly increased during the last few years. The boats are a very much better class of boats now than a few years ago; they are larger and better fitted out. There is also much more capital invested in the business now than formerly. The average crew of each boat, taking large and small together, would be at least three. There are also a number of shore-men employed in connection with the boats. The greatest quantity of the fish, I should say over three-quarters of the whole catch, is caught within three miles of the shore. 3. I account for the increase of the boat-fishing, because people found it profitable to go into fishing. 4. I have several times known over three hundred sail of American fishing-schooners to be in this harbor at a time, and it was never con- sidered that more than half their fleet were in. They used very often to fish inshore, and often to the injury of our boat-fishermen ; they come among the boats, which are getting fish, and bait the school of mackerel, and carry it off. 5. The Americans, when the cutters were about, always evaded them if possible, even at a risk to themselves. The cutters kept them off to some extent, and made several seizures. 6. The right of transshipment here must be an advantage to the Americans, but I cannot state to what extent. ALEXANDER LARKIN. Sworn to at Alberton, in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, this 29th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JOSEPH MacGILVRAY, J. P. for Prince County. 1120 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 21. I, GILBERT PERRY, of Frog Pond, in Prince County, in Prince Ed- ward Island, owner of fishing stages and fish dealer, make oath and say: 1. That I have been engaged in the fishing business about eighteen years ; fifteen years of that time I have been actually engaged in fishing, and am well acquainted with the fishing ground around here. My ex- perience has been in boats. 2. There are at least one hundred and fifty boats engaged in the fish- - ing between Frog Pond, Skinner’s Pond, and Nail Pond. There are sixty-three boats engaged in the fishing at Frog Pond alone. Each boat would average a crew of three men each ; no boat less than three ; some more. 3. The number of boats at Frog Pond alone has increased twenty boats within the last year, and I would say there are ten times as many boats engaged in the fishing as there was ten years ago, and the num- ber of stages are greatly increased. The boats themselves are getting better every year, being better sailers, better equipped, and better rig- ged than they were. 4. Taking one year with another, the boats (large and small) average about fifty barrels of mackerel in the season, and on this shore they average about thirty quintals each, cod and hake. As a general thing sufficient quantities of herring are taken for bait and for home use. Each boat on this shore requires about twenty barrels of herring for mackerel bait during the season. 5. The reasons I would give for the increase for the number of boats is, the increase in population and trade, the trade becoming more and more opened up, and the business affords employment to a large number of men who could not otherwise get employment. The great reason is, that the fishing business is so very remunerative. 6. I should say that the average number of American vessels fishing in the bay during the last ten years would be over four hundred. They generally come down here about the first of July and fish all summer; they fish all across, between here and the New Brunswick shore, this side of the island being opposite the New Brunswick shore. 7. When the cutters were about here they frightened the Americans off a good deal. Very few of the Americans fished inside that year. That, of course, would greatly injure their fishing; the best of their catching is within three miles of the shore. I don’t think it would pay them to fit out for fishing unless allowed to fish within three miles of the shore. That year, when they used to come in here to water, they used to complain that the cutters caused them great loss. 8. When the American fishermen see our boats getting mackerel, they come among them, throw large quantities of bait, and draw off the fish; they sometimes drift down on our boats, and I have some- times seen them upset and sink our boats. 9. I consider that the right of transshipment would be a very great advantage to the Americans, particularly in a good fishing season, as by means of it they are enabled to land their fish, refit for a new voy- age, and be on the fishing grounds in a very short time. I consider they save at least two weeks each trip, which would be equal to another trip for the season. 10, The Americans used to do a good deal of harm here seining the mackerel. ‘Two or three years ago, in particular, they used to catch large AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. LIST quantities of fish, not one half being mackerel, the rest being herring and other fish, which were destroyed and thrown overboard. h GILBERT x PERRY. mnark. Sworn to at Frog Pond, in Prince County, in Prince Edward Island, this 28th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me, the same having been first read and fully explained to the said Gilbert Perry, who sigued by his mark. JOSEPH MacGILVRAY, J. P. for Prince County. No. 22. I, AGNo J. GAUDET, of Nail Pond, in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, fisherman and fish-trader, make oath and say: 1. I have been engaged in the fishing business for about fourteen or fifteen years, part of the time in boats and three years in the schooner Frank, the years of 1866, 1867, and 1868. In the schooner we fished all around the island, from West Cape to East Point, Magdalen Islands, Bay De Chaleur to Point Le Pau, and along the Gape Breton shore. She was over sixty tons burthen, and had a crew of from fifteen to eighteen hands. The first season we got shipwrecked and did not do much, the second year we went seining and got over two hundred bar- rals of mackerel and some thirty or forty barrels of herring. 2. I consider that within the last thirteen years the boats have in- creased seven fold, they carry an average crew of three men each, besides giving employment to a great number of shore-men ; taking one year with another, they average about fifty barrels of mackerel each. As a general thing, we catch as many herring as we want round this coast, for mackerel-bait and for home use. The best mackerel fishing is done from the shore to two miles and a half out. 3. Along this coast the Americans very often fish mackerel within three miles from the shore, and I believe itis a great advantage for them to have the privilege of fishing within three miles of the shore. 4. I consider the right of transshipment a great advantage to the American fishermen; by doing so they can transship their mackerel here, refit, and return to the fishing-grounds without losing much time, and thus save a fortnight each trip, which, in a good fishing-season, would be equal to another trip. AGNO J. GAUDET. Sworn to at Nail Pond, in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, this 28th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me, JOSEPH MacGILVRAY, - J. P. for Prince County. No. 23. IT, Wrutram S. Larkin, of Nail Pond, Tignish, in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, fish-dealer and fisherman, make oath and say: 1. [have been engaged in fishing for thirteen years, principally in boats, but one summer in a schooner, the Rechabite, and am well ac- quainted with the fishing-grounds. ; 2. I made a trip of three days, in June, 1874, on board of the Ameri- can schooner Cynosure, of Booth Bay, Me., in which time we fished 71 F 1122 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. close to this shore and took two bundred barrels of mackerel. She took six hundred and seventy barrels of mackerel in eight days that trip. She was about one hundred tons burden and carried fifteen or sixteen hands. Her catch was all caught within three miles of the shore. 3. There must be fully two hundred boats fishing between Mimnigash and Nail Pond, and I should say more. The last three years the num- ber of boats has doubled, and more. The boats themselves are of a better quality than they were three years ago. The capital invested in boat-fishing has also doubled or trebled during the same time. 4. The reason there has been such an increase is because people found the fishing to pay. 5. Each boat, on an average, carries a crew of about three men. A number of shoremen are also employed in connection with the boats. 6. As a general thing the boats get their codfish from three miles out to a half mile from shore; the spring codfish are right in handy the shore; the mackerel range from half a mile to three miles off; the greater part of the mackerel are caught about a mile and a half from the shore; in the fall of the year they move off to about three miles; | should say two-thirds of the fish here are caught within three miles of the shore; the ling are caught about two miles and a half to three miles from the shore. 7. Some years, some of the boats catch over two hundred barrels of mackerel each; taking one year with another for the past ten years, I would put the average catch of mackerel at fifty berrels per boat. I would put the average catch per boat, taking all sizes, of codfish and ling, at about fifty quintal. 8. When the Americans come here they fish in about from one to three miles from shore. I have seeu them so close that they have run aground. 9. When there is a fleet of Americans here they burt the boat-fishing and draw off the fish. Their bait is better than ours, and they throw it and draw away the fish from our boats. While they are here the boats do not do much, as a general thing. The fishermen look upon the ar- rival of the Americans as the break-up of the boat-fishing. 10. The right of transshipment is a great advantage to the Ameri- cans, because they can unship their fish here and send them home while they themselves can go on with their fishing; they would thus save from three to four weeks a trip; that would be equal to a trip saved during the summer. Another advantage is that they can send on their fish, even half loads, in time to catch the good markets, which they could not do if obliged to go home with their cargoes, and as the mack- erel is a very variable market this is a very great advantage. 11. The mackerel season lasts on the shore from the first of July until toward the end of September. The Americans get here about the be- ginning of July. The Americans seive for mackerel along here. WM. 8S. LARKIN. Sworn to at}Nail Pond, Tignish, Prince County, in Prince Edward Island, thisj28th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JOSEPH MacGILVRAY, J. P. for Prince County. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1123 No. 24. DOMINION OF CANADA, Province of Prince Edward Island, Prince County: I, MICHAEL FOLEY, of Alberton, in Prince County, in the said Island _ and Dominion, merchant, make oath and say: 1, That I am at present and have been for the past three years doing business in Alberton aforesaid, and that an important part of my busi- ness consists in prosecuting the fisheries on the north and west coasts of this island. 2. That I furnish supplies to about eighty fishing boats, which sup- plies consist of bait, hooks and lines, provisions aud necessary clothing for the men on board said boats; and that the men required to complete the crews of said boats, and to cure and land the fish taken by the boats, would amount in the aggregate to four hundred men—a few more or less. 3. That I am in frequent communication with the fishermen in my own employ, and with others who prosecute the fisheries on their account (and whose catch of fish I purchase), and consider myself capable of furnishing correct information as to the manner in which the shore fisheries of this province are carried on. 4, From my own personal observation, and from information obtained in the manner set forth in the preceding section, that nearly if not all the mackerel taken by the boats are caught within three marine miles from the shore, though a large boat may late in the season fish further off the land. 5. In a good season a boat’s crew will catch between 50 to 80 barrels of mackerel, besides a quantity of herring, codfisb, and hake, and the greater part of the codfish and hake are caught more than three miles from the coast line, but within the three-mile limit, and the herring are caught within three miles of the shore. 6. The boats are sometimes interfered with while fishing by American fishing schooners coming near them, throwing a large quantity of bait and by that means taking away the fish that may be around the boat; the schooners frequently drift and come in contact with the boats when the latter are at anchor, fishing, thus causing serious damage to the boats and their outfit. 7. In the summer of the year 1868, I was in charge of my own vessel, the Lily Ada, of the burden of 55 tons, and was master of said vessel and continued to use the said vessel during the fishing season of that year for fishing only, and myself and crew of said vessel caught 250 barrels of mackerel, three-fourths of which catch were taken within three miles of the coast, and the remainder were taken within the three- nile limit, and during that summer my vessel was in company with the fleet of American fishing schooners on the coast of this island fishing, and the fish so taken by the different vessels of the American fishing fleet were caught at or near the same fishing grounds and in the same Inanner as those fish taken by my vessel. ; 8. For the past three years I have furnished supplies to fishing stages built for the purpose of packing and curing fish at Mimnigash, Hay- ward’s Cove, Frog Pond, Black Pond, Nail Pond, Kildare, and Cascum- ‘pec Harbor, and these stages are visited by me almost daily during the fishing season, and from my observations made at the different stages, which are all in prominent places on the beach, I should say that fully one-half of the fish caught by the American schooners (fishing at or near that part of the coast) are caught within three miles from the shore, and 1124 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the greater part of the remainder of their catch are taken within the three mile limit. ‘ 9. A great advantage accrues to the American fishermen fishing on the coasts of this island, from the fact, from their right of transship- ment, as when a large catch of fish is made, they can with very little delay transship their cargo, and immediately resume the fishing; they are also enabled to take speedy advantage of a profitable market. 10. The harbor of Cascumpec is at present frequented by the vessels of the American fishing fleet, and is near the fishing grounds and easy of access, and if the same is improved, it would to a very great extent add to the safety of the vessels fishing on the coasts of this island, and materially assist and make secure the American fishing schooners while engaged in the fisheries on the coasts of this island. 11. That great facilities are engaged by the American fishermen on the coasts of this island, by being unable to secure clam and other bait and by replenishing their supply of wood and water from the shores of this province. 12. That fishing in boats has increased to a very great extent during the last few years, and the boats now employed are larger and in all re- spects better found than those formerly used. 13. I have been for twelve years master mariner and ship-owner, and have been during that time sailing principally in the Gulf of St. Law- rence and am well acquainted with the coasts of this island. M. FOLEY. Sworn to at Summerside, in Prince County, in Prince Edward Island, the 26th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES W. HOWE, Commissioner for taking Affidavits in the Supreme Court, and Notary Public for Prince Edward Island. No. 25. DOMINION OF CANADA, Province of Prince Edward Island, Kings County, to wit: I, MARSHAL PAQUET, of Souris, in Kings County, in Prince Edward Island, farmer and fisherman, make oath and say : 1, That I have been personally and actively engaged in the mackerel fishing in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence from the year 1860 to 1869. In 1860 I commenced fishing in an American vessel, the Morning Star. We made two trips to the gulf during that summer, and caught 450 barrels. During that season there were about 500 American vessels in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence prosecuting the mackerel fishery. Their average catch during that year was small, not more than 300 barrels per vessel. During six weeks of that summer we were on Bank Brad- ley, and did not get any fish. We then came down to Bay des Chaleurs where we got a few. We left the bay and crossed over to the island, where we caught most of our fare, about two-thirds, within three miles off the shore. 2, That in the year 1862 I fished mackerel in the American vessel Mary W. Dodge. During that year there were at least 500 American vessels fishing mackerel in the gulf. The average catch of that season was small, not over 350 barrels per vessel, two-thirds of which would be caught within the three-mile limits. 3. That in the year 1864 I was again engaged in mackerel fishing, aboard the American vessel 8S. A. Parkhurst, of sixty tons burden, During that year we made three trips to the gulf, making a total catch AWARD CF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1125 of nine hundred and fifty barrels, fully three-fourths of which we caught from one to three miles from the shore; there was a large number of American vessels in the gulf that season—over five hundred ; the catch was very good, some of the vessels taking as many as thirteen hundred barrels. -I should say the average catch that season would be over six hundred barrels per vessel. Averaging the ten years between 1860 and 1870 that [ was engaged in the fishing, [ would say that the American fleet would number four hundred sail each year—their average catch would be four hundred and fifty barrels per vessel each season, and of this number, without a doubt, two-thirds were caught inshore within the three-mile limits. 4, Our usual custom in fishing was to sail in close to the shore—from one- half to one mile of the shore—heave our bait, and drift off, taking the mackerel with us. Time and again when I was fishing in American vessels, we have gone in among the boats fishing near the shore, and, heaving our bait, which was generally superior to that used in the boats, take all the mackerel with us, and the boats would have to wait for another school to come along. 5. During the year 1868 I was boat fishing out of Souris Harbor. The Americans, when they saw us catching in the boats, made a practice of coming in among us and attracting away the mackerel, which they always succeeded in doing. They would thus draw all the fish away from the boats and the shore, and in some cases it would be a week or more be- fore we would get a catch worth speaking of. This practice is very injurious to the boat fishing. Since the year 1870, I have noticed, while engaged in trading in fish, that the American vessels have continued this practice. 6. There were as many mackerel caught inside the limits since the Reciprocity Treaty has expired as before. In fact, the expiration of the treaty did not seem to make any difference with regard to the limits. The cutters did not prevent, to any extent, the Americans from fishing within the limits, as they would generally keep a good lookout for the cutters, and when they saw a cutter in the distance would stand off till she had passed, and then commence fishing within the limits again. 7. From my experience and personal knowledge, I would say that the Awericans would not come to the Gulf at all if they could be wholly prevented from fishing within the limits, as fully two-thirds of all the mackerel taken are caught within from one to three miles off shore. MARSHAL PAQUET. Sworn to at Souris, in Kings County,in Prince Edward Island, this 27th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES R. MacLEAN, J. P. for Kings County. No. 26. DOMINION OF CANADA, Province of Prince Edward Island, Kings County, to wit: I, PETER DEAGLE, of Rollo Bay, in Kings County, in Prince Edward Island, make oath and say: 1. That I was personally engaged in the mackerel-fishery from the year 1864 to 1870, in American vessels. 2. That I commenced fishing in the American schooner Northern Chief in 1864, and during that year we took nine hundred and (forty barrels. In 1865 I fished in the Safronia, from Gloucester, and, that seasou we caught seven hundred barrels. The uext year I was in the S. A. Parkhurst, and we caught six hundred barrels. In 1867 I fished in 1126 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the Northwester, also from Gloucester. This year was not as good as former ones. Our catch was five hundred and eighty-five barrels. In 1868 I made one trip late in the fall of the year. Our catch for that trip was ninety barrels. In 1869 I fished in the Pescadore, and that year we made two trips, catching, during the first, two hundred and twenty barrels, and, during the last, one hundred and seventy barrels, making three hundred and ninety barrels for that season. 3. That during the six years from 1864 to 1870, my opinion, from actual observation, is that there were about four hundred American vessels of an average in the gulf each year, and that the average catch per vessel would be about four hundred barrels each season. 4, That I have no hesitation in saying from my personal experience during that time that at least three-fourths of all the mackerel caught in the Gulf by American vessels have been taken within the three-mile limits. 5. The cutters did not trouble us anything to speak of, and I do not think they interfered with vessels fishing within the limits to any extent. 6. At that time there were large numbers of boats fishing off Rustico and Tignish. The catches of these boats would no doubt have been much larger if the Americans did not visit our coasts and fish inshore. 7. Judging from the large proportion of the fish caught by the Ameri- cans within the three-mile limits, I am of opinion that they would not come here at all for fishing purposes if they could be wholly prevented from fishing within the three-mile limits. PETER DEAGLE. Sworn to at Souris, in Kings County, in Prince Edward Island, this twenty-seventh day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES R. MAacLEAN, J. P. for Kings County, Prince Edward Island. No. 27. I, SAMUEL PROWSE, of Murray Harbor, in Kings County, Prince Edward Island, member of the local government, make oath and say: 1. That I have been engaged in the fishing business in Murray Har- bor for eleven years. 2. That there are about forty boats or more engaged in fishing out of Murray Harbor, the values of which would run from one hundred and fifty to five hundred dollars each ; there are also six or seven schooners. These boats take crews of about four men each, besides the men em- ployed on shore, who number about thirty men. 3. That there are a large quantity of fish taken by small boats along the shore, of which we have not the means of forming a correct estimate. The boats above mentioned, together with what fish are taken in the immediate vicinity by the small boats along the shore, take over three thousand quintals of codfish and over four thousand of hake. There cannot be less than seven thousand pounds of sounds taken from these hake, worth, at a low estimate, fifty cents a pound. The codfish are worth about three dollars, and the hake two dollars the quintal. There are about four thousand gallons of oil taken from these fish, worth from forty to forty-five cents a gallon. The fishing-stages here pay little attention to mackerel fishing, as the cod-fishing off here is the more profitable, and fishermen get the mackerel chiefly for bait, and they are dependent on the mackerel for their codfish bait. The Americans, by destroying the mackerel fishing on the shore, injure our cod-fishing. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1127 4. That the principal part of the codfish brought into this harbor are caught along the shore, between Wood Island and Souris. 5. That itis not an unusual thing to see from eighty to a hundred sail of American fishing vessels hove to, fishing mackerel between this and Georgetown, many of whom fish on Sunday as much as on any other day. The number above mentioned are the vessels seen at one time, and by no means include the whole number of their vessels in the Straits. Icould not make an estimate of the amount of fish taken by them, but judge it must pay them well to come here to fish, otherwise they would not continue to come. 6. Tbat the Americans interfere with our boat hake-fishing, as the boats are dependent on the shore mackerel-fishing for bait, and the Americans come in, throw large quantities of bait and glut the fish, so that they will not bite and the boats cannot get them. Complaints are also being continually made by the fishermen that the garbage and offal from the fish thrown out by the Americans injure the fishing. Now, also, by the use of set-lines for codfish and seines for mackerel, much larger quantities of fish are taken by the Americans than formerly. 7. That by having the right to land their fish here and transship them, and refitting, I believe the Americans are enabled to make an additional trip in the season, which they would be unable to do were they obliged to take the fish home in their own vessels. They can also watch and take advantage of the fluctuations in the mackerel markets, which are very variable. SAMUEL PROWSE. Sworn to at Murray Harbor, in Kings County, Prince Edward Island, this 30th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. MALCOLM MacFADYEN, J. P. for Kings County. No. 28. DOMINION OF CANADA, Province of Prince Edward Island, Kings County, to wit: I, DANIEL MCPHEE, of Big Pond, in Lot Forty-five, in Kings County, in Prince Edward Island, fisherman, make oath and say: 1. That I have personally been engaged in the mackerel and cod fishing in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence since the year 1863. 2. That in the year 1863 I commenced mackerel-fishing in the Ameri- can vessel Messina, and that during that year we fished in the Bay Chaleur, and took home with us six hundred barrels of mackerel during the fisliing-season of that year, one-third of which quantity, I would say, was caught within three miles of the shore. 3. That during that season, and up till about the year 1870, there were about 500 American vessels in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence engaged in the mackerel-fishery. 4, That during the years intervening between the years 1863 and 1870, my opinion is that the average catch of mackerel per season would be 500 barrels per vessel. 5. That from my experienceand from my personal observation, I would say that one-half of the total quantity of mackerel caught by the Ameri- ean fishing-fleet has been caught within three miles of the shore. 6. That during the years 1867 and 1868, I would say that 100 of the American vessels fishing in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence took out a license, paying fifty cents per ton for the privilege of fishing within the three-mile limits. 7. That those vessels that did not take a license (and which were by 1128 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. far the greater number), if they were fishing within-the limits, would hoist sail when they saw a Canadian cutter coming, and go outside, wait till the entter had passed, and then go back within the limits and resume the fishing again. That the cutters did not, to any appreciable exteut, prevent the fishing within the limits. 8. Our usual custom was to go in close to the shore in fleets of 50 to 60, heave our bait and then drift off, taking thefish with us. If we saw a boat from the shore catching mackerel, we would lee-bow them, that is, we would go close on to her, heave our bait and draw off the mack- erel; the boat would then have to wait for another school of mackerel. This would often occur and in every case would spoil the catch of the boat. 9. That during the last two or three years the number of American vessels engaged in the mackerel-fishery in the gulf has not been so numerous as in previous years, owing, no doubt, to the fact that the mackerel have not, during these last two or three years, frequented our coasts in such numbers as in previous years. This year, however, the prospects are good for mackerel-fishing. 10. That about 200 of the American vessels get their bait on the Nova Scotian coast, and in my opinion, without the bait obtained there they could not carry on the fishing. 11. That the Americans also take large quantities of herring from our coasts, avout 10,000 barrels from the Magdalen Islands a year, all of which would be caught close up to the shore. There are 40 American vessels engaged at Fortune Bay, in Newfoundland, in prosecuting the herring-fishery, averaging about 500 barrels per season per vessel, all of which are caught close to the shore. There is also a fleet of 20 Ameri- can vessels that fish at Bay of Islands in the fall of the year, averaging 700 barrels per vessel per season, which are all caught well within the three-mile limit. Then there is also a fleet of 40 American vessels which fish off Grand Manan. They average 350 barrels of herring per vessel, which are all caught close to the shore. 12. That the mackerel: on their arrival in the gulf first strike the Magdalen Islands, then across over to the lower Canadian shore, Seven Islands, and Bay Chaleurs, and then come down along the west shore, keeping close inshore. They then strike across to North Cape, in Prince Edward Island, and thence hugging the shore closly move along toward East Point. 13. That, in my opinion, if the Americans were prevented altogether from fishing within the three-mile limit, they would not frequent the gulf at all on account of the great risk they would run in getting a fare at all outside that limit. DANIEL McPHEE. Sworn to at Souris, in Kings County, in Prince Edward Island, this twenty-sixth day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES R. McLEAN, J. P. for Kings County. No. 29. I, MALcom MCFADYEN, of Murray Harbor, South, in Kings County, Prince Edward Island, merchant and fish dealer, make oath and say : 1. That for the last ten years I have been actively connected with the fishing business, and I have had some experience in it for a long time. Ove year I was myself fishing on the Labrador coast, and I have been nine years buying, curing, and trading in fish at Murray Harbor. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1129 ' 2. That out of this harbor there are about forty boats and six or seven schooners engaged in fishing. The number of boats has increased very much. The boats are now larger than they used to be, and are decked boats. The cause of the increase is that fishermen have prospered here during the last ten years. There is a class of people who go in for fish- ing and nothing else. They live better than those who go in for both farming and fishing, but fishing is a help to them all round. 3. That these boats carry on an average about four men each as crew ; that would be clear of the men employed on shore, who here are about thirty in number. 4, That these forty boats catch, in the aggregate, about three thousand quintals of codfish and four thousand quintals of hake, in the season, on an average. Codfish are worth about. three dollars and hake two dollars a quintal. There are about seven thousand pounds of sounds in these, the price of which varies from thirty-five cents to one dollar a pound. The oil amounts to about three thousand five hundred gallons, worth, all round, forty cents a gallon. The catch of mackerel here varies from three to six hundred barrels in the season. The fishermen do not go into mackerel-tishing so much as into cod-fishing. There are also a few herring taken on this shore for bait. 5. That the codfish are caught along the shore and on the Banks, principally on Fisherman’s Bank. They are all caught in the Straits. The mackerel are caught along shore. ae 6. That of late years I should estimate the number of American ves- sels fishing in the Straits at about two bundred sail. They fish their mackerel principally along the shore, and the codfish on the Banks. There are not many of them cod-fishing here, they are mostly mackerel fishermen. Some of them make two trips to the Straits, transshipping the first trip at the Gut of Canso. I should average their mackerel catch in the Straits at about three hundred barrels to a vessel. 7. That the American fishermen do a very great injury to our boat- fishing. They come up among our boats, when the latter are getting mackerel, and throw large quantities of bait and glut the mackerel, so that the fish stop biting and the boats can get no more of them. This is what is called lee-bowing. The Americans also clean their fish on the grounds, and this practice does great harm. In cod-cleaning the offal is thrown overboard, and [ believe the fish eat the offal and bones, and the water is poisoned around. At any rate, the fish are driven away from the grounds when the offal is thrown overboard. I should say the mackerel offal has the same effect, but there is not so much of it. 8. That fishermen are all opposed to the coming of the Americans, on ~ account of the harm the latter do to the fishing. The coming of the Americans is looked upon as the end of the good boat-fishing for the season. They also injure the morals of the fishermen, as they have no regard for Sunday or any other day. They also sometimes come on shore and break and destroy many things about our villages and shores. . 9. That the lobster-fishery is now a large business here. There are a number of lobster-preserving factories on this island now. They are caught along the shore in three or four fathoms of water, or about half - amile from the shore. I do not know that there are any Americans, except one in Souris, engaged in this business here at the present time, - but there are a good many of them along the Nova Scotia shore. This pines every where is all carried on and the lobsters caught close to the shore. . 10. That a good many of the American cod-fishermen get bait at the Magdalen Islauds and ice at Canso. They have not bait on their own 1130 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. shores for this fishery, and are obliged to depend on our shores for their codfish- bait, so that their cod-fishery is dependent on our herring-fish- eries for its existence. They go very extensively into the cod-fishery. They also get our herring, not only for bait but also to ship to Sweden and other parts of Europe. There were a lot of them at the Magdalens this spring getting herring for that purpose. They take the herring in seines and nets. The herring are caught right on the shore. 11. The seining at the Magdalens does a lot of harm, as there are such numbers of herring killed. The seines sometimes take up thousands of barrels, and only part of these can be cured. They are killed or smoth- ered in the seines, and the seines are finally tripped and the dead fish thrown away. 12. That at the Labrador I have seen the Americans seining for cod- fish. They also trawl for them very extensively. This is a very destruc- tive way of fishing. In the spring of the year the trawls catch up the mother fish before they spawn, and millions of fish are lost in this way. The young cod taken on the trawls are also thrown away, as being too small for keeping. Numbers of the fish also get killed on the trawls and get knocked about. These also are thrown away. We receive little or no benefit from these vessels in return for the injury they do us, as they do not trade here except for such things as they cannot get at home. We don’t collect even anchorage dues from these vessels, although they get the benefit of our harbors and lights. They also get their wood and water on our coasts, without which they could not fish. 13. The value of the right of transshipment is a great deal to the Americans. It saves them a trip home, which would save them a month in the best of the fishing. That would represent a save in money of from five to eight hundred dollars a vessel. They can also refit here just as cheap as at home. It would generally be an advantage, as enabling them to get their fish into market early, and thus catch the good early markets. They transship to a large extent at Canso. Only for this right to transship the last trip to the gulf would be lost, as they would not be able to go home and return soon enough to make it. 14, That at this factory or stage we put up from one hundred and fifty to two hundred thousand cans of lobsters in the season, the net value of which is about twelve dollars and one-half a hundred. At retail they are sold for much more than that. MALCOLM MacFADYEN. Sworn to at Murray Harbor, in King’s County, Prince Edward Island, this 30tb day of July, A. D. 1877, before me, the erasures and inter- lineations opposite my initials having been first made. SAMUEL PROWSE, A Justice of the Peace for Prince Edward Island. No. 30. I, CHARLES W. Dunn, of Murray Harbor, in King’s County, Prince Edward Island, fisherman, make oath and say: 1. That I have been engaged in fishing for about twenty-eight years, winter and summer, in both boats and vessels, having fished in the cod fishing on the Banks for about seven winters. I have also fished mack- erel in this gulf with the Americans from the summer of 1868 till 1871, and also in the halibut fishery on these coasts. 2. That there are all of forty sail of boats engaged in fishing off this harbor, and there have been a number added to them in the last two years AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 113] since I have been here. These boats are decked boats, aud carry crews of four and five men each. 3. That these boats are all engaged in cod and hake fishing, and do not go in for mackerel fishing except for bait. These fish are all caught along the coasts, some on this shore and some on the Nova Scotia shore. 4, That I was down here in the gulf mackerel fishing, in the schooner William T. Merchant, of Gloucester, United States, for one whole sea- son—five months and four days. That was in 1868. We took 900 barrels of mackerel in her. She was sixty-seven tons burden, and carried fifteen hands. 5. That in 1869 I was in the Ada L. Harris, of the same port, fishing, for two months or about half the mackerel season, in the gulf. We took out 500 barrels of mackerel. She was registered at forty-eight tons, and carried twelve hands. 6. That in 1870 I was about two months and a half fishing in the gulf, in the Reunion, during which time we got 430 barrels of mackerel. She was seventy-four tons, and carried fifteen hands. 7. That in 1871 I was in the Rambler for eight weeks fishing in the gulf. We took out 280 barrels of mackerel. We came in the gulf late pre soavon. She was sixty-three tons, and that time carried thirteen hands. 8. That fully three-quarters of the fish taken in these schooners were taken close to the shore, or within three miles along this island, Miscou, Bay Chaleur, the Magdalens, and other places on the British coasts. Taking the season through, the inshore fishing is the best. I believe that it would not be at all worth while to fit out for this gulf, if the vessels were not allowed to fish inshore. 9. That I was two seasons or parts of seasons seining on the Ameri- can shore for mackerel. One of these seasons I was there for seven weeks, and we only got one hundred and twenty barrels. We then came down into this bay, at the end of the season, aud-caught two hun- dred and eighty barrels. The second year I was out there we did not do much. The American shore is not such good fishing ground as the guif. On their shore the hookers have little or no chance, as the sein- ers have broken up the fishing. 10. That I have been cod-fishing for seven or eight winters on George’s and the Grand Banks in American vessels. We used to trawl, and have taken two hundred and twenty thousand pounds of salt fish in three months. The bait we used to use were all herring brought from the Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and other British shores. These fish are taken fresh and frozen, and kept in ice. There is no bait to be had on the American shores, except a few herring near Eastport, and some porgies, but those last are no good except a few for the George’s fishing. All this fishing for codfish is entirely dependent on the Dominion and Newfoundland herring-fisheries, and without these herring the cod-fish- ery could not be carried on, and would have to be given up. The ice is got on the American shore first, and then is got on the Nova Scotia oe There is a large fleet of American vessels engaged in the cod- shing. i _. 1i. That there is also a fleet of some eighty or ninety sail of Ameri- cans trawling for halibut on these coasts. There are quantities of hali- but caught at Boone Bay, right round Anticosti; up the Quebec River, near and above Seven Islands, up as far as Trinity Bay. These are all caught close to shore in three or four fathoms of water. At Anticosti we could often see the halibut on the bottom when we were trawling. This would be about two or three hundred yards from shore. I have 1132 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION seen ten thousand halibut a day caught at Anticosti in water where we could see bottom. This halibut-fishery is the best paying fishery that I have ever been in. I have made ninety dollars in twelve days as one of the hands at this fishery. 12. That the seining breaks up and destroys the fishing, as it breaks up the schools of mackerel and scares the fish. The seiners also take both big and small fish, and all sorts of fish, and they only save the good mackerel. The herring, small mackerel, and other fish are all killed in the seines, and these are thrown away. ‘These fish all sink to the bottom and putrefy and hurt the bottom, the feeding-ground of the other fish, and I think it poisons the other fish to eat this rotton stuff. The seining has broken up and destroyed the fishing on the American shore, and that is the effect it always has. They break up and destroy the hooking with the seines. This has happened on the George’s grounds. 13. That the years the cutters were round they interfered with the American fishing and spoilt catches. I was out then myself, and we used to have to keep a man always on the lookout, and then when we saw the cutter’s smoke we had to clear out. Some of their vessels were taken by the cutters. 14. That the right to land here, transship their mackerel, and refit is @ very great advantage to the Americans, as they save on an average three weeks each trip by not having to take their fish home in their own vessels. This would be equal to an additional trip for the season. Then they can buy provisions and refit cheaper here than they can at home. They can also watch and take advantage of the changes in the mackerel market. If a skipper has any fish he can telegraph on to his owner and can have the fish sold in the early market and at the early prices. The mackerel are also liable to get rusted and injured by being kept long in the holds of the vessels. This injury is avoided by landing the fish and sending them on in steamers without loss of time. CHARLES W. DUNN. Sworn to at Murray Harbor, in King’s County, in Prince Edward Island, this 3lst day of July, A. D. 1877, before me, the erasures and interlineations opposite my name having been first made. MALCOM McFADYEN, J. P. for King’s County, Prince Edward Island. No. 31. I, JAMES HoWLETT, of Georgetown, in King’s County, Prince Edward Island, fisherman, make oath and say: 1. That I have been engaged in fishing for fifteen years, in vessels be- longing to the United States. I have fished all about Bay Chaleur, from Port Hood to Seven Islands, at the Magdalens, all along this island coast, and two years mackerel-fishing on the American shores, and many winters cod-fishing. 2. That I should say the American fleet in this gulf numbers three hundred and fifty to four hundred sail, for certain, each year. The number varies ; last year there were few shooners in the bay. 3. That in the Affodite, an American schooner of about sixty-eight tous, and carrying fifteen hands, we landed two trips at Canso, and ear- ried two home, making four in al!, averaging two hundred and seventy- five barrels each trip. 4. That in the Alice G. Wanson I fished one season in this bay, and AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1133 we carried home four hundred barrels of mackerel. She was seventy tons measurement, and carried sixteen hands. 5. That one summer, in the Energy, a large schooner of one hundred tons, we took home four hundred and fifty barrels. 6. That I was in the Glenwood for the fall trip, or about half the sea- son; in her we carried home two hundred and seventy five barrels. She was a schooner of about sixty-five tons, and carried fourteen or fifteen hands. 7. That I was in the Rose Skerret, fishing in this bay for the first trip of about two months, July and August, and we took home two hundred and five barrels. She was about seventy-five tons, and carried seven- teen hands. 8. That I was one whole season in the. Pescidore, fishing in the bay for two trips. We carried home in all five hundred and fifty barrels. She was about fifty-eight tons burden, and carried fourteen hands. 9. That I was in the C. D. Oliver, for two-thirds of the season, when we carried home two hundred and seventy-five barrels of mackerel. 10. That in my experience of fishing in the bay, we averaged, for the whole season, from five to six hundred barrels of mackerel each year. 11. That one season in the John Somes, we took home seven hundred barrels of mackerel. She was about sixty-five tons burden, and car- ried fifteen and sixteen hands. 12, That in the first part of the season, the fish caught in these ves- sels were mostly caught between West Point and North Cape of this island; in the latter part at North Cape, Magdalens, Port Hood, and some at Sydney. 13. That I was half of two seasons on the American shores, mack- erel-fishing ; two hundred and fifty barrels was the most we got. Most of the mackerel there are seined, and I think the seining prevents the hooking. 14. That there is a large fleet of American vessels engaged in the cod- fishing. All the western and Grand Bankers get their bait from the Newfoundland and Dominion shores. They also get their ice there too. The cod fishery is dependent on these herring fisheries for its existence, as without the herring you cannot get codfish. 15. That there is also a large halibut fishery off Newfoundland, Grand Banks, and the Nova Scotia shores. These use herring for bait, and other small fish, but they do not use so much herring as cod fishermen. 16. That the right of transshipment is of value to the Americans, in this way, that they can thereby save three weeks on the trip, which, in good yéars, would amount to about atrip saved. They can refit at pretty much the same rate as at home. 17. That I believe that trawling and seining are ruinous to fishing, as the trawls catch up the old mother codfish before they spawn. The seining does harm, as it catches big and small, and the small are never used ; and when large catches are made there are quantities of fish killed in the seines—and these are lost. I have known vessels take two or three hundred barrels more than could be saved, and these had to be tripped out and went to the bottom. JAMES HOWLETT. Sworn to at Georgetown, in King’s County, Prince Edward Island, ‘this 3lst day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. DANIEL GORDON, J. P. for Prince Edward Island. 1134 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 32. . I, Joun GRAHAM, of Cavendish, in Queen’s County, Prince Edward Island, fisherman, make oath and say: 1. That I have been engaged in fishing off this island, in boats, for about fifteen years, and am acquainted with the fishing grounds. 2. That there are fully forty boats along this beach without reckoning the harbor, and the number is increasing every year. The number of boats along here has doubled, if not trebled, in the last five years, and the boats are better now than then, being better modeled and better built. 3. That these beach boats carry, on an average, crews of three men each ; in the harbors the boats carry average crews of five men each, that is, besides the stage men employed on shore, of whom there are a good number. 4, That the average catch of mackerel along this beach would be about one hundred barrels to the boat. The bulk of these fish, I should say three-fourths, are caught within one mile and one-half to two miles from the shore. In the fall, the harbor boats sometimes go further off. 5. That one reason for the increase in the number of boats is, that people can now sbip away their own fish, even in small quantities, whereas, formerly, they had to sell to the dealers here for what the lat- ter chose to give. Wecan always get the cash for the fish now, while for farm-produce and in other business we cannot. It is found to pay now, which is the great reason for going in for fishing. Fishermen han- dle a good deal of money which they could not get in any other way. 6. That the American fishermen come down here about the first of July, and stop allsummer. Sometimes I have seen as many as one hun- dred and fifty sail of them from this stage at one time, all fishing close to the shore; they fish where the boats do. Latterly, they have been using seines ; at one time last year (1876) I saw three of them seining off this shore. I look upon their seining as an injury to our fishing. There were not so many of them here last summer as in some former years, but there have been seventy sail of them off the shore at a time last year. 7. Lhat the Americans often doharm to our fishing by coming in among the boats and taking away the tish. They come in near the shore and throw a lot of bait and then drift off to sea and the fish follow them. We never calculate on doing much for some days after we see the Ameri- cans coming inshore, as the fish get full of bait and will not bite. They come in among tbe boats which are getting fish and lee-bow them, thus causing the mackerel to Jeave the boats. I never want to see them com- ing round. After their fleet comes round we cannot do much with the boats. I think that throwing over so much bait, and also throwing the offal of so many fish overboard, injure the fishing. | 8. That it is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to come here and fit out for fishing and transship their fish when they have them. They come into Charlottetown and fit out, and they often go into the same port to ship away their fish. They save enough time by having the right of transshipment, to make another voyage to the fishing grounds. The fish get poorer in look and in quality by being kept long in the holds of the vessels, and by being transshipped they are saved from this deterioration, and consequently command higher prices. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1135 The fishermen are also enabled to take advantage of the fluctuations of the fish market, and catch good prices. JOHN GRAHAM. Sworn to at Cavendish, in Queen’s County, Prince Edward Island, this llth day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. ALEX. M. McNEILL, J. P., Commissioner for taking Affidavits for Queen’s County. No. 33. I, Joon R. MCDONALD, of St. Margaret’s, in King’s County, in Prince Edward Island, farmer aud fisherman, make oath and say : 1, That I have had a practical acquaintance with the fishing business for the last eighteen years, all in schooners, both belonging to this island and to the United States. I have fished out of Gloucester, in the United States, for seven years, and I know the gualf-fisheries well. I have been master of fishing schooners for the last eight years, excepting the present year (A. D. 1877). 2. That at the present time I am carrying on a fishing business at New London Harbor, in Queen’s County, in said island. There are about one hundred and fifteen boats belonging to and fishing off the New Lon- don Harbor and beach at the present time, and I believe they are in- creasing. There are a lot of new boats fishing here now, and a lot of stages have been put up here during the past year. The reason I give for the increase in the number of boats, and the increased quantity of money invested in boat-fishing, is that, when the people carried on fish- ing ov the coast in a small way, they found the business to pay, and then they went more into it, and the more boats they put into the busi- ness, the greater were their profits in proportion to the number of boats employed. It does not cost very much more to run ten boats fishing than it does to ran six, because the stages and all the shore expense and outfit would be the same, and the only additional expense would be the actual cost of the new boats with their outfits, and the extra feed and wages of the men on board them, while the profits would be larger. In short, as far as my experience goes, I find the fishing to be a paying business, although some years are better than others. 3. That.the boats are now much better built, better rigged and better equipped in every way than they were five years ago. People now take pride in their boats. 4. That the average crews of the boats are about four men to each boat, besides those employed on shore, who are employed at about the rate of four to six men to six boats. 5. That I should call one hundred and fifty barrels a fair average catch of mackerel per boat for the season, taking one year with another ; but less than that would pay well. 6. I should think that all the mackerel are caught within three miles of the shore. I found in vessels that [ could do nothing more than three miles from the shore. Within the last three or four years none have been caught outside of three miles. 7. That I fished for eight years on board of island schooners in the gulf, as captain. I fished in the schooners Letty, Corsair, Octavia, George 8. Fogg, Little Belle, belonging to this island. 8. That I went out fishing in the Corsair about eight years ago. She was of about forty tons burden, and carried a crew of twelve hands. She made two trips that season, mostly along the island shore, and 1136 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. partly in Buy Chaleur. On board of her, that season, we caught about four hundred and fifty barrels of mackerel. 9. That the year after I was on board the Corsair I fished in the Octavia, a schooner of sixty-four tons burden, belonging to Charlotte- town. She carried seventeen hands, and we made three trips, two of which were along this island shore, and one up the Bay Chalear. In the three trips we caught eight hundred and fifty barrels of mackerel. We did not go in for any other kind of fishing. In both those vessels nearly all the fish were caught inshore, about two miles and from that in being the best fishing. Fully two-thirds of our catches were within two miles of the shore, and nearly all within three miles of the shore. 10. That I fished on board the Letty fortwo years. She wasa schooner of fifty-seven tons burden and carried sixteen hands. We fished alto- gether on the island coast, and the first year made two trips, and caught five hundred barrels of mackerel. nearly all of which were caught near the shore. The second year we fished in the same places, and caught about four hundred and ninety barrels of mackerel. 11. That the year after I was fishing in the Letty I went in the George S. Fogg, of this island, a schooner of one hundred and three tons bur- den, and having a crew of twenty-one men. We made two trips in her, and caught in the two trips about seven hundred and eighty barrels of mackerel. These were all caught along the island shore and Nova Scotia coast. Nearly all were caught within three miles of the shore. 12. That last year (1876), which was the worst year I ever knew, I was out in the Little Belle, of thirty-eight tons burden, and carrying twelve men. We only caught one hundred and eighty barrels that year. The fish were too close to the shore for schooners to do much. 13. That almost all the American fishermen fish close in to the shore of the different provinces of the Dominion, and I do not think the Americans would find it worth while to fit out for the gulf fishing if they could not fish near the shore. The year the cutters were about the Americans did not do very much, although they used to dodge the cutters and fish inshore. 14. That I fished on board of American schooners for about seven years in the gulf, and during those years we used to land from six hun- dred to one thousand barrels the season, averaging about eight hundred barrels. We used then to generally fish about the Magdalen Islands, and close in. 15. That the boat fishermen complain that the American schooners break up the schools of mackerel and injure the boat fishing. They throw so much bait that the fish get glutted and sink to the bottom ; won’t bite, and very often leave the grounds. The Americans also lee- bow the boats whenever they see the latter getting mackerel, and take the fish away, when there is no use for the boats to stop there any longer. 16. That the right to land at our ports and harbors, ship away their fish, and take in a new outfit without having to go home, is a very great advantage to the Americans. Outfits are cheaper here than in the United States, and labor also is cheaper, such as coopering. They save a great deal of time, as they can go in and send away their fish and take in a new outfit, and be back on the ground without losing much time, while if they had to go on to the States they would lose about a fortnight each trip, which would amount to a good trip saved in the summer. They can also watch the fish markets and ship away their fish as soon as they land, if the price is up, selling them “to arrive.” The mackerel market is a very fluctuating one, so that it is a great advantage to be able to transship without delay. The fish also are getting worse the AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1137 longer they are kept in the holds of vessels. The pickle is apt to sour or run off, in which latter case the fish rust, and they get knocked about by the tossing of the ship, and they thus become of an inferior quality by the time they get to market, and command smaller prices. 17. That L have fished for herring at the Magdalen Islands for four or five springs, and there has always been a large number of American schooners fishing herring there. They seine the herring, catching large quantities. They send a great many of these to Sweden and Norway and the West Indies, besides to the United States. At the Magdalen Islands they fish right inshore; in fact they drag the seines to the shore. 18. That in my opinion the American plan of seining is injurious to the mackerel and other fishing, as they only keep the good large fish, and throw the small ones and the other kinds of fish overboard, and they are destroyed. 19. That the mackerel strike about the Magdalen Islands first in the spring, and then they strike down toward Bay Chaleur, and then to North Cape of this island. At the Magdalen Islands they are caught in nets in the spring, and a great many Americans catch them there. The Americans know all about the way the fish strike, and they follow them as the fish go from place to place. JOHN R. McDONALD. Sworn to at French River, in New London, in Queen’s County, in Prince Edward Island, this 12th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. JOHN SHARPE, Justice of the Peace. No. 34. I,CoLiIn MCKENZIE, of French River,in New London, Queen’s County, Prince Edward Island, farmer and fisherman, make oath and say. 1. That I have been engaged in fishing, for twelve years, fishing off the north side of this island, in both boats and schooners, and have fished herring in the spring at the Magdalen Islands, and also on the north coast of Newfoundland. I have been dealing in fish, and had a good opportunity to see the fishing there. ; 2. That there are over one hundred boats fishing out of this harbor, and off the shores in this neighborhood. Four years ago there were not half so many as there are now, and the number is still increasing fast. The boats are of a superior quality in every respect to what they were four years ago. The capital invested in boats has more than doubled within the same time. There are now about twenty fishing stages and more built for carrying on the fishing business, and six years ago there were only one.or two. 3. That the boats carry crews of four men each, on an average, and there are three men to every four boats employed as stage men; that is, not reckoning the coopers and others employed on shore. The boats also farnish employment to the vessels in the carrying trade during the dull freight season. There is also a lot of money put in circulation through the country, which creates a trade for the country about the ‘stages. 4. That the boats, on an average, catch about one hundred barrels of mackerel each during the season, worth about one thousand dollars. Pe soon as the mackerel are shipped we can draw and get the cash for em. 5. That I should say that one reason the boats are increasing in num- ber is that good fishermen can now be obtained. Another reason 1s 72F ad 1138 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. that there is now a surplus population growing up, who have no land, and take to fishing for employment. The chief reason for the increase is that the business is found to pay. 6. That the boats along this part of the island catch large quantities of codfish before the mackerel season comes on, but the principal part of the boats leave off cod-fishing when the mackerel come. If followed up here, the cod-fishing would be valuable. 7. That there are considerable quantities of herring caught about here in the spring, and if people went into herring-fishing they might get as many herring as they wanted. We get herring also down at the Magdalen Islands. The herring are used for bait during the mackerel season, and also for home use. Each boat, on an average, wants about twenty barrels of herring for bait, during the season. 8. That nearly all the mackerel and all the herring taken by the boats are caught inshore; that is, within three miles of the coast line. About half the codfish are caught within the same distance from the shore. 9. That I have fished in schooners belonging to this island for several seasons. That I fished in a schooner called the Garland about twelve years ago, a schooner of about fifty tons burden and carrying eight hands. We fished in her off this island for the whole season, and got at least three hundred barrels of mackerel. Most of these fish were caught inshore. 10. That I fished for a season in the schooner Hannah, of this island, also of about fifty tons burden and carrying eight hands. We fished off this island; that was about eight yearsago. Wecaught about three hun- dred barrels of mackerel in her, the greater part of which were caught close to the shore. 11. That I fished, about seven years ago, for a couple of seasons on board the Minnie R., carrying nine hands. In her we fished along the island shore and up the Bay Chaleur, and caught about two hundred and eighty barrels each year, but we did not fit out till nearly the first of August. In all these vessels we traded along through the spring, and did not fit out for fishing till late. Every year we fished I noticed that we used to fish closer to the shore, which I consider shows the mackerel are working closer to the land. 12. That during the seasons I was fishing in schooyers there were large fleets of American fishermen fishing in the gulf. Mhey used mostly to fish within three miles of the shore, especially during the last two years I was out. I should say that at least two-thirds of their catch of mackerel were caugkt inshore. I have seen some of their vessels take their entire loads close inshore, never going off. 13. That, taking one year with another, for the last eight or ten years there have been fleets of American schooners fishing in this gulf, of about four hundred sail each year. For the last two years they have not been so many; the reason for that is that they have had good fish- ing on their own shores in those two years, which they do not often have. During the last two years I should not think there were more than three hundred of them in the bay. 14, That the American schooners often interfere with the boats, by coming in, throwing bait, and drifting away, taking the fish with them. They, in fact, break up the boat-fishing to some extent. Their coming is looked upon as an injury to the boats; fishermen would sooner not see them coming. When the boats are lying at anchor getting fish, the biog drift down and lee-bow the boats, spoiling their fishing for that ime. 15, That I was down at the Magdalen Islands some years ago, herring AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1139 fishing, and there were a hundred sail of American fishing-vessels getting herring there. They would take on an average eight hundred barrels each; they ship them away to the West Indies and to other places. The herring there are all caught in the bays and harbors, and are caught with seines, which they often drag to shore. That fishery is valuable to the Americans, as they will get large returns for small outlay, and many of their cod fishermen take their bait at the Magdalen Islands, 16, That I have been getting herring at Newfoundland and have seen large numbers of American vessels fishing there. They fish there all winter. They freeze large quantities of the herring caught there for bait for their George’s fishing-fleet; in fact, Newfoundland supplies nearly all the bait for their George’s fishing. 17. That in the spring nearly all the mackerel coming here, come by Cape North and through the Gut of Canso, and then they strike the Magdalenes; and the herring come in the same way. From the Magda. lenes the herring and mackerel strike up for Bay Chaleurs and for the coasts of this island and for Anticosti, and toward fall both mackerel - and herring work back again in the opposite direction. The American fishermen know all about this habit of the fish, and follow them as they swim, and catch them at the different shores. 18. That I am of opinion that, for some years back, it would not pay the schooners to fit out for the gulf fishing if they were prohibited from fishing within three miles of the shore, that is, for herring and mackerel. 19. That when the cutters were about they used to frighten off the American schooners to a large extent. Ihave seen them here and in tle Bay Chaleurs have to clear out when the cutter was coming, even when they were getting good fishing. The reason they were not kept off alto- gether was that there were not enough cutters to watch the coast. 20. That I consider the right to land here, transship, and refit is very valuable to the Americans, as they would savea fortnight each trip, right in the heart of the fishing season, which would amount, in a great many cases, to a trip saved in the season. They are enabled, owing to having the right to transship, to take advantage of favorable prices in the fish-market, which is very fluctuating. Besides that, by transship- ping, they can get their fish into market in better order than if they kept them on board their own vessels. The fish, by being kept in the holds of the vessels, are apt to lose pickle, and rust, and mackerel are fish that need repacking. COLIN McKENZIE. Sworn,to at French River, in New London, in Prince Edward Island, this 12th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. JOHN SHARPE, Justice of the Peace. No. 35. I, ALPHONSO GILMAN, of Malpeque, in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, fisherman, make oath and say: ; 1. That I have been following the fishing for about seventeen years in ‘both boats and schooners; that I have been engaged in fishing out of this island about six years, and out of the United States the rest of the time in schooners. 2. That out of Malpeque Harbor and on the shore there are about fifty boats of all sizes engaged in fishing, and the number has increased con- siderably during the last two years. These boats carry crews on au average of about four men to a boat; that the boats engaged in cod- 1140 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. fishing average about forty quintals a boat for the season, and the aver- age catch of each boat engaged in mackerel-fishing, not reckoning dories, would, along here, be about thirty barrels. 3. That these fish caught by the boats are caught not further than three miles from the shore. 4. That, taking one year with another, there will be seven or eight hundred schooners engaged every year in fishing in the bay, of which about six hundred sail are Americans. These schooners generally fish around the Magdalen Islands, in the Bay Chaleur, in the bend of this island, around the East Point, around Margaree. In the bend of this island these schooners generally fish close inshore, and at the other places from ten miles out to the shore. Within the past ten years the greater part, over half of the mackerel taken by schooners, would be taken within three miles of the shore. 5. That I have fished in about twenty schooners, both island and American, and these schooners would average three hundred barrels for the season. 6. That the right to refit and transship here saves time to the Ameri- cans, as they can save about three weeks each trip by being able to land here and transship without having to take their fish home in their own vessels, and that would amount to a trip saved during the season. There is the further advantage that, by transshipping, they are able to take advantage of the markets for fish, which is a very variable market. 7. That when the mackerel first come in to the bay they generally come up toward Bay Chaleur, Gaspé, and round there, passing the Mag- dalen Islands on their way. It is up there that the American fleet gen- erally goes first to catch fish. 8. That Iam an American citizen, and have fished for years out of Boston, Gloucester, Camden, Frankfort, and Belfast, in the United States. ALPHONSO GILMAN. Sworn to at Malpeque, in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, this 13th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. H. 8S. MARSHALL, Justice of the Peace for Prince County, Prince Edward Island. No. 36. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax under the Treaty of Washington. . I, E. MARSHALL, of the island of Anticosti, county of Saguenay, Province of Quebec, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: Was born iv the State of Maine, United States; have carried on the shore and vessel mackerel-fishery for about thirty years, consecutively, till 1870; twenty-two years I spent in the shore and vessel mackerel- fishery at Prince Edward Island; for six seasons previous was master of American fishing vessels in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and from 1867 to 1870 was master of the S. G. Marshall, which was seized for sup- posed illegal fishing inshore in Gaspé Bay. The names of the vessels of which I was master were the Orelia, of ©. C. Gazel, of Alexandria, Va.; Oasis, of Ingham, Mass.; Chance, of ©. C. Duroe, of Boston (a seining vessel); and the S. G. Marshall, of Prince Edward Island. 1. The fishing by American schooners was very extensive from 1852 to’70, During that period the number of American vessels which have AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Thal visited the shores of the Gulf of St. Lawrence for fishing purposes, yearly, amounted from 300 to 500 sail. This I have seen with my own eyes. Each vessel having an average of 12 men for acrew. All these were mackerel-fishing. The places where the Americans fished most during that period were on the shores of Cape Breton, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and on the shores of Bay of Chaleur, from Port Daniel to Dalhousie, and east, from Port Daniel to Bonaventure Island, in Gaspé Bay, and on the south shore of Gaspé, from Cape Rozier to Matane, and on the north shore from Groisie to Goodbout River. I have fished my- self nearly every year in these places, and [I never missed my voyage. 2. Each of these vessels has made good fares every season, and soine of them have made two trips of mackerel. Each of these vessels has made yearly a voyage of about 400 barrels. 3. The Americans catch their mackerel with seines and hand lines. 4, My opinion is that codfish gurry should not be allowed te be thrown overboard on any fishing grouud around the shores, because it injures the small fish and drives away the large fish. This is my experience. For instance, if we throw codfish gurry on a fishing ground in the night, we could rot find a fish there in the morning. 5. Mackerel caught by the Americans during the period mentioned above, have all been taken inshore, with the exception of a few barrels. The mackerel which I caught myself were all taken inshore. 6. The inshore fishery is by far the most valuable for all kinds of fish. In fact there are only two places where fish are taken in any quantity outside; the Orphan’s and Bradley Banks. But the Americans don’t resort there. 7. When American vessels come to fish among the boats, they entice all the mackerel away; it is my experience; I have enticed mackerel away from the boats myself often. This is done by the Americans whenever they get the chance. 8. Most of the Americans are supplied with either purse or hauling seines. The hauling seines have been iu use for the last forty years, and the purse seines for mackerel, for about fifteen years. 9. The fishing with hauling seines is all practiced from the shores, and the purse seine in deep and shoal water. 10. Within the last five or six years most of the mackerel are caught in the gulf with the seines. 11. The use of the hauling seine has been mostly practiced on our shores from Port Hood to Cape Chat, on the south shore, and Good- bout to Seven Islands, on the north shore. I have practiced seining for three years from Gaspé Basin to Goodbout and Matane, and I have done well. In eleven days I stocked $7,000 in Gaspé Basin, and I have seen at Goodbout, about twenty-three years ago, two American vessels loaded in one haul of the seine. The purse seines are mostly used now for mackerel. 12. I believe that the practice of seining is injurious to all kinds of ey more especially to mackerel, because it destroys small and large sh. 13. The bait that the Americans use for taking cod and halibut, is all _ caught inshore or bought from the inhabitants at Anticosti and the north and south shores. Bait is taken with nets and seines. ; 14. Codfish, haddock, halibut, and pollock, are caught by American fishermen in inshore waters. And the same fish are also caught by the Canadian fishermen inshore. 15. The herring are all taken inshore, and is an important fishery. Four hundred barrels have been taken by the Americans at Fox Bay 1142 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. this spring. They take herring for bait and for sale in their own and foreign markets. 16. On an average the Canadian mackerel are larger than the Ameri- can. 17. The principal breeding and feeding grounds of mackerel are at Magdalen Islands, P. E. Island, Bay Chaleur, and Gaspé Bay. Mack- ere! feed on lance, herring, shrimps, and other marine animals floating in or about the surface of the water inshore. 18. I consider it a great advantage to American fishermen frequent- ing Canadian waters to be allowed to land, dry their nets, and cure their fish. 19. The privilege granted to the American fishermen by the Treaty of Washington, to be allowed to transship their cargoes, is of the great- est advantage to them, in this respect, that it enables them to keep on the fishing grounds, and to double and triple their fares. 20. The American fishermen could not carry on the fishery of cod and halibut if they were not allowed to catch bait inshore or to buy it from the inhabitants. If they buy it instead of catching it, it is because they save time and find it more profitable. 21. I consider it a great advantage to Americans to be allowed to re- sort to Canadian inshores for ice. Not later than last week an Ameri- can schooner fishing halibut here, lost her fare by not having ice. 22. The privilege of fishing in American waters is of no advantage to us. I never knew of any vessel from here ever resorting there to fish. 23. Fishing by Americans in Canadian waters injures their fisheries. Let us suppose for an instant that Gaspé Bay was full of mackerel and 50 sail of vessels come in and fish one day, and you could not find a fish there next day; that is my experience. E. MARSHALL. Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Aunti- costi, county of Saguenay, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 23d day of July, 1877, before me. N. LAVOIBE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No. 37. DOMINION OF CANADA, Province of Nova Scotia: In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax under the Treaty of Washington. I, JAMES A. NICKERSON, of Margaret’s Bay, in county of Halifax, Province of Nova Scotia, master mariner, make oath and say as follows: 1, I have been engaged nearly all my life, either directly or indirectly, in the fishing business. For about eight years I was engaged in the mackerel fisheries and commanded the vessel. Two of the years were immediately before the Reciprocity Treaty and the other six were dur- ing its continuance. 2. My vessel, the Argo, was about sixty tons burthen, and my aver- age catch per season was eight hundred barrels, 3. I fished along the northern and eastern coast of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island, and followed up to Bay of Gaspé and the Bay de Chaleur. 4. My best catches were taken off the north coast of Cape Breton, from Shittegan to Hanley Island, Port Hood, and I never caught any of AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1143 the fish to speak of beyond three miles from the shore. I am certain and positively swear that fully nine-tenths, and I believe more than that proportion of my entire catch was taken within three miles of the shore; the nearer to the shore I could get the better it would be for catching fish. One reason of that is that the mackerel keep close inshore to get the fishes they feed on, and these little fishes keep in the eddies of the tide quite close to the shore. 5. If I had been prevented from catching fish within these three miles I am satisfied I could not have got any fish at all. 6. Along Prince Edward Island the fishermen sometimes get good catches more than three miles from the shores. This is caused by the large fleets of vessels who only fish when the wind is off shore, drawing the schools of mackerel out into the gulf by throwing bait while fishing and drifting off from the land. It is necessary, however, for the fishin z vessels to go close inshore before they can raise the mackerel and to draw them off. If the fishing vessels were kept out of the three-miles belt or limit the same result would follow as off Cape Breton; no mack- erel would be taken. 6. Later on in the season the fishing fleet, by constantly throwing bait and drawing the mackerel from the shore, manage to get the fish in deeper water, and then, sometimes, catches are made at long distances from the shore. 7. In Bay de Chaleur catches of mackerel are sometimes made or taken more than three miles from shore, but this is the result of their being drawn off shore by the fleet fishing, the same as off the other coasts I have spoken of. 8. The American fishing fleet frequented the gulf in great numbers during the years I fished, but their numbers varied greatly, sometimes numbering five hundred and sometimes one thousand. 9. These American fishermen got their catches in the same places we did. They took the fish close in to the shore ; that is, by far the larger proportion of them; and the opinion of the American fishermen was universal that, if they were excluded from fishing within these three niles off the shore, they might as well at once abandon the fishery. 10. The fishing was principally carried on by hook and line, but since the Treaty of Washington Americans have used, to a considerable ex- tent, purse-seines to catch the mackerel. 11. I am satisfied that the fishing grounds are seriously injured by the American fishing fleet throwing over the offal from the mackerel when cleaning them; and I am acquainted with localities where the fish- ing was temporarily destroyed from this cause. Boat fishermen never throw over the offal; they carry it on shore with them. 12. I was one of the officers of the Sweepstake, one of the Canadian marine-police cruisers, one year—the year 1869—and of the S. G. Mar- shall during the years 1870 and 1871. The S. G. Marshall was another of these cruisers. Our duties were to enforce the law preveating Amer- ican fishing vessels from fishing along the inshores. The two first years our station for cruising lay between Pictou and St. Paul’s Island, and the last year from Shediac to Gaspé, including the Bay de Chaleur. - My experience was that the Americans constantly endeavored to get into the prohibited ground to fish. The first few weeks we commenced cruis- -ing we were stationed at the Gut of Canso, and we boarded all the American vessels that passed through, aud warned them not to fish within three miles of the shore on pain of being seized and forfeited. Notwithstanding that warning, they kept continually creeping in, and we eventually seized the A. H. Wanson, while fishing within three miles 1144 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. of the north shore of Cape Breton. At that time there were at least fifty American fishing vessels fishing at the same place, and within three miles of the shore, but we could only seize one. The others left for home almost immediately, saying it was useless to prosecute the fishing unless they could do so within three miles of the shore. 13. During the first two years we were cruising we were constantly finding them fishing within three miles of the shore. They could not raise the fish outside and were obliged to come in. We kept constantly warning them, but they as constantly and persistently kept fishing in- side the limits and close to the shore. The last year (1871) when cruis- ing between Shediac and Gaspé, we did not see many of them violate the law by coming within the limits, but when I ran over to Prince Ed- ward Island I saw great numbers of them fishing within three miles of the shore, as many asthirty at onetime. At thattime they were allowed by tbe island government to fish there, as 1 understood, but I had no authority to interfere with them. ; 14. ‘Ihe experience gained by me during these years when I was en- gaged in these cruisers, and my own previous knowledge, gained from years of practical experience in the business, convinces me, beyoud a doubt, and | have no hesitation in stating it under oath as my firm, de- liberate, conviction, that if the American fishermen were prohibited or could be strictly prevented from fishing within three miles of the shore, they would entirely abandon the British-American waters altogether, so far as mackerel are concerned. 15. The inshore- fisheries are of so much more greater value than the outshore or deep-sea fisheries, that the latter would be utterly useless by themselves and without participation in the inshore fishery. - 16. The Americans do use the purse-seines for catching mackerel on our coasts, and their use has the effect of driving the fish into deep water and away from the ordinary fishing grounds. I am not aware that they have been used extensively ; my opinion is that they have not been. 17. 1 am aware that the American fishermen buy large quantities of bait all along the coasts of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton. I cannot say whether they catch it to any extent themselves. Without this bait they could not carry on the cod-fishery at all. When I speak of not being able to say whether they catch bait, I wish to confine that to the her- rings. I am aware that they fish for and catch squid in Canseau, Guys- boro, and along the eastern coast of Cape Breton in considerable quan- tities. I have seen them catching these squid every time I have been along the coast in the squid season. These squid are among the very best bait for codfish, far better than herring. They are taken close into the shore, sometimes up against the rocks. They would prefer buying the squid to catching them if they could buy them, but they cannot, be- cause the people do not catch them to any extent. Squid are taken with a jig; they are not taken in nets. 13. Since the Washington Treaty, the Americn cod-fishers have been able to get their supplies for the cod-fishery, besides their bait ..nd ice, along our coasts, and the consequence is there has been a marked in- crease, | would say fifty per cent., of these American cod-fishers. Being able to obtain bait and ice so near and so easily, they have their trawls extending from Cape Sable to Cape North, in Cape Breton, and a con- sequence is, in my Opinion, that the best fish are prevented coming in- shore, and are lost to our shore fishermen. Without being able to get the bait, they could not do this. 19. The herring-fishery is entirely an inshore fishery. None are taken outside. It extends round the entire coasts of Nova Scotia, New Bruns- AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1145 wick, Prince Edward Island, and Lower Canada, and are chiefly taken by Dominion fishermen, and used as bait, or sold as such to the Ameri- cans, 20. The food of the mackerel is various, depending upon the season. A small fish called a shrimp, and another called brit, and small herring, the season’s spawn, are the food they generally feed on. These small fish are found in: the tide-rips, in the small bays, and off from points, but close to shore, within half or quarter of a mile from shore or less. That is where the mackerel are first found, after rising from spawning. They feed there for a time, until they fatten, and then they begin to move farther off from shore, and, after getting fat, move southward again. The mackerel breed along the coasts and in the bays of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and Quebec. They go into shoal water to spawn, unless disturbed. 21. The privilege of transshipping their fish is a very valuable one to American fishermen, because it saves so much of their time at the very season when it is most valuable. Iu this way they are enabled to make an extra trip at least, and some of the more fortunate two trips, and, consequently, make very much larger catches. Without this privi- lege I don’t believe many of the Americans would prosecute the mackerel- fishery on our coast. * * * Iform this belief from my intercourse with the American fishermen themselves. 22. The privilege of fishing in the American waters is of no use or benefit to Canadian fishermen. 28. United States fishermen coming into our inshores professedly for fishing purposes, take advantage of it to trade with the inhabitants, and sell them large quantities of smuggled goods from the United States. This is quite prevalent. 29. I bave been for the past four weeks ill from the effects of a tumor which I have had removed from my throat, and am still in the doctor’s hands and unable with safety to move about much. ~ JAS. A. NICKERSON. ’ Sworn to at Halifax, in the Province of Nova Scotia, this —— day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. WM. ACKHURST, J. P. No. 38. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax under the Treaty ‘ of Washington. I, Joun L. INGRAHAM, of North Sydney, in the county of Cape Bre ton, in the Province of Nova Scotia, fish merchant, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in the business of fish merchant during the past twenty years, and am at present so engaged,and am well acquainted with Canadian fishermen and American fishermen in this locality, also with the buying and selling of fish, bait, ice, and fishermen’s supplies. 2. I have seen at one time two hundred American fishing vessels in this harbor. In the summer of eighteen hundred and seventy-six I have seen as many as thirty at one time. In these vessels there are from ten to fifteen men each. 3. These vessels fish often within one-half mile of the coast, north and east of Cape Breton, and all around. 3. They take from one hundred to five hundred barrels of mackerel 1146 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. each; some take from one hundred to one thousand quintals of codfish. This amount they take each trip. They get them around the shore, on Grand Bank, and wherever they can. The mackerel men make two trips, and those catching codfish make an average of at least two trips, some making three trips. 4, I have been well acquainted, during the past 20 years, with the amount of fish taken by vessels around this locality, and have found that the amount varies, being sometimes good for two or three years, poor for two or three years, and again good for another two or three ; they have been rather poor for the last two or three years. This year the mackerel have been reported plenty east of Cape Breton, and will probably be plenty again for a number of years. 5. The fishing is mostly done with hooks and trawls, the Americans trawling in deeper water than Canadian fishermen. 6. The American heavy trawling destroys the mother fish. They catch the larger fish, and often throw over any small ones taken, thus injuring the fisheries. - 7. During and before the Reciprocity Treaty of eighteen hundred and fifty-four the American fishermen fished close to the shore, following the fish close in and wherever they could take them. Since the Treaty of Washington, they come along the shore, fish close in, within three miles of the coast. When our armed vessels come, they leave; and when the armed vessels go away, they return. 8. The inshore fishing is, in my opinion, of more value than the fishing outside, as the fish make in towards the shore, and if the Americans could not come in and get bait, and ice to keep their bait, the outside fishing would be of no benefit to them whatever, the privilege of fishing and purchasing bait, purchasing ice and supplies being invaluable. 9. The American fishermen use seines in deep water and also on the shore, and Canadian fishermen complain that by these seines they take great quantities before they can get inshore, and break up the schools of fish. 10. The Americans get all their bait within three miles of the shore, in the bays, creeks, and harbors, by fishing for it with hook and line, and with nets. They also purchase large quantities, because, they say, it is more convenient to do so at times. 11. The American fishermen, to my knowledge, take codfish and had- dock inshore by trawling and hooking them, and Canadians in thesame way. 12. Almost all herring fishing is done inshore, and the Americans catch them for bait, and they often sell herring thus caught. This I know well, having purchased herring from them all along the coast. 13. The Americans catch very large quantities of mackerel, and I have often heard American masters say that our mackerel is much superior to that caught in American waters, being larger and fatter. 14, I have been informed by American fishermen that the mackerel feed inshore and places where the water is shoal, and I have known American vessels catch a cargo of over 300 barrels of mackerel in a week within five miles of this harbor, and I know of no reason why it may not be done again within the next eight years. The right of trans- shipping at such a time would be of great value, as also the right to land and dry their nets. 15. The right of taking bait in our bays, creeks, and harbors is, in my opinion, invaluable, for without this privilege they would be unable to prosecute the fisheries. 16. American fishermen purchase bait at times, because, they say, AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1147 it is more profitable for them to do so. I have sold them large qnanti- ties of ice to pack their bait—from 10 to 12 tons per vessel each fishing trip—without which they could not keep their bait. They take about two tons at one time, and frequently return for more ice and bait in order to complete the trip. ’ 17. I sold yesterday two American fishermen ice to pack their bait. They also buy flour, beef, oil, and molasses when they run short of stock taken from home. 18. I have been engaged in the buying and selling of fish for not less than twenty years, and am acquainted with many Canadian and American fi-hermen, and I have never known or heard of any Canadian fishing vessel fishing in American waters, and do not know of any practical advantage that would arise from doing so." 19. If American fishermen were excluded fish would undoubtedly be more plentiful. There would be more Canadian vessels employed not having to compete with American fisherman, and I also believe that if American fishermen were totally excluded from our markets and from fishing in our waters these markets of our own would afford suffi- cient inducement to carry on fishing extensively and prosperously by our own people. 20. I believe that any diminution in the mackerel trade will not be of long continuance, and know of no reason why it may not be better than it has ever been. 21. American fishermen come around the southern and eastern coast of Cape Breton by dozens through the Canal and Bras d’Or Lake and wherever it suits them. 22. From information I have received from masters of Canadian and American vessels I have been led to believe that there have been, year after year, a thousand American vessels fishing in Canadian waters, the number of which I have no information may have been as great. JOHN L. INGRAHAM. Sworn at North Sydney, in the county of Cape Breton, in the Province of Nova Scotia, this 18th day of July, A D. 1877, before me, W. H. MORSE, J. P. for the County of Cape Breton. No. 39. I, JoHN J. MCPHEE, of Big Pond, Township number forty-five ip Kings County, Prince Edward Island, fisherman and fish-stage owner, make oath and say: 1, That I have been engaged in fishing or carrying on the fishing busi- ness for twenty odd years, and I am carrying the business at a stage on the north side of this part of this island at the present time. I have fished in both boats and schooners, but chiefly in schooners, both Amer- ican and. island. I have fished all in this gulf, except some deep-sea cod-fishing on the George’s Banks, and I am acquainted with the fish- ing-grounds of the gulf very well. ‘ _ 2. That there are about forty boats engaged in fishing between the East Point and my stage, a distance of about fifteen miles. In that dis- tance there are no harbors, and the boats have to be beached. The _ number of boats has increased a good deal since last year. The reason for the increase in the boat-fishing is that the men from here, who used _ to fish on the American shore, found that it did not pay, and they came home to fish on the island shores. 1148 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3. That these boats take crews of from two to four men each, and av- erage about three men each. That is clear of the men employed on shore to carry on the basiness. 4, That the boats get as many herring in the spring as they want for mackerel-bait during the summer, and if the people choose to go into the business, they could get a great many. Last year my boats and dories averaged fifty quintals of cod and hake. The boats also get on an average, on that side, about fifty barrels of mackerel in the season. These fish are all caught within three miles of the shore, that being the good fishing ground. 5. That I was out fishing in several island schooners, in the Jane, Margaret, in one Nova Scotian vessel, the Tyro, and some other island vessels. In the Jane we got about two hundred and twenty barrels of mackerel. Most of these were taken in on the shore, very few of them were taken in deep water. In the Margaret we were cod-fishing right off this shore; the fish taken in her were caught within three miles of the shore. In the Tyro, a small, little vessel, we took about two hun- dred and twenty barrels of mackerel, all of which were caught near the shore, round the coast. 6. That I fished for two years in the bay in American vessels, one year in the Two-forty and one year in the G. G. Kidder. In the Two- forty we took nine hundred and ninety barrels of mackerel. She was a schooner of sixty seven tons burden, and carried 15 hands. Of these fish abont one hundred and fifty barrels were caught in deep water, more than three miles from the shore; the rest were taken close to shore, within three miles of this island—the New Brunswick, Nova Sco- tian, and Magdalen Islands shores. 7. That in the G. G. Kidder, a schooner of about the same size as the other, we took three hundred and sixty-six or seventy barrels of mack- erel ; most of these fish were taken close in round the shores. We took very few in deep water. 8. That I had been cod-fishing in deep water off the American shore. There are over a thousand American vessels engaged in this fishery. They get the main part of the bait they use at Newfoundland, round the Nova Scotia shore, and at the Magdalen Islands. The cod-fishery there is dependent on these herring fisheries, and would be a failure if ca herring could not be taken. They also get supplies of ice on our shores. 9. That for the last ten years there has been an American fleet of fishing-schooners, on an average, of over five hundred sail in this gulf fishing. Some years there are more and some years less. Last year there were not a great many; the number varies. There are a lot of Americans coming down here this year; this season there are a number of seiners down here, and they do a lot of harm. 10, That the American fishermen clean the fish on the grounds, and throw the dirt and offal overboard. This does a lot of harm to the fishing. The fish eat up this dirt or gurry, and this sickens them, and I believe kills the fish. When this is thrown overboard the fish stop biting and cannot be caught. Ihave alwaysseen them stop biting when we threw the offal overboard. This hurts the boat-fishing, as they have to stop on the ground; the schooners can leave and go to other places. We fishermen look upon this as a very serious injury to us. _ Il. That the schooners also do a great deal of injury to the boat-fish- ing by lee-bowing the boats. They come up around the boats, throw a lot of bait and drift off, drawing the fish after them. They do this pur- posely. _ It was done in the American vessels in which I fished myself. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1149 12. That the right to land here, transship their fish, and refit, is a very great boon to the Americans. The schooners save, i should say, about twenty days by being able to land their fish here instead of going home. They take a good while to go home, whereas they can land in our ports with very little loss of time. They can also fit out in our ports cheaper than they can at home. 13. That the Americans are: now beginning to seine here, and that ought to be stopped; it is a very great injury to the fishing. I believe ithas spoiled the fishing on the American shore. Seining hurts the fishing, as it breaks up the schools, scares them off the shore, and large quantities of fish are killed. They take all sorts of fish,and they throw away everything except the mackerel. The also take small mackerel, and these are killed in the seines and thrown away. JOHN J. McPHEE. Sworn to at Black Bush, in King’s County, Prince Edward Island, this 26th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES MacDONALD. Justice of the Peace for King’s County. No. 40. . I, JAMES MCDONALD, of Chepstow, in township number forty-five, in King’s County, Prince Edward Island, farmer and fisherman, miake oath and say: 1. That I have been engaged, as boy and man, in fishing for forty years past, in both boats and schooners, the schooners being both American and island vessels. I fished four years in island schooners and three years in American. I have fished all round this island, down at the Magdalens, up west, in the Bay Chaleur, and herring-fishing in the winter at Newfoundland. 2. That, including boats and dories, there are engaged in the fishery from Murray Harbor to East Point, on the south side of this island, from _ three hundred to three hundred and fifty boats. The number is increas- ing fast every year; they have doubled in number in the last three years, and are now increasing fast. 3. That the boats increase because there is a demand for fish, and fishing pays better than any other work that I know. Fish are ready- money articles, and we can get cash for them any day, and we cannot get it for anything else. The fishing puts a lot of money in circulation in the country, which in itself is a great advantage. 4. That the boats, including dories, take, on an average, two to three men each, the dories generally taking two. 5. That the boats get as many herring in the spring as they want for bait. The boats use from ten to twenty barrels each during the season for mackerel and cod-fish bait. The boats catch some two and three hundred quintals of cod-fish and bake during the season, and some less. The average would be about two hundred quintals, which produce a large quantity of sounds and oil. The sounds of the hake are worth early twice as much as the fish themselves without the sounds. Some of the boats get, on this side, forty barrels of mackerel and more. The average catch would be thirty-five barrels to a boat. We go in princi- _ pally for cod-fishing here. 6. That nearly all the herring caught are taken close inshore. About half the codfish are taken near the shore—that is, within three miles. There might be one quarter of the mackerel taken by boats here caught 1150 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . more than three miles from shore; the rest are taken within that dis- tance. 7. That I was out eight weeks one season in the Spray, belonging to Charlottetown, carrying eighteen bands; in that time we took over one hundred quintals of codfish and over two hundred and fifty barrels of mackerel, but that was not half the season. 8. That I was out in another Charlottetown vessel, carrying twelve hands, for five weeks, and in that time we caught two hundred barrels of mackerel. 9. That I was out one season in the American schocner Mary 8. Wan- son, of Booth Bay, and we caught six hundred and fifty barrels of mack- erel; she was about eighty tons burden and carried seventeen hands; we made two trips and part of another in her. 10. That I was out part of one season in the Burnside; we were out about two months, and caught five hundred barrels of mackerel. She carried sixteen or seventeen hands. 11. That | was out in the Fox a long time ago; she was a small ves- sel; I was not in her the whole season. She only took two hundred barrels while I was in her. 12. That we fished in these vessels all around the north and part of the south side of this island, Gatching most of the fish in the bight of this island. We got the fish all close inshore; none of the fish were caught more than two or three miles off, and most of them right in among the boats on the shore. Most of the American vessels fished in the same places. Wherever the Americans saw the boats taking fish, they came right in there. 13. That the American fishermen do a great deal of harm to the boats ‘by coming in and lee-bowing, and taking the fish away. They come in close to shore, throw bait and drift off, taking the fish with them. They sometimes drift down on the boats themselves, and the latter have to get out of the way to avoid being swamped. I have often had to do so myself. The fishermen are sure, when the Americans come round, that the boats are going to lose the fish. The vessels are the ruin of the boat- fishing. They heave so much bait that they glut and sink the mackerel. — They also throw overboard the dirt and offal of the fish they clean, and the fish get sickened by it and won’t bite; in fact, that offal poisons the fish. 14. When the cutters were about, they used to keep the Americans from fishing near the shore toa great extent. I have seen the schooners, when the boats were getting plenty of fish in sight, not daring to heave a line for fear of the cutters. Had there been half a dozen cutters, the Americans would not have been able to fish inshore at all. 15. That the right to transship their fish is a great advantage to the Americans, as they can thereby save more than a fortnight each trip, which, in the course of a summer, would amount to another trip. 16. That I was down at the Magdalen Islands herring-fishing one season, and there were then fifty or sixty sail of Americans fishing her- ring there. The herring are seined there, and a few are netted; they are caught right inshore, in Pleasant Bay. 17, That one winter I was herring-fishing at Newfoundland; then there were about thirty-five sail of Americans seining herring in Fortune Bay. These herring they freeze for the George’s fleet and for markets. 18, That there are large fleets of American fishing-schooners in this gulf every year. There are three, four, and five hundred sail at a time. ips are a great many of them coming down now; they are arriving ast. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1151 19, That the Americans are now seining down here, and thereby doing a great deal of harm. They take so many more fish than they can save in the seines, that large quantities of fish are smothered and are thrown overboard. They take large quantities of herring in these seines, which they throw away and the fish are destroyed. One seiner last week here seined a trip of about a thousand barrels which he had to throw away, as his vessel was loaded. Several of the American vessels have already taken their loads and gone. The fish which are thrown overboard by _ the seiners rot at the bottom and drive the other fish away. his JAMES + McDONALD. mark. Sworn to at Souris, in King’s County, Prince Edward Island, this 24th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me, the words opposite my initials having been first interlined, he fully understanding the same, and kuow- ing the contents. JAMES R. MacLEAN, Justice of the Peace for King’s County. No. 41. I, JAMES NOWLAN, of Souris, in King’s County, in Prin Edward Island, fisherman, make oath and say: 1. That I have been engaged in fishing for about thirty-six years, part of that time in boats and in schooners. I fished for eight summers in American schooners, and I know the fishing grounds all around the north side of this island, the Cape Breton coast, the Magdalen Islands, and up the Bay Chaleur. 2. That there are about one hundred and fifty boats fishing out of the New London Harbor, where I am now fishing, and along the beach, and the number is increasing fast—has doubled at least within the last six years—and the boats themselves are now very much better than they were then; the boats. are better built, better modeled, and are smarter boats than they were; they are worth much more. There is very much more money now invested in boats than there was a few years ago. People find that the fishing pays, and they are going in for it more and more. The boat-fishing affords employment to a lot of men who otherwise would not be at work. 3. The average crews of the boats are from four to five men to each boat, besides the men employed on shore, who are a good number. 4. That the average catch of mackerel for each boat off here is about one hundred barrels. Some years they catch more and some years less. 5. That the greater part of the mackerel caught by the boats is caught near the shore. More than three-quarters of the whole catch are caught within three miles from the shore. 6. That I was on board a small island schooner called the: Mountie R., of about sixteen tons burden, and carrying seven hands. I was out in her for about one month two years ago, and we caught seveuty-five barrels of mackerel; all we caught were caught within three miles of the land. 7. That I fished one year for mackerel on board the Nova Scotia . scooner Let-her-Rip, of about twenty-seven tons burden, and carrying - eight hands. I was in her only two months and thirteen days, and caught one hundred and fifty barrels of mackerel. 8. That I fished in American schooners eight summers, the last time being in the summer of 1874, on board the schooner Uncle Joe, of Southport, Maine. She was of about sixty tons burden, and carried 1152 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. sixteen hands. We caught six hundred and eighty barrels of mackerel that summer on board of her. These mackerel were mostly caught along the island shore and up towards Port Hood. Of these we caught one hundred and seventy barrels in Rustico Cove, about a quarter to a half a mile from shore. More than three-quarters of the whole catch were caught within three miles of the shore. 9. That the American vessels in which I sailed would average about four hundred barrels of mackerel the season. 10. That the American fishermen hurt our fishing, as they throw so much bait that they sink the fish. They also clean their fish and throw the offal overboard, and that does harm to the fishing. This offal sick- ens and kills the fish. The Americans interfere with the boat-fishing by lee-bowing them, and draw off the fish. They come up ahead of the boats and throw bait and drift off, taking the fish with them. They break up the schools of mackerel where the boats are. The fishermen look upon the coming of the Americans as the end of the good fishing for the season. The boats do better before the Americans come than afterwards. 11. That the right to transship and refit on our shores is a very great advantage to the Americans. By having this right, they are able to save the time which it would take them to go home. This would be a save of at least a fortnight each trip, which would amount to a full trip saved for the season. They can also send away their mackerel in time to catch the market, which is a very changeable one. That in itself is a great advantage. 1z. That I have often been herring-fishing at the Magdalen Islands, at Labrador, and on the Newfoundland coast. I was at the Magdalen Islands this summer two years, and there were a number of Americans fishing down there. The herring there are caught right in the harbor. The Americans catch large loads of herring at the Magdalen Islands, some of which I believe they send down to the West Indies. The her- ring there are caught altogether by seines. The American herring fish- ing there is a big trade. 13. The greater part of the codfish and hake are caught about two miles off the shore from this island. Three-quarters of the cod and hake are caught within three miles of the shore. The fishing within that dis- tance is much better than farther off. 14. The fish, I believe in the spring, come down through the Gut of Canso, and then go to the Magdalen Islands, and from there they strike down towards the North Cape of this island. The American and any skilled fishermen know of this habit of the fish and kuow where to get them. The fishermen know just where to get the fish, and they make down from the States in the spring to the places to get them. 15. The year the cutters were about the Americans were afraid of them, but still they used to dodge in and fish. I believe that six or eight small cutters well fitted out would keep the American fishing schoouers clear of the coast. his JAMES + NOWLAN. : mark. Sworn to at French River, New London, Queen’s County, Prince Edward Island, this 12th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me, having been first read over and explained, the said James Nowlan sigring by his mark. Before me. JOHN SHARPE, Justice of the Peace. ——EEE AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1153 No. 42. I, Joun G. MCNEILL, of North Rustico, in Queen’s County, in Prince Edward Island, farmer and fisherman, make oath and say: 1. That I have been engaged in fishing for eighteen years, and that my experience has been in boat-fishivg, and I am acquainted with the fishing off this part of the island. 2. That there are about eighty boats fishing out of North Rustico, without taking into consideration the other parts of Rustico. The number of boats has more than doubled in the last ten years, and is still on the increase. The boats take on an average crews of five men each, beside what men they employ on shore as stage-men. 3. That the boats on an average catch about one hundred barrels of mackerel each for the season, and about twenty quintals of codfish and hake each. ; 4, That the fish are nearly all caught close to the shore, the best fish- ing ground being about one and one-half miles from the shore; in Oc- tober the boats sometimes go off more than three miles from land. Fally two-thirds of the mackerel are caught within three miles from the shore, and all are caught within what is known as the three-mile limit, that is, within a line drawn between two points taken three miles off the North Cape and Kast Point of this island. 5. The reasons for the increase in the number of boats is that people find that the fishing pays, and therefore they go in for it. 6. Some years there have been five hundred sail of American schoon- ers fishing off this coast. I think the reason the schooners have not been as numerous around this shore within the last few years as they were before is, that they were scared away by the cutters some years ago, and they have been compelied to stop fishing. I believe, from what I know of the American vessels, that they catch on an average about five hundred barrels of mackerel each. 7. That the right of transshipment is-valuable to the Americans, be- cause they thereby save about three weeks each trip right in the heart of the fishing season, which, taking the two trips into consideration, would amount to a trip saved in the season. They can refit here more cheaply, I believe, than they can in the United States. They are also thereby enabled to take advantage of the markets; they can come on shore, find-out how the markets are in Boston and other places, and ship away at once in time to catch good markets. That is a great ad- vantage for them. 8. The‘cod-fishing begins here about the tenth of June, and the mack- erel about the beginning of July, and the cod-fishing lasts till about the tenth of November, and the mackerel-fishing till about the twentieth of October, although we have taken mackerel later than that date. 9. There is pretty much a separate class here going in for fishing. The people now pay more attention to the fishing than formerly; the boats are better in every way than they used to be. 10. The coming of the Americans is a great injury to the fishing. They come down and lee-bow the boats, taking the fish away. They sometimes drift down on the boats and break the masts out of the boats, doing great injury. The Americans put an end to our good fish- ing when they come around. I believe one reason for this is the amount of offal which the Americans throw overboard. The blood and offal hurt the fish and sink them to the bottom. Their habit of throwing _ the offal overboard is very injurious to the fishing. 11. The Americans for the past two years have not been so numerous 73 F 1154 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. here as before, because, owing to the large quantities of fish caught two years ago, the price of mackerel is not now as high as formerly. Two years ago, with three boats, I shipped one thousand barrels of mackerel. JOHN G. McNEILL. Sworn to at North Rustico, in Queen’s County, in Prinee Edward Island, this 10th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. WM. S. McNEIL, J. P. Queen’s County. No. 43. I, GEORGE McKENZIE, of French River, in New London, in Queen’s County, Prince Edward Island, master mariner, make oath and say : 1. That I have been engaged in fishing for about forty years, in schooners nearly altogether; I have fished at the Labrador for codfish and herring, and in the gulf cod and mackerel fishing, and I am well acquainted with all the fishing grounds from Sandwich Bay, in Labra- dor, all up the gulf to Anticosti. I have fished two years in Anticosti. 2. That there is a very large number of boats fishing off this harbor and the coast in this locality, and their number is inereasing very fast; in this harbor they have doubled in number during the last year, and the boats are a hundred per cent. better now than they were; they are better rigged, better shaped, of better material, larger, and better in every respect than they were. The reasons for the increase in the boat fishing now is that people, finding it pays, are going more and more into it, and young men are now going in for fishing instead of teaving the island; young men do not eare about going to sea as mueb as for fish- ing, as they ean get money easier in the latter way. There is also a considerable surplus population springing up now, which find employ- ment in fishing, which they could not get in any other way; men see there is an opening here for them in the fishing business, and they would sooner go into it than go away. 3. The boats take, on an average, crews of four men each, besides the men employed about the stages, who would be at the rate of about four men to six boats; this is besides the men who make the barrels, and others to whom employment is given preparing outfit and material for the boats; during the fishing season it would take twenty men, clear of the stages and the crews, to keep six boats going. Last year I paid one thousand and sixty dollars for the barrels used by me for my six boats, and which barrels were all made and supplied by men having nothing to do with the boats or stages. 4. That the average catch of mackerel for the boats, taking one with another, is not less than one hundred barrels. This [ know from the number of barrels caught by the different boats bere, as shown by the actual figures taken as the boats landed the fish. 5. That all these mackerel are caught right along the shore; none farther out than three miles from shore, and the greater part within one mile of the line of the shore. _ 6, That the boat fishing here puts a great deal of money in circula- tion in the country, as the moment the fish are shipped the fishermen or shippers can draw for the money, and the banks cash their drafts. This keeps up a good circulation of cash in the country, and does a lot of good in that way. 7. Until the last two years there have been fleets of 500 sail of Ameri- can fishermen fishing in the gulf. The reason they have not been so + NN LSS AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1155 numerous the last two years is that they have had good fishing on their own shore, a thing which very seldom happens. It is only very seldom that they have good fishing on their own coasts. 8. That fully two-thirds of the fish caught by the Americans are caught near the shore, within three miles of it. I know this, because I have fished among them year after year, and I never saw twenty of them at a time fishing more than three miles off, while from 150 to 200 sail of them would be fishing close to the shore. They and the island schoon- ers always fish about the same grounds. The inshore fishing has always been the best for mackerel at all seasons of the year. 9. That my average catch of mackerel while fishing in island schoon- ers was about 500 barrels of mackerel each year, but we were not so well fitted out as the Americans, they having more men, better fit-outs, and more experienced fishermen than we had. The average catch of the Americans was consequently much larger than ours. They would average a thousand barrels each until the last two years, when they have been fishing on their own coast. During the last two years they would not average more than 400 barrels down here, because they did not come in time, and the fish were close inshore, and there were not so many fish here as before. 10. That the Americans catch codfish near the Labrador, close into the rocks. There used to be about two hundred sail of American cod-fish- ermen at the Labrador and along the gulf shores. : 11. That the American schooners used to do great injury to the boat- fishing. When the American fleet was down here, it used to knock up the boat-fishing. They used to hurt the boats, and in fact their schooners did not care what they did to the boats. When they saw the boats raising fish they would come right up and drift down upon the boats when the boats had to get out of the way. Their schooners, when the boats were getting fish, come up and lee-low the boats and take the fish away from them. They used to break up the schools by running down among them and throwing bait. When the Americans clean their fish, they throw the offal overboard and that is a great injury to the fishing, as it drives the mackerel from the ground, and I believe it kills them. 12. That the Americans fish large quantities of herring at the Mag- dalen Islands; they often have one hundred and fifty sail of vessels there fishing herring there. I haveseen the number as low as sixty sail, but very seldom. They average about one thousand barrels of herring to each vessel. These are all caught inside of Pleasant Bay, and they are all caught by seines. These herring are partly smoked and are sent to different ‘parts of the United States, and to the West Indies, and Sweden, and in fact to wherever there is a market. The herring fish- ery at the Magdalen Islands is a very valuable one for the Americans, as they are put to little expense about it and get large returns. 13. The Americans always come down after the Fourth of July, I have seen a hundred sail of them go into Halifax in one day to fit out for the gulf-fishing. They stop here till late in November, generally making two or three trips in the season. I have seen thirty sail of American schooners come out of Malpeque Harbor, and to my certain knowledge, they each wanted from one hundred to one hundred and fifty barrels of being loaded, and they dropped down and fished between New London Head and Rustico Head, not two miles from shore, and before sun-down they had all completed their cargoes and sailed for home. _ 14. Our regular mackerel season begins here about the first of July: The mackerel strike in here about that time. At the North Cape of this island they strike earlier than they do here. The mackerel season lasts 1156 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. till about the last of September, although they are often caught as late as December. The mackerel stop here till December, but the weather gets too blustery to go off for them. 15. That in the spring the mackerel are first caught at the Magdalen Islands, where they are caught in nets by the Nova Scotians and Amer- icans. The mackerel strike the Magdalen Islands about the first of June, right after the herring leave. I think they always come to the Magdalens round Cape North. The mackerel don’t stop there long, but strike for the North Cape of this island, and from there they make over for the New Brunswick coast, and about the month of August they work back southward again. This general habit of the mackerel is well known to fishermen, and the American fishermen know the habit first rate. When the mackerel strike off for this island the Ameriean schooners never wait along the bight of this island but press up toward the North Cape, and Miscou, and Mira, and generally along the west coast of New Branswick, and up as far as Seven Islands above Anticosti, as their experience has taught them that that is the quarter where the fish are to be found first. Later on in August and September they come back into the bight of this island, and that is the time they interfere with the boats. Nearly all the fish caught during these times are caught near the shores of the British possessions, although there are some American vessels which fished entirely in deep water away from the land, but these are comparatively few. Some of the Americans used to be afraid to fish near the sbore through fear of the cutters. 16. That it would not be worth while for the American fishing-schoon- ers to fit out for fishing in the gulf, if they were not allowed to fish near the shores. They might as well stop at home. 17. That at the present time about four hundred sail of American cod- fishing vessels fit out on the British coasts from Cape Sable in the southern part of Nova Scotia, round to Cape North. They take in bait and ice for the trawl or set-line fishing on the Banks off the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland coasts. They could not carry on this cod fishery unless they could get their ice and bait on British territory. They could not bring the bait from home with them, as the distance is too great and they could not get fresh herring at home. They also get their ice cheaper and better on our shores than they ean buy it in Boston. 18. That the right of transshipment is a very great privilege to the Americans. By it they are enabled to make a trip more in the season than they could if they bad to take their fish home in their own vessels ; they save a fortnight each trip by having this right. They can also fit out here cheaper than they can at home, which in itself is a great advan- tage to them. They can also put their fish into the markets without delay, when they are able to transship them in our ports, and thus take advantage of high prices in the fish-market, which is about the most fluctuating market in the world. The vessels can land even partial cargoes, and ship them on to the United States and sell them “ to arrive,” which is a very great thing for the fishermen. The fish also get worse the longer they are kept on board the vessels ; they fail—that is, they get light, and are apt to rust owing to the barrels leaking the pickle ; in fact they get to look worse, and are worse, and command a lower price the longer they are kept on board the vessel. They also get knocked about by the tossing of the vessels. 19. That there is a great deal of herring-fishing done by the Ameri- cans in the winter at Boone Bay, Bay Fortune, and at other places on the coast of Newfoundland. These herring are caught for pickling and for bait, and quantities are frozen to send down to Boston and other + eee AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1157 - places in the States for home consumption. There would be fifty sail of American down there at a time, and they are coming and going the whole time. GEORGE McKENZIE. Sworn to, at French River, in New London, in Prince Edward Island, this 12th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. JOHN SHARPE, Justice of the Peace. No. 44. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, PETER PAINT, Sr., of Port Hawkesbury, in the county of Inverness, and Province of Nova Scotia, merchant, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been for the past forty-five years dealing in fish and fishing- supplies, and I am acquainted with the fisheries in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, but principally with those on the Nova Scotia shores, border- ing on that gulf. I dealin all kinds of dry and pickled fish to the ex- tent of $20,000 per annum. 2. L estimate that since I have been doing business as aforesaid, the American fishing-fleet in the Gulf of St. Lawrence has ranged from ‘400 to 800 sail each year. I have understood that there have been some years as high as 1,000 sail of mackerelers and cod fishermen. I have known of 150 cod-fishing vessels and 600 sail of mackerel-catchers in a single season in the gulf. 3. The catch of mackerel per vessel is between four hundred and five hundred barrels each season, worth about $12 per barrel. The cod fishermen average about one thousand quintals per vessel each sea- son, worth $5 per quintal. 4, The codfish are caught with hooks, and the mackerel principally with hooks. 5. I believe that the Americans injure our fishing grounds by throw- ing overboard offal and garbage and that the fish are driven away by this practice. 6° The Americans have always fished as near the shore, as they could, whether it was lawful for them to do so or not. The cutters kept them off to some extent between 1866 and 1871. 7. The-jnshore mackerel fishery is, in my opinion, more valuable than that outside. The herring fishery is carried on inshore altogether. I am of opinion that more than half the mackerel are caught inshore. 8. The American fishermen of late years are attempting to use seines in catching the mackerel in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 1 consider this practice very injurious to the mackerel fishery, as it tends to break up the schools and drive away the fish. 9. Iam not aware that the fish frequenting Canadian waters have in- ereased or decreased to any great extent since the Treaty of Washing- ton. The mackerel were somewhat scarce in 1875 and 1876, but I have known them to be just as scarce several times since I have been doing business here, and they always came in plenty again in a year or two. The mackerel are coming in in large numbers this year, and there is every prospect of a good cateh, I believe. 10. I believe that the Americans handle and dress their mackerel better than our fishermen do, and for that reason they sometimes ob- tain a higher price for them in the American market. 1158 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 11. It is certainly a very great advantage to the Americans to be allowed to land and transship their cargoes, as it enables them to make more trips and consequently eatch more fish than they otherwise could. By means of this privilege they save about a fortnight each trip. I think it adds fifty per cent. to their cateh when the fish are plenty. 12. It is much cheaper for the American cod-fishermen to buy their bait on our shores than to spend the time in catching it themselves. They consequently purchase almost all their bait from our merchants and fishermen. It would be utterly impossible for the Americans to carry on the cod and other deep-sea fisheries profitably without resort- ing to our shores and harbors for bait; nor could they carry on these fisheries profitably without obtaining ice to preserve their fresh bait, and other supplies on our shores. 13. The privilege of fishing in American waters I consider to be of no practical advantage to Canadians, and I never heard of Canadians availing themselves of this privilege. PETER PAINT, Sr. The said Peter Paint was sworn to the truth of this affidavit at Port Hawkesbury, in the county of Inverness, this 25th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. MALCOM McDONALD. Justice of the Peace. No. 45. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, GEoRGE C. LAWRENCE, of Port Hastings, in the county of Inver- ness, merchant, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged here and at Port Hood for the past fourteen year in a general fish trade, and have dealt in cod-fish, mackerel, and herring. lam carrying on a large fishing-business here now, and dur- ing the period named I have had good opportunities of watching the fishing business of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and becoming familiar with it. 2. During the Reciprocity Treaty there were each year in the gulf about five hundred American vessels. These would average from sixty to seventy tons each, and their crews would number abont fifteen men. They were engaged chiefly in taking!mackerel, and cod-fish, and herring from the Magdalen Islands and Bay Chaleurs. The mackerel vessels in the gulf daring the Reciprocity Treaty in the most favorable years would average about five hundred barrels of mackerel per season. 3. After the termination of the Reciprocity Treaty, the number of American vessels decreased on this coast, and, so far as I am able to give an opinion, their profits diminished after that time. During the past two or three years since the Washington Treaty the American mack- erel fleet in the gulf has been somewhat smaller than in former years under the Reciprocity Treaty. The catch of mackerel has been smaller. I do not regard this as due toany permanent falling off in our mackerel fisheries, but merely accidental and temporary. I have reason to believe that the catch will be larger this year than for some years past, and I know no reason why our mackerel ground should not be as pro- ductive during the next eight years as heretofore. 4, The privilege of transshipping cargoes in our ports is a great ad- vantage to American fishermen. I have known it to be done since the AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1159 Washington Treaty. It enables the American vessels to make more trips, catch more fish, and increases the paying capacity of the enter- rise. 5. Itis a great advantage to American fishermen to be allowed to procure bait in our waters and ports, and from our fishermen. They could not carry on their cod-fishing successfully without it. The very fact that Americans in many cases buy the bait instead of catching it themselves is evidence that they find it more profitable to do so. 6. It is also an advantage to American fishermen to be allowed to resort to Canadian inshores for ice to preserve their bait and to supply themselves with other articles for outfit required in the business. 7. The privilege of fishing in American waters has so far, at least, not proved of any advantage to Canadian fishermen so far as I know. 8. Not nearly all the American fishing-vessels passing through the Straits of Canso are noted or reported. A great number pass through every year that have never been noted or reported at all. 9. The Newfoundland herring fleet from American ports go thither along the eastern side of Cape Breton instead of passing through the straits, and toward the latter part of the season large quantities of the most valuable mackerel are taken by Americans on the eastern shore of Cape Breton between Cape North and Louisburg, and thereabouts. 10. I do not consider the privileges derived by Canadians of sending fish into American markets free of duty as at all equivalent to the: ad- vantages which the Americans obtain under the Treaty of Washington of catehing fish, getting bait, and transshipping in our waters and ports. GEO. C. LAWRENCE. Sworn to before me at Port Hastings, in the county of Inverness, this 25th day of July, 1877, before me. WM. CLOUGH Ju: No. 46. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JamMES B. HADLEY, of Port Mulgrave, in the county of Guys- borough aud Province of Nova Scotia, notary public, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have resided at the Strait of Canso since the year 1837. From that time until the year 1841 I was engaged in general trade and fishing business. After that I was collector of light duties and preventive and excise officer until the year 1848, after which year and until the year 1856 I was engaged in mercantile and fishing business. Since the year 1856 I have done business as a public notary. During the whole period since the year 1837 I have had a very extensive and complete knowl- edge, both personally and otherwise, of the fishing business as carried on by the Americans in the waters on the coasts of Nova Scotia, the Eastern or Gulf coasts of New Brunswick and Quebec, at the Magdalen Islands and Anticosti. 2. That I am well acquainted with the different voyages that the Americans undertake in our waters for fishing purposes. From about the 20th of April to the 10th of May, the Americans pass through the Strait of Canso to the herring fishery at the Magdalen Islands. The next fishery, in point of time, was in former years the Labrador cod fishery; now, however, trawling for codfish comes next, upon which 1160 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. they enter, as soon as they can procure bait, which, with other supplies, they obtain on our coasts, especially at the Strait of Canso. From the 25th of June until the last of October they enter our waters to prosecute the mackerel fishery chiefly in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. The num- ber of American vessels fishing in our waters for mackerel has ranged in different years from one hundred and fifty to six hundred sail, the number of men in each vessel ranging from ten to eighteen. The prin- cipal places where the Americans fish for mackerel in the summer months are all over the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, off Pomquet Island, Port Hood, Prince Edward Island, in the Northumberland Straits, off Point Miscou, as far up as the Magdalen River, across to the Seven Islands, off and around Magdalen Islands, and in the fall from East Point and the Magdalen Islands and Island Brion, thence to Cape Saint Lawrence and Port Hood, and around the eastern shore of Cape Breton to Sydney Harbor. The trawling for codfish is done all around our shores from the first of May till the fall. They also earry on the herring fishery and cod and halibut fishery from Anticosti, as far north as Green- Jand and Labrador, on both shores; also at Bay of Islands, Bay Saint George, and Fortune Bay, the latter place being visited in the winter season. The number of vessels in the herring fishery at the Magdalen Islands alone, ranges from ten to seventy-five sail of American vessels. 3. The mackerel fleet take from four hundred to eight hundred barrels per vessel each season. The herring fleet would formerly take from six hundred to a thousand barrels in bulk each season, per vessel; latterly larger vessels are used in this fishery and a larger quantity taken. 4, The American fishermen carry on their fishery in our waters by the means of seining, trawling, and hooks. 5. Wherever trawling is prosecuted it is very destructive to the boat fishery. The Americans also injure our boat fishery or shore fishery by throwing over great quantities of bait. The fishes are also in some cases driven away by the quantity of garbage and offal thrown over- board by American vessels. Great destruction is also done to our fish- eries by the Americans by the practice of seining. 6. In the prosecution of the mackerel fishery by far the greater por- tion is taken within three miles of the shore, and the mackerel fishing outside the three miles is of little or no value. The herrings are all taken within the harbors and bays of our coasts, and the trawling for codfish is also done within three miles of the shore. The privilege of coming within the three miles of the shore is of vital importance to the Americans, as all the best mackerel are taken close inshore to the very rocks. The outside fisheries would be of little importance or value to the Americans if they were kept outside the three-mile limit. It is for this reason that they have exposed themselves to so great risks in order to fish within the three miles, as they obtain so large a price for the mackerel caught inside in the fall of the year between Port Hood and Margaree, which used to bring from twenty to thirty dollars per barrel. 7. The Americans do great injury to our boat fishery by runnipg in and “lee-bowing” the boats and taking away the fish from them into deep water by throwing bait. Their system of trawling for codfish tends to destroy the mother fish which are lying on the bottom ina kind of stupid state just before they spawn. 8. The privilege of landing and drying their seines and nets and curing their fish is of great importance to the American fishermen. 9. It is also a valuable privilege to the Americans to be allowed te jJand and transship, or store their cargoes, by which means they are en- abled to make three or four trips to the Gulf of St. Lawrence if the fish AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1161 are plenty, whereas they could otherwise make only one or two trips by taking the fish home in their own bottoms each time. 10. The trawlers for codfish could not prosecute their calling without obtaining bait and other supplies on our shores; at least not at all in a profitable manner. I have known them to be compelled to abandon their voyage in consequence of not being able to procure bait on our shores. The obtaining of ice and other supplies on our coasts is also a very great advantage to the American fishing-vessels on our coasts. 11. The privilege of fishing in American waters is, in my opinion, of no practical advantage whatever to Canadians, and I never heard of any Canadian using those waters for fishing purposes. 12. In my opinion it would be better for Canadians to exclude the Americans from the fisheries within the three-mile limit, and keep them for our own people, even if the American Government put a duty of $2 per barrel, or any other amount of duty, on our fish. And I say that the above statements, to the best of my knowledge and belief, are true in substance and in fact. JAMES B. HADLEY. The said James B. Hadley was sworn to the truth of the above affi- davit, at Port Mulgrave, in the county of Guysborough, this 24th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. GEO. B. HADLEY, A Justice of the Peace. No. 47. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, MICHAEL CrIspo, of Harbor Au Bouche, in the county of Antigo- nish and Province of Nova Scotia, merchant, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been acquainted with the fisheries on our coasts for the past thirty years, during ten years of which time I was personally engaged as a practical fisherman, and during the remainder of said time I have dealt in various kinds of fish to the extent of about $20,000 or $25,000 yearly. Up to the year 1874, I estimate that there were, on an average, about four-hundred sail of American vessels engaged in the mackerel- fishery on our coasts and in our waters each year, and that the yearly catch up to that date would average about six hundred barrels to each vessel. During the past three years the number of American vessels in the mackerel fishery on our coasts has been smaller, as the mackerel have been less plenty. This year, however, there appear to be plenty of mackerel in Antigonish Bay, and there is a good prospect of a fair catch there. I have not heard how the fishery this year is succeeding on the other parts of our coast. It is my opinion that the scarcity of mackerel in our waters is not permanent, and that they will come in again as plenty as ever, unless destroyed by the purse-seines which the Americans are beginning to introduce in our waters. 2. Formerly about one-half of the mackerel were caugbt within three miles of the shore. Of late years, however, two-thirds of them are caught within that distance, in my opinion ; and I consider the inshore - mackerel fishery of much greater value than that outside. The herring fishery is almost altogether inshore, and is carried on principally at the Magdalens and on the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador, and is probably as good at the present time as ever it has been. The cod 1162 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. fishery is principally on the Banks, as the inshore fishery has been greatly injured by the practice of trawling followed by the American fishermen. The mackerel are caught all around the shores of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 3. I consider the practice of seining, which is beginning to be employed of late years by the Americans in the mackerel fishery, is very injurious. By means of this they have ruined the mackerel fishery on their own coasts, and will doubtless injure ours very greatly in the same way. The seines to which I refer are called “ purse seines,” because they draw up at the bottom likea purse. They destroy a great many fish uselessly, and tend to break up the schools of mackerel. 4, I do not think that the Americans could profitably carry on the cod fishery without procuring bait on our shores. They purchase a large quantity of bait from our fishermen and merchants., They also procure on our coasts a good deal of ice, which enables them to preserve their bait much longer than they otherwise could. I refer to the cod fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The vessels engaged in this take about four hundred barrels per vessel each season, worth about $1,600. 5. The inshore boat fishery of Canadians is injured by the Americans coming in amoug them and baiting the mackerel and enticing them away; and I consider that it would be a valuable advantage to British fishermen to carry on this inshore fishery without being subjected to local competition by United States citizens. 6. The privilege of landing and transshipping cargoes is of great ad- vantage to the Americans engaged in the mackerel fishery on our coasts, as they are thereby evabled to make more trips and catch more fish than they otherwise could. They save about a fortnight by this means on each trip they make. 7. I consider that the fact of American mackerel bringing a higher price than Canadian is largely owing to the former being placed in the market sooner after being caught than are the Canadian mackerel. On this account they look better and fresher when sold, and consequently bring a higher price. Our mackerel are worth about $12 per barrel. 8. The privilege of fishing in American waters I consider of no advan- tage to Canadians, and I never heard of Canadians availing themselves of such privilege. To the best of my knowledge and belief these state- ments I have made in this affidavit are correct. MICHAEL CRISPO. The said Michael Crispo was sworn to the truth of this affidavit at Harbor Au Bouche, in the county of Antigonish, this 1st day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. EDWARD CORBET, A Justice of the Peace. No. 48. ROBERT STEWART Munn, age 47 years, merchant, and one of the partuers in the firm of John Munn & Co., doing business at Harbor Grace, Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith: Deponent has been for upwards of twenty-five years engaged in the trade and fisheries of Newfoundland, and is well acquainted therewith in all their details. Deponent is aware that a large number of United States vessels prosecuting the Bank fishery are supplied with fresh bait and ice in the harbors along our coasts. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1163 Deponent further states, that the Newfoundland cod fishery is an in- shore fishery, as is the bait fishery, being prosecuted within three miles of the shore. The supply of bait to United States fishermen along our shores acts injuriously on local fishermen, for although it is true that there is an abundant supply of such bait, yet the very large quantities _ required by United States fishermen and their extensive operations in rocuring such frequently drives bait from coves and inlets where the ocal fishermen were accustomed to get their supply, and where their facilities enabled them to obtain what bait they needed, whereas they have not the conveniences of following the bait from harbor to harbor; and, further, the bait being thus driven from these localities, codfish also disappear, as they follow the bait; theresult, being that the local catch has become precarious, and a marked reduction i is evident since United States fishermen began the bait: trade in these waters. Deponent is well informed in affirming that one million dollars is a moderate valuation of the fish consumed for food, bait, and agricultural purposes by the inhabitants of Newfoundland, and that an average esti- mate of the profit on the yield of the inshore fisheries of Newfoundland would and does exceed twenty per cent., as is shown by the annexed statements marked A and B, which were carefully compiled from the books of the firm of whose business this deponent is managing partner. The traffic in bait by United States fishermen is an absolute injury to the people of this country and represents no actual money profit to our fishermen. Commercially the Treaty of Washington has not benefited Newfound- land by creating an extra demand or outlet for any of the produce of this country, nor can such be expected, inasmuch as United States fish- ermen, enjoying equal rights with Newfoundland fishermen, will fully supply their own markets with fish, and the exports of oils have not increased since the Treaty of Washington came into operation. In explanation, I wish to state that the reason why I say that the bait traffic is of no money profit to our fishermen is, first, the amount paid for bait is small and no compensation for the labor of procuring the same, and secondly the fishermen could be more profitably employed in catching codfish, which would yield them a much larger profit, and as a fact, fishermen engage in this bait traffic for the purpose of obtaining a little ready cash, the greater part of which they waste in dissipation. ROBERT S, MUNN. Sworn before me, at Harbor Grace, Newfoundland, this 27th July, 1877, J. O. FRASER, Commissioner of Affidavits. 1164 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. A. Fshing-voyage statement. We take the average of 4 years’ catch—1973, 1874, 1875, afld 1876—of one of our fishing jacks, with two men, and find it 80 quintals, which, at the value of $5 per quintal, is...--..----------------- $400 00 And 2 barrels herring at $2 ..---. -2---- ---- +--+ 2-22 teen ee eee eee ee 4 00 ——— $404 00 EXPENSES, &C. Now if these men hired their boat, they would have to pay only $14; but we charge her as a new boat, costing, with all her outfit, $90.00. She should, at least, run 7 years— making a yearly hire equal to .........---------------- $12 86 Add yearly expenses fitting out.........------..--------- 7:14 —_— 20 00 A herring net and moorings cost $24—for four years, or WEALIY, coc cteescsca cares ess nee tea saas Menon cisssocue 6 00 1 cast net, $3—for three years, or yearly...-......-..---.. 1 00 1 dozen lines, $4, and 6 dozen hooks, 60 cents.......----.- 4 60 wines. used and leadic22<.s52-2. asi 2%< bxenisiccesesecuse 1 40 ——__ 18 00 Extra allowed—cordage, &c., that may be required -...... 10 00 PROVISIONS USED. Pdtibags bread (at: S022. s 22.22 e-seeser sl: Charlies C. Warren............... Peter Smith:.ccsesseucoeeee meeneral Grant: << <22535-2-s002-0< James: Bowie! 2-s:s-520222526 MM A VR WOPGR.- ooo cess anise cece Pentiocstincccses sesene sess BRMOOE tne cise tows was bce seis D6VG0'ssc ce svece see suas sucess Gloucester ....-...-. (*) - +2000 Te ae aes ne i oe Malady.:2-s..- caassans eee OO) Ae ccet ww aes eee eeeean 1, 000 ie ah. WOUSEOY .- 5..c200-c--cc006 a an epe eta eee pers MUO CRUNG 2225 os ee ciacisccckon ses VOOG- =) oAtes Vecec ct ceisccaslenas Bia UN Perper pece cece oes Sidney Smith PE OOHIANGIMN 82. sacs oossues.}"Chisholim:: js cos scacac'ese cies feces Biaatioee PUQMPSON .5.--.ssc02-| YAM. 5250s 2cecesss- Wid Wire ........ BOGUSA ....2% 2.00 Seth Stockbridge BREMORGOE Scop ee es aes ciSoe cake - Eben E. Parsons ..............--- So ASR ees pe MAM. 28 coc ceca vcaccees PML BAPOAGG (cuca excess socscece Hutchings MO wing foe eo fe ee ee) Berne 2c se seco. sevens ot loos ary Meee scan ca oy beast aen eae WITS. « ceayesceseceses re ncl es Bunker Hill. .......-.... See] MG DONG bss votes se esaecel sess Cornelius Stokum................ Karhys oss cec scones ecaeee sents NEM AS SWAN oh ts enc tee ce Rattelie= cts 5i2 22a eee * Failed to get load. 1174 NotE.—Dora S. Pringle, Minor, master, hails from Boston. per belongs to Gloucester ; his name, H. A. Babston. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. The ship- And cleared and sailed for Gottenburg, in Sweden, with 4,000 barrels pickled herrings. GEORGE T. R. SNELLGROVE, Subcollector. Sworn before me at St. Jacques Bay, Newfoundland, this 6th day of November, A. D. 1876. B. J. O. FRASER, Commissioner of Affidavits. Statement giving particulars, as far as ascertained, of American fishing-vessels and their car- goes visited by me in Fortune Bay, 1876. i?) eh Date. Vessel’s name. Owners. Master. z From whence. aH Apr.-10 | ‘W. T. Smith <:..:...-. Daniel Sayard......--. Charles Keen .......-. 82 | Gloucester. 93). obo Ww hitman: <-e cclsse cons scce scoesee ceeces James McDonald ..... 94 Do. 24; MOEO Castles. ow Soon cso dens Se esosesosesicasese Loren! Nanes:2esse258% 89 Do. 26 | Grace C. Hadley ....-- C.D. Pittingale & Co..| Edwin Hall..........-. 67 Do. May 4/ Tragabizanda..-....... J. Warren Wonson.-...| William Mulloy ....-.. 68 Do. 4 Edw. E. Webster ..-... C. Nate, part owner....| Charles Nate ......--. 99 Do. 10 | Grace L. Fears.....--. sue Snnsecedoicueceeete cel eM ODODSIG 33. Jesse 88 Do. 12; lisha Crowelli.<..c5|taseauenteecoesces, Gecues William Wells.-....... 67 Do. 15 | W. E. McDonell....... W. McDonell}. ......... William ‘McDonell. ...} 98 Do. 15 | Proctor Bros..........| Harvey Knowlton....:| Edw. Trevoy .........| 7 Do. 20). Bellerophon: :<2.occ- 52 ose oe oa se eae ees oe — Goodwin ......... 85 Do. 25') ‘Ooean Belle: -..5..2... Addison, Sett & Co....}| Jno. Thompson ....... 67 Do. 25 | Mary Carlyle ......... William M. Fleet... .-.. W. H. Greenleaf ...... 66 Do. VO ck AW DIGMAN 3 ebook cree sic, Geelsecicceeis'« J. MoDonald:-<<...223< 94 Do. 29 | Grace C. Hadley .-..-... C. D. Pittingale & Co..| Edwin Hall...........| 67 Do. 29;| SOs phinG 25. ois s 350 sae) ss---eemsn nls qooeeecee se — Wilson........... 50 | Beverly, Me. 31 Edw. E. Webster -.... Charles; Nate:.-<--!.==: Charles Nate.......---| 99 | Gloucester. OL We VIRIN Fo candisaeen de lacsccemede ed tcc Scars Ed. Stapleton .......-. 73 Do. OL Nek. Eni ps's. sosccs ee William McDonell ....| W. McDonell ..-...--- 66 Do. 3) i273. W. Roberts; .2 = .2.: J. We bradley’ 22. 22..2-) .b.Conolly 2223-22222 73 Do. 31) ben Parsons: ~~ - 2-2 [oss2 2-2 2-- = weceweesen ee Charles Dagle.......-. 91 Do. June 1 feMlartha Cisse cc sac antes stesense are st oa sace ve Charles Martin -...-..-. 79 Do. 4; | MlishaiCrowell=.c0< sos2 ese sacce, coeenevceee William Wells.....--. 67 Do. 4:\ Charles P. Thompsons: 5 .- js: soc. sisi contac ss Sa) esa cses cease oewnawen se 73 Do. 4: \ hanra Nelson l. 23.2522. 2 cn caceiscwcas socced William Hall 2525222 89 Do. Os] Moaes'.A dams:2.oss.c5l toseenicsda te cessee ) Gall! Hamilton! 2.25 .cce ene sacee ac: Mii Stephens: :s.sacs6 ca 2524 69 Do. On Catrie’S; Daglo:icpciss.sc-csse sc tes 58 J. Be Coombes. ossisscsce nee 74 Do. OO Mary: Carlialé,. 3. 5.2- os cs5ech eee oe Will: Grimleth’.c2 sc. So-<.3¢ 63 Do. iro Barracoutal.c2-. 2-2 (22 ec scesccsses John Newbury..-.--.......-- 68 Do. Goa EP itn ss See oh ses mea secs sncceece GoW. Cortis| 222. 0e2-e5. eee 71 Do. JAMES P. SNOOK, Preventative Officer, Fortune, Newfoundland. Sworn before me, at Fortune, Newfoundland, this 27th November, 1976. J. O. FRASER, Commissioner of Afidavits. No. 61. WILLIAM GEORGE BENNETT, fisherman, aged 26 years, residing at Fortune, Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith that— I have become acquainted with the fisheries of Newfoundland by being actively engaged in their prosecution since I was sixteen years of age. I have seen United States fishing-vessels passing this neighborhood, going up Fortune Bay and elsewhere. The number seen by me the past summer was over thirty, but I do not know their names. These vessels came into the bay to purchase fresh herrings for bait, which they pro- cured. Our crew baited one of these vessels this summer; last summer we baited three. Each vessel took twenty-five and thirty barrels her- rings, for which they paid about twenty dollars each. The Newfoundland mripeised is an inshore fishery, being generally prosecuted close along shores. The caplin, herring, and squid fisheries used for bait are inshore fish- eries. I never knew of a Newfoundland vessel having engaged on a fishing voyage on any of the coasts of the United States of America. There are from forty to fifty American vessels frequenting Fortune Bay in winter, for the purchase of fresh herring to freeze, and when frozen AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Five to be freighted by these American vessels to the United States. Ameri- cans purchase these herrings from our people. I believe the supply of bait to United States vessels decreases the supply of bait to our local fishermen. I believe that if the practice now being pursued of * bar- ring” large quantities of herrings to be sold as bait to United States is suffered to be continued that the supply of bait to fishermen in this bay will speedily be destroyed. Ido not doubt but that the large number of United States vessels fishing on the Banks, with fresh bait, tends greatly to reduce the catch of our people along shore, snd if continued, as at present, will starve local fishermen. I believe that the short catch by our people the past summer along our southwest coasts is chiefly caused by Americans fish- ing on the outer Banks as aforesaid. Signed by his mark, he having sore thumb. his WM. GEORGE + BENNETT. mark. Sworn before me, at Fortune, this 27th day of November, 1876. J. O. FRASER, Commissioner of Affidavits. No. 62. SAMUEL GEORGE HICKMAN, aged 36 years, planter, residing at Grand Bank, Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith that— I am acquainted with the fisheries of Newfoundland by being a fish- erman myself the past twenty-five years. I have annually observed ‘United States fishing-vessels in this bay, but especially last year, when there were about three hundred of such vessels in the bay; I name among these, Lizzie V. Knight, William Morrissey, master; Proctor Bros., Edward Trevoy, master, and a large number of others too numerous to delay naming, my time being fully occupied. These vessels came into this bay to purchase fresh herrings for bait, which they purchased from our fishermen. I have sold United States vessels fresh bait; I have, with others under me, supplied over a hun- dred United States vessels with bait from first to last; each vessel would take about 40 to 60 barrels, for which they would pay from $20 to $30. I have seen our shore surrounded by American fishermen fishing for halibut and codfish, but cannot say that all these vessels were inside three mileS of a line from headland to headland. I have frequently seen United States vessels fishing between Pass Island and Brunette Island ; in some instances these vessels have been fishing up the bay among the cliffs. I cannot speak of the quantity or value of their catches, but I do know that they destroyed the halibut fishery about Pass Island, and largely damaged the cod-fishery of Fortune Bay. One of their captains told me ‘‘it was no use for our fishermen to go fishing after United States fishermen.” : Newfoundland fishermen catch codfish generally within two miles of the shore, there being exceptional places and instances where they go from six to nine miles off the coast. The caplin, herring, and squid— used for bait—are inshore fisheries, being taken in coves and harbors along the coasts, and for such purposes are never prosecuted outside three miles. _- . I never knew of a United States vessel prosecuting a fishing voyage on any of their coasts. I believe United States fishermen do sell codfish 1178 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. in this neighborhood to our people, sometimes at St. Pierre, and some- times in the harbors of the bay. From forty to fifty United States vessels regularly visit Fortune Bay in winter to purchase herrings for freezing ; they have always purchased their load of herrings except when prevented by ice in the bay; their load runs from six hundred to seven hundred barrels each, for which they pay our fishermen nominally one dollar, but allowing for measure exacted, seventy-five cents per barrel will be a fair average of the price paid. These Americans have not caught any herrings as yet, because the people of the bay would thereby be annoyed, and because Ameri- cans can purchase cheaper than cost of catching by themselves. I do not know of Americans fishing for turbot in this neighborhood. I am certain that the supply of bait to United States fishermen has de- creased the supply of bait to our local fishermen. I estimate there are eighty herring seines belonging to this bay engaged in hauling bait for the Americans, and that fully eighty seines belonging elsewhere are also engaged in the same service. Bait for Americans commences to be hauled about Ist to 10th of May, and ends in August. American vessels come in from the Banks once every fortnight or three weeks, and take fresh bait, averaging from forty to sixty barrels herrings. During the baiting season as aforesaid it very generally happens that many seines will have large quantities of herrings ,inclosed—say from five hundred to fifteen hundred barrels, and retained as long as two months, sometimes herrings rotting where inclosed, and where washed on shore impregnating the air through all the stages of putrefaction. These large seines “ bar” herrings wherever they meet them—in coves, creeks, and along shore; and, during such inclosures, it stands to reason that so great a number of captives lessens the numbers free, and injures net owners; it is a fact that, during this barring, herrings do not mesh in nets as at other times. Iam of opinion that the presence of the large number of United States vessels, fishing on the Banks off our coasts, supplied with bait, interferes with and is the main cause in reducing the local catch ; and that the scarcity of fish along our southwest coast this year has been caused by the Americans fishing on the outer Banks. The average catch of fishermen of this harbor, this year, will be about fifteen quintals per man. The catch in previous years was from fitty to seventy quintals per man, but more generally seventy would be nearer correctly stated. The price of fish this year, averaging all round, would be about five dollars and twenty cents per quintal. The bait sold at St. Pierre, by the people of this harbor, will be about 5,000 or 6,000 barrels herring, value, 45,000 francs; 10,000 hogsheads caplin, value, 60,000 francs; and about ten thousand barrels herrings thrown away being unsalable; also from five to six hundred hogsheads caplin. SAMUEL G. HICKMAN. Sworn before, at Grand Banks, this 24th November, 1876. J. O. FRASER, Commissioner of Affidavits. No. 63. HENRY BENNING, aged 37 years, subcollector Her Majesty’s customs, residing at Lamaliv, Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith : That I have become acquainted with the Newfoundland fisheries by connection therewith as supplier and otherwise during eight years. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1179 I have observed United States fishing-vessels in this neighborhood, but can only name two, namely, in the year 1874: D. E. Woodbury, D. E. Collins, 65 tons, Gloucester; G. P. Whitman, J. McDonald, 94 ‘tons, Gloucester. These vessels came here to purchase fresh bait, which they procured, and then sailed away for the Grand Banks. No American vessels have fished in this immediate neighborhood, that I am aware of. The Newfoundland fishery is an inshore fishery. The caplin, herring, and squid fisheries, used for bait, are all inshore fisheries. The caplin is taken in the landwash, herrings frequently so, and squid from half to quarter of a mile from the shore, but generally in the coves and harbors. I never heard of a Newfoundland vessel prosecuting or attempting to prosecute any fishery on any of the coasts of the United States of America. : American fishermen have not sold any small codfish in this neighbor- hood. From thirty to fifty American vessels frequent Fortune Bay in winter for the purchase of fresh herrings, to be frozen and conveyed to the United States, viz, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. Their cargoes consist of from six hundred to one thousand barrels. The price paid, is about a dollar per barrel, and when very scarce, one and one-half dollars per barrel. I am positive that the presence of the large number of United States vessels fishing on the Banks off our coast, using fresh bait, greatly’ re- duces the catch of our local] fishermen, and that the short catch of our people last summer is owing to this cause. The bait sold at St. Pierre by schooners belonging to this harbor, 1 estimate as follows, per annum: Herrings taken at Fortune Bay, viz, 3,400 barrels herrings, value, 23,800 frances; 7,000 hogsheads caplin, taken at Lamaline, 70,000 frances. The average catch of codfish per man, previous tu the last two years, has been from sixty to eighty quintals; last year it was about twenty quintals ; and the present year it has been fifteen quintals per man. HENRY BENNING, Subcollector. Sworn before me, at Lamaline, this 1st day of December, 1876. J. O. FRASER, Commissioner of Affidavits. No. 64. __ JAMES REEVES, aged 68 years, planter, residing at St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith— That I have -become acquainted with the Newfoundland fisheries by prosecuting the same during the past forty-eight years. I have seen a large number of United States fishing vessels in Fortune Bay and else- where, but cannot name any, my desire was to keep clear of them and they to keep clear of us. These American vessels visit those quarters for bait, which they generally purchase from our fishermen, which they gen- erally procure. I have baited two United States vessels with fresh her- Tings; can’t remember their names. Newfoundland fishermen generally fish within two mile of the shores. The caplin, herring, and squid fish- eries used for bait by Newfoundland fishermen are inshore fisheries, ~ being followed in the coves and harbors along the coast. I never heard of a Newfoundland vessel prosecuting any fishing voyage on any of the coasts of the United States of America, and don’t believe our vessels éver go on such a voyage. 1180 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. From forty to fifty American vessels frequent Fortune Bay in winter for herrings to freeze, and freight to Gloucester, New York, and Boston; these herrings they always purchase from our people. Americans do not fish off Pass Island, they having exhausted that fishery. American fishing vessels have been seen fishing off Cape St. Mary’s; I have not seen any fishing in this neighborhood. The supply of bait to United States fishermen shortens the supply of bait to our local fishermen. I am of decided opinion that the large number of United States vessels fishing on the Banks off our coasts shortens the catch of our local fishermen, as these Americans are well supplied with fresh bait which attracts the fish to the ground where United States fishermen fish. It has been remarked that when the great body of American vessels leave the Banks in the fall of the year then the fish becomes more abundant than before. Iam of opinion that the scarcity of fish the past summer along our southwest coasts is owing to United States fishermen fishing on the Banks of our coasts. JAMES REEVES. Sworn before me at St. Lawrence this fifth day of December, 1876. J. O. FRASER, Commissioner of Affidavits. No. 65. HuGH VAVASSEUR, aged 60 years, preventive officer, residing at St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith that— I have resided at St. Lawrence during the past thirty-six years, dur- ing all which time and for ten years previously at Gaultois and Harbor Breton. I was closely connected with the fisheries of this country. I have seen a number of United States fishing-vessels in this neighbor- hood. I can only give particulars of the following, viz: Name. Master. Tonnage.| Where belonging. | } 1876. | Ernest F. Norwood ....--.... Natl. ‘Groenlief:.<.2.:2.cces.2cscecce2 74 Gloucester. Gertie Lewis ........-.-..... Joseph W. Prout. .-......--- ere 72 Do. Carrie'S. (Dagie:- 2-2 ccsoxs52 J. Me. Coombes... 2.5.2 sescesasecdsese 74 Do. 1875. Tragabigzanda .............. ‘William Molloy ...2-s22.c.c2ces0:553 68 Do. Lizzie B. Knight...........-.- William Morrissey. 3-22-.s Be: Sr eo eore GOUMAN 52222-0550 ater anes sceness {73s ih Do: RMELGIO cc cecsosek Scan Greenleaf. 255.0 ceccaceinescrseciecyitsn | 66 Do. ES a Oe eee He Staplaton.ccse-sesseuc eres. ssecses 73 Do. ddison Center..........-... James Jamieson ......-...-.--.-+-++- | 7m | Do Men gakepisicakascssesssss os MoCarty 2: cad. acca sstccccccesesnaslevenss sess Do. BNE SEQHEL Saas 2152 8 ed |e Se an Py eee eae oe eee seed | g9 Do. These vessels came here for ice and bait. ; Every United States vessel calling in this neighborhood systemati- cally arranged to avoid the customs authorities, and their captains and 1182 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. crews are generally most insulting and offensive to the officers who visit them, the captains outrageously so. Without sufficient force it is wholly impossible to enforce an observance of the customs laws by United States fishing-vessels frequenting these coasts. The light-dues paid here by United States vessels is generally paid by orders. In one instance they have sold fishery produce for cash, which they said they required to purchase bait. T. WINTER, Subcollector. Sworn before me at Burin, N. F., this 8th day of Deeember, 1876. J. O. FRASER, Commissioner of Affidavits. No. 67. PHILIP PINE, aged 35 years, planter, residing at Burin Bay, New- foundland, maketh oath and saith: I am acquainted with the fisheries of Newfoundland by following the same and supplying therefor since I was seventeen years of age. I have observed a great number of United States fishing-vessels in this neigbborhood, there being as many as forty sail here at one time. These vessels came here for bait and for ice, which they procured by purchasing from our people, it being stated that in some instances their crews mixed with our people in hauling bait. These United States fish- ermen sometimes jig squids for themselves; I have seen them doing so at jigging-coves in this neighborhood. The past year I supplied ice to about forty United States vessels, the quantity being from two tons to five; in all, I supplied over one hun- dred tons. The year previous, the number of United States vessels in this neighborhood was larger than the year past, and the quantity of ice taken was greater. I can only name the following captains and vessels among those here last year: Master. White :Nawnic=.- Do. 22) Frank A. Williams ......... G8 be occk Ss Sse ve cs eecc eles sencses Do. 23 | Andrew Laden ..... ....... BSC heck anseacoosenescocsaees Gloucester. 241 OIDIONG cesses ne wae cre 841 WT Wickens .c.2.2coscases Nova Scotia. 25.4 Conductor 324. sicoeessinees se 73:1 (GH. Curtis: ciscscsecccce ne Gloucester. 26')\ Bunker Hill). loss. cece 1003. MaeDonslde 2.42 os sacecs Do. 27 | Holward Holdbrook ........ OT ews somes caceeae soe sescecasice Do. SB t QOCANR cs 55 0c cascade ncassss.ce- Wihescctoereacese detec seseseace Provincetown. 291 Vasa Keen ccc kscen ce saccs 77 | Norman McKenzie.......... Do. 30 | Belle Bartlette.............. 75 | John Cummings ............ Do. SL) pArthur Clifford 225 Jsccecss< &4 | John McDonald............. Do. 32 | Laura Sayworth ............ CBr) ese eaces coos orice cadawesaee Do. 33 | D. W. Wilson OOM cece sean eectes totes aonenee Do. 34 | Montezuma...... Gd: | Sees cecew le see tee eee eseae Beverly. 35 | Charles H. Reid . 74 | John Dago Provincetown. 36 | C. M. Walton .. 52: Camel: cece. = Do. 37 | Reporter..... 8&3 | Kelley -- .| Gloucester. BS) | GucD. MOSbCI = 25s otatieescee GE) oe oats .| Beverly, Mass. 39 | W. E. Macdonald 89 | Macdonald Gloucester. 40 | Ellen Parsons Ol le MoNeil ces coche eee: Do. 41 | Hattie L. Norman .......... 903:)) WH. Robinson; os. sscoecss Beverly, Mass. SBD lOV a Sto ceesce cn ees ese 68 | James McCarty............. Do. 43 | Jacob Bacon ................ Reece ee ee A ME ae ee eae Gloucester. 44 | Hattie Weston.............. OS) Craigie 2 ss2 csc escn asses ecice Do. 45 | New England............... 8G: [MPR yneay- S255 seu en cesses. Do. 46 | Mattie F. Foster............ 06: cM: C./ Foster <. scccncescwe see Do. 47 | Lizzie B. Knight.-.......... 67{ Thos: Lohan <.2-<2.<2.0c0cs Do. ASH Beta yee ss acuisccs- euekiecies 10:1; SOUON: Joecc set loesseees Marblehead, Mass. 49: | Lucretia Jane<25s252. 5.68 68) Geo.Wuarkil, s.cocccstes seen Gloucester. OOP MANION. .s cs. escca cecoceeee 82°] Silas Colden......:........: Do. PE Wass Pages. dsees cise oe cele 8051 Gi. We. Holard 5.23 522c22c02 Do. 52 | Nathl. Webster............. HS Gl epi nrel Ste ements a ta er Ree ee Do. SPN OVPNGW oo ccse rose ces seat ee 89) SPs Brown sles: ese cece. css Halifax. Oe DANO 22555 cee casaaanes 72:| Bo MoKenzie: 2 S32s.52<50- Gloucester. Sol wWihite Foam ..-2... years ago she took twenty-one hundred quintals, the year before last | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1255 twenty-two hundred and fifty, last year a thousand. This vessel was out each year about five months and a half, and carried twelve hands each year. ; 6. About nine years ago the Americans took mackerel mostly with hook and line. They also took some with purse seines. The Ameri- cans, ever since I have known them, took codfish with trawls, except on the Labrador cvast, and [ have known the way in which they carried on the cod fishery for thirty-five years.. I have often on the Banks, in a clear day, counted from twenty-five to thirty vessels, most of whom were Americans, engaged trawling. These vessels carried from six to seven thousand ‘hooks each, and threw the gurry of their fish over- board, which is very injurious to the grounds. They also, by trawling, take the mother fish, which is not done to any great extent in hand- lining. It is only within four years that our vessels commenced trawl- ing. They have done so in order to eompete with the Americans, and know it is injurious to the fishery. There are at least from thirty to forty vessels engaged in trawling out of Lunenburg County. The Amer- icans take herring inshore with seines. 7. In my experience the Americans took fish wherever they could eateh them, whatever the terms of the treaty were. They made off from the shore when a cutter was in sight and returned when she disappeared. I was in the North Bay when the fisheries were protected by a Captain Campbell, in the Devastation, and we then took better fares. 8. In my opinion, the inshore catch of fish is of much greater value than that of those taken outside. 9. I have seen the Americans when they had not the right of fishing inshore throw bait overboard to entice away the fish; when they got the fish outside they commenced taking them. 10. I have seen the Americans catch squid at Canso, Crow Harbor, Cheticamp, and other places within three miles of the shore, for codfish bait. They take this bait in the bays and harbors all along the Cana- dian coast. The Americans buy herring and mackerel for bait from the Magdalenes to Cape Sable in the bays and harbors of Canada. They buy this bait because it saves time, trouble, and expense. This privi- lege of getting bait interferes with Canadian bankers. 11. There are large quantities of codfish, halibut, haddock, hake, and pollock taken within three miles of the shore by Canadian fishermen, and thousands of our people depend upon these fish for a livelihood in Canada. 12. The herring fishery in Canadian waters is all inshore. The Ameri- cans purchase them early in the season for bait, as already stated. 13. When in the American markets, about twenty years ago, I found that Canadian fall mackerel were much superior to American. 14. The privilege of transshipping cargo is of great advantage to Americans, as by this plan they save time and catch more fish. It is worth at least two thousand dollars to each vessel which does so. 15. The Americans get bait in Canadian waters inshore, and without this bait and ice, which they also get from Canadians, they could not carry on the deep-sea fishery around our coast. The bait must be fresh, and ice is necessary to keep it thus. ee? 16. I have never known nor heard of any Canadian vessels fishing 1n American waters, and I consider this right of no value. 17. I consider that it would be a great benefit to Canadian fishermen if the Americans were excluded from our inshore waters, and I know of - no benefit whatever that we derive from American fishermen. EDWARD HIRTLE. 1256 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Sworn to at Lunenburg, in the county of Lunenburg, this 10th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. J. W. LOCKHART, Justice of the Peace. No. 133. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. J, RuFus RISER, of Rose Bay, in the county of Lunenburg, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have fished for sixteen years, and have fished around Cape Bre- ton, eastern side of New Brunswick, around Prince Edward’s Island, the Magdalenes, and on the coast of Labrador. 1] have fished mackerel, and took them principally inshore, within three miles of the shore, and it would not have paid us to fish mackerel unless we could get them within three miles of the shore. 2. I have fished codfish on the Labrador coast for the last sixteen years with the exception of a few years. We took the codfish inshore, within three miles of the shore, mostly with hook and line. I have dur- ing this time seen American vessels every year on the said coast taking codfish inshore. The Americans take the codfish on the Labrador coast . by seining, and throw away the small ones. They take the codfish with seines from the shore, and close up on the shore. I have seen during the past sixteeen years, every year that I was on the Labrador coast, of which I was there twelve years, and also this year, and every year for the last six, except last year, the Americans in large numbers taking herring. They take the herring with seines from the shore, and the Americans might as well stay at home if they were not allowed to take the fish inshore. 3. The Americans get bait all along the coast of Nova Scotia in our bays and harbors, and on the Labrador coast; without this bait they could not carry on the deep-sea fishery. 4, The Americans have introduced trawling, ayd we were compelled to adopt this plan of fishing in order to compete with the Americans. Trawling I consider a great injury to the fishery, as it destroys the mother fish. 5. It would, in my opinion, be a great benefit to Canadian fishermen if the Americans were excluded from our inshore fisheries. | RUFUS RISER. Sworn to at Rose Bay, in the county of Lunenburg, this 8th day of Au- gust, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES H. WENTZEL, J. P. No. 134. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington: I, Joun MORIEN, of Port Medway, in the county of Queen’s, fisher man, make oath and say as follows: 1. Ihave been engaged in the fisheries for the past forty years, down to the present time. I have fished along the southern coast of Nova- AWARD’ OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1257 Scotia around Cape Breton, on the eastern side of New Brunswick, around Prince Edward Island, around the Magdalenes, on the Canadian coast of Labrador, and am well acquainted with the inshore fisheries along the southern coast of Nova Scotia. ; 2. When in the North Bay, about eight or nine years ago, I saw large numbers of American mackerelmen. From calculations then made by Nova Scotia fishermen, we concluded that there were upwards of three hundred American vessels in the North Bay. I was in the North Bay the fall in of 1872, and the mackerel were very plentiful. I was about a fortnight ago engaged in fishing on the eastern side of Cape Breton. I was at Gabarus, Louisburg, St. Ann’s Ingonish, Bras D’Or, and Smoky Cape, and around Cape North, and I found the fish there very plentiful— the mackerel more plentiful than the oldest inhabitant has any recol- lection of. The mackerel are of most excellent quality, being very large. Those mackerel are found inshore, within three miles of the shore, and it would not pay any vessel fo go to the North Bay uniess they could catch mackerel within three miles of the shore. 3. The American vessels make, on an average, two trips when engaged in taking mackerel. The Americans in a good season take, on an aver- age, about three hundred barrels of mackerel to each vessel on each trip. These mackerel vessels carry from ten to twenty hands to each vessel. The American vessels which run into the North Bay take from five hundred to a thousand quintals to each vessel. When on the Cape Breton coast last year I saw an American vessel which took from six to seven hundred quintals of codfish seven miles from Sydney Light, and only changed her ground three times, as I was informed by the Ameri- ean skipper. The Americans take the most of the codfish in the North Bay by trawling. This trawling I consider injurious to the fishery, as it takes all the mother fish. In hand-lining very few mother fish are taken. When on the Canadian coast of Labrador, I saw the Americans take large quantities of codfish inshore, within three miles of the shore. 4. In my experience, the mackerel fishery has always varied, being good for a number of yearsand again poor. In the falls of seventy-one, seventy-two, and seventy-three, the mackerel were very plentiful. The cod-fishery has generally been good, except when bait is scarce. 5. The Americans formerly carried on the mackerel fishery with hook and line. They now use purse-seines, which I consider very injurious } to the mackérel fishery. I saw, four years ago, two large American } schooners engaged in taking mackerel at Cape Canso with purse-seines, Within a ha]f amile of the shore. These vessels carried about eight hun- dred barrels of mackerel each. The Americans now take all their codfish by trawling. The Americans around the Magdalenes and on the Labra- dor coasts take herring by seining on the shore. 6. The throwing overboard of offal, in my opinion, is injurious to the fishery, as it pollutes the water, gluts the fish, and drives them away. 7. In my experience, the Americans fished inshore whenever tbey could. They made off shore when a cutter appeared and returned when She disappeared. They lee-bowed us Nova Scotian vessels, weather- bowed us, ran into us, and did nearly what they pleased, and have almost entirely, since 1871, driven our vessels out of the mackerel fish- ing. When the fishery was protected, and the Americans had not the right of fishing into the shore, our vessels made better fares. _ 8. In my opinion, the inshore fish are double the value of the off shore catch in Canadian waters. || 9. The Americans get bait and ice all along our coast in the bays and harbors. They jig squid in any harbor, cove, and creek, and wherever 1258 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. they can find them. They buy herring and mackerel. They do so be- cause it saves time and the expense of fitting out their vessels with net. The Americans being allowed to get bait, interfere with our vessels, as they come at a time when herring and mackerel are scarce. Last year an American vessel loaded with halibut inside of the Kettle, between Scaterie and the main-land, and trawl around there for halibut. 10, Since seventy-three the mackerel fell off antil this year, when they are very plenty again. On the banks the codfish during the past six years have fallen off to some extent. This the fishermen attribute to too much trawling. 11. The herring fishery is all inshore in Canadian waters, and the Americans catch them for bait, as already stated. 12, I have often heard the Americans say that our fall mackerel is much superior to theirs. 13. The mackerel make inshore to feed. They trim the shore, are taken inshore, and I consider them an inshore fish. 14. I have often seen the Americans transship their cargoes at the Strait of Canso, and in a good season they would save from two to three thousand dollars to each vessel by so doing. By this privilege they save time, expense, and catch more fish. ‘They are enabled to refit and remain constantly on the ground. 15. The Americans get bait and ice in this county in large quantities, and without this bait and ice in which to keep it fresh it would be im- possible for the Americans to carry on the deep-sea fishery. When the Americans come on to our coast they make every effort to get bait, and ice in which to keep it fresh, because they say that without this bait and ice they could catch no fish. 16. I have never known nor heard of any Canadian vessel fishing in American waters, and I consider this right to be of no value to Canadian fishermen. 17. Such large numbers of Americans carry off great quantities of fish and make them scarce for our fishermen. They injure our grounds by throwing overboard large quantities of offal, and by trawling. They interfere with our supply of ice and bait. 18. It would be a great benefit, in my opinion, if the Americans were excluded from our’fishing grounds, particularly our inshore fisheries. JOHN MORIEN. Sworn to at Port Medway, in the county of Queen’s, this 14th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. KE. C. SEELY, J. P. No. 135. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JOHN SMELTZER, of Lunenburg Town, in the county of Lunen- burg, master mariner, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in the fisheries for about thirty-five years; for twenty-seven years I have fished as master in a vessel of my own | with eleven hands. I have fished along the coast of Nova Scotia, east- ern side of Cape Breton, around Prince Edward Island, and in the Bay | of Chaleurs, on the east coast of New Brunswick, and have been Bank _ fishing, and am at present well acquainted with the inshore fishery in Lunenburg County. I have fished mackerel, herring, codfish, halibut, i hake, haddock, and pollock. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1259 2. About eleven years ago, when in the Bay of Chaleurs, I saw in Malpeque Harbor, Prince Edward Island, about seventy sail at one time, all American fishing vessels. Last fall [ saw around Port Hood about seventy sail of American vessels at one time. American macker- elmen average about fifteen men. I have seen as many as thirty men in one American mackerelman. American codfishmen carry from twelve to twenty men. Mostly all the mackerel is taken inshore, and I would not give a pin for all taken outside of three miles. 3. The Americans averaged about from five to six hundred barrels of mackerel in the season to each vessel. American cod-fishermen take from one to three thousand quintals to each vessel. American mack- erelmen make about three trips, cod-fishermen the same. 4. Mackerel, in my experience, have often varied. About fifteen years ago they were very scarce ; since that time they have often been plenty. Some years they strike in very plenty, other years they are scarce, and this is my experience for forty years. Herring fishery remains about the same. Codfish can always be had if bait is plenty. 5. Americans take mackerel inshore mostly with hook and line; and Ihave seen Americans within three miles of the shore at Cascumpec, Prince Edward Island, use purse seines, about eleven years ago. The Americans carry on cod and halibut fishing mostly by trawling, some | with hook and line. 6. The Americans throw overboard the offal of the fish when codfish- ing, and particularly the sound bone, which is very injurious to the fish and fishing-ground, and I have myself caught large codfish with the sound bone in them, and they were reduced to mere skeletons. 7. The Americans, in my experience, always fished inshore when they could for mackerel. I have seen them fish in so close to the shore that their vessels grounded. When a cutter hove in sight they got away as quickly as they could, and came insbore again whenever the cutter was outof sight. Out of Lunenburg County, about fifteen years ago, there were from thirty to forty vessels engaged in mackerel-fishing, and when this fishery was protected by cutters our vessels made good fares. Since the Americans have been admitted to the inshore fishery our vessels have done very poorly. 8. The inshore fisheries are of much greater value than the outside fisheries. The inshore fisheries are worth four times that of the outside fisheries. 9. About fifteen years ago I have seen American vessels fishing for mackerel in the back harbor of Lunenburg, and I have baited an Ameri- ean vessel in this harbor about five years ago. Other parties have often baited American vessels in the harbor. The Americans mostly purchase the bait they get, in order to save time. 10. In the North Bay I have seen Americans catch codfish inshore, and large quantities of codfish are taken inshore by Canadian fisher- men, and also halibut. 11. Since 1871 fish have fallen off somewhat. This, I think, is owing to the large number of Americans who visit our shores to take fish. 12. The herring fishery is all inshore, and the Americans buy them from our fishermen in order to save time, as also do the vessels which we fit out ourselves in order to save time. _ 13. The run of mackerel is sometimes of better quality than at others. ‘When our run of mackerel is good it cannot be beaten, and three falls ago I was in Boston market with our mackerel, and it was much superior _ to any mackerel which I there saw. 1260 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 14. Mackerel follow the shrimp inshore, and spawn inshore in the bays and harbors around our coasts. 15. About Canso I have often seen Americans land and dry their nets. This privilege I consider of great value to them, as it enables | them to carry on the inshore net fishery. 16. I have seen Americans transship their cargo at Canso, and by so doing they save a great deal of time, and catch more fish. They save from two to three weeks in the best of the season. 17. If the Americans could not procure bait inshore from Canadian fishermen, and ice in which to pack it, they could not carry on,in my opinion, the Bank fishing with success, and they buy bait, as already stated, in order to save time. They could not preserve their bait with- out ice, and they get ice along the coast near where they get bait. 18. I do not know nor have I ever heard of any Canadian vessels fish- ing in American waters, and I consider this privilege of no value. 19. In fitting out vessels, which I have often done, the Americans make bait and ice scarce because of the larger quantities of herring and mackerel they take away before these fish become plenty, and thus hinder our fishing-vessels. They make the fish scarce for our inshore fishermen. 20. In my opinion our fisheries would be more than double their present value to us if the Americans were excluded. JOHN SMELTZER. Sworn to at Lunenburg, in the county of -Lunenburg, this 4th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. JOSEPH W. LOCKHART, J. P. No. 136. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, ELIAS RICHARDS, of Getson’s Cove, in the county of Lunenburg, fisherman, make oath ‘and say as follows: 1. I have been fishing for the last thirty years continuously. I have fished along the southern coast of Nova Scotia, around Prince Edward Island, around the Magdelenes, and along the Canadian coast of Labra- dor. I have taken all the kinds of fish found on the above-mentioned coasts. I am also well acquainted with the inshore fishery in Lunen- burg County. I have also been engaged in banking fishing to a large extent. 2. For twenty-four falls I fished in the North Bay successively, except one or two falls, down to the fall of seventy-five, inclusive, for mackerel. I have seen in the North Bay, at one time together, over four hundred American mackerel-vessels in ’Malpeque, and in Port Hood; in Malpe- que there were so many that I could not anchor, and ran ashore. Dar- ing the past five or six years I was in the North Bay I have seen from 200 to 300 American mackerelmen, and every fall I was there it was quite common to count from one hundred to one hundred and fifty American vessels from the deck of our schooner. There were many there which I did not see. These vessels took the most of their mack- ere] within three miles of the shore, sometimes close into the shore, and it would not pay vessels to go ivto the North Bay to fish mackerel un- less they could take them within three miles of the shore. 3. These American mackerelmen carry from twelve to twenty-two AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1261 hands to each vessel. Ina good season one of the larger vessels usu- ally takes from five to six hundred barrels. These vessels make from two to three trips. 4, Every year down to seventy-seven I have seen many American codfish-vessels in the North Bay taking codfish. ‘lhey have increased every year, and this year I have seen more than ever before. These codfish-vessels carry from ten to fourteen men. These vessels take from five to six hundred quintals of fish to each vessel, and make about two trips. These American vessels fished in among the boats and wherever they could catch fish. 5. On the Labrador coast I have seen Americans seine codfish close in on the shore, and have seen engaged there four at one time. 6. Around the Magdalenes I have seen the Americans take herring all inshore. I have seen there at one time from sixty to seventy vessels at one time. These vessels carry from eight to ten men each, and take from nine hundred to ten hundred barrels each. 7. In my experience, mackerel have varied, being some years plenty -and others scarce. The herring fishery seldom varies, being mostly al- ways good. The codfish has fallen off some. 8. In former years the Americans took mackerel with hook and line ; they now take large quantities with purse seines. They take nearly all , the codfish by trawling. Most of the American codfish-vessels carry _ seven thousand hooks each. 9. The Americans throw overboard the ‘“ gurry,” which is an injury to the fishery, as it gluts the fish and drives them away. Trawling [ » consider injurious to the fishery, as it takes the mother fish, which are 'fallof spawn. In hand-lining few mother fish are taken. The Ameri- / eans have made a habit of throwing overboard the small fish, and an _ American skipper told me last summer that of forty-five quintals or up- - wards, which he took upon his trawls, he only saved from fifteen to eighteen quintals; the remainder he threw away. 10. In my experience the Americans fished inshore whenever they could, whatever the conditions of the treaty were. They made off when a cutter appeared and returned when she disappeared. 11. The value of the inshore catch in Canadian waters is more, in my opinion, than double the offshore catch, in value. 12. Nearly all the Americans carry purse seines, which I consider a very bad way of taking mackerel. I have never seen nor heard of any Canadian vessel using a purse seine. 13. I have seen the Americans catch squid for bait in the Canadian bays and harbors, within three miles of the shore. I have seen them catch these squid at the Strait of Canso, and at Crow Harbor, and other places. The Americans buy herring and mackerel all along our coast from Cape Sable to Labrador, wherever they can get it, and ice in which to keep it fresh. This privilege of getting ice and bait accorded to the Americans interferes with Canadian bankers, making bait and ice dearer and Scarcer, 14. The Americans buy bait in order to save time and expense, and Without this bait, and ice in which to keep it fresh, they could not carry on the deep-sea fishery. i 15. The Americans, since 1871, nave injured the Canadian fisheries by taking great quantities of fish, by improper methods of fishing, and by interfering with the supply of ice and bait. ; 16, The mackerel feed, to a considerable extent, on shrimps found in- Shore, they spawn inshore, and are an inshore fish. 17. The privilege accorded to the Americans of taking fish and trans = 1262 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. shipping them, saves them time and expense, and enables them to take more fish. 18. I have never known nor heard of any Canadian vessel fishing in American waters, and I consider this right of no value. 19. I consider that it would be a great benefit to Canadian fishermen if the Americans were excluded from our inshore fisheries, and I know of no benefit which we derive from the American fishermen. ELIAS RICHARDS. Sworn to at Getson’s Cove, in the county of Lunenburg, this 11th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. JOSEPH W. LOCKHART, J. P. No. 131. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JAMES GETSON, of Getson’s Cove, in the county of Lunenburg, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. Ihave fished from twelve to fourteen years along the southern coast of Nova Scotia, around Cape Breton, eastern side of New Bruns- wick, around Prince Edward Island, around the Magdalenes, on the Canadian coast of Labrador, and on the Banks, and am well acquainted with the inshore fisheries in Lunenburg County. I have taken all the kinds of fish found on the above-mentioned coasts. a 2. I have fished this summer and last around Prince Edward Island and the Magdalenes, and on Bank Bradley; and I saw there many American vessels, some engaged in taking mackerel, and others engaged in taking codfish. Last summer I saw as many as fifteen at one time fishing together day after day. I saw during last summer as many as two hundred. These I saw before the middle of August. These Amer- ican mackerelmen carry from fourteen to twenty men to each vessel. Four years ago, when fishing in the North Bay, I have seen over four hundred American mackerel-vessels in a fortnight; and I have, along with other fishermen, put the number of American vessels down at from five to six hundred. These vessels catch the most of their mackerel in- shore, within three miles of the shore; and in my opinion it would not pay to fish mackerel unless they were taken within three miles of the shore. 3. Last summer and this summer I saw large numbers of American codfish vessels around Prince Edward Island and the Magdalenes. I saw last summer often from twenty to twenty-five in a day engaged in taking codfish. The Americans take all their fish in the North Bay by trawling. Very few Canadian vessels take fish in the North Bay by trawling; they use mostly hook and line. I consider trawling a very injurious method of taking fish, as it destroys the mother fish. The Americans carry from eight to ten thousand hooks on their trawls to each vessel. By trawling the bait lies on the bottom, and the big fish take it; this is not the case in hand-lining. 4, The American codfish vessels carry r about fourteen men on each vessel, and take about six hundred quintals on each trip. They make three trips. 5. I fished in the North Bay for mackerel when the fisheries were protected, and our vessels did better than when they were not protected, and took more fish. The Americans fished inshore at that time to@ EN SE Sak oe AD AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1263 large extent, they made off when a cutter appeared, and returned when she disappeared. I saw several American vessels seized when I was there during the protection time. The Americans made a practice of running into us, and their vessels were stronger and more numerous than ours, being built of oak. 6. The Americans get bait and ice along the coast from Cape Sable to Labrador, and without this they could not carry on successfully the Bank fishery. JAMES GETSON. Sworn to at Getson’s Cove, in the county of Lunenburg, this 9th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. - JOSEPH W. LOCKHART, J. P. No, 138. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JAMES PUBLICOVER, of New Dublin, in the county of Lunenburg, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in the fishing for thirty-five years down to 1871 ) inclusive. I have ‘fished all along the southern side of Nova Scotia, around Cape Breton, on the eastern side of New Brunswick, around Prince Edward Island, around the Magdalenes, and on the Labrador coast. I have taken all the fish found on the above-mentioned coasts. 2. Between eight and ten years ago I have seen in Port Hood Har- bor, at one time, eight hundred sail, of which number over seven hun- / dred were Americans. I would be safe in saying that there were over a thousand sail engaged in taking mackerel in one season in the North Bay. Some yearsI have seen more and some less. These vessels took ) mostly all the mackerel inshore. 3. These American vessels carry from twelve to twenty-two hands. They took from four to five hundred barrels of mackerel to each vessel, on each trip. Ran into the Strait of Canso, landed their fish, refitted and went out again. They came in again and took a full cargo for home, often fifteen hundred barrels. They generally made two trips, some- times three.. When in the cod fishery in the North Bay, I have seen many Americans also taking codfish. These codfish vessels carried from ten to twelve men, and took from six to eight hundred quintals. | 4 Whenin the North Bay the fisheries were protected by cutters for /some time. The Americans fished inshore when the cutters were out of sight, and made off when acutter appeared. This was always my experi- ence. I have seen two American vessels made prizes of by a cutter. 5. The inshore fisheries in Canadian waters, within three miles of the ‘shore, are of more value than the off-shore fishery. I would say more than double. 6. Our Canadian fishermen catch codfish in large quantities around the coast within three miles, also halibut. I have seen many American ) Vessels take codfish on the Labrador coast within three miles of the shore by seining. 7. For twelve to fifteen years I have taken mackerel in the North Bay, and in my experience they varied in quantity and quality, being some years good and others poor. Mackerel schools have struck into this harbor this year pretty plentifully. 8. The herring fishery in Canadian waters is allinshore, and they are 1264 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. taken all inshore. The Americans buy these herring for bait all along the coast ; by buying they save time and expense. 9. I have never known or heard of any Canadian vessels going into American waters to take fish, nor do I know of any benefit to Cana- dians from this right. 10. I have seen Americans running into harbors in Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island to cure fish. When a gale of wind comes on they do this. 11. I have often seer the Americans transshipping their cargoes at the Strait of Canso; by so doing they save time and expense and take more fish. 12. It is a great advantage to the Americans to get bait and ice along the Canadian coast, and this they do from Cape Sable to Labrador and wherever they can. Without this bait, and ice in which to preserve if, they could catch no fish. 13. When in the North Bay I have often been lee-bowed by Ameri- can vessels, and I have seen them running into Nova Scotian vessels. 14. If the Americans were shut out from our inshore fisheries it would be of great benefit to Canadian fishermen, and I know of no benefit that we derive from American fishermen. JAMES PUBLICOVER. Sworn to at New Dublin, in the county of Lunenburg, this 9th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. BENJ. RYNARD, J. P. No. 139. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, DONALD McDOUGALL, of Main-a-Dieu, in the county of Cape Breton, merchant, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in the buying and selling of fish for twenty- five years, and am well acquainted with the fisheries as carried on here, and am well acquinted with the fishermen from Big Lorraine to Miri Bay, and have done business with American fishermen. 2. The fish taken in this vicinity during the past twenty-five years has been codfish, mackerel, herring, halibut, and salmon. Formerly halibut was very plentiful, so much so that our inshore fishermen could always catch a fare, but since the Americans came here trawling for them they have almost disappeared. The best halibut grounds are within three miles of the shore, and on these grounds the Americans trawled. Our fishermen never trawled for halibut. 3. In this vicinity there are taken annually from five to six hundred barrels of mackerel, and are not quite so plentiful as they have been ten or fifteen years ago. There are taken in this vicinity about a thousand barrels of herring. On average there is taken about from seven to eight thousand quintals of codfish. The most of the people in this vicinity depend upon the fishing, which they carry on in small boats inshore. 4, The Americans have always been on this coast, year after year fishing mackerel. The Americans come inshore and fish mackerel, and diminish the catch tor our inshore fishermen. The Americans purchase herring for bait very generally, and then go out on the banks to fish codfish. The Americans around here have fished inshore for codfish — and halibut. ———— AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1265 5. The Americans trawl on Scaterie Bank for codfish. They trawl to the bottom and catch the mother fish, which are full of spawn. They dress their fish on the fishing grounds, throwing overboard the offal, which is very injurious to the fish, the sound bone killing many large fish. 6. The practices of the Americans tend to injure the inshore fishery very much. 7. Mackerel run inshore to feed and spawn, and our fishermen take them inshore. Americans have taken mackerel all round our coast, and have at one time transshipped mackerel in this port. This privilege saves fish and enables them to make a larger catch. 8. The Americans get ice and bait in harbors round our shores, and without ice and bait they would be unable to make successful voyages. 9. I have never known nor heard of any Canadian vessels fishing in American waters, and know of no benefitthey can derive from so doing. 10. The large number of American vessels fishing in Canadian waters must diminish the catch. 11. If Americans were excluded from our waters, [ have no doubt but it would be a general benefit to Canadian fishermen. DONALD McDOUGALL. Sworn to at Main-a-Dieu, in the county of Cape Breton, this 28th da of July, before me. ' GEO. RIGBY, J. P. No. 140. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JOHN BAGNALL, of Gabarus, in the county of Cape Breton, at present of Louisburg, in the county aforesaid, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged for about fifty years in the inshore fisheries, in and around Gabarus Bay, in the county aforesaid, and have taken mackerel, codfish, herring, and halibut, and am well acquainted’ with the manner in which the inshore fishery is there conducted. 2. About six or seven years ago there were some American fishing- vessels in Gabarus Bay. During the past five or six years they have purchased bait in small quantities in Gabarus Bay. 3. Mackérel and halibut are taken in Gabarus Bay. Codfish and her- ring are taken in large quantities. Three years ago about three hun- dred barrels of mackerel were taken in this bay, and there are about one hundred boats fishing around the bay, and this summer these boats have taken from eight to sixty barrels in each boat. In Gabarus Bay there are from six to seven thousand quintals of codfish taken yearly. All this fish is taken in boats. To the people around Gabarus Bay these fisheries are of great value. : 4, The mackerel and herring are inshore fish, and are mostly all taken inshore. Three-fourths of the mackerel and herring is inshore. Iam to-day at Louisburg, but reside and fish at Gabarus. JOHN BAGNALL. Sworn to at Louisburg this 26th day of July, in the county of Cape Breton, before me, . PATRICK O'TOOLE J. P. for and in the County of Oape Breton. 80 F 1266 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 141. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, PETER BosDET, of West Arichat, in the county of Richmond and province of Nova Scotia, merchant, make oath and say as follows: 1. During the past thirty-two years I have been engaged in the fish- ing trade, and my acquaintance with the fisheries on our coasts extends over that period. 2. The herring fishery is about the same as it has been in the past. The mackerel vary from year to year. From 1871 to 1874 the mackerel were plenty, but they were scarce in 1875 and 1876. I believe that the scarcity of 1875 and 1876 will not, however, be permanent. 3. The use of trawls and the throwing overboard of offal are both very injurious to the cod fishery. Both these practices tend to drive away the fish from their usual haunts. 4. The herring fishery is altogether inahote, that is, within three miles of the shore, and the greater part of the mackerel are caught within the same distance. I consider that the inshore fisheries are of much greater value than those outside. 5. Iam strongly of opinion that the inshore boat fishery on our coasts has been greatly injured by the Americans baiting the fish and drawing them away from the boats. I refer only to the mackerel in making this statement in this paragraph. 6. 1 consider that it is a great benefit to the Americans to be allowed to land and dry their nets and cure their fish on our coasts. The privi- lege of transshipping cargoes is also a great advantage to American mackerelers, and they can of course make more trips and catch more fish than they otherwise could, and by this means, I believe, that they can make three trips to the fishing-grounds in the same time in which they could otherwise make two. The privilege of getting bait on our shores is also a vast advantage to American codfishermen who indeed could not profitably carry on the codfishery without this privilege. The procuring of ice on our shores is also essential to the codfishermen, as without this they cannot keep their bait fresh. 7. The privilege of fishing in American waters is of no practical ad- vantage whatever to Canadians, and I never heard of Canadians avail- ing themselves at any time of such privilege. 8. I consider that the Canadian boat fishermen could carry on their fishery more profitably and successfully if the Americans were excluded from within the three-mile limit. P. BOSDET. The said Peter Bosdet was sworn to the truth of this affidavit, at West Arichat, in the county of Richmond, this 2d day of August, A. D. 1877, before me, Be Ps FLYNN, A Justice of the Peace. No. 142. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, FRANCIS MARMEAN, of Arichat, in the county of Richmond and: province of Nova Scotia, merchant, make oath and say as follows: AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1267 1, I have resided here for about sixty years, and have a good know!- edge of the fishing-basiness, and of the fisheries on this coast. 2. The American cod-fishermen, in my opinion, cannot profitably carry on the cod fishery without procuring bait on the shores of Canada or Newfoundland, and I believe that the privilege of procuring ice on our shores is also an advantage to the American cod-fishermen. 3. I do not think that the privilege of fishing in United States waters is of any advantage to Canadians, and I never heard of Canadians fish- ing in American waters. 4. I believe that our fishermen could carry on the inshore fishery on our coasts, especially the mackerel fishery, very much more successfully if the Americans were excluded from our inshore waters. F. MARMEAN. The said Francis Marmean was sworn to the truth of this affidavit at /Arichat, in the county of Richmond, on the 4th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. ISIDORE LEBLANC, A Justice of the Peace. No. 143. ‘In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, DAvip GrowucHY, of Descousse, in the County of Richmond, and | Province of Nova Scotia, merchant, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in the fish trade during the past thirty-three years, and have dealt in codfish, haddock, mackerel, and herrings. 2. Iconsider the inshore mackerel and herring fisheries to be of very much greater value than those outside. The herring fishery is almost altogether inshore, and I believe that the greater portion of the mackerel are caught within three miles of the shore. 3. From my experience in the fishing business I have no hesitation whatever in saying that it would be far better for Canad ans to have their inshore fisheries kept to themselves. Lven if the American Gov- ernment should put heavy duties on our fish, I do not believe that the Americans can give us any adequate compensation for our fisheries, and I believe that it is almost impossible to estimate too highly the value of Canadian fisheries. 4, The mackerel caught in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, are, in my opinion, equal to any in the world. I believe that the reason why American mackerel bring better prices is that they are better handled and put up. 5. Around this coast the food of the mackerel is principally inshore. 6. The privilege of transshipping cargoes is of great advantage to the American fishermen as they are thereby enabled to make more trips and consequently catch more fish than they otherwise could. 7. The privilege of procuring bait on our shores is of great value to the American cod-fishermen, who could not profitably carry on the cod- fishery of the deep sea without this privilege. They also procure ice on | our shores to preserve their bait fresh,and without this means of pre- | serving the bait it could not be kept fresh for more than two or three lays. 8. It is of no value whatever to Canadians to be allowed to fish in American waters. I have never heard of Canadians availing themselves of the privilege of so doing. : | 1268 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 9. I consider the privilege of transshipping cargoes and procuring bait on our shores is worth at least 50 per cent. of their catch to American fishermen. D. GROUCHY. The said David Grouchy was sworn to the truth of this affidavit at Descousse, in the county of Richmond, on the Ist day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. K.P. FLYNN, A Justice of the Peace. No. 144. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, IstDORE LEBLANC, of Arichat, in the county of Richmond and province of Nova Scotia, merchant, make oath and say as follows: 1. During the past two years I have been engaged in the fish-trade, and for twenty years previous thereto I was a master-mariner, and I have a good knowledge of the fisheries around the coast of Canada. 2. Formerly the mackerel were caught altogether with hook and line, but of late years the Americans are using purse-seines in this fishery. The codfish are principally caught with trawls, and the herring with nets and seines. I believe that the cod fishery is being injured by the use of trawls and by the throwing overboard of offal. 3. The American fishermen have fished inside of the three-mile limit whenever they could get the chance. I myself have seen the Americans fishing inside of the three-mile limit after the Reciprocity Treaty, and whenever the government cutters were not in sight. 4, The inshore mackerel and herring fisheries are worth more than the outside fisheries, in my opinion. The greater portion of the mackerel is caught within three miles of the shore, and almost all the herring within that distance. The inshore mackerel fishery is greatly injured by the Americans coming in and throwing bait, and enticing the fish away from the shore fishermen. 5. Both Canadian and American fishermen catch codfish, haddock, hake, and halibut to some extent on our shores. 6. I believe that the mackerel caught in Canadian waters are better than those caught in United States waters. 7. Itis a great advantage to the Americans to be allowed to land and dry their nets and cure their fish on our shores. The privilege of trans- shipping cargoes is also of very great value to the American fishermen, | as it enables them to catch more fish by making more trips than they otherwise could. When the mackerel are plenty the Americans can, by means of transshipping cargoes, make two trips to the Gulf of St. Lawrence in the time it would otherwise take them to make one. 8. The American cod fishermen cannot profitably carry on the deep- sea cod fishery without procuring bait on the shores of Canada or New- foundland. 9. The privilege of fishing in American waters is, in my opinion, of no value whatever to Canadians, and I never heard of any Canadian vessel making a voyage for fishing purposes to American waters. 10. The fishing operations of Canadians are considerably hindered by — the Americans fishing in our inshore waters, as they entice away the . fish and lessen the inshore catch of our fishermen. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1269 11. The greater part of the bait that the Americans procure on our shores they purchase from our fishermen, but they catch part of it in our inshore waters. This summer I saw an American vessel setting nets for herring in Arichat Harbor. ISIDORE LEBLANC. The said Isidore Le Blane was sworn to the truth of this affidavit‘at Arichat, in the county of Richmond, on the fourth day of August,“A. D. 1877, before me. BE. P. FLYNN, A Justice of the Peace. No. 145. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, BRYAN MuRPHY, of Port Hood, in the county of Inverness, fisher- man and trader, make oath and say as follows: 1. For thirty-five years past I have been actively engaged in the fish- ing business as a practical fisherman, and curing that time I have made trips on board American fishing-vessels, and I have generally be®n fa- miliar with the fishing business on this coast for all that time. i 2. I have known some years aS many as seven hundred American vessels fishing in the gulf and the shores around Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, and the Magdalene Islands. I have seen during the Reciprocity Treaty as many as four or five hundred American fishing-vessels in the harbor of Port Hood at one time. 3. The American fishermen catch codfish and mackerel principally in great numbers, and herring, haddock, hake, and halibut in smaller quan- tities. The American fleet begins to arrive on our grounds about the first of May for the cod-fishing. Then in July they begin the mackerel fishing, and they keep up their fishing operations till into November. They averaged three trips a season under the Reciprocity Treaty, and each vessel took on an average three hundred barrels mackerel, worth $15 per barrel. The average cargo of codfish was about one thousand quintals, although I have been engaged on board of an American ves- sel which took fifteen hundred quintals for acargo. The cargo was worth from $4 to $5 per quintal. - 4, After the Reciprocity Treaty the American fishing-fleet fell off very much, and the catch was less and the trips fewer for the season, and the profits were very much less. Since the Washington Treaty the Ameri- can vessels and fishermen are beginning to come back here, and I be- lieve if the Americans do not ruin the grounds and destroy the fisheries that there will soon be as many of them here as during the Reciprocity Treaty. I know of as many as seventy or eighty American vessels that have baited here this season already. 5. During the Reciprocity Treaty I believe that at least two thirds of all the fish taken by the Americans on the coast of British North Amer- ica were taken inshore. The inshore grounds are always considered the most valuable for fishing in, and often enough have I heard the Ameri- can fishermen say so. Since the Treaty of Washington and now the Americans catch two-thirds of their fish within three miles of the shore. Ail bait is got inshore, and in autumn particularly the mackerel cluster near the shore, and it is there they are chiefly caught. 6. Iam aware of American fishermen using purse-seines in the mack- erel fishery, and there is po doubt it is very destructive to our grounds 4270 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Great hauls are made, more than can be saved, and they are killed and allowed to run out. JI have seen acres of the grounds filled with dead fish, which, being small, the Americans throw overboard. And it is to this practice of the Americans that I attribute the falling off during the past year or two of the mackerel catch. There are as many fish as ever, but they are glutted, and will not bite as formerly they did. 7. I do not know as I could fix the value of the advantage derived by each American fishing-vessel in being allowed to fish inshore, and get bait and supplies from our ports, but I do not believe they could carry on fishing at all with any kind of profit without these privileges. If they could not bait in Canadian waters it would be impossible for them to carry on cod-fishing on this coast. 8. I know of no advantage which Canadian fishermen derive from the privilege of fishing in American waters. The privilege is absolutely worthless. No Canadian fisherman avails himself of the privilege. I never heard of such a thing. Our fisheries are much richer and more productive than the American grounds, and the Americans are always saying So. 9. If our fishermen had exclusive use of our own grounds, and were not interfered with by American fishermen, we could double of catch every year, and make much greater profits out of our efforts. Weshould also be able to preserve our grounds, which are being injured every year by American fishermen, not by destroying the fish, which are as abun- dant as ever, but by preventing the catch by their system of baiting and throwing offal overboard. his BRYAN + MURPHY. mark. Sworn to at Port Hood, in the county of Inverness, this 23d day of July, A. D. 1877, before me, having first read and explained. A. MACDONALD, J. P. No. 146. in the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Smon FERRIS, of West Arichat, in the county of Richmond, and Province of Nova Scotia, merchant, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been a practical fisherman for nine years of my life and during the past three years I have been engaged in the fish trade, so that my experience of the fishery extends over a period of twelve years. 2. I estimate that about one hundred and fifty American vessels yearly touch at the island of Madame for bait and other supplies. 3. I believe that the American fishermen have injured our fishery since 1871 by the use of purse seines, which, in my opinion, are very in- jurious to the fishery, as they tend to break up the schools and drive the fish away. 4, The herring are all caught within three miles of the shore, and on this coast all the mackerel are caught within the same distance from the shore. 5. The best mackerel in the market are caught in Canadian waters in the Galfof St. Lawrence. All the best of the mackerel called “Ameri- can mackerel” are, in reality, caught in Canadian waters. 6. The privilege of landing and drying nets and curing fish on our AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1271 shores is, in my opinion, a great advantage to the American fishermen, as is also the privilege of transshipping cargoes of mackerel. 7. The American cod-fishermen cannot possibly carry on the cod fishery successfully or profitably without procuring bait on Canadian or New- foundland shores. It is also essential to their fishery for them to pro- eure ice on our shores. 8. The privilege of fishing in American waters is, in my opinion, worth not a cent to Canadians, and I never heard of Canadian vessels fish- ing in American waters. 9. The American cod-fishermen call about twice each season on our shores for bait, and each trip they take about twenty-five barrels of bait by purchase from our fishermen. They find it cheaper to buy it than to catch it themselves. SIMON FERRIS. The said Simon Ferris was sworn to the truth of this affidavit, at West Arichat, in the county of Richmond, this 2d day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. BP, ELLY NN, A Justice of the Peace. No. 147. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, WILLIAM CrIcHToN, of West Aricbat, in the county of Richmond, and Province of Nova Scotia, gentleman, make oath and say as fol- lows: 1. I have been engaged in the fishery business for about tifty years up to about 1870, and I have a good acquaintance with the fisheries on our coast up to the present time. 2. I am of opinion that the inshore fisheries are of much greater value than those outside. The herring fishery on our coasts is altogether an inshore fishery. I believe that on our coasts the greater portion of the mackerel are taken inshore. 3. I believe that our inshore boat-fishery is greatly injured by the Americans coming in and baiting the mackerel, and drawing them oft shore. I am of opinion, also, that the mackerel fishery will be seriously injured by the practice of seining followed by Americans, if this prac- tice is allowed to be carried on. 4. I am of opinion that the mackerel caught in Canadian waters are, at least, as good as those caught in United States waters, and that any difference of price in favor of American mackerel is owing to the Ameri- can mackerel being better handled and put up than Canadian mackerel, and put into the market fresher. 5. I consider it a very great advantage to American fishermen to be allowed to land and dry their nets and cure their fish. The transship- ment of cargoes is also a great advantage to the American mackerelers, who are by this means enabled to make more trips and catch more fish than they could otherwise do. 6. It is my belief that the American cod-fishermen cannot profitably _€arry on the cod-fishery without the privilege of procuring bait on the Shores of Canada and Newfoundland. It is also a great advantage to _ them to be allowed to procure ice on our shores to keep their bait fresh. They purchase the greater part of their bait from our fishermen as it 18 1272 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. very much cheaper for them to do so than to spend the time in catching it themselves. 7. The privilege of fishing in American waters is of no practical advantage whatever to Canadians, and I never heard of Canadian vessels fishing in American waters. 8. The catch of our inshore boat fishermen is no doubt much lessened by the Americans fishing within our waters, and I believe that our shore fishermen could carry on their fishery much more successfully if the Americans were excluded from our waters. I believe that it would be better for our fishermen to have the Americans excluded from the three-mile limit even if the American Government should put a duty on our fish. WILLIAM CRICHTON. The said William Crichton was sworn to the truth of this affidavit at West Arichat, in the county of Richmond, this —— day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. Be Ps FLYNN, A Justice of the Peace. No. 148. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, IsAAC LEVESCONTE, of Arichat, in the county of Richmond and Province of Nova Scotia, merchant, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have dealt more or less in fish for thirty-five years of my life, up to about the year 1869. 2. Our herring and mackerel fisheries are mostly carried on inshore, and the inshore fishery of herring and mackerel on our coasts is of far greater value than those fisheries outside the three miles from the shore. The herring fishery is almost altogether inshore, and I believe that the greater portion of the mackerel is caught inshore. 3. The opportunity of transshipping cargoes enjoyed by American fishermen, is of course a great advantage to them. It enables them to make to least one extra trip each season, and by means of this privi- lege they can of course make a greater number of trips and catch more fish than they could otherwise do. 4. The privilege of procuring bait on the shores of Canada and New- foundland is very valuable to the American cod-fishermen, and I do not know how they could profitably carry on the deep-sea cod-fishery with- out this privilege. It is also a great advantage to their cod-fishermen - procure ice on our coasts for the purposes of keeping their bait resh. 5. I do not believe that the privilege of fishing in American waters is of any value whatever to Canadian fishermen, nor have I ever heard of Canadian vessels fishing in United States waters. 6. There is no doubt whatever that Canadian fishermen would be very much more successful if the Americans were excluded effectually from our inshore waters. I remember that shortly before the Reciprocity Treaty our fishery was pretty effectually protected for one year by British and Provincial Government vessels, and our inshore fishermen did better that year than they had done for some time before, and better than they have ever done since. ISAAC LEVESCONTE. _ - os = saa EE AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1273 The said Isaac Levesconte was sworn to the truth of this affidavit at Arichat, in the county of Richmond, this 4th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. EPs PENN, A Justice of the Peace. No. 149. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifay, under the Treaty of Washington. I, WILLIAM WENTZEL, of Moose Harbor, in the county of Queen’s, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in the fisheries for about forty years. For the last ten years solely in the inshore fisheries in Queen’s County. 2. In my experience, large numbers of American vessels run into this harbor for bait—about two hundred a year; and have done so for about ten years each year. They get ice in this harbor in which to preserve this bait. The Americans say it is a great benefit to them to get this bait and ice, and they could not carry on successfully the Bank fishing without it. 3 " , of ,» McIntosh, skipper, came in here and baited, and in one fortnight got his trip of halibut, landed the same in Boston, and was back here for his second baiting all in one fortnight, and left here last night on another trip, which is his third trip this season. WILLIAM WENTZEL. Sworn to at Moose Harbor, in the county of Queen’s, this 16th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. S. T. N. SELLON, Justice of the Peace. No. 150. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. T, PARDON GARDNER, of Port Mouton, in the county of Queen’s, fish- erman, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in the fisheries for thirty-six years, all in the inshore fisheries, and am well acquainted with the inshore fisheries in Queen’s County for the said time. 2. During the past twelve years many American vessels have been here for bait and they have got ice here in which to preserve it. Dur- ing the last six years as many as between twenty to thirty vessels ran here for bait yearly. They run here from March till November. The Americans say it is of great benefit to them to be able to procure bait; without this bait it would be impossible for them to catch fish. These vessels take from eighteen to twenty-five barrels of bait each. The Americans buy this bait in order to save time and expense. 3. The codfish vessels run out and come in again about every two or ‘three weeks, and this they do about three times until they get a full fare on the banks off this coast from fifteen to twenty miles. The Amer- - ieans take the codfish principally by trawling. PARDON GARDNER. 1274 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Sworn to at Port Mouton, in the county of Queen’s, this 17th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. Be 2. NaS MDGON, a... No. ton. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, GEORGE McLEOD, of Brooklyn, in the county of Queen’s, master mariner, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged and connected with the fisheries for the past fifty years, and have a vessel now engaged in fishing on the Labrador coast of seventy-two tons register, and manned by seventeen hands. 2. Kight years ago I was on the Labrador coast with two of my own vessels, each of them was eighty-four tons, and carried seventeen hands each, and in three months we brought home sixteen hundred quintals of codfish. We considered that year a very poor one; before that they had brought home eleven hundred apiece. We caught most of these fish on the Canadian coast of the Labrador. We took these fish within three miles of the shore. When there I saw several American vessels taking fish and bait, the same as we were. They fished inshore within three miles, in not more than six fathoms of water. 3. About twenty years ago, when fishing on the Labrador coast, I saw upwards of forty American vessels of a large class on the Canadian part of Labrabor, at Old Fort Islands, Dog Islands, Bon Experience, Five League ; at these places the Americans took codfish with hook and line, all inshore, within a mile of the shore. At Salmon River I have seen five American sail taking codfish by seining on the shore. 4, The Americans get bait and ice in this harbor, and there are five American vessels here to-day for bait and ice, and it has been the prac- tice of the Americans for the past thirty years to come here for bait, and this I know well, for I have often supplied them with bait. Ihave seen an American vessel six years ago throw her seine in this harbor on a Sunday for mackerel, and every year for the past thirty they set their nets in this harbor for bait when they had the right to do so, and when they had not the right. When they had not the right, the Americans were more sly, and often set their nets about dark, and took them up early in the morning. Since 1371 they have set them more freely, and with less trouble. 5. The Americans must get their bait on this coast, and they can get this bait nowhere else but on the Nova Scotian and other parts of the Canadian coast. This the Americans themselves say is so, and without this bait and ice they cannot carry on the Bank fishing. They get a supply of ice and bait, and go out and fish, then return for a fresh supply. 6. So many vessels running here for bait and ice interferes with the supply for our bankers. 7. When the Americans get bait and ice in this harbor, they run out about nine miles and fish from nine to twenty miles off this harbor, and fish from Seal Island to the Western Bank; and this year the coast along has been lined with them. 8. They carry on the cod-fishery on the inside Bank, along the coast of Nova Scotia, by trawling, which I consider a most injurious method of taking fish, as the mother fish are destroyed, acd unless stopped will AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1275 ruin the fishery; and unless the Americans got their bait inshore they could not carry on this trawling on the Banks along our shore. GEORGE McLEOD. Sworn to at Brooklyn, in the county of Queen’s, this 16th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. S. T. N. SELLON, J. P. NO; 152, In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JoHN Luoyn, of Port Mouton, in the county of Queen’s, master mariner, make oath and say as follows: 1, I have been engaged in the fisheries as master for twenty-seven years. Ihave fished from Cape Sable, along the southern coast of Nova Scotia, around Cape Breton, on the eastern side of New Bruns- wick, around Prince Edward Island, around the Magdalenes, and on the Labrador coast as far as the north side of Gross Water Bay. I have been engaged a trip every year on the Banks. 2. In my experience the Americans always enjoyed the same privi- leges as I did myself. In the North Bay the Americans always fished inshore for mackerel, and close into the shore, and it would not pay to go into the North Bay to fish unless they could fish inshore. 3. I have been on the southern coast of Nova Scotia, from Halifax to Cape Negro, for fifteen years now past, and have often told the Ameri- cans where they could procure ice and bait. In the harbors along from Halifax to Cape Negro the Americans procure ice and bait wherever they can get it. Without this bait and ice it would be impossible for the Americans to carry on the Bank fishing, and this they have often themselves told me. I to-day told an American schooner that he could get bait in this harbor, and he is anchored here now. JOHN LLOYD. * Sworn to at Port Mouton, in the county of Queen’s, this 17th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. : Ss. 0. N. SELLON, f. 2. NO;-105. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, RopertT J. MCDONALD, of Port Jollie, in the county of Queen’s, fisherman, maketh oath and say as follows: 1; Ihave been engaged in the fisheries for twenty years. I have fished along the American coast from near Philadelphia to Gross Water Bay, on the Labrador coast, and am well acquainted with the inshore fisheries in Queen’s County. 2. Some years, while fishing in the North Bay, I found the Canadian Boers! was better than American, and some years the American was etter. 3. Many Canadian vessels get clams in this harbor for bait, from forty _to fifty vessels every year. I always found the clams obtained in this harbor as good as American clams. We used the clams here for taking codfish with hand lines, and still use them for this purpose. We also 1276 AWARD OF THE FiSHERY COMMISSION. use the clams for taking mackerel. In trawling very few clams are used. These vessels take from thirty to fifty barrels of clams to each vessel. R. J. McDONALD. Sworn to at Port Jollie,in the county of Queen’s, this 18th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. S. TP. N.. SELLON, ie: of the Peace. No. 154. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty ot Washington. I, WILLIAM FREHIL, of Arichat, in the county of Richmond, and Province of Nova Scotia, merchant, ‘make oath and say as follows: 1. I was a practical fisherman a about five years, between 1840 and 1850, and since that period I have been in tbe fish trade, and have dealt in codfish, herring, and mackerel. 2. In my opinion, the Americans cannot profitably carry on the cod and other deep-sea ‘fisheries without resorting to the shores of Canada or Newfoundland to procure bait. They visit our shores every year for bait, which they purchase from our fishermen. Itisa great advantage also to the cod-fishermen to be enabled to procure ice on our shores, as without it they could not keep their bait fresh for more than two or three days; and fresh bait is essential to a profitable prosecution of the cod fishery. 3. I consider the privilege of fishing in American waters to be of no practical advantage whatever to Canadians, and [am not aware that Canadians have ever availed themselves of such privilege. WILLIAM FREHIL. The said William Frebil was sworn to the truth of this affidavit at Arichat, in the county of Richmond, this 3lst day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. JOHN FREHIL, A Justice of the Peace. No. 155. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission, at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Poitier Dicapon, of Port Medway, in the county of Queen’s, and Province of Nova Scotia, but at present of Port Mulgrave, in the county of Guysborough, in said province, master mariner, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged during the past fifteen years in fishing, prin- eipally on the shores of Canada. During ten years of that time I have been fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, during two of which years I fished in American vessels. I have fished for both mackerel and cod. 2. I have been fishing for codfish on the northeast coast of Prince Edward Island this season. The mackerel have come in quite plenty on the shores of Prince Edward Island this year, and close inshore, and I saw several American mackerelers catching them with seines. Some of them seemed to be getting good catches. AWARD OF -THE FISHERY CUMMISSION. 1277 3. I am very well acquainted with the cod fishery, and I am of opinion that the Americans could not carry on the cod fishery profitably without resorting to our shores for bait. 4, The system of trawling followed by the American cod fishermen is most destructive to the fishery. A great many fish are uselessly destroyed by this system of fishing. 5. The mackerel fishery on our shores is likely to be greatly injured by the practice of seining used by the United States fishermen. Quan- tities of small mackerel and herring are destroyed in this way. 6. In 1873 I fished for mackerel in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in an American vessel, from the 20th of July to the 20th of October. We got 500 barrels. PHILIP DIGGDON. The said Philip Diggdon was sworn to the truth of this affidavit at Port Mulgrave, in the county of Guysborough, this 50th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES PURCELL, A Justice of the Peace. No. 156. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, MicHAEL MCDONALD, of Whitehaven, in the county of Guysbor- ough, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1, I have been engaged in fishing for thirty years, and during three of these years I fished with the American fishermen in American ves- sels. 2. We never carried any fresh bait from the United States, but al- ways bought it in the British Provinces. Even if we took it from the United States it would not be fit to use when we got to the fishing grounds. 3. The American fishermen with whom I was engaged fished for mack- erel and cod. Trawls were used for the cod-fishing. 4, I have seen as many as three hundred American mackere'-fishing vessels in North Bay in the one season. Each vessel would average fourteen men. They would make from two to four trips per season. They were able to make this number of trips by having the privilege of landing their fares of fish and getting refitted. Without this privilege they could not make more than from one to two trips per season ; oftener one thantwo. I have known one vessel to catch two thousand barrels of mackerel per season. It would be considered a very poor season if each vessel did not got 700 or 800 barrels. 5. I never knew of any American vessels landing for the benefit of the inhabitants. They always do it for theirown advantage, and not that of the people with whom they deal. They buy and trade: because they save time; buy cheaper than they can in their own markets, and be thus able to fish longer and watch the best chances. The American vessels by buying ice in Canadasave one-fifth in quantity, and get the ice from one to two dollars cheaper per ton than they can in the United States. The way the one-fifth in quantity is saved is, that if the ice is | _ got in the United States, one-fifti of it would melt during the passage down. 6. If the Americans could not land, &c., and enjoy the privileges 1278 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. granted by the Washington Treaty, they could not get one-fourth of the fish they now do. In fact I do not think they would fish at all in our waters without these rights. his -MICHAEL + McDONALD. mark. Sworn to at Whitehaven, in the county of Guysborough, this 24th day of July, A. D.1877, before me, first having been read and explained. JAMES A. TORY, J. P. for the County of Guysborough. No. 157. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, GEORGE Murpuy, of Port Hood, in the county of Inverness, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in the occupation of fishing in these parts for fifteen years past, and have taken some trips in American fishing-ves- sels on this coast, and have fished in a fleet of American vessels num- bering between 100 and 200 sail in the gulf and around the coast of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton, Sydney, Louisburg, and the Magdalen Islands, and have had large opportunities of judging of the general character of the fishing business on this coast. 2. I have seen as high as five hundred American vessels in this harbor of Port Hood, and have known as many as seven hundred American vessels fishing in the gulf in one season. These vessels average about 60 or 70 tons burden, and have a crew of about fifteen men; but I have known many American vessels of larger tonnage, and sometimes with a crew of twenty men. The average cargo of mackerel was three hun- dred barrels each vessel, and of codfish generally about five or six hun- dred quintals. They average about three trips per season. Mackerel brought about $15 per barrel, and codfish from $4 to $5 per quintal. This was when I was working with the American fleet. I cannot speak positively as to numbers for the last year or two. 3. The cod fishery about here is about as good as usual now; not aware of any falling off in the quantity or catch. The mackerel fishery has fallen off somewhat during the past two or three years, but this has only been in bite, not in numbers. There are as many mackerel in our waters now as ever there were. The only reason I know of for the falling off in the catch of mackerel lately is the use of the seines by the American fishermen, and the practice of throwing bait overboard, which has made the mackerel less sharp to bite. If our grounds are properly taken care of I know no reason why our mackerel grounds should not be as productive during the next ten years as ever before. 4, I have seen American fishermen within the last three years catch- ing mackerel in these waters with purse seines, and they would some- times take as many as one thousand barrels at one haul. They could only save half of these, and had to let the rest go, some being killed in the operation. This kind of fishing is very destructive to our fishing grounds. I never knew a Canadian fisherman to use purse seines, and. most of the maekerel caught by them are taken in boats. 5. I have seen American fishermen since the Washington Treaty catching fish in this harbor within one mile of the shore, and less. During the past two or three years the best fishing has been within three miles of the shore, and most fish are taken within that limit. When on AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1279 board American fishing-vessels we took nearly all the cargo of mackerel inshore. 6. The Americans catch bait within three miles of the shore—both herring and squid. All bait is caught inshore. They chiefly buy now, and their reason for this is, because it pays them better than catching it. Our fishermen catch bait better than the Americans. ‘To my knowledge, as many as fifty or sixty American vessels have baited here this season, in this vicinity. 7. Our herring fisheries are very valuable to Canadian fishermen. It is the most profitable business we have now. I have known our own fishermen to take from 150 to 200 barrels of herring in two days, in one boat. If the American fishermen should take hold of this herring-fish- ing and begin to seine herring, it would be a great injury to us and a loss to our business. 8. The main body of the mackerel feed around our shores in the shoal water. Their food is small fish, which only frequent the inshores. In the autumn season the mackerel particularly keep close inshore. 9. It is a great advantage for American fishermen to be allowed to be allowed to land and dry their nets and cure their fish; and also to transship their cargoes. They are in the habit of doing this constantly since the Treaty of Washington, and their fishermen always consider it an advantage to them as enabling them to refit for a new voyage with- out going back to their home ports. They can thus catch more fish and make more trips during the season. 10. The privilege of being able to catch or procure bait in our waters and ports is one of the most important advantages which the Americans derive from the Treaty of Washington. This is so great an advantage that if the Americans were not allowed to procure bait from Canadians, or catch it in Canadian waters, I believe they would have to abandon their cod-fishing in the gulf and around our coast altogether. The bait which they use will only last about three weeks when preserved on ice, and it would be impossible for Americans to carry on the cod-fishing business to any profitable extent if they had to be dependent on Ameri- can ports and waters for all the bait they used. li. The American fishermen also find it a great advantage to them to procure ice from our ports. It is in this way they are able to preserve their bait, otherwise they would have to salt it, which is considered a great injury to the bait. 12. I know of no advantage whatever which Canadian fishermen de- rive from the privilege of fishing in American waters. Americans say that our fishing-grounds are their best and most valuable. I uever heard of any Canadian vessels going into American waters to fish, and see no likelihood of any doing so. 13. I could not undertake to name any certain money value to each American vessel of the privileges which they now have of fishing and getting supplies in our waters; but I don’t see how they conld carry on their fisheries in these parts with any kind of profit or success if they did not enjoy them. They would not be able to take as many trips, nor could they get on with the same ease, and their cod-fishing would be next thing to ruined if they could not get bait here. 14. I believe if there were no American fishermen in our waters, and our own fishermen had exclusive use of British-American waters, that we would be able to catch more fish and derive greater profits, and that our fishing grounds would be better preserved. Canadian fishermen | earry on their business with greater care than Americans, and instead of throwing the offal overboard to glut the fish, they carry it to the shore. GEORGE MURPHY. 1280 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Sworn to at Port Hood, in the county of Inverness, this 20th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. JOHN McKAY, J. P. No. 158. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JAMES PHELAN, of Arichat, in the county of Richmond, and Province of Nova Scotia, merchant, make oath and say as follows: 1. During the past twelve years I have been employed or engaged in the fish-trade in this place, and I have a good general knowledge of the fisheries on our coasts. 2. I believe that our inshore fisheries within three miles of the shore are of much greater value than those outside that distance, and almost all the herring and a greater part of the mackerel are caught within that distance. 3. The opportunity of transshipping cargoes enjoyed by American fishermen since the Treaty of Washington of 1871 is a great advantage to them, as by means of this they save about fifteen days on every trip to the fishing grounds. When mackerel are plenty, a vessel could get a fare of them in little more than the time it would take to go to her home port in the United States and return. This privilege of course enables them to make more trips and catch more fish than they otherwise could. 4. I believe that it would be impossible for the American cod-fisher- men to prosecute their calling successfully or profitably without obtain- ing bait on the shores of Canada or Newfoundland, and to keep this bait fresh it is necessary for them also to procure ice on our coasts. Every season American cod-fishing vessels visit this island (Isle Madame) for bait and ice in great numbers. The Americans purchase most of the bait they obtain from our fishermen, as it is cheaper for them to do so than to consume part of the fishing-season in catching it themselves. 5. The privilege of fishing in American waters is of no advantage whatever to Canadians, and no Canadian vessel has, to my knowledge, availed itself of such privilege. G. I believe that the practice of trawling followed by the American cod-fishermen is injurious to the fishery, and that our fishermen could carry on the fishery around our coast more successfully if the Americans were excluded from our waters. JAMES PHELAN. The said James Phelan was sworn to the truth of this affidavit at Ari- chat, in the county of Richmond, on the 3d day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. K.P. FUYNN; A Justice of the Peace. No. 159. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, H. ROBERTSON, of Griffin’s Cove, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: Am acquainted with all the fisheries carried on on the coast of Gaspé for 30 years past. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1281 1. During the Reciprocity Treaty, and before, that is from 1845 to 1866. the Americans have made an extensive fishery of mackerel at Griffin’s and neighboring coves. About 100 American vessels have vis- ited our shores for mackerel yearly. I have seen the American fisher- men from the shore fishing. I have been on board their vessels whilst they were catching mackerel with hand-lines, and always inshore. 2. These vessels average 65 tons, having about 15 men fora crew, and they have always made good voyages, getting all their load inshore, amounting to 400 barrels. 3. The Americans catch mackerel with hand lines and seines, princi- pally with the former. 4. The Americans have always fished for mackerel inshore on this coast, and very close to the shore. 5. The inshore fishery is of much greater value than the outside. All the fish are taken inshore here. 6. The Americans have often come amongst our boats whilst we were fishing for mackerel, and by throwing bait draw the fish outside, thereby causing us great damage. They have done that to me nearly every year during the period mentioned above. They often threatened to stoue us if we went near their vessels to fish. 7. Since 1871 the codfish have increased considerably, owing to the retirement of Americans from our waters. _ 8. The principal food of mackerel is lance and sea-fleas. This is what keeps the mackerel inshore on our coast. 9. Fishing by Americans in our waters binders the fishing operations of our Canadian fishermen to a great extent, because we cannot com- pete with them. his HILAIRE + ROBERTSON. mark. Witness: A. D. JOHNSTONE. Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Griffin’s Cove, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 28th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No. 160. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty : of Washington. _ T, DonaLp WEst, of Grand Greve, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: _ Am acquainted with the fisheries on the coast of the Gulf of St. Law- rence, having practiced them for forty years. _ ee 1. In the Bay of Gaspé and neighboring shores mackerel-fishing by the Americans has been practiced on an extensive scale, especially during the period extending from 1845 to 1866. 2. During the period just mentioned over 100 American schooners have visited the Bay of Gaspé yearly for mackerel-fishing. The mack- erel at that time were very abundant in our waters, and each of the vessels that have been here during that time for mackerel-fishing have - made good voyages yearly. I have seen them loading, and have heard the Americans say so themselves, and I have heard them also say that 81F | % 1282 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. most of these schooners were making two trips yearly of 400 barrels of mackerel. These schooners were about 60 tons each on an average, with a crew of 16 men. I have seen them fishing and catching mack- erel. J have seen them also at Cape Rozier fishing mackerel inshore and very near the rocks. I have seen them also seining many times in the Bay of Gaspé, at Sandy Beach. The seines were drawn from the shore; in fact all the mackerel that have been caught by the American schooners that I have seen have been taken inshore. 3. The cod fishery is about the same now as jt was formerly. 4. The mackerel are taken by means of hand-lines and seines by the Americans. I have seen them fishing with hand-lines inshore, and [ have seen them seining with hauling-seines from the shore, and with purse seines in deep water, but inside three miles. 5. The practice of throwing fish-offal overboard by the Americans is a great injury to the fisheries, because it poisons the water, drives away the large fish, and kills the eggs. 6. The inshore fishery is of much greater value than the outside. All the fish are caught inshore. 7. It is the common practice of the Americans to come in among the boats and by throwing bait entice the mackerel away with them, so that we could not take mackerel without going alongside of their vessels, which they did not like at all. 8. Seining, as practiced by the Americans, is injurious to the fisheries, because it takes large and small fish; all the small fish are thrown away and left to perish on the strand. 9. During the last years of the Reciprocity Treaty nearly all the Americans were supplied with both the purse and hauling seines. 10. The fisheries have increased greatly since 1871, that is the cod fishery, and up to date the mackerel-fishing is better than last year, and the increase in the cod fishery is due, in my opinion, to the fact that the Americans have retired. 11. Mackerel feed inshore on lance, shrimp, and other small fish. 12. It isa great advantage to the Americans to be able to transship cargoes, because it enables them to keep on the fishing-grounds and to double their fares. 13, The Americans could not profitably carry on the cod and halibut fisheries if they were not allowed to come in our inshores either to catch or buy bait. 14, The privilege of transshipping cargoes to the Americans is worth | a load, and the privilege of getting bait in our inshores for their cod and halibut fishery is worth these fisheries. 15. Fishing by Americans in our waters hinders the fishing operations of our fishermen to a great extent, because we cannot compete with | them, and they take all our fish. DONALD WEST. Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Grand | Greve, county of Gaspe, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this | 28th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. 4 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1283 No. 161. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. : I, MicHAEL MCINNIS, of Port Daniel, county of Bonaventure, Prov- ince of Quebec, farmer and fisherman and merchant, make oath and say as follows: 1. Am acquainted with all the fisheries from Point Macquereau to Paspebiac; I have followed these fisheries for 15 years. 2. Am thirty-one years of age, and since I can remember, the mack- erel-fishing by Americans has been carried on on an extensive scale on this shore. 3. To the best of my knowledge, 100 schooners have visited these ishores (If always speak of between Point Macquereau and Paspebiac) yearly. The average tonnage of these vessels is about 70 tons, each vessel having from 10 to 15 men for a crew. I ain acquainted with the mackerel fishery only. 4, I don’t remember of any of these vessels ever missing their voyage. 5. I have been many times on board of American fishing-vessels fish- ing on this shore, and have heard them say many times that most of the schoovers have made two trips in a season. 6. The herring fishery is the same as it has been for the past 15 years, and codfish also. 7. Mackerel are taken by the Americans with hand-lines and seines. 8. The practice of throwing fish-offals is injurious to the fisheries, because it gluts the large fish, and kills the small ones. 9. Every year since I can remember, till 1870, I have seen the Ameri- cans fishing inshore often at our net moorings and catching mackerel as hard as they could with hand-lines. 10. The inshore fishery is of much greater value than the outside. - 11. All the bait, herring, smelt, caplin, and lance are caught inshore. Two-thirds of the codfish and two-thirds of the mackerel have been caught inshore. 12. Lhave seen the Americans many times come among our boats, and entice the mackerel away by throwing bait. They have done the same to me many times, thereby causing me great damage, because there were no more fish left to get. They do this whenever they get the chance. 13. I have seen the Americans from my boat and from the shore many times, going around looking for a place to throw their seines. 14. I have seen many times the American trawlers come in Port Daniel for bait. 15. About 20 different trawlers come here every season for their bait. Iheard the Americans say often that they require 60 barrels of bait (herring) to make their voyage. 16. The fishery has not diminished since 1871. 17. The Americans take herring here for bait only. 18. On questioning the Americans on board their own vessels, they frequently told me that our mackerel was of greater value than their own. 19. Mackerel breed and feed inshore. Our inshores are one of their breeding-grounds. 20. L have seen the Americans frequently ever since I can remember land to dry and repair their nets, and it is a great advantage to them. - 21. I consider it a great advantage to Americans to be able to traus- 1284 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ship their cargoes, because it enables them to keep on the fishing. grounds, and to make an extra voyage. 22. It is also a great advantage to them to be able to procure bait in our inshores. 23. The Americans could not carry on the cod and halibut fisheries without the privilege of resorting to our inshores to procure bait. 24. It is a great advantage to the American fishermen to be able to land to procure ice and snow to preserve their bait. 25. It is of no advantage to us to be able to fish in American waters, I never knew of any of our vessels ever going there to fish. 26. The privilege of transshipping cargoes is of great advantage to the Americans, because they can double their fares; in fact, it is worth aloadtothem. And the privilege to trawlers to get bait in our inshores is worth their fisheries. 27. The privilege granted to Americans to fish in our waters injures us to a great extent by bringing us in competition with men who are a great deal better equipped to take fish than we are, and because this extra number of men destroys fish. I have often heard the Americans say that they couldn’t carry on the fisheries in our waters without catching bait here. MICHAEL McINNIS. . Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Port Daniel, in the county of Bonaventure, Province of Quebec, this the 23d day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No. 162. NEWFOUNDLAND, fo wit: The honorable JAMES JOHNSTONE ROGERSON, of St. John’s, receiver- general and collector of customs for the Island of Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith that the annexed statement, marked A, is a correct and true statement of the matter and things to which it refers, the same having been compiled from the customs returns and other authentic ree- ords of the said Island of Newfoundland. JAMES J. ROGERSON, Receiver-General and Customs Collector. SESS Sworn before me, at Saint John’s, aforesaid, this eighth day of June, Ae 1S hs J. O. FRASER, Commissioner of Affidavits. et . q@ 1285 Zi 2) _— MN wm A ra a : oO ‘ o Si oS e Cb OF6 ‘0S Hog ¢ | “ronjwa ao ‘0 “d 08 | 00 8% at ginemesaseechesse2 <8 (iN BO r 00 9T T STN it Lie as Gabe pipe Mar rte 2 OGKG6S..65 }) ORs AGS: ‘0 d 0b | 00 866 ‘8 6& 00 809 ‘F 8I 00 £96 '8 Sl 00 g@r‘6t | €8 ne see saan or eNO) IOAT A POW Rae eb &, 08 B9L'g | ~“enyea ao “9 "dG | OO PB ‘8G | “RUOVGLT 00 0F8'E | $3 00 s68'9 | 96 00 O0F ‘9L | LLb RqNON Tae estore ee ee one 99 6b | “SQL OOT Jed “#9 OG | 00 FLT, "#QL £68 6 00 B68, | &L 00 68% QL ast Saas nee Seaecet] Pepe vaceereseomr see rene ty yo eeeea ic] 0g ge9‘T | 77777 "19q ed Og 1$ | 00 BCL ‘L "8144 680 T 00 Bee & Str 00 8I1'8 ece ‘E 00 $28 ‘TT | SLb‘L 51 Gs Masa tae aren an a ie pe Se td FE 91S *FQT OOL tod *839 OS | OO BLL “Sql 696 €F 00 O8€ 06L 00 63 LbL 00 £9 'T G38 MAND CSS oe neh ig nye or nai agent oe ORL fy «SB. BE | “BAL OO sod “m9 05 | 00 LIT "8qI OLS '9 00 08 OF 00 POL &8 00 80L ro sie agaeonce capa Mee | alg FEN et 00 To ‘96 | 77777777194 40d 18 | 00 FLE'TS | 194 110'98 | 00 LEY (96 | SLB 8s | 00 FLERE | BEL toe | 20699. | LOR BES (oeeeeeoeee tro ea ren cet rss es see pene Sauer fe 00 FG6'9 | “77777 eda0y) Jed EF | OO 188 ‘GS | “8194 BIE S 00 &66 ‘9T | B90 'T 00 FE0'L3 | 1€6‘T 00 819 ‘FS | 9 'T 'BQOIOT)) aeas feria ouy aimee: hace ee ee uoul[eg fo) 00 S6s sro1qq tad 0S I$ | 00 OE “814q OSE ., | 00 0SF GCG | Be ae Anco al ee 00 OIG 00€ | Pp ag RTS UG aT etn ys ened eS op paind Of FFI ‘9¢ | “aL oNt aod “#10 0¢ | 00 IHS ‘FSe | “Ba 006'8zB‘T | 00 B96 'Z0¢ | G06‘F | 00 LLT ‘OSS | 800‘OT | 00 GBF ‘sss | 400 BE ‘ype eestessnnnaeeza Te ranenetes®s* Tey Oy AI QA Ss *g01) "801 "8011 < ‘onyBA “gor UBnyH ‘oneA pales ‘one A pound ‘on[BA quant BE weonnd | |-guzeg, sos pore | ‘CALNOAXA SUTOLLUY << - Joyunouty|” . The throwing overboard of offal is extremely injurious to the fish and fishing-grounds. This is always done by the American fishing- vessels, both in the bay and outside. 6. The United States fishermen have often committed depredations on this coast, threatening to do bodily harm to the inhabitants, tramp- ling down the crops, and stealing sheep and potatoes. One vessel tried to run down wy brother, Daniel Gavey, and his partner, who were in their boat going codfishing ; this occurred four years ago. 7. It is my opinion, and I am sure all the fishermen on this part of the coast think so also, that the privilege of fishing in United States waters is of no value whatever to us. I hereby swear that the above statement is, to the best of my knowl- edge and belief, correct. ABRAHAM GAVEY. The said Abrabam Gavey has sworn to the truth of the above affi- davit at Grande Greve, this tenth day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. P. FORTIN, J. P. No. 183. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, PETER FERGUSON, of L’Ance au Beaufils, county of Gaspé, and Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows: 1. Tam 55 years of age. I was born here and have lived here all my life. I began to fish when I was 15 years of age. Iam practically acquainted with the fisheries of this coast. 2. The fish found on this coast are codfish, herring, mackerel, and halibut; the principal baits are herring, capelin, squid, mackerel, smelt, and Jaunce. The herring spawn abundantly along the coast, and we see great schools of young herring during the summer. Bait is generally abundant; when one fails we get another kind; we always get bait close inshore, always within the three-mile limit. We find that the codfish is generally as abundant as it was 30 years ago; but the fishing is more abundant; according to the state of the weather, and the supply of bait. In L’Ance au Beaufils Cove, where there are 36 boats, the fish is mostly caught within the three-mile limit, very few going tothe Bank. Ninety per cent. of the fish is taken inside the limit of three miles. 8. It would not pay an American schooner fishing on the Bank to re- main there fishing without the privilege of taking bait on shore. She could not make a profitable voyage and trust to getting bait on the Bank. I have several times seen American bankers coming to get bait on shore, oot last year one of them employed my neighbor to seine caplin for bait or bim. 4. During the Reciprocity Treaty and the period of licenses, I saw a great any American mackerel schooners along this coast, and several times I have counted as many as thirty between Whitehead and Cape Despair, within the limit. The average number during each season was between 200 and 250. They used both to take the mackerel inside AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1309 of the limits and bait them outside. I was on one occasion on board a schooner that baited the mackerel close to the shore, and thus brought - them outside. This was an American schooner. I believe this was a common practice. These schooners were from 60 to 100 tons, and took from four to eight hundred barrels each. They told me themselves that they generally made two trips in the season. They used to grind ap the small mackerel they took for bait. It is a common practice for the Americans to begin to fish inside the limit. The mackerel generally feed on shrimps, close inshore, and on other small fish. ; 5. During the first three years of the Treaty of Washington they con- _ tinued to come in numbers, and fish as before in our inshores. There were at least half the number that used to come under the Reciprocity Treaty fishing each year on this shore; as I have said, after the begin- ning of the Treaty of Washington, for the last couple of years, Ihave not seen so-many. _ 6. I believe that the mackerel spawn along the shore. We have often taken the young mackerel fry in our lance-seines along the beach. We _ generally see the mackerel schooling along this shore about the end of August, and two years ago I saw them as thick as caplin in among the _ boat-moorings. I believe if the Americans must come they could take “as many as during the years past. The mackerel taken along the shore _are of fine quality. 7. The right of fishing on the American coast is of no use to us; our _ people don’t want to go there. _ 8. Their free market is of no use to us. Our fish is prepared for for- eign markets other than that of the United States. I mean for Brazil, _ West Indies, Spain, Portugal, and the ports in the Mediterranean. _ 9. The competition of American fishermen in our waters is a tremen- dous detriment to our fishing interest. 10. It would certainly be more advantageous for us to keep our in- shore fisheries to ourselves. _ I hereby swear that the above statement is to the best of my knowl- edge and belief correct. PETER FERGUSON. .The said Peter Ferguson has sworn to the truth of the aboveafiidavit, at Cape Cove, in the county of Gaspé, and Province of Quebec, this fourteenth (14th) day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. , P. FORTIN, J. P. No. 184. a the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty 4 of Washington. __ I, CuristoPHER BAKER, of Cape Cove, make oath and say as fol- _ lows: 1. [am mayor of Cape Cove. Iam 39 years of age. 1 was born here, and have lived all my life at Cape Cove. I have fished for 14 years. I | began to fish at 12 years of age. Since I was 26 years of age, | have _ been engaged in the fishery business on my own account, and keep tish- ing-boats. I have always had 10 or 12 boats fishing every season. I am practically acquainted with all that relates to fishing, and the fish _ trade. Iam well acquainted with the coast of the Gulf of St. Law- renceand the Bay of Chaleur from Gaspé Basin to Paspebiac, a distance _ of about 100 miles. 1310 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2, The principal fish taken along this coast are the cod, herring, mackerel, and halibut, cod-fishing is the principal, and the baits are herring, caplin, mackerel, sqaid, smelt, and launce. The run of cod- fish is about the same as formerly, though there are more boats now an formerly. a No vessel, American or other, could make a profitable voyage at Bank fishing without the privilege of taking bait on shore, or bringing it from the fishermen of the coast. I do know that bankers come for bait to the shore. I, last year but one, sold bait to an American Bank- fisherman, and hired my seine to another to seine caplin, which caplin he seined from the beach. 4. Herring spawn here along the shore in abundance. 5. I have seen many American vessels fishing along shore during the existence of the Reciprocity Treaty and the period of licenses. I have seen at one and the same time in Cape Cove, when I was fishing, 50 American mackerel schooners anchored in the bay. There were some at the same time at other places. I believe that each year along this coast during the period specified above, at least (200) two hundred American schooners used to fish for mackerel, each from 50 to 100 tons, manned by from 12 to 18 men; some, and I believe the most, made two voyages, and I believe they took on an average 600 barrels each. Most of the mackerel they took was taken inside of the three-mile limit. 6. A smaller number continued to fish for mackerel inshore, even when the cutters were placed on the coast to prevent them. 7. For the first years of the Treaty of Washington the Americans con- tinued to come in numbers, but for the last two years they have not come in such numbers. They fished as formerly, inside of the three- mile limit. I consider the number that come about here was about one- third of the number that come during the Reciprocity Treaty. 8. It is a great advantage for the Americans to have the privilege of fishing inshore; without that privilege they would get very little mack- erel outside of the limit. I have bought fish (codfish) and oil and cod roes from them. I have heard that they did trade a little on the coast* 9. I have seen the Americans throw offals overboard, and I believe this to be injurious to the fish and the fisheries. 10. The privilege they have of taking bait on shore, of getting ice, and transshipping cargoes is of great value to them. 11, The right we have acquired by the Treaty of Washington of fish- ing in American waters is not of any value to our fishermen. 12. The American free market is no benefit to us; my fish is prepared for the Brazil and European markets; the price we could get in the States would not pay us. 13. It is certainly our interest to keep our fisheries to ourselves, and not to allow foreigners to participate in them. I hereby swear that the above statement is, to the best of my knowl- edge and belief, correct. CHRISTOPHER BAKER. The said Christopher Baker has sworn to the truth of the above affi- davit, at Cape Cove, in the county of Gaspe, this 14th day of August, A. D. 1877, before ine. P. FORTIN, J. P. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1311 No. 185. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. ; I, DAviID PHILLIPS, of Peninsula, in the county of Gaspé, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have lived at Peninsula, in Gaspé Bay, for forty-six years. I am a farmer and have fished. I-understand practically all that relates to the taking and curing of fish. I am 72 years of age. 2. The principal fish taken in this bay are the cod, mackerel, halibut, and herring. 3. The codfish taken varies in quantity year by year, but more is taken now than was taken 30 years ago. I believe that the codfish spawn in the bay, and we see great quantities of the young codfish, 4. The herring spawn in this bay, I have seen the sea whitened by the milt of the male. ; 5. Formerly mackerel were very abundant, and I have seen the mack- erel schooling in great numbers. I have seen them so thick that one could almost walk on snow-shoes overthem. Last year and the year be- fore but few were caught. This year the mackerel are appearing in quantity, and there is the prospect of a good catch. I have not for many years seen the mackerel so large, and good in quality. When I first came here a few American schooners used to fish in the bay for mackerel, but afterwards they became so numerous that I have seen as many as forty of them in the bay atonetime. During the time of the Reciprocity Treaty they fished in the bay in great numbers, and I estimate the annual num- ber that did so at from 100 to 150 and 200. The tonnage of these ves- sels was from 50 to 100 tons. Some of these vessels made two voyages. I average the number of barrels taken by each to be about 500 barrels. When, after 1868, the coast-guard schooners were put on to keep the Americans from fishing in the inshore waters but few Americans came in to fish. In the first years of the Treaty of Washington about one- _ third of the number that came under the Reciprocity Treaty visited the __ bay to fish. These vessels were of the same tonnage, and the catch was _ about the same. The waters of this bay are most accessible; the bay is _ sheltered, there is a fine, convenient harbor in all weather, and a good - supply of wood and water. 6. The privilege granted to the Americans to fish at our doors is no benefit certainly to us; far from it; it is a serious injury. I certainly wish to see our inshore fisheries kept exclusively for our own fisher- men. Our population is increasing rapidly, and we require that all our z fisheries should be preserved to ourselves, or otherwise our young men will have to emigrate. 7. There is an abundance of bait for codfish in the bay, especially launcefish, squid, and clams. Our fishermen on the outside coast fre- quently came in boats a distance of forty miles to get bait, especially launcefish. ; 8. The privilege of fishing in American waters is no use to us. If fish were plentiful on their coast, why do they come here? I never _ knew of any of our fishermen having gone to fish there. 9. The privilege of selling our fish duty free in the United States is no use to us. Our fish, especially codfish, has a more suitable market elsewhere. I hereby swear that the above statement is, to the best of my knowl- edge and belief, correct. : - DAVID PHILLIPS. 1312 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. The said David Phillips has sworn to the truth of the above affida- vit, at Peninsula, in the county of Gaspé and Province of Quebec, this l th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. seca P. FORTIN, J. P. No. 186. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, RICHARD MILLER, of Peninsula, in the county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows: 1. lam 68 years of age. I was born at Peninsula, and have lived here all my life. I have been engaged in fishing for the last forty-nine years, and ain practically well acquainted with the cod, herring, mackerel, and halibut fisheries, and for thirty years, that is, of course, thirty sum- mers, I have navigated through the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Straits of Belle Isle for whale and cod fishing. I was present when the testimony of Mr. David Phillips was given and sworn to, and the same having been read to me, I fully concur in all the statements and opinions therein contained, and hereby swear that they and what I have above stated are, to the best of my knowledge and be- lief, correct. RICHARD MILLER. The said Richard Miller has sworn that the above affidavit is the truth, at Peninsula, this eleventh day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. Ps FORTIN, J-P- In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JAMES ROONEY, of Perce, in the county of Gaspé, make oath and say as follows: 1. lam o2 years of age. I was born in Perce, and have lived here all my life. I began to fish at the age of 17; I afterwards kept a fishery, which | still keep. I am well acquainted with the fisheries of this coast, and along this shore. 2. The tish found here are cod, herring, and mackerel ; and the baits, squid, caplin, herring, mackerel, are also taken, generally close to the shore. The herring spawn abundantly along the shore. 3. Lhe fish do not run every year the same, but the general run is about the same, some years more and some years less. I mean the cod- fish. The bulk of this fish is caught close along shore, that is, within three miles. The fish thus caught inshore is much the best fish ; all the fish thus caught along this coast is sold either in Brazil the West In- dies, Spain, Portugal, or the Mediterranean. The Gaspé codfish is the best fish in the market, and commands a higher price, owing to its pecu- liar preparation. Codtish caught on the Banks and salted on board a Vessel could not be dried to suit these markets. During the summer our fish is vot kept more than three days in salt before it is exposed to the sun todry. Codtish spawn j i j i vs Sh spawn in this neighborhood, especially ; Bonaventure Island. = » especially around 4. The habit of the Americans of throwing offal over on the Banks is edge and belief, correct. * ee _ at Perce, in the county of Gaspé and Province of Quebec, this thirteenth _ day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. | 3 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1313 injurious to our cod-fishery. It gluts the fish, and they won't bite on the lines. It floats away with the tide and draws the fish off after it. 4. In 1854, and during the continuation of the Reciprocity Treaty and years of the license system, a large number of American mackerel. fishing vessels were seen all along this coast. They used even to fish in among our boat-moorings for mackerel. I have seen at one and the same time about 30 American mackerel schooners in this neighborhood, I have counted 100 sail in different ports in view at the same time, and I believe that the total annual number that visited this coast during the time named was between 400 and 500. Many of them made two trips. Their tonnage would average from 50 to 150 tons, with from 15 to 20 men, and they took from 400 to 800 barrels. The most of this fish was taken within the three-mile limit. Since the beginning of the Treaty of Washington a considerable number continued to fish for mackerel in our inshores. I should estimate the number to have been from one to two hundred. The habit practiced by the Americans of coming in among our boats fishing for mackerel close inshore, and by throwing out large quantities of bait, thus baiting the mackerel away outside of the reach of our boats, was exceedingly injurious to us and our fishermen. 5. The mackerel spawn along this coast, and the Bay of Gaspé in par- ticular I have seen alive with the mackerel-fry. I have seen the same thing along the coast. 6. The fattest mackerel are always closest to the shore, because there they find the most bait; and this is the case with every kind of fish. 7. The right of fishing on the American coast is of no use to us. We don’t want to fish there, and I never knew of any vessel from here hav- ing gone there to fish. If there is any fish there, why do they want to come here and fish ? 8. Our fish being prepared for warm countries will not find a market in the United States, so that the right of selling our fish duty free in the United States is of no use to us. 9. The right of fishing in our domestic waters, of drying fish on our shores, of taking bait along our beaches, and of transshipping cargoes in our harbors, is a very great privilege to the Americans and of great value to them. It is also a very serious loss and inconvenience to us. * 10. Our population is rapidly increasing, and we require all our fish- eries for our own fishermen. If the Americans continue to disturb our waters and drain our fisheries in front of our very doors, many of our young men will have to emigrate. 11. Many times I have known people on this coast obliged to keep in their houses, and in some cases to arm themselves for protection, to de- fend themselves from American fishermen on drunken sprees along shore. They also used to commit trespass, break down our fences, and overrun our fields. I have known of two young girls having been car- tied off on American vessels against the wishes of their parents. I hereby swear that the above statement is, to the best of my kuowl- JAMES ROONEY. The said James Rooney has sworn to the truth of the above aflidavit P. FORTIN, J. P. 83 F 1314 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 188. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, FRANCIS LEBRUN, of Jersey, Channel Islands, at present residing in Perce, the county of Gaspé, of the Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been living at Perce since 1857; since that time I have been carrying on the fishing business on my own account. I deal only in cod- fish, and employ ten boats. I am thoroughly conversant with every op- eration connected with the taking and curing of fish. 2, The quantity of codfish is as great now as it ever was, although the number of fishermen and the quantity exported have increased very much. 3. All the fish prepared by me are exported either to the Brazils, the West Indies, or to South Europe. The price obtained for this fish varies from $4.50 to $8 per quintal. 4. More than three-fourths (3) of the fish taken on this coast, is taken within the three-mile limit, and the fish taken inshore are always of a superior quality to those taken outside. 5. The baits foreod are herring, caplin, mackerel, launce, smelts, squids and sometimes clams; all these baits are plentiful, and are all taken close inshore ; some of them, caplin and launce, are taken from the shore. 6. Since the Treaty of Washington cod and herring are taken in about the same quantities as before. Mackerel this year are very abundant, being much more plentiful than for some years back. 7. The cod and herring spawn on this coast. I have often seen their eggs and then the small fish here 8. During the years of the Reciprocity Treaty great numbers of American fishermen used to fish for mackerel along this shore. The average number of these American vessels fishing annually in this im- mediate neighborhood was from 100 to 150, all fishing within the three- mile limit. The tonnage of these vessels ranged from 60 to 150 tons each, manned by from 12 to 20 men. Their catch averaged about 500 barrels each trip. Many of them made two trips, and some even three. Even during the years of the preventative cutters, the Americans still managed to fish in the inshore waters by dodging the cutters. ‘ 9. During the first years of the Treaty of Washington, there was still a considerable number of American mackerel vessels seen on this coast. 10. The inshore fishery for mackerel and herring is much more vatua- ble than the outside; in fact these fish are seldom taken far from shore. The relative proportion of the two fisheries is as fifty to one I think. ye Pe | am aware that the American Bank fishermen are constantly in the habit of coming to the shore to obtain bait, either by taking it them- selves, or by buying it from our fishermen. They also obtain ice, in which they preserve this bait. 12. I do not believe that any vessel fishing on the Banks could carry on the fishery with profit, or at all, without the privilege of obtaining fresh bait from the shore, as the supply of bait on the Banks is very uncertain, many vessels being for weeks at a time unable to obtain any. 15. The privilege of entering our harbors to obtain wood and water and to transship cargoes is a very valuable one to the Americans. 14. The privilege of fishing in the United States waters is of no use whatever to us. I never knew of any of our fishermen resorting to those waters to fish. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1315 15. The free market of the United States is also of no value to us. 16. Many disturbances have been caused on shore by the American fishermen. On one occasion they abducted a young girl, a minor against the consent of her parents; fortunately one of the cutters was near at hand, and, overtaking the American vessel, got back the girl. 17. I consider that much damage is done on the fishing-grounds by the Americans throwing overboard offals. They kill the fish by this practice. 18. The privilege granted to Americans of landing on our shores to dry their nets, cure therr fish, of obtaining bait in our inshore waters, as well as of fishing there generally, is one that is exceedingly injurious to us, and of very great value to them. ee I hereby swear that the above statement is to the best of my knowl- edge and belief correct. . FRANCIS LEBRUN. The said Francis LeBrun has sworn to the truth of the above affidavit at Perce, this 13th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. P. FORTIN, J. P. No. 189. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. ‘ I, WILLIAM JOHNSTONE, of House Harbor, Magdalen Islands, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, merchant, make oath and say as follows: 1. Have been acquainted with all the fisheries that are carried on about the Magdalen Islands for the last 27 years. 2. Fishing by the Americans for herring about the Magdalen Islands has been extensively carried on. Their vessels average about 65 tons ; the herring vessels have 8 men, and mackerel vessels from 12 to 15 men each for a crew. 3. The American herring fishing vessels take away yearly from the islands about 600 barrels in bulk each. 4, The Americans carry on the herring fishery by means of seines and nets. They are obliged to land in order to fish; they have erected establishments on shore latterly. 5. The practice of throwing the offal of fish overboard, as done by the Americans, is highly injurious to our fisheries, because its gluts the fish, and, decaying on the bottom, poisons the water, driving away the large fish, and killing the young and eggs. ; 6. During and before the Reciprocity Treaty the Americans have always fished from the beaches about the Magdalen Islands. 7. The inshore fisheries about the Magdalen Islands are of much greater value than the outside. ; _8. I have seen the Americans many times in each season come In among our boats whilst they were fishing mackerel in Pleasant Bay, and by throwing superior bait entice the fish away with them., These vessels drift in a straight line, and all the boats anchored in their way are - obliged to move or be run down. 9. The hauling-seines are used from the shore. The purse-seins are tucked in deep water, but always inshore. The purse-sein is injurious to the fisheries, because it gathers in all kinds of fish, both large and small. The large mackerel only are saved; the others are thrown away _ dead, which destroys the ground as well as the fishery. 1316 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 10. The American trawlers resort to the inshores of the Magdalen Islands for bait for their cod fishery. 11. Cod, halibut, and haddock are taken in the inshore waters of the islands by the American fishermen, and also by the Canadians. 12. The food of mackerel is found inshore. It consists of lance, shrimp, sea-fleas, and insects adhering to rockweeds. Many breed in- shore on sandy and muddy bottom in Pleasant Bay and the small Coves around the Magdalen Islands. 13. | consider it a great advantage to the Americans to be allowed to land to dry and repair their nets, and to cure their fish. 14. The privilege of transshipping cargoes enjoyed by the Americans is a great advantage, because it enables them to keep on the fishing- grounds, and to double their fares during the fishing season. 15. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to procure bait in our inshores, either by fishing for or buying it. If they buy it, it is because they find it more profitable, and it saves time. 16. The Americans could not carry on the cod and halibut fisheries about the Magdalen Islands so profitably without being able to resort to our inshores to procure bait. 17. It is of no practical advantage to Canadians to be allowed to fish in American waters. And I don’t know of any Canadian vessels ever going there to do so. 18. The privilege of transshipping cargoes to the Americans is worth aload. And the privilege of getting bait in our inshores for their cod and halibut fisheries is worth from 50 to 60 per cent. of these fisheries, which would otherwise not exist. 19. Fishing by Americans in Canadian waters hinders the fishing operations of our fisheries to a greatextent. Not only by their practice of enticing the fish away from the boats or by the practice of throwing fish offal overboard on our fishing grounds, but because they are so much better equipped with vessels and fishing-tackle that they take all we best and largest fish, and by superior numbers overpower the boat sShermen, 20, The Americans resorting,to our inshores for fishing purposes take advantage of this opportunity to trade with the inhabit ants with goods smuggled from the United States, these goods being an extra supply of ships’ stores taken on board for that purpose. They give them in ex- change for bait and in payment for labor, thereby defrauding the cus- toms, and injuring legitimate trade by regular tax-payers. W. JOHNSTONE. Sworn to the best of his knowledeg, information, and belief, at Hali- fax, county of Halifax, Province of Nova Scotia, Dominion of Canada, this 23d day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. Laps W. D. HARRINGTON, Justice of the Peace, Province of Nova Scotia. No. 190. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. CHARLES FOURNIER, of Magdalen River, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, tisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. Have been acquainted with the fisheries on this coast for 22 years. 2. From 1854 to 1866 the fishing by the Americans on this coast has AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1317 been very extensive for mackerel between Cape Chat and Magdalen River, a distance of 63 miles. 3. To the best of my knowledge, about 100 vessels have visited these shores yearly during the period mentioned mackerel-fishing. 4, These schooners used to make good voyages yearly, and their ear- goes averaged 350 barrels of mackerel each trip. These schooners average about 65 tons, with a crew of about 15 men. 5. The mackerel fishery seems to have decreased, but the cod and herring fisheries are the same as formerly. 6. The Americans take mackerel by means of hand-lines and seines. 7. During the Reciprocity Treaty, on this coast the Americans have always fished for mackerel inshore. 8. It is the common practice of the Americans to come in among our boats, and by throwing bait, entice the fish away with them, thereby causing us a great loss. 9. I know that the American fishermen have used the hauling-seines very often. I once helped to load an American schooner in the Mag- dalen River with mackerel. They were all taken with a hauling-seine inshore. 10. Since 1871 the codfishery has greatly increased. I believe it is owing to the absence of Americans from our waters. Mackerel were very plenty last year, and a great increase over former years. 11. Mackerel feed inshore on lance, sea-fleas, and other small animals. 12. It is a great advantage to Americans to be able to transship cargoes, because it enables them to keep on the fishing grounds and to double and triple their fares. 13. It is of no advantage to us to be able to fish in American waters; and 1 don’t know of any vessel from here ever going there to do so. 14. Fishing by Americans in our waters injures our fishing operations toa great extent. It brings in a competition that we cannot sustain, they having better vessels and better gears. 15. Some years ago three American vessels came and anchored in Magdalen River until they had their full load of halibut. They caught them with trawls, and all inshore. ~ his CHARLES + FOURNIER. mark, Witness: A. D. JOHNSTONE. Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Magda- len River, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 27th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. a ne Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No. 191. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. : I, ALExIs NoIL, of Fox River, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: A; 1. Have been acquainted with all the fisheries on this coast from Grif- fin’s Cove to Chlorydrome, a distance of 33 miles, for the last 30 years. From 1854 to 1866 the fishing by the Americans has been very exten- sive. The number of American vessels that have visited these shores 1318 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. for mackerel fishing, during the period mentioned, have been about 150 yearly. The average tonnage of these vessels was about 65 tons, with a crew of about 16 men each. The average cargo of these vessels, yearly, is 350 barrels mackerel. And I have heard the captains of these vessels say that they generally make two trips In a season. 2. The cod and herring fisheries are about the same as they were 20 years ago. “3. The Americans take mackerel by means of seines and hand-lines, principally the latter, and all inshore in 2 or 3 fathoms of water. 4. The throwing of fish offals overboard on the fishing grounds is a great injury to them and the fisheries, because it poisons the water, drives away the large fish, and kills the eggs. 5. The Americans have always fished inshore and made their loads of mackerel. During the Reciprocity Treaty, and before, often very close to the shores. 6. The inshore fishery is by far of greater value than the outside, because all the fish on this coast are caught inshore. 7. I have seen the Americans frequently come in among our boats while they were fishing mackerel aud entice the fish away by throwing bait, thereby causing our fishermen great loss. They have done the same to me often. 8. The cod fishery has greatly increased since 1871, owing no doubt to the Americans having left our waters, thereby giving them a chance to restock. 9. I have heard the Americans say many times that our mackerel were better and brought a higher price in their markets than their own. ‘i Mackerel feed all along our inshores on lance and other small fish. 11. I have seen the Americans several times setting nets close to our shores for mackerel. 12. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be allowed to trans- ship their cargoes, because it enables them to keep on the fishing grounds and to double their fares. 13. It is of no advantage to Canadian fishermen to be able to fish in sect waters, and I never knew of any vessel from here going there 0 do so. 14. The privilege granted to Americans to transship cargoes is worth a load, and the privilege of getting bait in our inshores for their cod and halibut fisheries is worth these fisheries. 1. Fishing by Americans in our waters hinders the fishing opera- tions of our fishermen to a great extent, because we cannot compete with such well supplied and geared vessels. his ALEXIS x NOIL. Witness: J mark. A. D. JOHNSTONE. ; Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, at Fox River, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this zith day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. —— . of July, A. D. 1877, before me. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1319 No. 192. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the treaty of Washington. : I, JOHN PACKWOOD, fisherman and farmer, of Cape Rosier, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows: : 1. Iam acquainted with all the fisheries carried on on this coast from Cape Gaspé to Griffins Cove since twenty-five years. During the Treaty of Reciprocity mackerel fishing by the Americans on this coast was very extensive. I mean from 1850 to 1856. 2. I have seen the Americans fishing for mackerel here in Cape Rosier Cove, at Cape Bon Ami, at Jersey Cove, and catching mackerel. I have been on board of their vessels when they were fishing, and I have seen them from the shore and from my boat, and catching mackerel, and always inshore, generally in line with the points. I have seen them yearly during the period mentioned above many times during each season. 3. During the period mentioned, to the best of my knowledge, sixty schooners visited these shores here yearly for mackerel-fishing. These schooners averaged 65 tons, and carried away from here and neighbor. ing places about 400 barrels, for the Americans themselves told me that they always made good voyages. 4, Cod fishery is as good now as formerly; it has increased very thuch of late. Herring is about the same. Last year there was a good deal of mackerel on our coast. 5. The Americans fished mackerel with hand-lines and seines, but I never saw them use the seine here. 6. The practice of the Americans of throwing fish offals overboard is much injurious to our fishing grounds, because it gluts the fish and pre- vents the fish from biting; and also because the decaying of these offals poisons the water, drives the large fish away, and kills the eggs. 7. I have never seen the Americans fish here outside of three miles; they have always fished very close to the shores. _ 8. The value of our inshore fisheries is, by far, greater than the out- ‘side ones. All the fish here is caught inshore. 9. Since 1871 the cod fishery has considerably increased here; and I believe, with all the fishermen here, that it is because the Americans have been less in our waters. 10. I have heard many times the Americans say that our mackerel here was larger and of a better quality than their own, and that it Is worth $20 against their own $10. 11. Mackerel feeds all along our coasts here upon launce, sea-tleas, Xe. 12. The fishing by Americans in our waters is extensively injurious to us, because they are supplied so well with every kind of gear to carry on the fisheries of all kinds that we cannot compete with them, so that when they come to fish amongst us they take all the fish before we can take a share. JOHN PACKWOOD. Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Cape Rosier, in the Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 25th day N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. 1320 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. a No. 193. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Mes1AH Tapp, of Fox River, county of Gaspé, Province of Que- bec, fisherman, make oath and say as follows : 1. | am acquainted with all the fisheries that are carried on on this coast for the last 25 years. . 2, From 1854 to 1866 the fishing by the Americans was very exten- sive for mackerel. is 3. About 100 American mackerel-fishing vessels have visited these shores yearly during the period mentioned above. These vessels aver- age above 65 tons, having about 16 men for a crew. These vessels carried away from our shores yearly about 400 barrels of mackerel a trip. t. The Americans take mackerel by means of seines and hand-lines. 5. The practice of throwing fish offals overboard, as done by the Americans, is injurious to the fisheries, because it gluts the fish, poisons the water, and kills the eggs. 6. The Americans have always fished inshore here during the Reci- procity Treaty for mackerel, about one-half mile from the shore. 7. The inshore fisheries are of much greater value than the outside. All the fish here are taken inshore. 8. I have seen the Americans come in among our boats, and by throw- ing bait entice the mackerel away with them; and I saw them one time throwing ballast rocks at a boat that had gone too near their lines. 9. Since 1871 the cod fishery has increased greatly, and I believe it is owing to the absence of Americans from our waters. 10. | have heard the Americans say frequently that our mackerel were better, and brought a higher price in their markets than their own. 11. Mackerel breed and feed on thiscoast inshore. Their food is launce and sea-fleas. 12. It isa great advantage to the Americans to be able to transship their cargoes, because it euables them to keep on the fishing grounds, and to double their fares. 13. It is of no advantage to us to be able to fish in American waters, and I don’t know of any vessel from here ever going there to do so. 14. The privilege of transshipping cargoes to the Americans is worth a load, and the privilege of getting bait in our inshores for their cod and halibut fisheries is worth these fisheries. ; 15, The fishing by the Americans in our waters hinders the fishing operations of our Canadian fishermen, because they are better supplied and geared than we are, that they take all the best fish. his MESIAH + TAPP. =k mark. Witness: - A. D. JOHNSTONE. Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Fox River, County of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 31st day of July, A. D., 1877, before me. N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Canada. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1321 No. 194. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. ; 1, JAMES SAMUEL, of Fox River, County of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, fisherman, make oath and say as follows : 1. Have been acquainted with all the fisheries which are carried on on this coast from Griffin’s Cove to Chlorydorme, a distance of 33 miles, for 25 years. The mackerel fishery by the Americans has been very extensive dur- ing the Reciprocity Treaty, from 1854 to 1866 and before, on these shores. 2. I have been several times during a season on board of American mackerel-fishing vessels. I have seen them fish, and have fished my- self with them. They fished always inshore very close the shore in 2 or 3 fathoms of water. 3. The number of American schooners which have visited these shores for mackerel fishing yearly during the period mentioned above, was about 150. The average tonnage of these vessels is about 65 tons, hav- ing about 15 men for a crew each. These vessels have taken away from our shores yearly, at least 350 barrels of mackerel. I have heard the captains of some of these schooners say that most of them were on their second trip. They also told me that their first trip was generally made about the Strait of Canso, Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Isl- aud. 4. The cod and herring fisheries are about the same as formerly. 5. The Americans take mackerel by means of hand-lines and seines. But I have seen them use the hand-lines only on this coast. 6. The throwing overboard of fish offals as practiced by the Americans injures our fishing grounds and fisheries; because it gluts the fish, and then the decaying of these offals poisons the water, (Iriving the large fish away and killing the eggs. 7. The American schooners have always fished inshore during the Re- ciprocity Treaty and afterwards, and have made their loads of mack- .erel often very close to the rocks. 8. The inshore fishery is of much greater value than the outside. All the fish on this shore are caught inshore. 9. It is the common practice of the Americans to come in among our boats when we are catching mackerel, and by throwing bait entice the fish outside, where we cannot go. ae 10. Since 1871 the cod fishery has considerably increased, and it is my opinion that it is owing to the absence of Americans from our waters. 11. I have heard the Americans say frequently that the mackerel caught in our waters were of a better quality than their own, and brought a higher price in their markets. - 12. Mackerel feed all along our inshores on lance and shrimp. ‘13. I have seen the Americans frequently setting their nets close to our shores for mackerel. 14. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to transship cargoes, because by doing so it enables them to remain on the fishing: grounds and to double their fares. bia pe ae 15. It is of no advantage to Canadians to be able to fish in American waters. 16. The privilege of transshipping cargoes to the America geher aload. And the privilege of getting bait in our inshores tor their coc and halibut fisheries is worth these fisheries. ericans is worth 1322 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Fishing by Americans in our waters hinders the fishing operations of our fishermen to a large extent, because we are not supplied with ves- sels and gears to compete with them. a JAMES + SAMUEL. mark. Witness: A. D, JOHNSTON. Sworn, to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Fox River, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 27th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. sis a N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No. 195. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty © of Washington. I, Eowarp Tracny, of Percé, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. Am acquainted with all the fisheries on this shore for 60 years past. 2. Between 1854 and 1866, the fishing by the Americans on this coast has been very extensive, between Cape Cove and Cape Percé, a distance of about nine miles. 3. I have seen the American schooners inshore engaged in mackerel fishing. I have been on board their vessels many times, and I have seen them from the shore and from my boat fishing and catching fish be- tween Bonaventure Island and the mainland. 4. About 150 American vessels have visited these shores yearly for mackerel fishing, each vessel averaging about 70 tons, having from 12 to 15 men for a crew each. 5. During that time I have spoken to American captains, and they told me that they had made good voyages, and sometimes two during @ season. 6. These schooners have carried away yearly from our shores an aver- age of 500 barrels of mackerel each trip. 7. The fisheries are about the same as they were 20 years ago; but this year the cod fishery has increased greatly. 8. The Americans take mackerel by means of hand-lines. I have never seen them using seines. 9. The Americans, before and during the Reciprocity Treaty, have taken the most of their mackerel inshore. 10. The inshore fishery is of much greater value than the outside on this shore. Herring, caplin, launce, codfish, and the best part of the mackerel are taken inshore. _ 11. I have been greatly annoyed while out fishing mackerel, by hav- ing the Americans come in among our boats, and by throwing bait, en- tice the mackerel outside with them, where we could not go. 12. I have seen the American fishermen many times come inshore and set nets for bait, and thus taking the bait away from us. 13. I have seen yearly several American schooners come in the cove here for bait; and I remember once of one waiting two days until our fishermen had caught enough bait for her. 14. There is a great increase in the cod fishery since 1871. I think this is owing to the absence of Americans from our waters. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1323 15. The same fish that are taken by the Americans inshore are alao taken by the Canadians. 16. Herring are all taken inshore. The Americans catch them for bait only on this coast. 17. It is a great advantage to Americans to be able to land to dry and repair their nets. I have seen them doing so frequently. : 18. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to trag-ship cargoes ; because it enables them to keep on the fishing grounds and to double their fares. 19. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to procure bait either by catching or buying it. If they buy it, it is because they save time, and more profitable to them. . 20. It would be impossible for the Americans to carry on the cod and halibut fishery without being able to procure bait in our inshores. 21. The privilege of transshipping cargoes enjoyed by the Americans is worth a load; and the privilege of getting bait in our inshores for their cod and halibut fisheries is worth these fisheries. 22. Fishing by the Americans in our waters injures our Canadian fish- ermen very much. I have had my nets badly torn by the American fishing vessels anchoring among them and sailing over them. It is also an injury to us, because it brings in a competition that we cannot sustain. Their vessels and gears are so much better than ours, that they take all the best fish. EDWARD TRACHY. Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Pereé, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 26th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No. 196. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. ; I, EDWARD Bunn, of Fox River, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, fisherman, make oath and say as follows : 1. Have been acquainted with all the fisheries on this coast, from Griffin’s Cove to Chlorydrome, a distance of 33 miles, for the last 20 years. During the Reciprocity Treaty, the fishing by Americans has been very extensive. The number of American vessels that have visited these shores for mackerel fisning during the period mentioned have been about -150 yearly, these vessels averaging about 65 tons, with a crew of about 15 men. Each vessel takes away from our shores, on an average, 350 barrels of mackerel a trip. They very often make two trips in a season. ; 2. The Americans take mackerel by means of seines and hand-lines. I never saw them using their seines on this coast. They take all their mackerel inshore in two or three fathoms of water. | ; 3. The throwing of fish offals overboard as practiced by the -Amert- cans is a great injury to the fisheries, because it poisons the ohesed on ‘our fishing-grounds, driving away the large fish and killing the eggs: 4. The Americans have always fished inshore during the Reciprocity “Treaty, and always made their loads of mackerel, and often very close to the shore. 1324 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 5. The inshore fishery is of much greater value than the outside. All the fish on this coast are caught inshore. : 6. It is the common practice of the Americans to come In among our boats, and by throwing bait entice the mackerel outside out of our reach. 7. Since 1871, the cod fishery has greatly increased. 8. The same fish that are caught by the Americans inshore are also taken by the Canadians. 9. | have heard the American fishermen say that our mackerel were better, and brought a higher price in their markets than the mackerel caught in their own waters. 10. Mackerel feed aloug our inshores on lauuce, shrimps, and sea- fleas. 11. I have seen the American fishermen frequently setting their nets close to our shores for mackerel. 12. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to transship cargoes, because it enables them to keep on the fishing-grounds, and to double their fares. 13. It is of no advantage to Canadian fishermen to be able to fish in American waters, and I don’t know of any vessels from here going there to do so. 14. The privilege granted to Americans to transship cargoes is worth a load, and the privilege of getting bait in our inshores for their cod and halibut fishery is worth these fisheries. 15. Fishing by Americans in our waters hinders the fishing operations of our fishermen to a great extent, because their vessels are so much better equipped than ours, that they always take the best fish. his EDWARD + BUNN. _ mark. Witness: A. D. JOHNSTONE. Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Fox River, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 27th day of July, A. J). 1877, before me. N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No. 197. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JOSEPH D. Payson, of Westport, in the county of Digby, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in the fisheries twenty years; two years on board of American fishermen in Canadian waters. +. American vessels to the number of three and four hundred annu- ally fish in the Bay de Chaleur for mackerel; the average number of men is from twelve to fourteen to each vessel. This is within my knowl- edge for the past twelve years. 3. The average number of codfish taken by Americans is about twelve hundred quintals to each vessel; and besides that, they annually make a mackerel trip of from three to five hundred barrels of mackerel. 4. The present condition of the fishery is not as good as it was in the cee AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1325 past for either codfish or mackerel. Herring have not decreased as much, but they also are not as good as the past. 5. Americans carry on the codfish and halibut fishery chiefly with trawls; they do some by hand-line on George’s. Mackerel are caught by seines and hook and line. 6. Most of the mackerel caught in the Bay de Chaleur are caucht within three miles from the shore, and have been before and during the Treaty of Washington, by large numbers of American fishermen. 7. The American fishermen use what is called “purse-seines,” and are ruining the mackerel-fishery wherever they are used, by driving the fish from the shores. 8. American fishermen catch bait within three miles from the shores in Saint Mary’s Bay, but not very large quantities. 9. American fishermen trawl for halibut and codfish in the Bay of Fundy in the inshore waters. Halibut, codfish, haddock, hake, and pollock are caught inshore by Canadian fishermen. 10. Since the Treaty of Washington there has been a decrease in all kinds of fish in the Bay of Fundy, caused principally by trawling, and by the large quantity of fish-offal thrown over by the fishermen from the vessels. 11. The herring-fishery is greater inshore than outside in Canadian waters. Americans catch herring for bait and for sale at Magdalen Islands. The American fishermen catch some herring for bait in the Bay of Fundy. : 12. There are a few mackerel caught in American waters at some sea- sons of the year that command a higher price in the American market, but my opinion is that mackerel caught in the Bay de Chaleur are quite as good and usually bring about the same price in the American market. 13. The food of mackerel is found chiefly inshore, called * brit”; they breed in the head of the bays; their principal breeding and feed- ing places are inshore. 14, The privilege of transshipping cargoes enjoyed by American fish- ermen since the Treaty of Washington is a very great advantage to them ; it enables them to catch a much larger quantity of fish. 15. It is avery great advantage to Americans to procure bait from the Canadian inshores. They prefer to buy it, as it saves time. 16. The American fishermen could not carry on the cod and other fisheries of the deep sea to any extent, or with any profit, without the privilege of resorting to our inshores for bait. nthe 17. It is a great advantage to Americans to resort to Canadian in- shores for ice to preserve bait. Quite a number of American vessels have been supplied with ice at Westport this present season. — 18. The privilege of fishing in American waters is of no practical valae or advantage to Canadians. ; 19. If it was not for the large fleet of American fishermen in Canadian waters, a large and very profitable business could be done by Canadian fishermen. The foregoing statement is correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. er J.‘D. PAYSON. Sworn to at Westport this 11th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. BENJ. H. RUGGLES, J. P. 1326 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 198. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. 1, THomas ©. Cook, Cape Canso, in the county of Guysboro’, mer- chant, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in the fisheries actively for the period of twenty-five years. During that time I have been engaged in the fish trade, buying and selling and carrying on a general fish business. ®, During prosperous years, as many as three or four hundred Amer- ican vessels, I understand, are engaged in the mackerel fishing in the North Bay. Each vessel would average from twelve to fifteen men. The American vessels now fishing are larger and better than those for- merly used. Each vessel fits out to take three hundred barrels on an average, 3. I have known from two to three hundred American vessels call at Canso during the season for bait. To make up this number, I count several calls by the same vessel. I have known them hook squid in- shore, but not much. They generally buy it, because it pays them best and saves them time. 4. The inshore fisheries are of greater value to the inhabitants along the coast than those outside. All kinds of fish are caught inshore by our fishermen. Our people do not, in the county of Guysboro’, prose- cute the outshore fishery almost altogether. 5. The opportunity given to the Americans of transshipping their car- goes is of great advantage to them; also the privilege of getting bait and ice. They are enabled, by having these privileges, to make more trips and catch more fish. Bait can be bought cheaper in Canadian ports than in the United States. Ice also, I think. 6. American fishermen could not so profitably carry on the deep-sea fisheries if they were not permitted to land and buy their bait and ice, otherwise they would not land and do so. 7. Never heard of any Canadian vessels fishing in American waters. THOS. C. COOK. Sworn to at Canso, in the county of Guysboro’, this 25th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. ' JAMES A. TORY, Jd. P., For the County of Guysborough. No. 199. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. 1, W. Wysk, of Chatham, in the county of Northumberland, in the Province of New Brunswick, at present of Chatham, merchant, maketh oath as follows: 1. I have been in business for five years in Chatham, and have had business with fishing parties around our coast previous to ’72 and since 1854. I have had charge of a salmon-preserving establishment on Fox Island, Miramichi Bay, and exported salmon in tins to amount of from 8 to 10,000 per annum, also lobster and mackerel to amount of about 1,000 dollars per annum; also during this time American fishermen have been accommodated on this island with water and other matters AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1327 necessary for the carrying on of their fisheries. This of itself was. | consider, a very great advantage to them generally. 2. I have been acquainted with the British fisheries in New Bruns wick during the time 1 was engaged at my fishing establishment, say in each year from 15th May till 15th September. I have seen and counted in that time as high as 170 sail, partaking of all the benetits of the three-mile limit as much as if they were Canadian fishermen. [| have seen them in a fine morning after a storm in our bay, between Portage and Badwin Island, for a whole day, and in that time a splendid fishing has been done. This was at a time they had no right to fish within the three-mile limit. This bay was their chief place of re- sort, and they had all the benefit of our buoys, lights, and every con- venience. This valuable acquisition should be of a large value to Ameri- can fishermen, and no benefit to us. Iam quite sure the average of each vessel would be about four hundred and fifty barrels a voyage. 3.-The effect of so large a fleet of American vessels fishing in British waters, and only one mile from Fox Island shore, was most injurious to our mackerel fishermen around the islands, as they would throw bait and draw them off. 4. The mode of fishing at that time was with hook and line. Since that period a seine, or purse-seine, is used, and large catches are made. 5. During the time I was engaged in fishing at Fox Island, a gradual falling off took place with the fleet; whether it was owing to finding other places more profitable, I could not say. 6. I would judge by the movements of the fleet, fully two-thirds of the fish were taken within the three-mile limit. 7. In the year 1 was on Fox Island, American fishermen had all the benefit of buying bait, getting fresh supplies, fresh water, wood, Wc. This I consider a great benefit. At one time, when procuring these ne- cessaries at Badwin Island, they set on fire and burned about twenty acres of marsh and woodland, whether accidentally or not could not be ascertained. Damages were put down at the time about 3600. 8. The privilege of landing cargoes and transshipping to their own homes during the season is very great. It enables them to make two trips a season with ease. This privilege is worth about $400 per trip. 9. I have not seen them fish for bait, but have sold them pogies. These are a fish about half the size of herring, and as fat as butter When ground up, make good article of bait. They have bought our Spring herring often. a) 10. Mackerel has decreased in quantity along the Miramichi Bay and coast, as our own shore fishermen say they are much more scrace of late years, and cannot account for the fact. Ten years ago establishments made it their business to buy mackerel for canning purposes, aud pre- served yearly from ten to fifteen thousand lbs.; now, and the last tive years, they are all closed. sae 11. The food of mackerel is chiefly got along the shores. Small fry of the different species are their chief food. Their principal breeding places are along Bay Cheleurs and other places along Prince Edward Island and Gulf of St. Lawrence. } : 12. I consider the privilege granted to American fishermen to land N _ and dry their nets invaluable. 13. I consider the privilege of fishing in American waters of no ac . count or value to Canadians whatever. ; 14. The value of transshipping cargoes, and getting bait, &e., is worth about $400 per trip. 1828 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 15. I believe it has hurt our shore fisheries to a considerable extent ; d not say the value. arr It is true that United States fishermen have sold goods to our fish- ermen, and evaded the duty. ] ae 17. Another advantage the Americans have enjoyed is the Miramichi lights, our coast lights, harbor buoys, shelter from storms, getting fresh supplies, fuel, water; in fact, it is impossible to enumerate ali the ad- vantages and value of these privileges. Look at the protection of our rivers, the expense connected with protecting the spawning fish, the fry of which all serve to feed our deep-sea fisheries. WILLIAM WYSE. Sworn before me at Chatham this 11th day of August, A. D. 1877. Ga W,-BDAIR 3.2: No. 700. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JAMES FLYNN, the elder, of Perceé, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, planter, do make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been acquainted with the various fisheries on this coast for upwards of 40 years. 2. During the duration of the Reciprocity Treaty a large fleet of American vessels frequented this coast for fishing purposes, say from Point St. Peter’s to Cape Despair, a distance of 18 miles or thereabout. 3. I have often seen the American schooners close to the shore mackerel fishing. I have often seen them fishing from shore, and catching mack- erel in the channel between this and Bonaventure Island. 4. Upwards of 100 vessels or American schooners have fished mack- erel in this vicinity each season. These schooners average about 70 tons, with a crew of about 12 or 14 men. 5. The fisheries generally speaking are much the same as heretofore. But the cod fishery has greatly increased this summer. 6. Mackerel is caught by the Americans both with hand-lines and seines. , 7. The Americans previous to and during the Reciprocity Treaty took most of their fish inside of the limits. 5 The inshore fishery is decidedly the most valuable, as herring, cap- lin, lance, smelt, fully two-thirds of the mackerel, and the greater portion of the codfish, are taken inshore. 9. It was a common complaint with our fishermen that the American schoouers came inshore and enticed away the mackerel by feeding them, thus preventing our people from catching any more. 10. | have also heard our fishermen complain that the Americans came inshore to set their nets for bait, thus preventing their obtaining a sufficiency. 11. I have on several occasions seen American schooners come into the coves and set their nets for bait. 12. The several kinds of fish taken inshore by the Americans are also taken by our fishermen. 13. A great increase has taken place in the cod fishery since 13571, caused no doubt by the absence of the Americans from our waters, thus allowing our fishing-grounds to be restocked. 14. Herring are all caught inshore, the Americans catching them for bait only. mie AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1329 15. I have often heard the remark made by persons who have heard the Americans say that the quality of our mackerel was superior to theirs, realizing a higher price in their market. 16. It is undoubtedly a source of great advantage to the Americans to be allowed to land, dry, and repair their nets. 17. The transshipment of cargoes will be a great advantage to the Americans, as it will enable them to keep on the fishing-grounds and double their fares. 18, The procuring of bait, either by catching or buying, is also a great advantage for American fishermen. If they buy, it is in order to save time. 19. The Americans could not carry on the cod and halibut fisheries without procuring bait within our limits. 20. The privilege of transshipping cargoes, as now to be enjoyed by the Americans, will be equal to one load; and that of getting bait for their cod and halibut is equal to the value of those fisheries. JAMES FLYNN. Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Pereé, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 28th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. RON. DUVAT Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No. 201. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, EDMUND FLYNN, of Percé, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, planter, and mayor of Percé, do make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been acquainted with the various fisheries on this coast up- wards of 35 years. 2. During the existence of the Reciprocity ‘Treaty a large fleet of American vessels frequented this coast for fishing purposes. . 3. I have often seen the American schooners close inshore mackerel fishing. I have seen them catching mackerel in the channel between this and Bonaventure Island. ; 4, I have seen as many as 50 to 100 American schooners during sev- eral successive seasons mackerel fishingin this vicinity. These schooners average about 70 tons—each crew consisting of from 10 to 14 men. 5. I have often spoken to American captains, who stated they gener- ally made good voyages—making two, and I believe in some cases three, voyages during each season. 6. These schooners would, on an average, take 400 barrels of mackerel from our shores each trip. 7. The fisheries are, generally speaking, much the same as hereto- fore; but the cod-fishery has greatly increased this summer. — 8. Mackerel is caught by the Americans both with hand-lines and Seines. 9. The Americans previous to and during the Reciprocity Treaty caught most of their fish within the limits. _10. The inshore fishery is decidely the most valuable, as herring, cap- _ lin, smelt, launce, fully two-thirds of the mackerel, and the greater por tion of the codfish are taken inshore. at tl 11. It was always a common complaint with our fishermen that the 84F 1330 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. American schooners came inshore and enticed the mackerel away by feeding them, thus preventing our people from catching any more. p 12. I have also heard our fishermen complain that the Americans came inshore to set their nets for bait, thus preventing them from ob- taining a sufficiency. , 13. 1 have often seen American schooners come into the coves and set their nets for bait. ; 14. The various kinds of fish taken inshore by the Americans are also taken by our fishermen. : 15. A great increase has taken place in the cod fishery since 1871, caused no doubt by the absence of the Americans from our waters, thus allowing our fishing grounds to be restocked. _ 16. Herring are all caught inshore, the Americans catching them for bait only on this coast. 17. I have heard it stated that our mackerel is superior to the Ameri- can, but am not personally cognizant of the fact. 18. It is undoubtedly a source of great advantage to the Americans to be allowed to land, dry and repair their nets on this coast. 19. The transshipment of cargoes will also be a great advantage to the Americans, as it will enable them to keep on the fishing grounds and thus double their fares. 20. The catching or buying of bait is also a great advantage for American fishermen. When they buy, it is to save time. 21. The Americans could not carry on the cod and halibut fisheries without procuring bait within our limits. 22. The privilege of transshipping cargoes, as now to be enjoyed by the Americans, will be equal to one load, and that of getting bait for cod and halibut is nearly equal to the value of those fisheries. 23. Fishing in our waters by the Americans is, and always has been, a serious injury to our fishermen, who cannot cope with them on account of the superiority of their vessels and fishing gear. EDMUND FLYNN. Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Percé, county of Gaspe, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 28th day ot July, A. D. 1877, before me. R. N. DUVAL, Justice of the Peace for the Province of Quebec. No. 202. Iu the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Joun VARDON, of Mal Bay, in the county of Gaspé, province of > ane planter, and justice of the peace, do make oath and say as OLOWS: 1. I have been engaged in and am intimately acquainted with the various fisheries on the coast of Gaspé, and those of the north shore of the St. Lawrence, upwards of 48 years. 2. Previous to and during the existence of the Reciprocity Treaty a large fleet of American schooners frequented our coast for fishing pur- poses, 3. I have often seen the American schooners close inshore catching mackerel, and should say that I have seen as many as one hundred sail at one time in Mal Bay. . 4. During many successive seasons I have seen from 100 to 150 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1331 American schooners mackerel fishing in this vicinity. These schooners are from 50 to 100 tons, some even larger, and are manned by 10 to 15 men. 5. The American captains to whom I have spoken told me they gener- ally made good voyages, generally two, but even three voyages during each season. 6. These schooners would, on an average, take from 400 to 500 bar- rels of mackerel from our shores each trip. 7. The fisheries are much the same, generally speaking, as in times past, but the cod fishery has greatly increased this season, and is far be- yond an average so far. 8. The mackerel is caught by the Americans both with seines and hand-lines. 9. The Americans have, in my opinion, always taken most of their fish within the limits. 10. The inshore fishery is by far the most valuable, as herring, cap- lin, smelt, clams, launce, at least two-thirds of the mackerel, and a great portion of the codfish are taken within the limits. 11. It has always been a common complaint with our fishermen that American schooners came inshore and enticed the mackerel away by feeding them, thus preventing our fishermen from catching any more. 12, Another complaint with our fishermen has always been that the Americans came inshore, to set their nets for bait, thus preventing them from getting sufficient for their own wants. 4 13. I have often seen American schooners come into Mal Bay to set their nets for bait. 14. Our fishermen catch the same fish as are taken by the Americans along our shores. 15. The absence of American fishermen from our waters since 1871 has no doubt been the main cause of the increase of the cod fishery, as they have thus allowed our fishing grounds to be restocked. 16. Herring are all caught inshore, those caught by the Americans on this coast being for bait only. 17. I have always understood from the Americans that our mackerel was of superior quality to their own, and fetched a better price in the American markets. 18. There can be no doubt that the right to land, dry, and repair nets on our coast will be an important benefit to the Americans. 19. The transshipment of cargoes will also be an important advantage to the Americans, as it will enable them to keep on the fishing grounds, and thus double their fares. 20. The buying and catching of bait is also a great benefit to the Americans. When they buy, it is in order to save time. 21 The Americans conld not carry on the cod and halibut fisheries to advantage without the privilege of procuring bait within the limits. Halibut is generally caught within a mile of the coast along the north Shore of the St. Lawrence. 22. The right to fish in our waters by Americans is, and must ever be oreapen injury to our fishermen, who cannot cope with them, on account of the superiority of their ls and fishing gear. . Pais nn SOHN VARDON, J. P. Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Perce, county of Gaspé, Pravince of Quebec, Domininion of Canada, this Ist day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. re etes JAMES ALEXANDER, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. 1332 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 203. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, GEORGE DuMARESQ, of Fox River, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, merchant, make oath and say as follows: 1. Iam acquainted with all the fisheries carried on on this coast and on the shores of the Gulf of St. Lawrence for the last 34 years. 2, During the Reciprocity Treaty, from 1304 to 1866, and previous to that time, mackerel-fishing by the Americans on these shores, from Cape Rosier to Mont Louis, and also in the Bay of Gaspé, has been very extensive. 3. During the period just mentioned, an average of 150 schooners have visited our shores here yearly for mackerel-fishing. These vessels averaged 70 tons, with a crew of 15 men. 4. These vessels made yearly a good voyage on these shores. I heard the Americans say so many times, and that often they were making two voyages. 5. American fishermen have acknowledged before me that. yearly these schooners that visited our shores here for mackerel, carried away from 400 to 500 barrels of that fish. I have known vessels taking 250 barrels of mackerel in three days, and very close to the shore at about 4 and 5 fathoms of water, near Fox River. 6. The cod fishery is as good now as it was formerly. 7. The Americans catch mackerel with hand-lines and seining. I have seen them fishing, and catching fish with both. I have never seen the Americans fishing elsewhere on these coasts than inside the three miles. 8. The practice of American fishermen of throwing fish offals over- board is very injurious to our fishing grounds in several ways; in the first place it feeds the fish too much, thus preventing the fish from tak- ing bait; also the putrid offals upon which the fish feeds on the bottom must be injurious to the mother fish, thereby destroying the fry. 9. On these shores the Americans have always fished inshore. I have seen them fishing inshore continually during the Reciprocity Treaty. I have seen vessels loaded. I have not seen them seining elsewhere than in Gaspé, but I have seen seines-on board of several vessels. _10. The inshore fisheries are by far of a greater value than the out- side ones. All the fish here are caught inshore. 11. | am aware that the Americans have been in the habit of using artificial bait when they came to fish among our own boats, and the moment that bait was thrown out mackerel would suddenly rise to the surface, and after them, making good catches. The Americans would leave jor deep water, and no more mackerel was to be caught inshore. Iam aware, also, that Americans have threatened to stone, and did stone, too, our fishermen in their boats, because they say our fishermen were interfering With their fishing. 12. This practice has been carried on during all the time the Ameri- caus have visited our coasts for mackerel fishing, and this was at a time of the cod fishery when mackerel as bait was most needed. _ 13. The Americans use both hauling and purse seines, both of which, iM my Opinion, are injurious to the fisheries in this respect, that it takes arg of fish, a part of which they do not save, being of no market 14. The cod fishery has rather increased since 1871; herring keeps “AK AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1333 about the’same. The increase of codfish in my opinion is greatly due to the fact that the Amerians have retired from our waters, 15. I have heard American fishermen say that our number one mack- erel was superior to theirs, and reached a higher price in their market ~ than their own. , ° 16. Mackerel feeds on shrimps, launce, and fry of other fish. The food of mackerel is all inshore; that is what keeps mackerel inshore on these coasts. 17. It is a great advantage for Americans to be able to land on our shores, and to dry their nets and cure their fish. 18, It isa great advantage to Americans to be able to transship their cargoes, because it enables them to remain on the fishing grounds and -to double their fares. 19. It is a great advantage to Americans to be allowed to procure bait inshore by catching it, or by buying it; and if they buy, it is because it is more profitable to them. 20. It is not an advantage to us to be allowed to fish in American waters. 21. The privilege of the Americans of transshipping their cargoes on our inshores is worth to them another voyage, perhaps two. 22. The Americans would not carry on halibut or cod fishery profit- ably in our waters if they were not allowed to procure bait in our in- shores. 23. The privilege of being allowed to get bait inshore for cod or hali- ae fishing by the Americans, is equal to their fisheries of cod and halibut. 24. The fishing by the Americans in our waters injures our fishing operations greatly, because it brings in a competition that we cannot sustain, the Americans being so well supplied and fitted out with vessels and fishing gears, that on the fishing grounds they take the best fish. Besides, with their large seines seining for mackerel, as I have seen them in Gaspé Bay, have prevented our fishermen from taking bait for cod-fishing. 25. The Americans being allowed to catch their bait themselves, this practice is an injury to our own fishermen, because it restrains their trade of bait. GEORGE DUMARESQ. Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Fox - River, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 31st day of July, 1877, before me. N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No. 204. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty ; of Washington. I, ALEXANDER Campton, of Magdalen River, county of Gaspé, Prov- - ince of Quebec, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. Am acquainted with all the fisheries on this coast for the last thirty ‘years. 2. From 1854 to 1866 the fishing by the Americans has been very ex- tensive for mackerel between Cape Chat and Magdalen River, a distance of 63 miles. 1334 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3. To the best of my knowledge about 100 vessels have visited these shores yearly during the period mentioned, mackerel-fishing. 4. Have been piloting American fishing-schooners on this shore and on the north shore for three or four seasons, during the Reciprocity Treaty. I have seen them fishing and catching mackerel, and I have caught mackerel whilst in their employ, and always very close the shore, sometimes so close that I could step on shore from the schooner. 5. These schooners used to make good voyages yearly, previous to 1865, and their cargoes yearly averaged 300 barrels of mackerel each trip. These schooners averaged about 65 tons, with a crew of about 16 men. 6. The mackerel fishery seems to have decreased, but the cod and herring fisheries are the same now as formerly. 7. The Americans take mackerel by means of hand-lines and seines. During the Reciprocity Treaty each schooner had boats which they sent to fish inshore. ; 8. The throwing overboard of fish offals, as practiced by the Ameri- cans, injures the fishing grounds very much, because it gives too much nourishment to the fish, and because it poisons the water, drives away the large fish, and kills the eggs. 9. I have never seen the Americans fishing for mackerel other than inshore, during the Reciprocity Treaty and before, on this shore. 10. The inshore fishery is by far of greater value than the outside. All the fish are taken inshore there. 11. Many times, whilst I was fishing mackerel inshore, the Americans have come in among our boats, and by throwing bait, enticed the mack- erel away with them, and thereby causing us great loss. 12. I know that the American fishermen have used the hauling-seines very often for mackerel. I have seen them using seines at the Cove, Mount Louisa, and at river a la Pierre. And one time there was so much mackerel in the bunt of the seine that it ruptured, and they lost all. The seines they used were hauling-seines ; they hauled them from the shore. 13. The hauling-seines destroy more mackerel than the lines. 14. Since 1871, salmon and codfish have increased greatly. I believe. it is owing to the absence of Americans from our waters. There was also a great quantity of mackerel on these shores last year, and a great increase over former years. 15, I have heard the Americans say frequently that our mackerel were of a better quality than their own, and reached a higher price in their markets. 16. Mackerel feed inshore on launce and other small fish; also on sea- fleas, which are plenty on this shore. 17, It isa great advantage to Americans to be able to transship their cargoes, because it enables them to keep on the fishing grounds and 10 double their fares. 18. It is of no advantage to us to be able to fish in American waters, and I never knew of any vessels from here ever going there to do so. 19. Fishing by Americans injures the fishing operations of onr fisher- men toa great extent. Without considering injuries actually done to our own fishermen, by enticing the fish out of their catch, and the injury done to their nets by sailing over them and spoiling them, the privilege granted to Americans of fishing in our waters brings in a competition that we cannot sustain, they being better equipped and geared than we are, 80 that they take all the best fish. ' ALEX. CAMPION. eT arr eee Pe AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1335 Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Mf ag: dalen River, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Can. ada, this 27th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No. 205. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. : I, ALEXIS MALOUIN, of Griffin’s Cove, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. Have been acquainted with all the fisheries that are carried on on this coast and on the shores of the Gulf of St. Lawrence for the last 30 ears. . : 2. During the Reciprocity Treaty, from 1854 to 1866, the fishing by the Americans has been very extensive on these shores. 3. To the best of my knowledge, about 100 American fishing vessels have visited these shores for mackerel, yearly, during the Reciprocity Treaty. These vessels average about 65 tons, having about 16 men for a crew each. Each of these vessels have carried away from our shores about 400 barrels of mackerel at a trip, yearly. The most of these ves- sels make two trips in a season. : 4, The Americans take mackerel by means of seines and hand-lines. I have seen them seining several times in this cove and catching fish. 5. The throwing of offals overboard, as practiced by the Americans, is injurious to our fisheries, because it gluts the fish, poisons the waters, and kills the eggs. 6. The Americans have always fished inshore here during the Reci- procity Treaty, often inside of half a mile. ; 7. The inshore fishery is of much greater value than the outside. All the fish here are taken inshore. 8. I have seen the Americans several times each season during the Reciprocity Treaty come in among our boats, and by throwing bait, en- * tice the mackerel away with them. They have done it to me frequently. 9. I have heard the Americans say many times, that our mackerel were better and brought a higher price in their markets than their own. 10. Mackerel breed and feed all along our iushores. They feed on launce and shrimps. 11. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be allowed to land to dry and repair their nets. I have seen them frequently doing so. 12. The Americans could not profitably carry on the cod and halibut fisheries without being able to procure bait in our inshores. 13. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to transship cargoes; because it enables them to keep on the fishing-grounds and ‘to double their fares. 14. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to procure ice in our inshores to preserve their bait. hy. 15. The privilege of transshipping cargoes to the Americans Is worth a load; and the privilege of procuring the bait in our inshores, for their cod and halibut fisheries, is worth these fisheries. 16. Fishing by Americans in our waters hinders our fishing opera tions, because they are so much better equipped than we are, that they take all the best fish. ALEXIS MALOULN. 1336 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Grifiin’s Cove, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this ay ly, A. D. 1877, before me. 3lst day of July, WE N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No. 206. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, CHARLES GAUL, of Douglas Town, County of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. Am acquainted with all the fisheries that are carried on in this bay for the last 30 years. 2, From 1854 to 1866, and before, the fishing by the Americans was very extensive for mackerel in the Bay of Gaspé. 3. During the Reciprocity Treaty, about 100 American vessels on an average have visited these shores for mackerel fishing. These vessels averaged about 70 tons, having a crew of about 15 men. 4. During the period mentioned above, the American fishing schooners made good trips yearly, and very often they make two voyages in a sea- son. They carry away from our sbores about 400 barrels each trip yearly on an average. 5. The cod and herring fisheries are as good now as they were for- merly. 6. The Americans take mackerel by means of seines and hand-lines. I have seen the Americans seining in this bay at Sandy Beach. 7. The throwing of fish offals overboard as practiced by the Ameri- cans is injurious to the fisheries, because it poisons the fishing-grounds, drives the fish away, and kills the eggs. . 8. The Americans fished all inshore in this bay during the Reciprocity reaty. 9. Our inshore fisheries are of much greater value than the outside. All the fish are caught inshore in this bay. 10. I have seen the Americans many times come in among our boats and entice the mackerel away from us by throwing bait; and when we eae t to fo.low their vessels they threatened to sink us with ballast rocks. 11. The practice of seining is injurious to the fisheries, more especially the purse-seine, because it takes all kinds of fish, both large and small, aud the latter are all thrown away. 12. The same fish that are taken inshore by the Americans are also taken by the Canadians. 13. There has been a great increase in the cod-fishery since 1871, and the mackerel are more plenty this year than they have been for many years past. 14. The Americans take herring inshore here for bait only. . 15, Mackerel breed and feed in this bay; their food is launce, shrimps, LC. 16. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be allowed to land to dry and repair their nets. 17. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to transship cargoes, because it enables them to keep on the fishing grounds, and t double their fares, 15. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to procure bait AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1337 _ in our inshores, either by fishing for or buying it. If they buy it. it is be. _eause they save time, and they find it more profitable to them. 19, The Americans could not carry on the cod and halibut fisheries so profitably if they could not get bait in our inshores. 20. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to procure ice _ in our inshores to preserve their bait. 21. It is of no advantage to us to be able to fish in American waters. 22. The privilege of transshipping cargoes to the Americans is worth a load, and the privilege of getting bait in our inshores for their cod and halibut fisheries is worth these fisheries. 23. Fishing by Americans in our waters hinders the fishing opera- tions of our fishermen to a great extent; their vessels are so much better than ours, and their gears also, that they take all the best and largest fish. CHARLES GAUL. Sworn to the best of knowledge, information, and belief, at Douglas Town, county of Gaspé, province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 29th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No. 207. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treat y of Washington. I, ROBERT TAPP, of Fox River, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebee, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. Have been acquainted with all the fisheries which are carried on on this coast for thirty years. 2. During the Reciprocity Treaty, from 1854 to 1866, the mackerel- fishing by the Americans was very extensive on this coast. 3. During the period above mentioned, about 150 American vessels have visited these shores for mackerel-fishing yearly. These vessels -averaged about 65 tons, having about 15 men for acrew. They carry _away from our shores about 400 barrels of mackerel at a trip, yearly. All that I have seen make two trips in a season. 4, Cod fishery is about the same as formerly ; herring also. * 5, The Americans take mackerel by means of seines and hand lines. | have seen the seines in their vessels, but never saw them using them. 6. The practice of throwing offals of fish overboard, as done by the ' Americans, is injurious to our fisheries; because it gluts the fish, poisons the fishing-grounds, and kills the eggs. 7. During the Reciprocity Treaty the Americans have always fished inshore, and very close to the shore. : - 8. The inshore fishery isof much greater value than the outside. All _ the fish here are taken inshore. 9. It was the common practice of the Americans to come In among our boats, and, by throwing bait, entice the mackerel away with them. _ They have done this to me several times in a season. . 10. The cod fishery has greatly increased since 1871, owing, I believe, .to the absence of Americans from our waters. 11. I have heard the Americans say frequently that our mackerel “were better, and reached a higher price in their markets, than their own. 12. Mackerel feed all along our inshores on launce and sea-fleas. ' 1338 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 13. I have seen the Americans several times setting nets close to the shore for bait, for their cod and mackerel fishery. It is a great advan- tage to the Americans to be allowed to land to dry and repair their 7 Ss, ak It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to transship their cargoes ; because it enables them to keep on the fishing-grounds and to double their fares. ; 15. It is of no advantage to us to be able to fish in American waters, and I never knew of any vessel from here going there to do so. 16. The privilege of transshipping cargoes to the Americans is wo rth a load; and the privilege of getting bait in our inshores for their cod and halibut fisheries is worth these fisheries. . 17. The fishing by the Americans in our waters hinders the fishing operations of our Canadian fishermen to a great extent, because they are so much better geared and supplied than we are that they take all the best fish. his ROBERT + TAPP. mark. Witness: A. D. JOHNSTONE. Sworn, to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Fox liver, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 30th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No. 208. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Luke McCau_ey, of Douglas Town, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, fisherman and farmer, make oath and say as follows: 1. Have been acquainted with the fisheries that are carried on on this coast for the last thirty years. That is to say, the Bay of Gaspé. 2. During the Reciprocity Treaty, and before, the fishing by the Americans was very extensive for mackerel in the Bay of Gaspé, at Grif- fin’s Cove, Cape Rozier, Cape Bon Ami, &e. 3. The average number of American vessels that have visited these shores for mackerel-fishing yearly have been about 100, between 1854 and 1866. The average tonnage of these vessels was about 70 tons, having from 13 to 15 men for a crew each. 4. During the period mentioned above, the American fishing-schooners that | have seen have made yearly good voyages. I have heard the fishermen say that they would sooner go on shares than on wages at $40 per month, because they could make more. These schooners generally make two trips in a season, and some of the fishermen told me that all the schooners made two trips. 5. The cod fishery is as good now as it was former] y; herring also, and all kinds of bait. 6, The Americans take mackerel by means of hand-lines and seines, principally the former. I have seen as many as 15 schooners in the bay here with seines in their boats, ready to start seining whenever they saw a school of mackerel. But I have seen only a couple of hauls AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1339 of the seines, and I saw the boats loaded with mackerel taken out of them. This was at Sandy Beach, in Gaspé. 7. The throwing of fish offals overboard on our fishing grounds, as practiced by the Americans, is injarious to our fishing ; because it pois- ous the waters, drives away the large fish, and kills the eggs. 8. The Americans fished all inshore during the Reciprocity, in this bay, at Griffin’s Cove, Cape Rozier, and Cape Bon Ami. 9. Our inshore fisheries are of much greater value than the outside. All the fish are caught inshore in this bay. 10. It was the common practice of the Americans to come in among out boats, and, by throwing bait, entice the mackerel away with them. And when we went near their vessels they threatened to split our boats with ballast rocks, 11. The practice of seining is injurious to the fisheries; because the purse seine takes all kinds of fish, both large and small, and the latter are thrown away and left to perish. 12. To the best of my knowledge, about five American vessels have come in this bay for bait, yearly. And I have seen them setting nets for it during the Reciprocity Treaty and before. It takes about 40 bar- rels of herring for bait for a cod-fishing voyage. 13. The same fish that are taken inshore by the Americans, are also taken by the Canadians. 14, Since 1871 the cod fishery has greatly increased; and the mack- erel are more plenty this year than they have been for many years past. 15. The Americans take herring inshore here for bait only. 16. Mackerel breed and feed in this bay chiefly inshore. Their food is launce, shrimps, and other small fish. 17. It is an advantage to the Americans to be allowed to land to dry and repair their nets. 18. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to transship cargoes; because it enables them to keep on the fishing-grounds and to double their fares. 19. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to procure bait in our inshores, either by fishing for or buying it. If they buy it, it is because they save time and find it more profitable to them. 20. The Americans could not carry on the cod and halibut fisheries so profitably if they could not get bait in our inshores. 21. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to procure ice in our inshores, to preserve their bait. 22. It is of no advantage to us to be able to fish in American waters. 23. The privilege of transshipping cargoes to the Americans is worth a load; and the privilege of getting bait in our inshores for their cod and halibut fisheries is worth these fisheries. 24, Fishing by Americans in our waters hinders the fishing operations of our fishermen to a great extent, because it brings in a competition that we cannot sustain. They are so much better supplied than we are that they take all the best fish. . LUKE McCAULEY. Sworn, to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Doug- -las Town, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 29th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. N. LAVOIE Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. 1310 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 209. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Toomas McRay, of Gaspé, county of Gaspe, Province of Quebec, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. Have been acquainted with all the fisheries that are carried on in the Bay of Gaspé and on the north shore of St. John’s River for the last 30 years. 2. The fishing by Americans in this bay for mackerel was very exten- sive during the Reciprocity Treaty, from 1854 to 1866. 3. About 150 American mackerel-fishing vessels visited this bay yearly during the period mentioned above. These vessels averaged about 70 tons, having about 16 men for a crew each. I have heard the American fishermen say that they had always made good voyages, and often two in a season. They carried away about 350 barrels of mackerel each trip. 4, The cod fishery is as good now as it was 20 years ago. 5. The Americans take mackerel by means of seines and hand-lines. They generally use the purse seine. I once helped them to haul a seine at Sandy Beach. They haul them from the shore. 6. The practice of throwing fish offals on the fishing grounds is inju- rious to the fisheries, because it gluts the fish, poisons the water, kills the eggs, and drives the large fish away. 7. To the best of my knowledge, during the Reciprocity Treaty, the Americans have always fished inshore in this bay and at St. John’s River for mackerel. 5. The inshore fishery in this bay is of much greater value than the outside. All the fish in this bay are caught inshore. 9. It was the common practice of the Americans, during the Reci- procity Treaty, to come in among our boats, and, by throwing bait, en- tice the mackerel away with them. They do this whenever they get a chance. 10. The use of the purse seine is injurious to the fisheries, because it takes all kinds, both large and small. The latter are thrown away and left to perish. 11. While on the north shore I have seen the Americans seine for bait, and we could not throw our seine until they had finished. And I heard ove of the American fishermen say that if we were to do the same on their coast we would soon be driven away. They came in night and morning to seine for bait. re ne are all caught inshore. The Americans take them for yait only. 13. Mackerel feed and breed all along our inshores. They feed on launce, shrimps, and sea-tleas., 14. The same fish that are caught inshore by the Americans are also caught by the Canadians. 15, Since 1871 the cod fishery has greatly increased, owing, I believe, to the absence of Americans from our waters. Mackerel also, and I think for the same reason. 16. Itis a great advantage to the Americans to be allowed to land to dry and repair their nets. 17. It is a great advautage to the Americans to be able to transship their cargoes, because it enables them to keep on the fishing grounds, and to double their fares. 18. The Americans could not profitably carry on cod and halibut wht AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1341 fisheries in our waters if they were not able to procure bait in our in- shores. ; ; 19. The privilege of transshipping cargoes to the Americans is worth a load, and the privilege of getting bait in our inshores for their cod and halibut fisheries is worth these fisheries. 20, Fishing by Americans in our waters hinders the fishing opera- tions of our fishermen to a great extent, because they are so much bet- ter equipped with vessels and gears than we are, that they take all the best and largest fish. his THOMAS + McRAY. V k. Witness: = A. D. JOHNSTONE. Sworn, to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Gaspe, county of Gaspe, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this Ist day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No. 210. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. ‘ I, FRANCIS NoIL, of Fox River, county of Gaspe, Province of Quebec, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. Am acquainted with all the fisheries which are carried on on this coast from Griffin’s Cove to Chlorydorme, a distance of 33 miles, for 30 years. » 2, During the Reciprocity Treaty, from 1854 to 1866, and before, the mackerel fishery by the Americans has been very extensive on these shores. j 3. I have been several times during a season on board American ves- sels fishing mackerel. I have seen them fishing, whilst I was on board, and catching mackerel, and I have fished myself, besides, during the period mentioned above. I have seen yearly, and many times during the season, from shore and from my boat, Americans catching mackerel, and always inshore and very close to the shore, in two or three fathoms of water. 4. The number of American fishing-schooners which have visited these shores for mackerel fishing yearly, during the period mentioned above, was about 150, to the best of my knowledge. The average tonnage of these schooners is about 65 tons, having 15 men for a crew; each ot these vessels have carried away yearly at least 350 barrels. I have heard the captain of these schooners say that most of these schooners were on their second trip, having made their first load about the Mag- dalen Islands, Prince Edward Island, and the Strait of Canso. tn The cod-fishery is about the same as formerly ; herring the same also. 6. The Americans take mackerel by means of hand-lines and seines ; but on this coast I did not see them using seines. - 7. The practice of the Americans of throwing fish offals overboard _ injures our fishing grounds and the fisheries in general ; because, first, It 1342 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. gluts the fish ; and, secondly, because the decaying of these offals poisons the water, drives the large fish away, and kills the eggs. : 8. During the Reciprocity Treaty, and before and after, the American schooners have always fished inshore, and made their load of mackerel ten very close to the rocks. Ba ae inshore fishery is by far of greater value than the outside; all the fish on this shore are caught inshore. 10. Every year during the period mentioned above I have witnessed American vessels coming amongst our boats when we were fishing for mackerel, and the moment they arrive they throw bait and entice the mackerel away from us, so that our boats could not take any more. They have done this to me and to my neighbors as often as they could get the chance, thereby causing us great damage. 11. Since 1871 the codfish have considerably increased ; and I believe it is because the Americans have left our waters. 12. I have heard the Americans state many times that mackerel caught in here were larger and of a better quality than their own, and brought a higher price in their markets than their own. 13. Mackerel feed all along our iashores on launce and other small fish. 14. I have several times seen the Americans setting nets close to the shore. 15. It is a great advantage to Americans to be able to transshbip car- goes; because it enables them to keep on the fishing grounds and to double their fares. 16. It is of no advantage to us to be able to fish in American waters, and I never knew of any vessel from here going there to do so. 17. The privilege of transshipping cargoes to the Americans is worth a load; and the privilege of getting bait in our inshores for cod and halibut is worth these fisheries. 18. The fishing by the Americans in our waters hinders the fishing operations of our fishermen to a great extent, because we are not sup- plied with vessels and fishing gears to compete with them. Fo NOLL. Sworn, to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Fox River, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 28th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. aot N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No, 211. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JAMES JESsoP, of Newport, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1, Am acquainted with all the fisheries carried on on this coast for 30 years. I am living at Newport, and previous to that in Perce. I have been engaged on board an American mackerel-fishing schooner on shares. I have seen them them fishing with hand-lines and seines, and have fished myself while on board, and caught mackerel always inshore, and besides I have seen them from the shore fishing at Newport and Perce; and I have been on board many times while they were catching fish inshore during the period from 1854 to 1866. — ry, > egg AWARD OF THE FISHERY CuUMMISSION, 1343 2. A hundred American vessels have visited these shores yearly, from Point Macquereau to Perce, fishing mackerel. The average tonnage of these vessels is about 70 tons, having from twelve to fifteen men for a crew. 3. To the best of my knowledge the American vessels have made good voyages of mackerel yearly during and before the Reciprocity Treaty ; 300 barrels per trip, on an average. ; 4, The cod fishery is better this year than it has been for 30 years and it is because we are alone to fish on our grounds. Herring fishery is about the same. These last couple of years mackerel have not been plenty, but it seems to have increased this year. 5. The Americans fish mackerel with hand-lines and purse seines, 6. When I was engaged on board the American schooner we caught all our mackerel inshore, in fact on the net-moorings and inside the rocks; and all the schooners that I have seen here for mackerel have all made their loads inshore. 7. The practice of throwing offals of fish overboard, as practiced by the Americans, injures the fishing-grounds very much; it sickeus che fish, and kills the eggs. 8. The inshore fishery is of greater value than the outside. Herring, caplin, launce, two-thirds of the codfish, and the greater part of the mack- erel are taken inshore. 9. The Americans tuck their seines inshore, in fact I have only seen them use the seine inshore. é 10. The use of the seine is injurious in this way, that the small fish are all thrown away and lost. They take all kinds of fish, big and small. 11, Almost every season whilst in Perce I have seen several American trawlers come in the cove and set nets to catch herring for bait. 12. Since 1871, codfish has certainly increased, both inshore and on the Banks. As I said before, it is because the Americans are not here to take our fish. 13. The Americans catch herring for bait only, inshore. 14, Mackerel feed on these shores on launce and other small fish, and that is what brings the mackerel inshore, and keeps them there during _ the fishing season. 15. It is a great advantage to Americans to be able to land, to dry and repair their nets. 16. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to transship their cargoes, because it enables them to keep on the fishing grounds, and to double their fares. 17. It is a great advantage to Americans to be able to procure bait in our inshores, either to catch or to buy it; but if they buy it, it is be- €ause they save time and they find it more profitable. 18. The Americans could not carry on the cod and halibut fishery profitably without being able to procure bait in our inshores. 19. It is of no advantage to us to fish in American waters. 20. The privilege of transshipping cargoes granted to Americans 1s worth a load; and the privilege of getting bait in our inshores for cod and halibut is worth these fisheries. ; 21. We cannot compete with the Americans with reference to the fish- -eries; they are so well equipped and supplied with fishing gears that on the fishing- d , take all the best fish. ing-grounds they take a e best fis JAMES JESSOP. Sworn, to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at New- 1344 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. port, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 25th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. = LAVOLR, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No. 212. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, S. B. Hammonp, of Lockeport, in the county of Shelburne, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been well acquainted with the fishing business for the last fifteen years, and have vessels at presenent gaged in that business, and am well acquainted with the inshore fisheries in this county. — 2, Out of this port about one hundred vessels are engaged in the fish- ing business; most of these vessels are engaged in the shore fisheries. Fifty at least of these vessels get their bait in this county. Many American fish- ing-vessels run to this port for bait, and to other portsin this county. They also get ice in which to pack their bait in this port and in other ports in the county. The American vessels which get their bait and ice in this port fish from ten to forty miles off this coast, and without this bait and ice they could not profitably carry on the fishery on the coast. The Americans carry on the fishery off this coast within the said distance, by trawling, which I consider a bad way of taking fish. Our vessels take fish within the said distance principally by hand-lining, and have adopted trawling only this year to any extent in order to compete with the Americans. 3. The small codfish and seale fish, the greater part of which the Americans were jn the habitof throwin g overboard, they now bring into this port and sell at a profitable price. The Americans are thus enabled to come in and sell their small fish; run off and fish; come in again and sell their small fish, and finally go home filled up with a cargo of large and valuable fish. S. B. HAMMOND. Sworn to at Lockeport, in the county of Shelburne, this 21st day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. AUSTIN LOCKE, J. P. No. 213: In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, WILLIAM LLOYD, of Lockeport, in the county of Shelburne, master mariner, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in the fiskeries for twenty-eight years, for twenty-four years as master. I have fished along the southern coast of Nova Scotia from inshore off seventy-five miles and took mostly codfish, and am well acquainted with the inshore fisheries in Shelburne County. 2. Ihave seen in one day twenty sail of American vessels engaged in taking codfish on the above-mentioned fishing grounds. From La Have Bank to Brown Bank there are this summer at least fifty vessels of Americans. They are double the number of our vessels. These Amer- ican vessels carry from ten to fifteen men each, and take from sixty meaner AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1345 ; thousand to one hundred thousand pounds of fish each. They carry on _ the fishing on the above-mentioned banks by trawling and get the bait and ice with which they are enabled to do so principally in Shelburne and Yarmouth Counties, and without this bait and ice they could not carr y on the fishingon the above-mentioned banks. These American vessels are a great hinderance to Nova Scotian vessels, as they have more hooks and are larger vessels and take away the fish from us. The Americans take mostly all their fish on these Banks by trawling; Nova Scotian fishermen principally by hand-lining. Trawling I considera bad method of taking fish. The Americans bring in here their small and scale fish, which they were formerly in the habit of throwing overboard, and find here a good market for them ; these fish the Americans were in the habit of throw- ing overboard. ‘They take away the best fish home with them. The Americans purchase bait and ice in this port and in other ports in this county. They purchase because it saves time and expense, and it would take a long time to catch sufficient bait. WILLIAM LLOYD. Sworn to at Lockeport, in the county of Shelburne, this 14th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. DAVID EISENHAUER, J. P. ‘ In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JAMES ALEXANDER, of Point St. Peter’s, in the county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, merchant, do make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been acquainted with the various fisheries on this coast for upwards of fifty-eight years. : 2. Previous to and during the existence of the Reciprocity Treaty, a large fleet of American vessels frequented this coast for fishing pur- poses. ' 3. I have often seen a great number of American schooners close in Shore catching mackerel, particularly in Mal Bay and the Bay of Gaspe. 4, I have seen as many as 50 to 100 sail and upwards of American schooners, for several seasons, mackerel-fishing in this vicinity. These schooners would average upwards of 70 tons each, manned by 10 to lo men. 5. The American captains to whom I have spoken stated they gener- ally made good voyages, always making two and often three voyages each season. 6. These schooners would take on an average from 400 to 500 barrels of mackerel from our shores each trip. 7. The fisheries are, generally speaking, much the same as heretofore. But the cod fishery has considerably increased this summer. — 8. Mackerel is caught by the Americans both with hand-lines and Seines. on — 9. The Americans, previous to and during the existence of the Reci- procity Treaty, took most of their fish inside the limits. 10, The inshore fishery is by far the most valuable, as herring, smelt, eaplin, lance, fully two-thirds of the mackerel, and a great portion of _ the codfish, are taken inshore. 11. It has been a common complaint with our fishermen that the Amer. S85 F 1346 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ican schooners came inshore to entice away the mackerel by feeding them, thus preventing any more being caught by our people. 12. Our fishermen also complained that the Americans set nets for bait close inshore, which prevents their obtaining a sufficiency. 13. Have not seen them set nets. 14. The various kinds of fish taken inshore by the Americans are also taken by our fishermen. 15. The catch of codfish has greatly increased since 1871, caused no doubt by the absence of the Americans from our waters, thus allowing our fishing-grounds to be restocked. : 16. Herrings are all caught inshore, and are only caught for bait by the Americans on this coast. 17. I have always understood from the Americans that our mackerel was superior to theirs, and fetched a higher price in their markets. 18. The landing of nets to dry and repair, by the Americans, on our coasts, is an undoubted advantage for them. 19. The transshipment of cargoes will also greatly benefit the Amer- icans, as it will enable them to keep on the fishing-grounds and double their fares. 20. The catching and buying of bait is also an important advantage for the American fishermen. When they buy it is to save time. 21. The Americans cannot advantageously carry on the cod and hali- but fisheries, without procuring bait within the limits. 22. The privilege of transshipping cargoes will benefit the Americans to the extent of oneload. And that of getting bait for cod and halibut is nearly equal to the value of those fisheries, as the latter is all taken within the limits. 23. Fishing in our waters by the Americans is, and always has been, - aserious injury to our fishermen, who cannot cope with them on account of the superiority of their vessels and fishing gear. JAMES ALEXANDER, J. P. Sworn, to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Point St. Peter’s, in the county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, Dominion of - Canada, this Ist day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. PHILIP VIBERT, Comr. P. D. P. No. 215. In the matter of the Fisheries Commissiou at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, GEORGE PRIVEL, fish merchant, of St. George of Mal Bay, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows: 1. I am acquainted with all the fisheries that are carried on on the coast of Gaspé for 40 years past. I have been fishing myself for cod, herring, and mackerel for 30 years. 2. During the Reciprocity Treaty, from 1854 to 1866, the American fishery for mackerel on this coast, from Point St. Peter to Sandy Beach Gaspé, has been extensive. 3. To the best of my knowledge about 80 to 100 vessels have visited these shores for mackerel-fishing yearly. The average tonnage of these American vessels was from 60 to 65, with a crew of ten to fifteen men. 4. Daring the period mentioned above, I have been on board several American mackerel-tishing vessels, while they were fishing close to our AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1347 coast. I have seen them actually fishing and catching mackerel with hand-lines inside three miles, and I heard many times the fishermen say to me that they were doing very well, and sometimes two trips during the season by each vessel. as 5. These American fishing-vessels must have earried that period at least 800 barrels. 6. Ihave seen the Americans, yearly, during the Reciprocity Treaty continually fishing for mackerel, and very close to the shore, from Point St. Peter, all along the coast of Gaspé Bay. 7. I have seen the Americans catching mackerel only with hand-lines. 8. The use of the seine is injurious to the fisheries, because seines take all kinds of fish and of all sizes; the small ones not being marketable are thrown away and lost. 9. The practice of Americans of throwing fish offals overboard is in- jurious to our fisheries, because it gluts the fish and prevents the fish from biting, and also because it poisons the water, drives the fish, and kills the eggs. 10. Our inshore fisheries are by far more valuable than the outside ones. Mostly all the fish here is caught inshore. 11. The practice of the Americans of throwing their mackerel bait among our boats, and afterward retiring from the shore, has been highly injurious to us, because it enticed the fish away, so that we could not take mackerel afterward. They have done that as often as they got a chance; it has been done to me and to my neighbors very often, ttiere- by causing us a great damage, not only in mackerel-fishing, but also in the cod fishery, by thus preventing us from getting bait. 12. The food of mackerel consists of lance, sea-ftleas, and small animals floating in the water; this food is inshore; that is what keeps mackerel inshore. Mackerel breed in the Bay of Gaspé and feed along the shores. 13, I consider it a great advantage to Americans to be allowed to land for drying and repairing their nets or seines, and to cure their fish. 14, I consider it a great advantage to the Americans to be allowed to transship their cargoes in our harbors; because it enables them to keep on the fishing-grounds and to double their fare. 15. I consider that the Americans could not carry on profitably the cod or halibut fisheries in our waters if they were not allowed to procure bait inshore. 16. I consider it a great advantage for the Americans to be allowed to get ice in our harbors or on our shores to preserve their bait. 17. It is no advantage to us to be allowed to go and fish in American waters, and [ know of none of our vessels having resorted thither for yearly during fishing purposes. 18. The privilege to Americans of transshipping cargoes is worth the value of a load and sometimes of two. 19. The value of the privilege to Americans of taking bait on oar Shores for cod and halibut is worth to them the profits of their fish- eries of cod and halibut, because without that privilege they would not come, - 20. Without speaking of the drawback the presence of Americans ashore sometimes causes to our own fishermen, their presence and fish- ing on our shores injures us very much, because we cannot compete with them, on account of their being far better supplied and equipped for the fisheries than we are. On the fishing-grounds they take all the best fish, and besides they ruin our fishing-grounds. a GEORGE PRIVEL. Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Point 1348 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. St. Peter, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this lst of August, 1577, before me. N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. . No. 216. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, DANIEL DeEvor, of the Basin Amherst Island, Magdalen Islands, make oath and say as follows: 1. I am 62 years of age; I was born here and have always lived here. I am well acquainted with all the fisheries of these islands. I have fished myself from these islands for forty years. 2. The herring are found all round these islands as soon as the ice has gone, some years as early as the 20th of April, but generally in the be- giuning of May. They come in the greatest quantities into Pleasant Bay. They begin to spawn about the 10th or 15th of May each spring. They have never failed to spawn here each spring, always in great num- bers, but differing, sometimes more, sometimes less. They spawn in trom half a fathom to two fathoms of water, close to the shore. They also spawn in abundance in the harbor of Amherst, and in the basin at the Moulin. In the harbor they spawn in very shoal water, there not being not more than a foot of water above the eggs at low water. Ihave seen the eggs at the bottom attached to the sea herbs, kelp, &c., and to the rocks. When the male herring are depositing their milt over the eggs the water is made as white as milk; thisis especially the case, and to be seen in calm weather. Aftera strong breeze of onshore wind the the eggs are often washed by the surf upon the shore or beach in great banks. The herring here spawned by the end of May or the be- ginning of June, as when taken at this time they no longer contain any spawn. We find the young herring about an inch and a half long about the beginning of August in all the bays and coves round the islands, but more particularly in Pleasant Bay. 3. The Americans have come to these islands to seine herring every spring, as long back as I can remember, some years in greater numbers than others, but always in great numbers. They always have large schooners ; sometimes I have seen large three-masted schooners, brigs, and even steamers—these were American vessels. They seined from the shore, landing to haul their seines, on to or close to the shore. Without landing on the shores they could not seine in this way. They take immense quantities of herring in this way, frequently taking as much as two thousand barrels in one haul of the seine. Several vessels join and help to haul the seine, and they load in common from the quantity of herring in the seine. When a great quantity of herring re- mains lu a Seine for more than one day, this herring is lost, as the fish thus jammed together soon die and sink to the bottom. These herriug are lost, and I have often seen a thousand barrels of herring thus lost. 4. Without the right of landing on our shores the Americans could not thus haul their seines. 5. I have seen as many as from 100 to 150 American vessels here at oue time for the herring fishery, and these were large vessels, carrying from 900 to 1,000 barrels at the least. 6. The mackerel are taken with nets in Pleasant Bay and all around these islauds, beginning geuerally about the 10th of June. This net- _ The average tonnage of these vessels was 70 tons, and their cre AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1349 fishing for mackerel lasts about ten or twelve days, and generally ends about the 20th of June. When we take the mackerel at the beginning of this net-fishing season they are full of eggs. By the 20th of June when this net-fishing ends, the mackerel have deposited their ergs. They spawn in deeper water than the herring, where the sea seldom breaks. The line and hook fishery for mackerel begins about the begin- ning of August, and by this time it is very seldom that we find mackerel with eggsinthem. About the beginning of August the Americans come in great numbers for the mackerel fishery in Pleasant Bay and around the islands. I have sometimes seen from 600 to 700 sail of American mackerel fishers in and around the islands. I once saw 400 sail at one time achored off my place at the Moulin. 7. The permission to fish in American waters is of no use to us; our fishermen do not go there. 8. The American free market is of nouse tome. Jamin the fish trade for myself for the last fifteen years, and I have never sent any fish to the United States. Isell my fish either in Halifax or Quebec. My dried codfish goes to the West Indies; my mackerel to Halifax or Quebec. 9. The American fishing-crews often land and commit serious depre- dations. No later than last week they landed from four schooners in Pleasant Bay, and got up a riot at Amherst Harbor. Two years ago some Americans forced an entrance into my own house, causing by their violence and noise much alarm to my family. They broke open the door of my house. I hereby swear that the above statement is, to the best of my knowl- edge aud belief, correct. his DANIEL + DEVOT. mark. Witness: W. WAKEHAM. The said Daniel Devot has sworn to the truth of the above affidavit, at Amherst Harbor, Amherst Island, Magdalen Islands, county of Gaspé and Province of Quebec, this twenty-first (21) day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. Py FORTIN, d.: 2. No.2); In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JosePH SINETTE, of Griffin’s Cove, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: IT am acquainted with all the fisheries that are carried on on the coast of Gaspé since 35 years. “ 1. During the Reciprocity Treaty, from 1854 to 1866, and some years before that time, the mackerel fishery by the Americanson these coasts, from Griffin’s Cove to Madeleine River, has been very extensive, 2. To the best of my knowledge, 150 American vessels have been on these shores yearly for mackerel fishing, during the period menislonen: men. 3. I have been one season employed on board ofan American schoon- er during the Reciprocity Treaty. We went all along the coast from here to Madeleine River, and we fished at Grand Etang, Chlorydorme, 1350 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Grande Vallée, and Madeleine. We fished about five or six acres from land. With hand-lines we took fish. The large fish we kept and the small were thrown overboard. 4. I have noticed in one day as much as twenty barrels which were thus thrown overboard. 5. Besides I have seen the Americans fishing always inshore, and yearly, from my house and from my boat. I have neverseen the Ameri- cans fishing on this coast elsewhere than inshore, and very close to the shore. 6. The American fishing vessels always made good fares at that time mentioned, and it is also to my knowledge that most of these schooners were making two voyages a Season each. 7. These American schooners have yearly carried away from our shores here during the period already mentioned from 400 to 500 barrels of mackerel. 8. I have also noticed the Americans trawling along the shore here for catching halibut. 9. The cod fishery is as good now as formerly ; herring also. 10. The Americans catch mackerel with hand-lines and with seines, either hauling or purse seines. I have seen the Americans seining with a purse-seine at Griffin’s Cove, at about two acres from land. There was so much mackerel in the seine that it burst. I have seen seines on board every American vessel I have been on board. 11. The practice of Americans of throwing fish offals overboard is highly injurious to our fishermen, because it gluts the fish and poisons the water by decaying on the bottom, thus killing the eggs and driving the fish away. 12. The Americans have always fished inshore during the period men- tioned above, and caught all their fish very close to shore. 13. The inshore fisheries are by far of a greater value than the out- side ones. All the fish on this coast are caught inshore. 14. When the Americans were not with us we would take mackerel as well as themselves, but the moment they were coming with their vessels among us and throw bait our catching was done, except if they allowed us to fish with them, but most of the time they threatened to stone us if we did not get away. They done that as often as they gotachance. They have done that to me many times; and, more than that, they once run into my boat, notwithstanding my cries, and would have drowned me had I not been quick enough to cut my boat-anchoring cordage. 15. Ip my opinion, the use of the seine is injurious to the fisheries, specially the purse séine, because it takes a great deal more fish, and of every quality and size, a part of which is not saved, but thrown over- board or aside to die. 16. I have seen many times the Americans coming in here for herring, which they have bought for cod, halibut, and mackerel fishing. 17. I Juring the first years of the Reciprocity Treaty, and before, the Americans used to take all the mackerel, big or small, but later they only took the number one mackerel. 18. Mackerel feeds on launce, shrimps, sea-fleas, &e. This food is in- shore; that is what keeps here mackerel inshore. There is an abun- dance of food for mackerel all along our shores. 19, Itisa great advantage for Americans to be able to land, to dry and repair their nets, and to cure their fish. 20, It is a great advantage for the Americans to be allowed to trans- ship cargoes in our shores, because it enables them to double their fares. I have seen that done at Fox River. NE ETT ITE SS SN ee Se a AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1351 21. I consider it a great advantage to the Americans to be allowed to come in our inshores to catch or buy bait. And if they buy it, it is be- cause they save time, and are able to keep longer on the fishing-grounds, and catch fish. 22. The Americans could not fish profitably for cod or halibut, or even mackerel, if they were not allowed to come inshore to get bait. 23. I consider it also an advantage to Americans to be allowed to come inshore for ice to preserve their bait. 24. Ido not consider it an advantage to us to be allowed to fish in American waters. 25, The privilege to Americans of transshipping cargoes is worth them a load, or the value of a load or two more. 26. The privilege of getting bait inshore for halibut and cod is worth to the Americans these fisheries. 27. Besides the troubles and riots which the Americans have raised inshore, and which I have witnessed myselt, besides also the difticulties we had in our small coves here in setting our nets on the moorings, which was often impossible, on account of the Americans having anchored too close, or because we were afraid that they would lose them during the night in getting under way, the fishing by Americans in our waters is highly injurious to us, and ruin us, because it brings in a com- petition on the fishing-grounds that we cannot sustain, they being better supplied with vessels and fishing gears than we are. his : JOSEPH ---SINELLE. mark. Witness: Jk CURLLET; Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Grif- fin’s Cove, county of Gaspé, Province of Quevec, Dominion of Canada, this 3lst day of July, 13877, before me. N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No. 218. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JoHN PHELAN, of Port Daniel, county of Bonaventure, province 0: Quebec, fishery overseer, make oath and say as follows: 1. Have been acquainted with all the fisheries on the shores of Bay Chaleur for a space of 35 years. About 150 American fishing vessels have visited. the shores of Port Daniel and neighboring shores from 1854 to 1866, for mackerel fishing. I have counted as many as 60 at atime inshore; each vessel having an average of 12 men for a crew. I have seen American fishing schooners every year fishing inshore, from Point Macquereau to Paspebiac, a distance of 30 miles. 2. During the period mentioned from 1854 to 1566, T have often been on board American fishing vessels which were fishing at about halt a mile from the shore. I have seen them actually catching mackerel inshore. 4. I have often heard American fishermen say that they were doing well at the mackerel fishery. : ale 5. To the best of my knowledge the American fishermen have always made good voyages yearly. 1352 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 6. The cod fishery is fully as good on this coast now as it was 15 or 20 years ago; herring also. Mackerel has decreased. But this season they have increased, owing to the disappearance of Americans from our waters. 7. The American fishermen carry on the mackerel fishery with hand- lines and seines. 8. The practice of throwing mackerel offals overboard on the fishing grounds injures the cod fishery, because it gluts the fish. Mackerel offals being recognized as good bait for codfish, whilst cod gurry is the most deleterious, poisoning the fishing grounds, driving away the large fish and killing the small ones. When the Americans were numerous in the bay, the cod fishery was poor on this coast, whilst now there are codfish in abundance. 9, To the best of my knowledge, from 1854 to 1866 the Americans have fished mostly inshore. 1. Our inshore fishery is of greater value than the outside (I always speak of this shore from Point Macquereau to Paspebiac), because mack- erel, cod, and herring are all caught inshore here. 11. Several times I have heard complaints from our own fishermen about the Americans causing them injury by coming in among the boats and enticing the fish away, thereby causing them great loss. The Americans do this whenever they get the chance. 12. Most of the American fishing schooners are supplied with the purse-seine for mackerel fishery. The Americans have always used the purse-seine inshore. I have seen them use them several times each sea- son, and with success. I have never seen them use the seines outside. I can safely say that two-thirds of the mackerel are taken inshore. They have seined all along this shore. 13. The use of the purse-seine is injurious to the fisheries, because they take all kinds of fish, large and small, the latter being thrown away dead or maimed, so that it could not live. 14. Every year some American schooners come in Port Daniel for bait. They both fish for and buy it. They catch their bait with nets. 15. Herring are all caught inshore. The Americans take them here for bait only. 16. Mackerel feed all along the inshores in Bay Chaleur. Their food is launce, small herring, and other small animals. 17. I have seen the Americans several times come ashore to dry and penéte their nets. 1 consider it a great advantage for them to be allowed to do so. 18. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to transship their cargoes ; because it enables them to keep on the fishing-grounds and to double their fares. 19. It isa great advantage to American fishermen to be able to pro- cure bait in Canadian inshores. I don’t believe they could carry on the cod and halibut fisheries otherwise. _ 20. The privilege granted to Americans to fish in Canadian inshores injures Canadian fishermen toa great extent. It brings in a competi- tion that we cannot sustain. The Americans being better equipped with fishing gears and vessels, that they have all the chance. 21; If the Americans were not allowed to fish in our inshores we might do well in good seasons, even with our poor outfits for mackerel. The reason our outtits are so poor is, because we are not supported by strong and rich companies like the Americans. JOHN PHELEN. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1353 Sworn, to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Port Daniel, county of Bonaventure, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Can- ada, this 23d day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. . N, LAVOIF, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No. 219. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. ’ I, SIXTE LAFRANCE, of Amherst Harbor, Amherst Island, Magdalen Islands, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows: : 1. I am 67 years of age, and I have lived here for 48 years, and I have fished during all that time, though for the last seven or eight years I have not fished much. I am well and practizally acquainted with the fisheries carried on in Pleasant Bay, off Amherst Harbor, and around these islands. 2. The herring spawn in great abundance in Pleasant Bay and Am- herst Harbor and all around the islands, and they have never failed to come and spawn here every year, as above stated, since I first came here. They spawn in shallow water, on the flats of Amherst Harbor, in among the seaweed, where at low water there is not more than one foot of water over the spawn. Their spawn is generally attached to the seaweed. In Pleasant Bay and around the islands they spawn in from half a fathom to two fathoms water. They spawn in May, and during the spawning season, when the weather is fine and the sea calm, the sea over the spawning ground gets white like milk; this is caused by the milt of the male fish. Towards the end of August and in September, large quantities of small herring about two inches long are seen in the harbor and in Pleasant Bay; these fish keep in small schools. Towards evening they come inshore, while in day-time they seem to go out to sea. The mackerel feed on them, and when the fishermen are fishing for mack- erel in the bay, and when they see schools of small herring pass by their “boats, they know that the schools of mackerel are near at hand, and get ready for them. 3. Ever since I came here, I have seen every year large numbers of American scbooners fishing for herring with seines, and I have seen as - many as 150 of them at onetime. About 25 years ago they used to load and take away from 800 to 1,100 barrels each. They used to take the herring with seines; they used to draw their seines ashore, and the men went on the land to draw the seines. They used also to dry their seines on shore, when their voyage was completed. I have seen myself one haul of a seine for herring load two American schooners of at least 1,000 barrels each, and this was not arare occurrence; and I know that aS many as 3,000 barrels have been taken in one haul. I have seen seines that had been drawn near the shore, moored for three days; that is, as long as the fine weather lasted, and the schoovers that were part- ners in the seine, sometimes six in number, used to send their boats to take out the fish with dip-nets. When the bad weather came on they were obliged to tip the seine and allow the fish to go, some of them still alive, but most of them dead and of course lost. 4, If the Americans had not the right of landing on our shores, they would not be able to draw their seines ashore. 5. Mackerel are found in great abundance sometimes, at other times 1354 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. they appear in less quantities, in Pleasant Bay. They have never yet failed to come every year. The time of fishing mackerel extends from the 10th to the end of June—that is, mackerel-fishing by means of nets in Pleasant Bay. They are then, in the beginning of this fishery, full of spawn; towards the end of this fishery a great number have spawned, as we find their bodies empty of the spawn; but still some have retained it to deposit it a little later. When we begin to fish for mackerel with hook and bait we no longer find them full of spawn, they are then spent. ‘i hereby swear that the above statement is to the vest of my knowl. edge and belief correct. bis SIXTE + LAFRANCE. maik. Witness: JOHN GALT. The said Sixte Lafrance has sworn to the truth of the above affidavit, at Amherst Harbor, Magdalen Islands, this twenty-first (21st) day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. FP, FORTIN, Jal, No. 220. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, GABRIEL CorMIER, of Amherst Harbor, Amherst Island, Magda- len Islands, county of Gaspé, Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows: 1. Iam 77 years of age. I was born here and have lived here all my life. I fished from the age of 15 till about eight years ago, around the Magdalen Islands, at Auticosti, on the north shore of the gulf, from Natashquan to Blane Sablon, and for the last 7 years I have confined myself to fish in Pleasant Bay and off the neighboring shore. I am well acquainted with all the fisheries carried on at the above-named places; they are cod, herring, mackerel, and halibut. 2. As soon as the ice disappears from the shores of these islands, her- ring are seen in great abundance, coming close to the shore for the pur- pose of spawning. They spawn in Amherst Harbor and all the islands. I have seen the eggs of the herring on the flats near the shores, every- where around the islands. They spawn in a depth of one foot to two or three fathoms, and during the spawning season, that is during May, the sea gets white, as far as we can see, in Pleasant Bay, towards House Harbor and in Amherst Harbor with the milt of the male fish. In July we begin to see the herring-fry, half an inch long, with large heads and eyes. In September they are about two inches long, and begin to be shaped like the adult herring. In October they are about three inches long, and we use them then as bait for the codtish. We take those little herring with dip-nets along the shore, and sometimes we find enough in the stomach of the codtish taken to serve us as a bait for the whole day. Since I first commenced fishing, 1 have never seen the herring fail in Pleasant Bay or round these islands. They always come to spawn, though sometimes in greater numbers than others. There is no place in the gulf or on the coasts of the maritime provinces, as far as I GPS _5* eS AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1355 have heard from the numerous fishermen with whom I have spoken where herring spawn in such abundance as at the Magdalen Islands. — 3. The Americans have come to fish for herring round these islands ever since I can remember, and about 20 or 25 years ago they must have come some years to a number of 150 sail or more annually. 4, In June mackerel come into Pleasant Bay in great numbers; we then catch them with nets, and we then find them full of spawn. When, in August, we fish for them with hook and line we find them spent; they are then beginning to get fat, and recover from the effects of spawn- ing. i 5. I may also state that the Magdalen Islands are spawning-grounds for the codfish. 6. The right of fishing in American waters, granted to us by the Treaty of Washington, is not of the least use to us. I have never heard of one of our vessels going to fish in those waters. I hereby swear that the above statement is, to the best of my knowl. edge and belief, correct. his GABRIEL + CORMIER. mark. Witness: JOHN GALT. The said Gabriel Cormier has sworn to the truth of the above afli- davit, at Amherst Harbor, this twenty-first day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. P. FORTIN, J; P. No. 221. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. J, Epwarp A. Conway, of Gaspé, in the county of Gaspé, make oath and say as follows: 1. I am agent at Saint John’s for the Messrs. J. & E. Collas, fish mer- chants. I was also agent at Moisie for 2 years before I came to this place. I amin the fish business for the last 7 years. 2. The principal fish on this coast are the cod, the halibut, mackerel, and herring. All these fish are caught in the inshore limits. At Saint _ John’s we occasionally fish on the banks. 3. It would be impossible for any vessel to continue to fish on the Banks or inshore waters of this coast without coming on shore for bait, as all our bait is caught within three miles from shore; in fact all our bait is taken close along ashore. The usual bait—launce, herring, cap- lin, &e., are taken all the time right on shore. 4, The right of fishing in American waters is of no value to us; we have no desire to go there, as we have all the fish we can take, 1 left undisturbed, at our own doors. eek 5. The American free market is of no use to us. All our fish is pre- pared for and shipped to Brazil, the West Indies, or Europe. Sattet time, I have never known of any fish having been sent to the U nites States. sy he ees I hereby swear that the above affidavit is, to the best of my know! edge and belie ‘ TAY ge and belief, correct E. A. CONWAY. 1356 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. The said Edward A. Conway has sworn to the truth of the above aflidavit, at Saint John’s, in the county of Saguenay and Province of Quebee, this Sth day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. iP, FODEEN, Jak. NOs: 232: In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, ander the Treaty of Washington. I, Puiias Srrors, of L’Islet, in the county of L’Islet and Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows: 1. I am engaged in the fishing business for the last 16 years. I own a fishing establishment in St. John River, north coast of the river St. Lawrence, on which I keep 24 boats. I am thoroughly acquainted with all the operations connected with fishing on this coast. Iam acquainted with the fisheries carried on between Mingan and Seven Islands. 2. The principal fish caught are thecod, halibut, mackerel, and herring. 3. The cod is the principal fish, and gives rise to the principal fishing on the coast. All the fishing on the coast specified is carried on within the three-mile limit, with the exception of the St. John’s Bank and Min- gan Bank, upon which the boats of this coast go and fish sometimes, generally in the fall, but the great bulk of the fishing is carried on much inside of the three-mile limit. 4, The bait—we use caplin, launce, herring, clams, and trout, mack- erel and squid occasionally, also smelt. These fish are all taken close on the beach, except the squid, but all far within the three-mile limit. It would be impossible for a foreign fishing vessel to fish for cod on the Banks of St.John or Mingan outside to the limit, without being obliged to come into Canadian waters to take their bait. I am sure of this fact, as I have seen during the last five years of the Reciprocity Treaty, and the two years during which the Americans were allowed to fish in Brit- ish waters with licenses, a fleet of from 10 to 40 vessels, most of which were American vessels, fishing for cod and halibut, both on the banks and inshore waters. These vessels had to come on shore for bait, and I repeatedly saw them taking their bait by means of seines, inside of the mouth of the river, as well as on the beach. They might sometimes take their bait on the banks by means of drift-nets, and they might also bob for squid, but they could not depend on this manner of getting bait, but for cod fishing they have to come to the shore for bait. If they had not this right, they would have to stop the fishing and leave the coast. 5. After the period named, I saw but a few, say three or four of a season, fishing on the Banks and inshore waters, and, as usual, taking their bait on shore. _ 6. It is my opinion that vessels fishing on fishing grounds, and throw- ing overboard all their offal, as every vessel does, injure the fishing, because it gluts the fish, and they refuse to take the bait. i. The competition by these foreign vessels also injures the fishing, as when the fish is scarce the more boats or vessels are fishing the less re- mains for each; and when bait is scarce and strangers come and in- terfere with our men in the taking of it with large seines, there is less chance for our men to get enough, and our fishing may be stopped or hindered accordingly. 8. The privilege of fishing in American waters is of no practical ad- vantage whatever to Canadian fishermen, as it is not at all probalbe AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1357 _ that we will leave good fishing grounds to go such a distance to fish in _ grounds already exhausted. - _ 9. The American free market is of no use to us, and for the last 17 _years I have never shipped any fish to the United States. My fish goes to Europe, Brazil, or Canada. 10. It is important for us to keep our fisheries to ourselves, and not to give them to foreigners unless we obtain equivalent advantages in one way or another. 11. The American vessels I mentioned in paragraph 4 used, as a gen- eral thing, to load. They averaged from 50 to 60 tons, and they used to get full loads. ; I hereby swear that the above statement is, to the best of my knowl. edge and belief, correct. PHS. SIROIS. Tbe said Philias Sirois has sworn to the truth of the above aflidavit at St. John’s River, in the county of. Saguenay and Province of (Quebec, this eighth day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. PB; FORTIN, J.P. NOs 220° In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JoHN RENOUFP, of Carlisle, of the county of Bonaventure, of the Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows: 1. [ have been on this coast for the last 21 years as agent for Mr. Clarence Hamilton. Ihave been his agent during that time at the fol- lowing places: Seven Islands, Moisie, Long Point of Mingan, and St. John River. I understand thoroughly every operation connected with ag and the curing of fish. I keep twenty-two boats here at St. John iver. _ 2, The fisheries carried on on this coast are the cod, herring, mackerel, and halibut; all these fisheries are done within three miles of the coast in our waters, with the exception of two Banks, the St. John Bank and _the Mingan Bank, where cod and halibut are occasionally taken late in _ the season; these Banks lie at about nine miles from shore. _ 3. The cod is the most important fish on this coast, and is the fishery most extensively carried on by our people. _ 4. The bait we use for cod fishing is caplin, lannce, herring, clams, mackerel, occasionally squid and trout. 5. It would be impossible for a foreign fishing vessel not having the Tight of entry to our waters to carry on the fishing on the banks above described, for; although bait is occasionally taken on these banks by Seines, this is by no means certain; the bait is almost entirely taken close inshore and in the mouths of the rivers and on the beach. 6. I think the practice of throwing overboard offal, while on the fish- ing grounds, which the Americans do extensively, most injurious to the fishing, as it gluts the fish, and they will no longer take the bait. / 1. The competition carried on by foreign vessels is also very injurious ‘to the fishery, for when the fish are scarce the more boats there are fish- ing the less each one will take, and when bait is scarce, if foreigners are allowed to come with Jarge seines and fish day and night for It, as I ' know they have done, of course there is less chance of our fishermen getting enough to carry on their fishery. 1358 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 8. I consider the privilege of fishing in American waters, granted to us by the Treaty of Washington, of no value to our fishermen, as they would never think of leaving their own profitable waters for ones already exhausted. 9. I consider it a matter of great importance to us to keep our fish- eries in our own hands and not to allow Americans or any one else to have the right of exhausting our waters. ; 10. The American market for our fish, free of duty, is of no advan- tage tous. I have never shipped any fish to the United States ; all our tish are sent to Europe or the Brazils. I hereby swear that the above statement is, to the best of my knowl- edge and belief, correct. JOHN RENOUF. The said John Renouf has sworn to the truth of the above affidavit at St. John, in the county of Saguenay, of the Province of Quebee, this 8th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. P, FORTIN, Jr. No. 224. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. : I, WILLIAM FRANCIS BowER, of Point St. Peter, of the county of Gaspé, of the Province of Quebec, fisheries agent at Sheldrake for Messrs. John & Elias Collas, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have for the last three years been manager of Messrs. J. & E. Collas’s fishing establishment at Sheldrake. I understand thoroughly every operation connected with fishing and curing fish. 2. The fish taken here are cod, herring, mackerel, and halibut; of these I am only concerned in the cod-fishery ; but Iam well aware that all the fisheries here are carried on within three miles of the coast, except on one small bank, which lies some seven or eight miles from the shore, be- tween Sheldrake and Thunder River. The fishermen, however, very seldom go there. 3. The codfish cured here rank as Gaspé fish, number one, and are superior to American cured fish, and command higher prices in the Bra- zilian and European markets. 4. I can confidently state that our fishermen will never go to fish in United States waters, and consequently that the right acquired by the Treaty of Washington is of no value whatever to us, 5. From the knowledge | have of the fish trade, I am in a position to state that the right of having a market free of duty for our fish in the United States is of no value to us. I hereby swear that the above statement is, to the best of my knowl- edge and belief, correct. WILLIAM FRANCIS BOWER. The said William Francis Bower has sworn to the truth of the above affidavit at Sheldrake, this seventh day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. PB, PORDING > AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1359 No.. 225. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. : I, HYPPOLYTE BOUDREAU, of Esquimaux Point, of the county of Saguenay, in the Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows: 1. Iam 40 years of age, and have been a fisherman for the last 25 years. Iam well acquainted with the fisheries carried on at the Mag- dalen Islands, Anticosti, and the north shore of the river and gulf of St. Lawrence, from Sheldrake to Blane Sablon. I was present when Mr. Julien Boudreau gave his affidavit, and having heard it read to me, I declare that I fully concur in all his statements and opinions, as being to the best of my knowledge and belief correct. his HIPPOLYTE + BOUDREAU: mark. Witness: Joon GALT. The said Hippolyte Boudreau has sworn to the truth of the above affidavit, at Esquimaux Point, this 8th (eighth) day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. P,. FORTIN, J. 2. No. 226. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, FRANCIS CoRMIER, of Esquimaux Point, in the county of Sague- nay, and Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows: 1. Tam 35 years of age. I have been fishing for 22 years, and am well acquainted with the fisheries of the Magdalen Islands, the island of Anticosti, the north shore of the River and Gulf of St. Lawrence, from Sheldrake to the Straits of Belleisle, and being present when Mr. Julien Boudreau gave his affidavit, and having heard it read to me, I fully concur in all his statements and opinions, and hereby swear and declare that all his statements and opinions are, to the best of my _ knowledge and belief, correct. his FRANCIS + CORMIER. mark. Witnes: W. WAKEHAM. The said Francis Cormier has sworn to the truth of the above affi- davit, at Esquimaux Point, this 8th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me, P. FORTIN, J. P. No. 227. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. _ I, PLacipE Doy .e, of Esquimaux Point, in the County of Saguenay and Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows: _ 1, [have been 30 years a fisherman and am master and owner of a Schooner. I am 45 years of age. Iam well acquainted with the fish- 1360 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. eries of the Magdalen Islands, the Island of Anticosti, and the north shor e of the River and Gulf of St. Lawrence, from Sheldrake to Blane Sablon, and being present when Mr. Julien Boudreau gave his affidavit, and having heard it read to me, I fully concur in all his statements and opinions, and hereby declare that all he has said is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, correct, and to this I swear, his PLACIDE + DOYLE. mark, Witness: Wm. WAKEHAM. The said Placide Doyle has sworn to the truth of the above statement at Esquimaux Point, this eighth day of August, A. D. 1877, before me, PP: FORTING J-P. No, 228. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, GABRIEL CorMIER, of Esquimaux Point, of the county of Sague- nay, of the Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows: 1. Iam 50 years of age, and have been a practical fisherman for the last 35 years. Iam well acquainted w.th the fisheries carried on on the Magdalen Islands, Anticosti, the north shore of the River and Gulf of St. Lawrence, from Sheldrake to Blane Sablon; and being present when Mr. Julien Boudreau gave his affidavit, and having heard it read to me, I fully concur in all his statements and opinions, and declare that they are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, correct. his GABRIEL + CORMIER. mark. Witness: JOHN GALT. The said Gabriel Cormier has sworn to the truth of the above affida- vit, at Esquimaux Point, this 8th (eighth) day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. Pi BORDEN, ais No. 229. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, NATHANIEL BOUDREAU, of Esquimaux Point, of the county Sague- nay, of the Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows: 1. Tam 46 years of age. I have been carrying on the fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence tor the last 30 years, and I am well acquainted with the fisheries of the Magdalen Islands, of Anticosti, the north shore of the River and Gulf of St. Lawrence, from Sheldrake to Blane Sablon, and being present when Mr. Julien Boudreau gave his affidavit, and having heard it read to me, I fully concur in all his: statements and opinions, and declare that all he has said is, to the best of my belief and knowledge, correct. his NATHANIEL + BOUDREAU. e: mark, Witness: JOHN GALT. AWARD OF THE FISHERY CUMMISSION. 1361 The said Nathaniel Boudreau has sworn to the truth of the above afi. davit at Esquimaux Point, this (8th) eighth day of August, A. D, 1877 before me. ’ Ve PORTING J ob No. 230. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. F I, JULIEN BOUDREAU, of Esquimaux Point, in the county of Sague- nay, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have lived here 16 years; before that I lived at the Magdalen Islands where I was born. I am 63 years of age, and have been a fisherman for 50 years, and for the last 45 years I have been carrying on the fishery with a vessel of which I was master and owner, on the north coast of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, from Sheldrake to the Straits of Belleisle, and in the Straits of Belleisle, and on the Atlantic coast of Labrador, as far as Cape Harrison, at the Magdalen Islands, on La Have Bank, at the mouth of the Bay of Fundy, and on George’s Bank. Lam well acquainted with every operation relating to the taking and euring of codfish, halibut, mackerel, and herring. 2. 1 am also acquainted with seal hunting on the ice. 3. The fisheries carried on along the coast of the north of the'‘St. Lawrence, from the Sheldrake to the Straits of Belleisle, are the cod, halibut, mackerel, and herring. All these fish are caught within the three-mile limit all along the coast named, with the exception of the St. John and Mingan Banks, Natashquan, Kejasca, Belles-Amours Banks, where the fisheries are carried on also outside of the three-mile limit, at a distance of from three to six miles from the three-mile line. 4. The bait for taking cod and halibut is caplin, herring, launce, squid, clams, mackerel, and trout. All this bait is taken near the shores, and generally, as in the case of launce, caplin, herring, with seines from the Shore. Herring, as well as mackerel and trout, is also taken in nets. ‘Squid are taken with jigs, by hand. - 5. Since I visited the north shore of the St. Lawrence and the Straits of Belleisle, that is to say, for the last 45 years, I find that the quantity of fish is about the same upon the whole, but I must add that there are variations, some years being much better than others. 6. From the time that I first visited Natashquan, in 1832, that place was visited annually by American fishing schooners to the number of about 15, of from 80 to 120 tons, and having from 15 to 20 meu, with from four to eight boats with each vessel. These vessels were in com- pany with, onan average each year, 20 or 25 Canadian vessels. Each of these American vessels averaged 500 quintals. This state of affairs existed up to 1854, a period of 22 years, during which they took at this place alone about 8,000 quintals annually. Valuing this fish at $3 per quintal, this would give a sum of nearly half a million of dollars for the value of the fish taken illegally by the Americans at Natashquan alone. Before my time, according to reliable information, American vessels were also in the habit of fishing at this place in even greater numbers. A number of American vessels still visited Natashquan after the exist- ence of the Reciprocity Treaty, but the quantity of codfish having Slackened, they did not visit the place in such numbers. I have al- Ways seen American vessels fishing on .the Banks of Natashquan and Kejasca. 86 F 1362 AWARD OF THR FISHERY COMMISSION. 7. These American vessels fishing on these Banks and throwing the offal overboard cause great destruction to the cod by the codfish swal- lowing the heads and spinal bone, thus choking themselves ; besides, it drives the cod off the grounds on which these offals are thrown. §. American vessels fishing on the Bank of Natashquan or any other Bank in the gulf, cannot carry on the fishery with profit, or at all, un- less they obtain the right of taking bait on shore, that is, in British waters. It is true they might bring salted clams from their own coun- try or herring from the Gut of Canso, and sometimes take fresh herring on the Bank with drift nets, but this bait cannot be depended upon, and no schooner could make a profitable voyage under those circumstances ; and without the right of taking fresh bait on our shores no American schooners could continue to fish on the Banks. 9, At Bonne Esperance, Five Leagues, Middle Bay, Belles Amours, Bradore, Blanc Sablon, the Americans use seines for taking cod; these they haul on shore, and by means of these seines they take large quan- tities of codfish—large and small—many of the small ones too small to be cured, and they have to be thrown away, thus causing a wanton waste of this precious fish, Two years ago, at Blanc Sablon, some American fishermen threw away six boat-loads of small fish which had been taken in the seine. This way of taking fish is an injury to the tishing ground, to the fish itself, which it destroys without profit, and to the fishermen who fish with hook and line. 10. The herring is a fish that is found in great abundance on this coast, and they spawn at many places, particularly at Betchewar, St. Genevieve, Pashashubac, Kejasca, Washshucoctai, Coacoachoo, and many Other places to the eastward. American fishing-vessels have been in the habit of visiting the coast between Washshucootai and Coacoa- choo, both inclusive, for the purpose of taking herring for the last twenty years. They take this herring with seines, which they draw on shore. About 20 American schooners went there this year; the ordinary fishing schooners for herring took about 1,000 barrels each, and one three- masted schooner took 6,000 barrels (six thousand). This load was for the Norwegian market, and the vessel sailed directly from Washshucoo- tai for Norway. During the last twenty years about the same number of vessels have loaded herring each year. 11. I am also acquainted with the fisheries of the north and south coasts of the island of Anticosti. The fisheries carried on there are those of cod, herring, and mackerel, and halibut, and are all carried on within three miles of the coast, there being no fishing beyond that limit; so that any vessel coming to fish there must fish within British waters. Some American schooners, about eight or nine, come to fish herring on the north coast of Anticosti, at Fox Bay, or Belle Bay. Some of them loaded there, others went to complete their load at Washshucootai. They have been in the habit of coming for a number of years till this year. _ 12. About fifteen years ago American vessels began to come and fish for halibut on the coast of Anticosti, and they fished there until this year. They also fished on this coast, and even in the harbor of Esqui- © maux Bay. I cannot state exactly what number, but I can say that” they fished so exhaustively that they have nearly destroyed all the hali- but on these fishing grounds. _ 13, The competition of so many American vessels in our waters is injurious In a very great degree to our fisheries and to our fishing in- terest ; and the fishermen of this country have a much smaller chance of taking fish when they have so many American fishing-vessels on the t Be = lee ' AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1363 same fishing grounds as themselves than if they were left alone. It js consequently the interest of this country to keep the fisheries in our own hands if possible. 14, The right of fishing in American waters is of no value to us. 15. The privilege of selling our fish duty free in. the United States is no use to us; our fish is not prepared for that market. 16. All the coasts that Ihave mentioned in and about the gulf of the St. Lawrence are very accessible to American fishermen, and they pos. sess humerous harbors and good anchorage grounds, where their yes- sels can lay with safety. They also can and do procure wood and water and other supplies. 17. The advantage of fishing in the inshore waters isa very great one tothe Americans. If they could only fish on the outside Banks, they Beald do but little harm to us, and would have but poor success them- selves. 18. I rate the advantage to the Americans of fishing in our inshore waters and taking bait on our shores at from 75 (seventy-five) to 90 (ninety) per cent. on the total value of the fish caught. I hereby swear that the above statement, is to the best of my knowl. edge and belief, correct. his JULIEN + BOUDREAU. mark, Witness: Wm. WAKEHAM, The said Julien Boudreau, of Esquimaux Point, has sworn to the truth of this affidavit, at Esquimaux Point, in the county of Saguenay, and Province of Quebec, tbis 8th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. P. FORTIN, J. P. No. 231. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. __ I, Puiwip TovzEt, of Sheldrake, of the county of Saguenay, in the Province of Quebec, postmaster, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have lived here for the last 21 years, and for three years previous to that I came every summer to this coast to carry on the cod fishery. Iam apractical fisherman, and also fish merchant, and am well acquainted with the fisheries of this place and the neighborhood. The fisheries on this coast are cod, herring, mackerel, and halibut; of these the cod is _ the chief by far. 2. These fisheries are carried on within three miles of the shore, except that sometimes the fishermen take codfish on a Bank 73 miles from the Shore. This Bank is a continuation of the St. John’s Bank. 3. The-quantity of codfish on this coast, I think, is now as great as ever it was, though of course the catch varies, some years there being more, Some less. 4, Halibut were formally plentiful on this coast, and the fishermen could take plenty with hand-lines, especially off Shallop Liver and Manitou River. American fishing schooners, equipped purposely for _halibut-fishing, began to show themselves on this part of the coast about ten years ago, as far as I can remember, although some might have come before. We used to see three or four at once off this place; those 1364 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. vessels used to make two, sometimes three, trips each season ; they kept ‘their halibut fresh on ice. All these vessels took full loads at each trip ; they were from 70 to 80 tons each, and could take on an average seventy or eighty thousand (80,000) pounds of fish each. These vessels continued to fish here till about three years ago, keeping here sometimes as late as the beginning of November. During the time that they had no right to fish, that is, between the time of licenses and the commencement of the Treaty of Washington, they came here in spite of the coast-guard cruisers. 5. I believe the present scarcity of halibut on this coast is owing to the immense numbers of that fish that were taken by the Americans ; but if this fishery is left unmolested for a few years I am sure it will become soon as productive as it ever was. 6. This coast is very accessible for fishing boats and vessels, as it is full of harbors and roadsteads, and the shores abound with bait. 7. The bait found here in abundance is caplin, launce, herring, squid, and clams. lLaunce, caplin, and clams are the most plentiful through- out the season. 8. The halibut schooners take a supply of bait with them from the United States; after this is used up they take their bait on our shore. A vessel equipped for Bank fishing for cod or halibut, which would come to fish on the Bank above described, might at times find bait on this Bank in the shape of herring or mackerel, but more than half the time they would have to come to the shore to take bait, and foreign fishermen, not having acquired the right by treaty to fish in our waters, could not, therefore, take their bait on shore, and in consequence would not be able to carry on their Bank fishing. 9. While itis a great advantage to American fishermen to have the right to fish in our waters, it is not of the least use to our fishermen to have the same right with regard to United States waters, as there is no chance of our ever going there. 10, And the American free market is also of no use to our fishermen, for our fish are cured especially for home consumption or for exporta- tion to Europe and tie Brazils. These markets are large enough to take all the fish we can supply. 11. I consider it a matter of the utmost importance to our fishermen to have, if possible, our fisheries reserved exclusively to ourselves, as the competition carried on by Americans is most injurious, and will soon deprive our fishermen of their occupation, and oblige them to emigrate. I hereby swear that the above statement is, to the best of my knowl- edge and belief, correct. PHILIP TOUZEL. The said Philip Touzel has sworn to the truth of the above affidavit at Sheldrake, in the county of Saguenay, of the Province of Quebec, this seventh day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. P. FORTIN, J. P. No. 232. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington: I, SAMUEL BoucHArD,of Amherst Harbor, Amherst Island, Magdalen Islands, make oath and say as follows: 1. Tam 40 years of age. I was born here. I have fished for 20 years | ‘a - i | | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1365: at the Magdalen Islands and on the north shore from Natashquan to Belleisle. 2. The herring spawn here every spring, and never failed since I re. member ; they spawn in May. 3. The mackerel also spawn here in the month of June. They spawn in deeper water than the herring, and do not spawn till after the herring. 4, The Americans fish here for herring every spring. They generally haul their seines from the shore. . : ‘ 5, I fished on board American schooners for two seasons, 21 years ago. I fished all round the Magdalen Islands, and on the north shore of the island of Prince Edward, and in the Bay of Chaleur; and the greatest part of the fish taken by these American vessels was so taken close along the shore, and within 3 miles of the coast. We found greater fa- cilities for taking mackerel close inshore, because mackerel are generally more abundant inshore, as they find inshore a greater quantity of small fish upon which they feed. We made one trip each season, taking 400 barrels each trip. 6. From 250 to 300 sail of American mackerel-fishers fish in and around the Magdalen Islands each season, and I have seen 100 in Pleas- ant Bay at one time; and only the other day I saw 72 American ves- sels anchored off Etang du Nord. The schooners we see this year are of much larger tonnage than we used to see formerly. Some are from 100 to 150 tons, and have two seines on board. They practice mackerel- seining now more than they used to here formerly, though they also, even the seiners, use the hook and line. The schooners, when loaded, carry from 300 to 400 barrels, that is, the ordinary sized ones; but the large ones can carry as much as a thousand barrels. I hereby swear that the above affidavit is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, correct. SAMUEL BOUCHARD. The said Samuel Bouchard, of Amherst Harbor, Magdalen Islands, county of Gaspé, and Province of Quebec, has sworn, at Amherst Har- bor, as above, to the truth of this above affidavit, this twenty-first day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. ‘ P. FORTIN, J. P. No. 233. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, GABRIEL SEABOYER, of Lower LaHave, in the county of Lunen- burg, master mariner, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in the fisheries for forty years. I have fished as master about eleven years, and have also been interested for the same period of time in vessels engaged in the fisheries. I have fished along the southern coast of Nova Scotia, around Cape Breton, Prince Ed ward Island, eastern coast of New Brunswick, and around the Magdalenes and Lower St. Lawrence. I have fished mackerel, herring, and codfish on the above-mentioned coast, and am at present well acquainted with the inshore fisheries in Lunenburg County. _ 2. Ihave seen in the North Bay at one time upwards of one hundred _ sail, the most of whom were Americans; and I have seen at Pleasant Bay a fleet of upwards of two hundred sail, most of whom were Ameri- 1366 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. cans. Those vessels were engaged in mackerel-fishing, and they took mackerel mostly all within three miles of the shore; and in my experi- ence I never saw any large quantity of mackerel taken beyond three miles from the shore. I have made calculations, along with other cap- tains, and we concluded that there were nine hundred sail of American fishing vessels in the North Bay. 3. The Americans carry from fourteen to twenty men on board their mackerelmen, and took from three to four hundred barrels on board each vessel; some took as high as seven hundred barrels. They made from two to three trips. American codfish vessels carry from ten to fifteen men, and take in the bay from seven to ten hundred quintals to each vessel, on each trip, and make about two trips. I have often seen Americans in the spring of the year lying along Cape North, in Cape Breton, within three miles of the shore, engaged in taking codfish; and the vessels which now go from here to take codfish, fish close in to the shore. 4, In my experience the mackerel fishery has varied. It may have fallen off some during the past few years, whicb, I think, has arisen from over-fishing. Codfish can almost always be taken plentifully if bait is plenty. The herring fishery is good and has always remained the same. 5. The Americans took mackerel with hook and line and now use purse-seines. They take codfish mostly by trawling, which I consider a very improper method of taking fish. Trawling takes the spawn fish, as the bait lies quietly upon the bottom. In hand-lining spawn fish are seldom taken. The Americans trawled for codfish ever since I can re- member. Our fishermen only commenced to trawl about five years -ago, and were driven to this plan to compete with the Americans. I have seen American schooners take large quantities of herring inshore around the Magdalenes; some schooners took as many as two thousand barrels. Those herring were taken with seines. 6. In my opinion throwing overboard offals is injurious to the fishing aa and the sound bone which is thrown over kills many large sh. 7. The Americans always fished inshore when they could. When a cutter was in sight they disappeared, and when she went away they re- turned ; and I have seen Americans kept off the shore beyond three miles, and they could not catch a mackerel, and our vessels eaught hun- dreds of barrels. 8. The inshore fishery is worth double of the whole fishery, and more than double. ’. The Americans made a practice of lee-bowing us, and I have often seen them running into Nova Scotian vessels ; and I have myself been driven off the grounds by American vessels, and away from schools of mackerel, 10. Over twelve years ago, I have seen American vessels in the North Bay with purse-seines, and I consider these seines injurious to the fish- ery. I have never seen a Canadian vessel with a pnrse-seine. 11. The Americans catch bait all around our coast, as much as they can get. _12. During the past six years there has been no increase in the quan- tity of fish in Canadian waters. ‘This, I think, is owing to over-fishing, purse-seining, trawling, and throwing gurry overboard, and other im- proper methods of taking fish. 13. The herring fishery is all inshore, and the Americans fish and buy them for bait; they buy because they find it saves time and expense. i 2 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1367 14. I have often heard the Americans say that our mackerel is supe. rior to what they take in their own waters. 15. Mackerel make inshore to feed and spawn ; they are taken inshore and I consider them an inshore fish. : 16, I have often seen the Americans transshipping cargoes at the ag of Canso; by so doing they save time, expense, and catch more sh. 17. The Americans get bait, and ice in which to preserve it, from our inshore fishermen all along our coast, and without this bait and ice it would be impossible for them to carry on successfully the deep-sea fish- ery. The Americans being allowed to get bait is a great injury to our bankers, as they gobble up the baitfrom our men. Without ice it would be impossible to keep the bait fresh, and they get this ice in almost every harbor along our coast. 18. I have never known nor heard of any Canadian fisherman fishing in American waters, nor do I consider this right of any value. 19, The Americans hinder Canadian fishermen by taking away so many fish, by improper methods of fishing, by carrying off our bait, and by taking up our fishing-grounds. 20. I would consider it a great benefit to the Canadian fishermen if the Americans were excluded. GABRIEL SEABOYER. Sworn to at Lower La Have, in the county of Lunenburg, this 7th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES H. WENTZEL, J. P. No. 254. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, PATRICK MULLINS, of South Bur, Sydney, in the county of Cape Breton, in the Province of Nova Scotia, collector of customs, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been about fifty-two years engaged in the inshore fishery, and have fished mackerel, codfish, herring, halibut, dogfish, pollack, and squid, caplin, and other bait, and have handled salmon to a considera- ble extent, and have been acquainted with many Nova Scotian and American fishermen. 2. To my knowledge, the amount of fish taken by American fishermen in Canadian waters is very great. They take mackerel inshore, and I have heard from Nova Scotian fishermen that they have interfered with their nets inshore, their bobs being found in the Nova Scotia fishermen’s nets; and they take codfish and halibut off shore, which makes the In- shore catch of these last-mentioned fish less plentiful, and they dress their fish off shore, throwing overboard the offals, which is injurious to the fishing grounds. 3. I live close to the coast, and have within the last seven years seen Within the three-mile limit as many as twenty American fishing-vessels , at one time engaged in fishing; and this fall ten years ago I have seen about one hundred fishing-vessels in Sydney Harbor at one time, inost of whom were American fishermen. Such a large number of fishermen, there being from ten to fifteen men on board each vessel, caused uneasi- ness to the inhabitants, and from my own observation I would call them _ very ill-conducted people, and their conduct caused such alarm that the _ people talked about sending for a man-of-war to quell them. 1368 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 4. The vessels fishing within the three-mile limit are said, within the last seven years down to the present time, to take on an average of twenty barrels a day to each vessel. About five years ago they took about thirty barrels on an average per day. They take those fish at the time of the year when mackerel are number one. The mackerel taken at that time are worth twelve dollars per barrel to our fishermen in the Halifax market. Our number two, large, are good number one in the American market. And if Americans were kept out, our fishermen would make more money by fishing. These statements I believe to be rather under than over the mark. 5. Twenty-five years ago I have seen over a thousand barrels of mack- erel taken by thirty men within three weeks at Ingonish, in the county of Victoria. These fish were all taken by boats and nets inshore, some close into the shore by nets made fast tothe shore. These barrels I saw packed and weighed, and all of them I numbered and inspected. These mackerel were taken in the spring, about the middle of June. About 25 years ago, at Cape North, in the county of Victoria, in the fall of the year, about the first of November, within a fortnight, I have seen about seven hundred barrels taken, of which two-thirds at least were number one. These fish (number one) were worth in the Halifax market five pounds per barre}. These latter fish were taken within half a mile of the shore. 6. About fifteen years ago I conversed with an American fisherman who fished off Cape North, and who told me that he was glad when Saturday night came, as he would have a spell then, and that every codfish he took was as long as a splitting-table (about four feet), and besides his own vessel there were other American fishing-vessels. 7. In my opinion, over-fishing may have something to do with the scarcity of the mackerel; but within my knowledge, the fishing has varied, the mackerel, cod, and other fishing being some years good, and others poor. This year I have seen more squid, which is the best bait for codfish, and the best codfish follow them, than I have ever seen in any year during the last fifty years in this bay (Sydney), and to my knowledge codfish always follow the squid. 8. The inshore fishing I consider to be the most valuable, and if the American fishermen were not allowed to come inshore to fish mackerel, it would not pay them to come to our fishing-grounds, most of the mackerel being taken inshore. ; au I think the Americans must take three-fourths of the mackerel in- shore. 10. In my opinion, mackerel may have decreased some, the other fish none, since the year 1871. The Americans have lessened the catch of fish for Nova Scotia fishermen. 11. The herring fishery is all inshore, and I know of no herring being taken outshore. The American fishing vessels have nearly all two her- ring nets with them, and with these they can catch herring for bait. 12. Our Nova Scotian inshore codfish are much superior to that taken by the Americans, commanding a better price in the American markets, and are better cured. 13. The food of the mackerel is found inshore. They come inshore and feed on the small bait found there—a small kind of fish found in- shore, and of which the mackerel may be full when taken inshore, also on mussels found inshore on the rocks. . 14, The mackerel breed in the North Bay, and around the Magdalen peande. They feed and breed all round our coasts, in the bays and 1arvors, ieee AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1369 15. In Sydney Harbor (north) the Americans, transship mackerel which saves them a large amount of time, so that they can take more fish and make a good season. 16. The Americans purchase bait, and also ice, in considerable quan- tities; without the ice it would be impossible for them to prosecute their fishing voyages. They sometimes purchase a trifle of supplies when they fall short—when they lose an anchor, sail, or chain, without which they would have to return home, and in running home would run a great risk. 17. The Canadian fishing ground I believe to be much superior to the American, and [ know of no Canadian fisherman who goes to take a fish in American waters, and I know hundreds of Americans come here and fish. 18. I consider it in no way in the world a benefit to us for Americans to come here and fish. They diminish the catch of fish for our men, in- jure our fishing grounds, and, in my opinion, it would be much better if they were totally excluded. PATRICK MULLINS. Sworn to at South Bar, in the county of Cape Breton, in the province of Nova Scotia, this 21st day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. J. A. RICHARDSON, J. P. for and in the County of Cape Breton. No. 235. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, MICHAEL ROONEY, of Douglastown, in the county of Gaspé, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been for 30 years a fisherman, and I am practically related to all that appertains to fishing. I am acquainted with all the north coast of the island of Anticosti. I have fished at McDonald’s Cove every year for the past 12 years with Mr. Andrew Kennedy, and have been resent when he gave his affidavit and have heard it read. I fully con- cur in all he has stated, and hereby swear that, to the best of my belief, all that he has stated is correct. his MICHAEL + ROONEY. mark. Witness : W. WAKEHAM. The said Michael Rooney has sworn to the truth of the above affida- vit, at McDonald’s Cove, sland of Anticosti, and county of Saguenay, and Province of Quebec, this ninth day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. P. FORTIN, J. P. No. 236. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty ; of Washington. _ I, Perer Briorp, of Douglastown, in the county of Gaspé, make oath and say as follows: 1, I have been for 30 years a fisherman, and am practical] y acquainted With all that relates to fishing. I am acquainted with the north coast 1370 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. of the island of Anticosti. I have fished at McDonald’s Cove, in the north coast of the island of Anticosti, for the past 12 years. I have heard Mr. Andrew Kennedy give his affidavit, and it has been read to me. I fully concur in all that he has said, and I hereby swear that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, what he has said is correct. his PETER + BRIORD. mark. Witness: W. WAKEHAM. The said Peter Briord has sworn to the truth of the above affidavit, at McDonald’s Cove, island of Anticosti, county of Saguenay, and Province of Quebec, this ninth day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. P. FORTIN, J. P. No. 237. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, ANDREW KENNEDY, of Douglastown, in the county of Gaspé, in the Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows: 1. 1am 57 years of age, and have been a practical fisherman for the last forty years. I fished for twelve years on the north shore, at Thun- der River, and for the last twelve years I have fished at McDonald’s Cove, on the north shore of the island of Anticosti. I am thoroughly acquainted with the fisheries of the north shore of the island of Anti- costi, from the east to the west points. I am part owner of the fishing establishment here, and understand thoroughly every operation con- nected with the taking and curing of fish. 2. The fisheries carried on here are cod, herring, mackerel, and hali- but. These fisheries are all within the three-mile limit. 3. The bait used for taking these fish is herring, caplin, squid, and trout; all this bait is taken close inshore. 4, Herring are abundant on this coast, and they spawn along the shore, chiefly, however, at Fox or Bell Bay. 5. The American fishing-vessels have been in the habit of resorting to this coast for the purpose of taking herring by means of seines, and this year, according to reliable information, they have already taken 18,000 barrels at Bell Bay and the neighborhood. 6. Since I first came here I have seen from ten to fifteen American vessels fishing for halibut along this coast every year. Last year, how- ever, there were only two here, and this year as yet none have appeared. Each of these vessels was from 80 to 120 tons; had a crew of from 10 to 15 men, and from 4 to 6 dories. Each dory has two trawl lines of 500 fathoms each, and each trawl line 350 hooks. Some of these vessels used to make two, some only one trip, and their load amounted to from 80,000 to 120,000 Ibs. each vessel. When I first came here I could take plenty of halibut ; sometimes twenty a day, but now we can hardly take one. My opinion is, and it is the opinion of all the fishermen on the coast, that the Americans have exhausted the halibut fishery here by their excessive fishing with trawls. And not only that, but as when catching halibut they also catch codfish and those generally the largest and as they are not prepared for curing those codfish, they throw them overboard when they don’t find on the spot other fishermen with whom they can barter them. This great destruction of the large cod, which pees fn AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1371 are generally the breeding fish, is of no use to any one and much to be regretted. 7. Mackerel were very abundant now as when I first came bere. There seems to have been a falling off for the last two or three years, but this year there is much better prospect. ‘ 8. The codfish seem to be as abundant now as when I first came here, but the number varies from year to year, sometimes Striking oue part of the shore more than another part. __ 9. Codfish and herring are the chief means of subsistence for the fish- ermen resorting to this coast, and it is of the utmost importance that they should be preserved as much as possible. 10. I consider the right of fishing in United States waters granted by the Treaty of Washington of no value whatever to our fishermen. : 11. It is my opinion also that the free market for our fish in the United States is no advantage to us, for our fish is sold for home consumption or for exportation to Europe and the Brazils. 12. It is of the utmost importance for the future of our fisheries, and for the advantage of the fisheries and fishing interests of this country, that foreigners be not again allowed to participate in our fisheries after this treaty has expired; and the competition of American fishermen in our waters is a great detriment to us, as they prevent us from catching as much fish as we would if we were alone. 13. If the Americans did not possess the right of coming to our in- shores it would be of no use for them to attempt fishing anywhere on the coast of Anticosti. I hereby swear that the above statement is, to the best of my knowl- edge and belief, correct. ANDREW KENNEDY. The said Andrew Kennedy has sworn to the truth of the above afii- davit, at Macdonald’s Cove, Island of Anticosti, this ninth day of Au- gust, A. D., 1877, before me. P. FORTIN, J. fF. No. 238. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington : I, PIERRE Brocuv, of Seven Islands, in the county of Saguenay, and Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows: 1. Lam 64 years of age. I ama practical fisherman. I have lived for 24 years on this coast, 13 of which I have lived at Seven Islands, and at St. Margaret’s River, 7 years, and 4 years at Moniquajan. [ am well acquainted with the fisheries carried on, on this coast between Mont- quajan and Esquimaux Point, on the north shore of the River St. Law- rence, a distance of 200 miles. Iam also acquainted with the fisheries of the Island of Anticosti, from Ellis Bay, around the West Point and North Shore of the Island, as far as Cape Observation, a distance of 50 miles. . 2. The principal fisheries of the coasts mentioned above are cod, hali- but, mackerel, and herring. All these fisheries are carried on within _ three miles of the shore, except on the St. John and Mingan Banks and the Sheldrake Bank. : mr : 3. The quantity of codfish on this coast is, in my opinion, quite as abundant now as it was when I first came here, though the quantity . . or varies from year to year; five years ago the boats averaging from 125 to 150 draughts at Seven Islands and St. Margaret’s River. oe 1372 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 4, From the time that I arrived here until 1868, the time that the Amer- icans were permitted to fish inshore, I saw large numbers of American mackerelers along the shores, and also halibut fishers; and I have counted often as many as 30 at one time at Seven Islands Bay. They come there for shelter, and for fishing also. When they were prevented from fishing by the coast-guard schooners, after the end of the treaty, we saw but few, though they still continued to come in small numbers in spite of the coast guards. Since the Treaty of Washington I have only seen a few fishing for mackerel and halibut. I estimate the aver- age annual number of mackerel and halibut schooners belonging to the Americans, from Seven Islands to Gadbout, to have been 100. These vessels were all fishing and seining close along the shore within the three- mile limit. ‘They fished inside the limit, because there was no fish out- side of the limit. They nearly all loaded. I fished for them, and with them for several seasons, both with the hook and with the seine. This enables me to give accurate information with regard to the fisheries of the Americans on this coast; each of these vessels took from 300 to 800 barrels. About ten of these vessels fished annually for halibut. 5. There was generally one seine for each three schooners, some seines were shore seines, and some were bay seines; even with the bay seines they never fished outside of British waters. Often they threw the seine after a school of fish, and when the seine was drawn near the shore, it was found that they had herring or young codfish, and not mackerel ; and as they wanted no fish but mackerel, they would allow the greatest part to perish and rot upon the shore. 6. The halibut-fishing schooners fished along the coast, always within three miles. They stopped fishing in numbers about 7 or 8 years ago. Since that period we only saw a few; this year none. When I first came here I could take as many halibut as I liked, and the people used to sell large quantities, and besides used it largely as food; but now, since the Americans have fished so extensively along the shore, we only catch a few. It is notnow worth our while to fish for them. My opin- ion is that this scarcity, which is so injurious to the people of the coast, and to the interests of the fishermen of this county in general, is due en- tirely to destructive over-fishing done by the Americans, as I have stated above, by trawls, &c. Now that the fishing for halibut is at rest, the restocking is taking place, as we see more small ones this year ; and if the Americans keep away for a certain number of years, this fishing will certainly recuperate, as our fishermen never fish in such an ex- haustive manner as to destroy the fishery. 7. We find on this coast, from Point Charles to St. Nicholas, a dis- tance of 120 miles, excellent spawning-grounds, especially at Seven Islands Bay, St. Margaret’s Bay, May Islands, Cawee, Trinity Bay, Gadbout, &c. At all these places any quantity of herring can be taken in the spring. 8. The American fishing-grounds are of no use to us; we don’t want to go there. ae aad fish is prepared for the Canadian markets and Europe and razil. 10. The population is increasing so fast on this coast, and the fisheries are so needful for their subsistence, that they should not be given away to foreigners; if they are, half our population will have to emigrate. Most of these American vessels trade extensively with the shore popu- lation, and sell and land articles without paying duties. The fisheries here are very accessible, as there are many harbors, good. anchorage- grounds, and roadsteads, AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1373 11. The bait for cod-fishing and halibut and mackerel is very abun. dant along theshore, and the Americans used to go and get it themselves. I have seen them repeatedly go and dig clams at Seven Islands and the May Islands. I hereby swear that the above statement is to the best of my knowl- edge and belief correct. q PIERRE BROCHU. The said Pierre Brochu, of Seven Islands, has sworn to the truth of the above affidavit, at Moisie, in the county of Saguenay, and Province of Quebec, this sixth day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. P. FORTIN, J. P. No. 239. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. . I, IsAAC CHOUINARD, farmer and fisherman of Cape Chat, in the county of Gaspé and Province of Quebec, make oath and say as fol- lows: 1. I have been engaged in fishing on this coast for about twenty years. 2. Iam well acquainted with the fisheries of the south coast of the St. Lawrence from Matane to Gaspé, of the north shore from Point des Monts to Esquimaux Point, north and west coast of Anticosti, Bay de Chaleur, and the Magdalen Islands. I was engaged as fisherman on board an American mackerel fisher for one season, the summer of 1863; we made two trips of 850 barrels each trip, both of which took place with- in ten weeks. The first trip we took L100 barrels with the seine; the rest were taken with hook and line. The second trip was made entirely with theseine, and we filled our vessel in five days; that is to say, the seine was hauled once, from the shore at Cape St. Nicholas on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, and contained no less than 1,200 barrels; the seine was moored, and 850 barrels were taken from the seine, and the seine was capsized and the remaining 350 barrels were allowed to go, we having no means of preserving them ; many of these were dead and became a total -loss. The first voyage was made partly on the coast of Gaspé aud partly in the Bay of Chaleur; the fish we caught were taken entirely within the three-mile limit in both voyages—that is, entirely in British waters. We also made a third voyage in September and Ovtober on the banks off the Magdalen Islands, where we loaded with codfish and hal. ibut. The vessel was of 100 tons and hailed from Boston. 3. Mackerel was very abundant on this coast formerly ; for the last few years they have been scarce; this year they are appearing in abun- dance. 4. According to my belief, the scarcity was caused by the great quan- tity taken by the Americans, and as they have not been fishing in any numbers for a few years back, the quantity of mackerel is again lncreas- ing. The year that I fished with the Americans it was reckoned that seven or eight hundred American vessels were fishing in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence; as far as I could see and learn, they were all fishing within the three-mile limit. ; 5. I affirm that the presence of so many American ves sels in our waters _ fishing for mackerel was most injurious to our mackerel fisheries, 4s it must tend to diminish tae supply, the metbods practiced by the Amer- __ ieans, either by seines or by hook and line, enabling them to take such large quantities so easily. 1374 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 6. The privilege of fishing in American waters is of no value to us. I have no knowledge of any Canadian vessels being engaged in fishing in American waters. 7. The free market for our fish in the States is of no use to us, as our fish is prepared either for home consumption or for foreign markets other than the American, where they command better prices. 8. It is my opinion that it is of the greatest importance to us as Can- adians to keep our fisheries entirely to ourselves as a means of develop- ing our own fisheries, and fostering our mercantile marine, and giving employment to our maritime population, and thereby keeping them from emigrating to foreign countries. I swear that the above statement is to the best of my knowledge and belief correct. his ISAAC + CHOUINARD. mark. Witness: W. WAKEHAM. The said Isaac Chouinard has sworn to the truth of the above affi- davit, at Cape Chat, in the county of Gaspé, this thirty-first day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. BP. FOREN. J. £; No. 240. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, AUSTEN Lock, of Lockeport, in the county of Shelburne, mer- chant, make oath and say as follows : 1. Ihave been engaged in the buying and selling of fish for twenty years, in fishermen’s supplies, and outfitting fishing-vessels, and am well acquainted with the inshore fisheries in Shelburne County. 2. From eight to ten American fishing-vessels run into this port within the two or three years now past. They purchased ice and bait and supplies to a small extent. They are fitted out at home with sup- plies and only purchase when they run short, which is a great accom- modation to them. The American vessels which run in here sell their small fish, which would be an inconvenience for them to carry home; by doing this they take home a cargo of large and valuable fish. The American vessels which come in here and take ice and bait, trawl for codfish off this coast within twelve or fifteen miles. In my opinion trawling is an injurious method of taking fish, as it destroys the spawn fish. Out of this port there are about one hundred vessels engaged in the fisheries—mostly codfish—all fitted out here. The most of these vessels take codfish by hand-lining. The American vessels which fish off this coast take, during the year, about one thousand quintals of cod- fish each, and could not catch this fish unless they got bait and ice in our harbors to enable them to do so. 3. In the falls of seventy-one, two, and three, I had a vessel running to the North Bay for mackerel, and in seventy-one she made a good trip. She took three hundred and forty barrels of mackerel. She car- ried fifteen men. From seventy-one back to sixty-three I had vessels engaged in the mackerel fishery, and in my experience this fishery has varied, being some years good and others poor. Since seventy-three LS QF a ee mei iasassase i , | ed zy AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1375 the codfish have fallen off to some extent; this I attribute to trawling as already stated. ; od 4, The fishing-grounds are injured by throwing overboard offal, and so many American vessels throwing over this offal are very injurious to the grounds. . 5. The inshore fishery is of greater value than the off-shore fishery and twice the value of the off-shore fishery. oA 6, Canadian fishermen catch codfish in inshore waters along the coast. 7. Since eighteen hundred and seventy-one the number of American vessels engaged in taking codfish has very largely increased —there are more than five times as many. 8. Last year from four to five thousand barrels of herring were taken in the county of Shelburne; these fish are taken all inshore, within three miles of the shore. 9. In proportion to the whole number of mackerel taken in American waters they do not get so many number one as there are taken in Cana- dian waters. 10. It isa great advantage to American fishermen to be able to pro- cure bait and ice in which to preserve it in the bay and harbors along the Canadian coast, and without this bait and ice they could not suc. cessfully carry on the fishery on the banks off this coast. They purchase this bait in this county, and do so because they save time and expense by so doing. It would require too much time to catch this bait to any large extent inshore in this county. The privilege of getting bait in- shore in Canadian waters interferes with the supply for Canadian bankers, as they make the bait scarce, especially in the early part of the season. 11. I have never known nor heard of any Canadian vessels except two from this county fishing in American waters. One of these vessels I myself owned. She went from here to get seines at Gloucester, and only caught two barrels of mackerel on the American coast. She re- ported that she did not see a school of mackerel on tlie American coast. This vessel was in American waters during the month of July now past. 12. The privilege of getting bait in Canadian ports is worth six hun- dred dollars to each American vessel. 13. So many American vessels running down here to fish make the fish much more scarce for Canadian fishermen. They first employed trawling, and compelled Canadian fishermen to do so in order to com- pete successfully with them. By trawling the expense in catching is double. Nova Scotia vessels out of this port have commenced trawling within the last three years. Pare 14. I have known of cases of smuggling by American vessels in this county, particularly kerosene-oil. a ; AUSTEN LOCKE. Sworn to at Lockeport, in the county of Shelburne, this 23d day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. oe ; JACOB LOCKE, Justice Peace. No. 241. - In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, DantEL McApDAms, of Lockeport, in the county of Shelburne, mas- _ ter mariner, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in the fisheries for the past twenty-four years. 1376 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. I have taken codfish in the North Bay, along the southern coast of Nova Scotia, on the Laborador coast, and on the Banks. Along the southern coast of Nova Scotia, in the North Bay, and on the Labrador coast I have taken herring. 2, I left the North Bay a fortnight ago and saw a large number of American mackerel-vessels there and likewise round Prince Edward Island. I saw as many as thirty sail in one day. Last summer I also saw a large number of American vessels engaged in taking mackerel. Last year and this year I have seen many American vessels engaged in taking codfish in the North Bay. These American mackerel-vessels carry from tifteen to twenty men each. The American vessels which I saw had on board about three hundred barrels of mackerel each. The Americans take this mackerel inshore within three miles of the shore. 3. In the North Bay the American codfish-vessels carry from twelve to sixteen men each, and are fitted out to take from a thousand to four- teen hundred quintals of fish to each vessel. 4. The Americans catch almost all their codfish by trawling. Both last year and this I saw American vessels trawling for codfish around the Magdalen Islands within three miles of the shore. This year I have seen as many as seven American schooners trawling inshore within three ‘niles of the shore for codfish. An American schooner which lay along- side of our schooner took inshore, within three miles of the shore, from ten hundred to twelve hundred quintals; she took as many as one hun- dred and fifty quintals in one day. The American vessels fished to a large extent inshore this year, as the fish were more plentiful this year within three miles of the shore than off. Four years ago I have seen the Americans set their trawls inshore around Seaterie. Since 1871 the Americans fished inshore whenever the fish made in. 5. In the North Bay last summer I have counted in sight from forty to forty-five vessels at one time, most of whom were Americans. This number I have counted day after day. Nearly all the American vessels, as already stated, take codfish by trawling. Most of the Canadian ves- sels hand-line. Trawling I consider an injurious method of taking fish, as it destroys the mother fish. In hand-lining very few mother fish are taken. In trawling the bait lies dead upon the bottom, and the mother fish which are on the bottom bite at it. In hand-lining the bait is almost continuously on the move. 6. On the Canadian coast of Labrador four years ago and for ten years previous, every year I have seen American vessels engaged in seining codfish on the shore. This I consider a bad method of taking fish, as it destroys all kinds of fish, and the large and very small codfish are taken. I have never seen any Canadian vessel seining codfish. The American schooners on the Labrador coast carry about twenty hands each, and are fitted for from two thousand to two thousand two hundred quintals, and generally take eighteen hundred quintals each. 7. I have seen many of the American vessels around the Magdalenes fishing herring and mackerel for bait within the last six years. These herring and mackerel the Americans take in nets. Nearly all the Ameri- can vessels engaged in cod fishing in the North Bay catch their own bait inshore within three miles. 8. [have known American vessels on the Labrador coast to take a thousand barrels of herring by seining cn the shore. 9. The mackerel fishery to my knowledge has always varied. In seventy-one, two, and three, there were good catches. The herring fish- ery is almost always good. The cod fishery in the North Bay and on the banks during the past five or six years has fallen off to a large extent, 4 i» 2 >. - AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1377 particularly the off shore codfish in the North Bay. This I attribute to overfishing, and to trawling as already stated. _ 10. The throwing overboard of offal is very injurious to the fishing- grounds, as it drives the fish away, injures the young fish, aud destroys - the spawn. 11. In Canadian waters the inshore fisheries are in my opinion double the value of the off shore fisheries. ‘ 12. The herring fishery in Ganadian waters is all inshore. The Ameri- cans get them for bait, both buying and catching them. They buy in Nova Scotia bays and harbors along from Cape Sable to Seaterie. They buy because it saves time and expense, and without this bait, and ice ip which to preserve it, they could not carry on the Bank fishing. 13. The Americaus come along the southern coast of Nova Scotia early in the spring when bait is scarce, and gobble it up, which interferes with Nova Scotia bankers, and vessels running to the North Bay. 14. It would be a great benefit to Nova Scotia fishermen if the Ameri- cans were excluded trom our inshore fisheries, and I kuow of no benetit whatever which we derive trom American fishermen. DANIEL McADAMS. Sworn to at Lockeport, in the county of Shelburne, this 23d day of Au- gust, A. D. 1877, befure me. AUSTEN LOCKE, J. P. No. 242. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, MESSIE FOURNIER, of Grande Vallée, in the county of Gaspé, and Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been fishing in this place for 28 years. I am a practical fisherman and am well acquainted with the fisheries of this coast. 2. Before the American fishermen began fishing on this coast for hali- but, this fish was to be caught in great abundance, and we frequently ‘loaded our boats when fishing for cod. At this present time, and for ‘several years back, we can hardly take any; in fact, not even enough for our own consumption. This complete destruction of our halibut fishery I believe is due solely to the exhaustive manner in which the Americans fished for halibut, by means of trawl lines, having an im- ‘Meunse pumber of hooks. __ 3. Before the American schooners began fishing in our inshore waters for mackerel, as they did in such great numbers during the existence of the Reciprocity Treaty, mackerel existed in great numbers all along the bays and coves. Toward the latter years of the Reciprocity Treaty, ‘the quantity of mackerel had sensibly fallen off. Last year and this ‘present summer they are again to be found in greatnumbers. I attrib- ‘ute the scarcity of a few years ago to the great drain caused by the large fleet of Americans that fished here; and I consider that the present in- crease is altogether owing to the fact that for some years back the schools of mackerel have not been so much disturbed. 4, I have seen 32 American schooners anchored among the net moor- ings close inshore at the same time; but they used to come in less num- bers almost every week during the mackerel season. They interfered with the drifting for bait and the setting of our herring-nets. 5. The crews of some of these vessels used to come ashore and tramp 87 F 1378 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. over our crops, force themselves into our houses in the most rude man- ner. I myself was forced to keep guard in my house, as well as my neighbor, for eight days, fearin S insults to the women of our households during the night ; and one morning one of these schoonersin getting under way, carried off five herring-nets, three that were on the mooring, break- ing them on the moorings, and two nets that were on the drift, with the boat belonging to one of our men named Landry, the nets of course being fast to the stern of the boat. The schooner with her anchor caught in the net, dragged the boat, with the two men in it, stern foremost for 9 miles, the schoouer’s crew all the time laughing and making a joke of it. The lives of these two men being in constant jeopardy, the Americans never made the least effort to clear the net, by coming in the wind, as could have been easily done. The boat and men only got clear when the ropes broke, and the nets were lost to these poor fishermen. I hereby swear that the above statement is, to the best of my know!- edge and belief, correct. his MESSIE + FOURNIER. mark. Witness: W. WAKEHAM. The said Messie Fournier has sworn to the truth of the above affida- vit, at Grande Vallée, in the county of Gaspé, and Province of Quebec, this 2d day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. P. PORTIN flock. No. 243. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, WILLIAM HAvpon, of Grosse Isle, Magdalen Islands, make oath and say as follows: 1. I am 36 years of age, and have been engaged in the fisheries from Grand Entry Harbor, and am well acquainted with the fisheries of Grand Entry and of the eastern shores of the Magdalen Islands. 2. The herring spawn without fail every season at Grand Entry, and they go in the lagoon, and they spawn outside as well. I have seen the eggs in the water and on the beach. I have seen the spawn after a heavy north wind cast on the beach knee deep. The people of Grosse Isle take the herring with nets, but the American fishermen take them with seines, which seines they haul on shore, and from the shores, they going themselves on shore to haul the seines ashore. They also go on shore to mend their nets and seines. 3. The American trawlers on the Banks resort to Grand Entry in June to get bait. I have seen 20 and 30 sail every spring for the last five or six years. They go on shore to dry their nets, and also hire nets from the inhabitants. I believe that trawling and throwing offal overboard is injurious to the cod and mackerel fisheries. I hereby swear that the above affidavit is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, correct. WILLIAM HADDON. The said William Haddon has sworn to the truth of the above affida- vit, at House Harbor, Allright Island, Magdalen Islands, county of Gaspé, and Province of Quebec, this twentieth day of August, A. D., 1877, before me. P. FORTIN, J.P. | e t i AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1379 No. 244. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty | of Washington. I, JoHN CARTER, of Port Mouton, in the county of Queen’s, at present of Lockeport, in the county of Shelburne, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: : 1. I have been engaged in fishing for eighteen years in American ves- sels, and in Nova Scotia vessels for twelve vears. I was in an Ameri- ean vessel this spring. While in American vessels I fished codfish on the Western and Quero Banks, and trawled codfish in the North Bay. I fished mackerel in American vessels year after year, down until the fall before last, around the north side of Cape Breton, around Prince Edward Island, the Magdalens, and on the eastern side of New Bruns- wick. 2. When in the North Bay, I have seen at one time five hundred fish- ing-vessels, most of whom were Americans, engaged in taking mackerel. In the falls of seventy-one, two, and three, the catch of mackerel in the North Bay was good. In the fall of seventy-three I was in the American schooner Waterfall, of Southport, Me., and we | took in four weeks three hundred and twenty barrels; a crew of thirteen hands were on board. The mackerel trim the shore, and the most, of them are taken inshore. 3. When fishing on the Banks in American vessels we always made good fares, taking on an average from seven to eight hundred quintals each trip, and two trips each year, carrying from eleven to twelve men. This I have done for six years now past. 4, The Americans get their bait for trawling inshore in the bays and harbors of Nova Scotia, and along the Canadian coast, and without this bait, and ice in which to keep it fresh, they could not carry on trawling. his JOHN + CARTER. mark. _ Sworn to at Lockeport, in the county of Shelburne, this 23d day of ‘August, A. D. 1877, before me, the same being read over to the within- hamed deponent. | a JACOB LOCKE, J. P. No. 245. Came and appeared before me, one of Her Majesty’s justices of the ‘peace, in und for the district of Gaspé, WILLIAM McLEoD, esq., J. P;. ‘who deposeth and saith that he has had an interview with Capt. Henry Smith, master of schooner W. T. Smith, of Gloucester, Mass., while lying in the harbor of Port Daniel, on a mackerel-fishing voyage, about ten days ago. ewe He being the same Captain Smith mentioned by him, William Me- , Leod, in his evidence before the Commission at Halifax, he referred him to some remarks he had made to him some few years ago, on the evil results of seining on our shores and throwing fish offal overboard, par- ticularly in our harbors and near the mouths of rivers where salmon - resort and other young fry propagate. That he, the said Capt. Ww. . Smith, does recollect that conversation, and also of stating that It was in comparison to killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. He, 1380 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the said Captain Smith, also stated that he would depose to the same before any legal tribunal if called upon; and that large quautities of mackerel were frequently taken that were unfit for market, and were consequently thrown overboard, to decompose and pollute the waters where thrown, which, if left to nature, would become of inestimable value to other fishermen at some future time. And tbat he would willingly sign a petition against the use of seines altogether for mackerel-tishing, either to the United States or the Do- minion Governments. Moreover, that it was his, Captain Smith, belief that if the practice of seining was continued for ten years consecutively, it would to a great extent annihilate the mackerel-fishery both in the Dominion and American waters. And that he has been connected with the fisheries during the last thirty-five years, and feels competent to give an opinion on that sub- ject. That he is a native of Nova Scotia, but has resided for several years in Salem, Mass. And allowed the said William MeLeod to use his name with reference to the above subject. WILLIAM McLEOD. Sworn before me, at Port Daniel, this twenty-seventh day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven. W. MILLAN, J. P. At same date, also appeared before me, the undersigned justice of the peace, Joseph Horie, of Port Daniel, who deposeth and saith that he was present and witnessed the conversation in the margin. JOSEPH HORIE. Sworn before me the day and year above mentioned. W. MILLAN, J. P. No. 246. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, ALLAN MATTHEWws, of East Ragged Islands, in the county of Shel- burne, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been in the habit of supplying ice to fishing vessels during the past two years, both Canadian and American vessels. I have last year and this present year supplied ten Canadian vessels with ice. The Canadian vessels take from one ton to three tons each. Last sum- mer and the present suinmer I supplied two American schooners with ice, A ton aud a half each. They used this ice for bait which they got in this harbor. With this bait the American vessels fished on La Have, Brown, and Port LeBear Banks off this coast. They take codfish on the said Banks by trawling. ALLAN MATTHEWS. Sworn to at Lockeport, in the county of Shelburne, this 22d day of August, 1877, before me. AUSTIN LOCKE, J. P. No. 247. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, David Murray, jr., of Port Mulgrave, in the county of Guys- eh ——_— AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1381 borough and Province of Nova Scotia, collector of customs, make oath and says as follows: 1. I have been acquainted with the fisheries on our coasts for the past twenty-four years, during twenty-one years of which I was en- gaged in the fishing business, and for the past four years I have been collector of customs at this port. 2. During the Reciprocity Treaty I have known as high as eight hun- dred sail of American mackerel and codfishermen go in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence in one season. Of late years about half that number. For the last two years there have been about three hundred sail each year, including cod, mackerel, and herring. These vessels average about fourteen men each. They fish all around the shores of the Guif of Saint Lawrence. During the Reciprocity Treaty the mackerelers averaged about eight hundred barrels per vessel each season ; of late years only about half that quantity. I have known eighteen huadred quintals to be landed in one year by an American cod-tishing vessel. The average catch of codfish I estimate to be about nine hundred quin tals per vessel each season. 3. The Americans catch the codfish with trawls, and the mackerel with seines, and with hook and line. 4. I consider that the fishery around our coasts is much injared by the Americans throwing overboard offal and garbage. I have b-+en in- formed on the best of authority that the codfishing at Banquereau has within the last two or three years been totally destroyed by this prae- tice. On the Grand Bank, as I have been informed, the fishermen sometimes draw their trawls through “gurry” (that is the entrails and refuse parts of codfish) and bring it up on their lines. Wherever this practice is carried on, the fishermen say that the fish are driven away. 5. I have understood American fishermen to say that the greater part of the mackerel are caught within the three-mile limit, and at the present day a greater portion of the mackerel than formerly is caught inshore. 6. The value of the inshore fishery, so far as the mackerel and herring are concerned, is of much greater value than that outside. 7. The inshore boat-fishery is much injured by the Americans running . Imamong the boats and throwing bait iu larger quantities and of better quality than our fishermen, and by this means enticing away the tish away from the boats. The schooner Alice, Capt. H. B. Joyce, took one hundred and twenty “wash barrels” of mackerel on Suuday, the 22d of July last, close inshore. 8. The American fishermen are beginning to use purse seines on our _ Coasts extensively during the last two or three years. These seines are very injurious to the fishery, as they uselessly destroy great quantities of herring and small mackerel, which are thrown away. They ¢ Iso tend to break up the schools of mackerel and drive them away. The Ameri- ean codfishermen generally buy herring and mackerel from our tisher- men for bait, and catch squid for the same purpose themselves. 9. Halibut are caught to some extent by American fishermen In our waters, close inshore. ; 10. The mackerel caught of late years in Canadian waters are larger than those caught in United States waters, but being generally longer in pickle than the American mackerel, do not bring so high a price when put in the market. 11. The principal feeding and breeding places of the mackerel are around the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island aud in the Bay _of Chaleur, and in all cases inshore. 1382 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 12. The privilege of transshipping cargoes on our coasts is of great value to the American mackerelers. It enables them to make a greater number of trips and catch more fish than they otherwise could ; and by this means they save about three weeks on each trip they make. I have known an American mackereler to catch a fare of fish in the time that another vessel was going to the United States and returning. I consider it a very great privilege to the American codfishermen to be allowed to procure bait on our shores, either by purchase or by catching it themselves. They consider it more profitable to buy bait than to spend time in catching it; for this reason, that their ice would melt and their bait already obtained would turn sour while they were fishing for more. They, therefore, obtain almost all their bait by pur- chase from our fishermen. The Americans cannot profitably carry on the deep-sea fishery without obtaining bait on the shores of the Dominion or Newfoundland. Indeed, I do not see how they can carry on the deep- sea fishery at all without obtaining bait in Canadian or Newfoundland harbors or shores. 13. The privilege of fishing in American. waters is of no practical ad- vantage whatever to Canadians. 14. The value of procuring bait on our shores is worth to American codfishermen almost the whole value of their trip, as without getting the bait they could not catch the fish at all. And in the winter and Summer seasons the Americans cannot procure bait except in Canada or Newfoundland. , 15. The Canadian inshore boat fishery is injured to a great extent by the American vessels carrying on their fishing operations within the three-mile limit, especially by seining and throwing of bait. DAVID MURRAY, JR. The said David Murray, junior, was sworn to the truth of this affidavit at Port Mulgrave, in the county of Guysborough, this 30th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. JAS. PURCELL, A Justice of the Peace. No. 248. In tle matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, THomAs Conpon, of Guysboro’, in the county of Guysboro’, mer- chant, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been in engaged in the fisheries for five-and-twenty years, both for myself and others, in the county of Guysboro’ and other parts of the eastern coast of Nova Scotia. During that time I have been actively engaged in the business, and have a general and fair knowledge of the business of fishing as carried on by both the Canadians and Americans, 2. I have known as many as seven hundred American vessels fishing on our coast during one season for mackerel alone. Some years there © would not be so many. Their average tonuage would be from sixty to one hundred per vessel. The crews would average fifteen. When the fishing was good and they enjoyed the privileges now enjoyed under the Treaty of Washington, each American vessel would catch on an average | one thousand barrels. This average I consider none too large. When they fished on our coast they used to land aud refit. This enabled them | to catch double the quantity of fish. | le 7 AWARD OF TUE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1383 3. Whenever the Americans could they fished inshore. This they did during the Reciprocity Treaty and at other times when they could evade the law. This they also do since 1871. When restricted from our inshore fisheries their voyages were broken up and their vessels were ordered home. This I learned from dozens of the American masters themselves, while I did business at Port Mulgrave for W. O. Heffernan. 4, The value of the inshore fisheries are immensely more valuable to the people of Eastern Nova Scotia than those outside. Very few fish are caught by our people outside. 5. Where the practice of enticing fish off shore has or is being carried on, it is very injurious in drawing the fish beyond the reach of many of our own people. : 6. All kinds of fish taken in our waters are caught inshore by our fishermen, Whenever there are a large number of fishing vessels in the North Bay there is less fall mackerel taken, which is and has been one of our most important inshore fisheries. The reason for this I believe to be that the excessive quantity of bait used in the bay keeps them from our shores so late that our fishermen cannot take them. Besides, when the Americans frequent our harbors and bays it injures our inshore fisheries and destroys the fishing gearand nets of our fishermen, 7. I consider the privileges granted to the Americans by the Washing- ton Treaty of immense value to them, and the withdrawal of them would completely cripple their fishing operations. By enjoying these privileges they are enabled to double their trips and more than double .their catches. Indeed, without such privileges I think it would be impossi- ble for them to prosecute the fisheries. They catch and buy their bait. When they buy it, it is to serve their own interests, not ours. The right to land, catch, and buy bait inshore is indispensably necessary to them for the prosecution of their fisheries. 8. lam not aware of any Canadian vessels fishing in the American waters. The privilege to us I consider of little or no value. THOMAS CONDON, Sworn to at Guysborough, in the county of Guysborough, this 26th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. . JAMES A. TORY, J. P. For the County of Guysborough, No. 249. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, ALEXANDER McKeEnzi&, of Crow Harbor, in the county of Guys- boro’, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in the fisheries during the last thirty years, in and about the northern coast of Nova Scotia, catching all kinds of fish caught along the Nova Scotian coast. 7 : 2. Crow Harbor is situated in Chedabucto Bay. Since 1871 Ameri- can fishermen come into the harbor for bait and_ ice, to an average of fifty each year. They fish the greater part of their bait, but some they buy. The quantity of squid alone caught by them In this harbor since A. D. 1871 will average twelve hundred dollars annually, at least. - They take quantities to the Banks for sale. Besides squid, they also buy herring and mackerel for bait. The American vessels come in twice and sometimes three times after bait. 1384 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3. When the American vessels are in fishing bait few fish can be caught. The principal fishing carried on in Crow Harbor is seine and net fishing. The American vessels are anchored on the seine grounds ; their boats are all around the harbor and coast; the catching of bait and the noise made by them by firing guns, and in other noises made by them, break up the schools of mackerel, so that they are frightened off, and prevent them from coming in so that the fishermen can catch them. Neither can our fishermen set their nets when American vessels are coming in and out, or when they are at anchor, because the anchors and ships tear and destroy them. For these and many other reasons it has been very injurious to our fisheries to have the Americans come in for bait. In fact our fishing in this harbor is almost destroyed. For- merly the mackerel fishing in this harbor was one of the best in Canada. 4. The value of our inshore fisheries is immeasurably greater to us than those outshore. The whole fisheries of this bay are inshore. 5. Since 1871, wherever the Americans have resorted for bait the fishing has decreased. This is particularly the case in this harbor. The failure of the fishing in this harbor during the last few years, I attribute largely to the presence of the American fishermen in our har- bor. 6. Mackerel feed upon shrimp and other small fish. This food is found along our shores where the mackerel feed. I think a portion of the mackerel spawn or breed along the coast of Nova Scotia, but the greater number spawn on the Bank and other shoal waters of the North Bay. 7. I consider it a great advantage to the Americans to be allowed to land and dry their fish and transship their cargoes. In this way they are enabled to catch a much larger quantity of fish, and, in fact, without the advantages granted by the Treaty of Washington I cannot see how they could carry on the deep-sea fisheries with profit. It will at least enable them to double the quantities they would otherwise catch. ALEXANDER McKENZIE. Sworn to at Crow Harbor, in the county of Guysboro’, this 26th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. WM. S. McKENZIE, J.P. for the County of Guysborough. Nos 2a: In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, MICHAEL ROBERTSON, of Port Jollie,in the county of Queen’s, fish- erman, make oath and say as follows: 1, I have been engaged in fishing for upwards of thirty years. I have fished along the southern coast of Nova Scotia, around Cape Breton, on the eastern side of New Brunswick, around Prince Edward’s Island, around the Magdalenes, and on the Labrador coast, both on the Cana- dian and Newfoundland coast. I am well acquainted with the inshore fisheries in Queen’s County. 2. When fishing in the North Bay I have often seen from two to three hundred American vessels engaged in fishing at one time. These ves- sels were engaged in taking mackerel, and took the most of them inshore within three miles of the shore, and it would not pay to send a vessel to the North Bay unless she could catch mackerel within three miles of the a ee -Magdalenes. These vessels carry about from eight to ten hands, ic a AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1385 coast. I was in the North Bay when the fisheries were protected by cutters, and saw the Americans kept off beyond three miles, and they took scarcely any mackerel while our vessels within three miles of the shore were doing well. 3. In this harbor large quantities of clams are got for bait. About firty sail of vessels are supplied every year with this bait. These ves. sels take from twenty-five to thirty barrels each. These vessels thus supplied are Canadian. They say the clams got here are just as good as the American. These vessels use these clams for bait in taking mackerel and codfish. The codfish taken by clam bait is with hook and line. MICHAEL ROBERTSON. Sworn to before me this 17th day of August, 1877, S. T. N. SELLON, J. P. PortT JOLLIE, 1877. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, GEOFFREY W. PUBLICOVER, of Getson’s Cove, in the county of Lunenburg, master mariner, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in the fisheries for twelve years down to ‘the fall of 1873 inclusive. I fished along the southern coast of Nova Scotia, around Cape Breton, on the eastern side of New Brunswick, around Prince Edward’s Island, around the Magdalenes, on the Canadian coast of Labrador, and am well acquainted with the inshore fisheries in Lunen- burg County. I have taken all the kinds of fish found on the above- mentioned coasts. 2. I have seen in Port Hood Barbor at one time four hundred sail of mackerel vessels, of which upwards of three hundred were Americans. I have seen in the fall of 1873 one hundred and eighteen vessels engaged in taking mackerel, of whom one hundred at least were American ves- _ sels. These vessels were all in sight. There were many which we did not see. I have often made calculations with Nova Scotia and Ameri- can skippers,.and during the falls of 1871, 1872, and 1873, we put the - American vessels engaged in taking mackerel at over four hundred sail on an average for the three years. These vessels take the most of their mackerel inshore, and in my opinion it would not pay to fish mackerel in the North Bay unless they can be taken inshore. 3. These American mackerel men carry from fifteen to twenty-two hands. These vessels také from two to six hundred barrels on each trip, and make from three to four trips. In the falls of seventy one and two many of them made four trips and took as many as two thousand barrels of mackerel in the year. 4. I have seen many American vesse!s engaged in taking codfish in the North Bay. These vessels carry about twelve men each and take from about ten to twelve hundred quintals of codfish during the season. These vessels take fish inshore within three miles of the shore, aud I -have seen them take codfish by trawling close into the shore at Scaterie. They take fish wherever they can get them. _5. I have frequently seen the Americans take herring around va anc take from one thousand totwo thousand barrels each. I have seen the _ Americans take herring and codfish on the Canadian coast of Labrador. 1386 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. These fish they take by seining on the shore. These vessels take about two thousand barrels of herring each. The codfish vessels take about two thousand quintals each. 6. Mackerel, in my experience, have varied; in the falls of seventy- one and seventy-two the catch of mackerel was more plentiful than I have ever seen it for over ten years, In the fall of seventy-three my vessel, with a crew of sixteen hands, took in a few weeks two hundred barrels of mackerel. Codfish, in my experience, has remained about the same. The herring fishery has always been good. 7. The Americans formerly took mackerel with hook and line during a few of the last years I was there. I saw the Americans use purse- seins. These purse-seins I consider very bad for the fishery. They take both large and small mackerel; they break up the schools of mackerel and frighten them away. I have never seen nor heard of any Candaian vessel using a purse-seine. I am acquainted with over two hundred Nova Scotian vessels. The Americans take codfish in the bay mostly all by trawling. Many of the Canadian vessels take codfish with hand lines. 8. In my experience the Americans fished inshore whenever they could, whatever the terms of the treaty were. I have seen two Ameri- can vessels taken by the cutter Sweepstake in one day. 9, I think it would bea great benefit to Canadian fishermen if the Americans were excluded from our inshore waters, and I know of no benefit that we derive from American fishermen whatever. GEOFFREY W. PUBLICOVER. Sworn to at Getson’s Cove, in the county of Lunenburg, this 10th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. JOSEPH W. LOCKHART. NO; 202: In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JAMES S. SEABOYER, of Rose Bay, in the county of Lunenburg, merchant, ake oath and say as follows: 1. I was engaged in the fisheries for twelve years, down as late as 1869. I fished along the southern eoast of Nova Scotia, around Cape Breton, the eastern side of New Brunswick, around Prince Edward’s Island, around the Magdalenes, and on the Labrador. I took prin- cipally mackerel, and I have fished also codfish. I have fished for one season In an American vessel, Charles P. Thompson, of Glouces- ter. We took all mackerel, and took thenr mostly all inshore within three miles of the shore ; and in my opinion it would not pay to go to the North Bay to catch mackerel unless they can fish inshore; nor do I think it would pay to fit out a vessel for the North Bay if she had to fish outside of the three-mile limits. Tbe American vessel that I was in was from the latter part of August till the latter part of October in the North Bay, and took in that time three hundred barrels of mackerel. The men’s share averaged about one hundred dollars apiece. The Amer- lcans get bait around here at Moser’s Island, and bave got it in consid- erable quantities during the past six years. 2. When I was in the bay, the bulk of the Americans transshipped their cargoes at Canso, and by doing this they save time, expense, and take more fish. } JAS. 8S. SEABOYER. Pe ae AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1387 Sworn to at Rose Bay, in the county of Lunenburg, this 8th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. © . JAS. H. WENTZEL, J. P. No. 253. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, THomAS RiTcEY, Sr., of Lower La Have, in the county of Lunen- burg, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in the fisheries for thirty-three years, and have a vessel now engaged in the fisheries. I have fished along the southern coast of Nova Scotia, around Cape Breton, Prince Edward Island, the eastern side of New Brunswick, and around the Magdalen Islands and Lower St. Lawrence. I have fished mackerel, herring, and codfish, and all the fish taken in Canadian waters. 2. I have seen in one day, in the North Bay, upwards of one hundred and fifty sail engaged in taking mackerel. All those vessels were Amer- ican. We often made calculations among ourselves, and put the Amer- ican vessels down at between five and six hundred in the North Bay. The American vessels carried from fifteen to twenty-five hands. The Americans fished in close to the shore, and took mackerel wherever they could get the most of the mackerel. The Americans got inshore. Wery seldom they got much mackerel three miles from the shore. In my opin- ion it would not pay the Americans to go to the North Bay to fish mack- erel unless they could fish within three miles of the shore. 1 have seen the Americans trawl inshore within three miles for codtish around Prince Edward Island. 3. The American vessels averaged about four hundred or upwards bar- rels to each vessel on each trip. They average two trips. The codfish- “vessels carry from twelve to eighteen men, make two trips, and take from eight to twelve hundred quintals to each vessel ou each trip. 4. In my experience mackerel has always varied, being some years good and others poor. Overfishing during the past few years may have “something to do with the falling off in mackerel. This year mackerel have struck in plenty. The cod-fishing during the past fifteen years has been good, and if bait is plenty, plenty of codfish can be had. The her- ring has always been plenty. 5. The Americans take mackerel mostly with hood and line. I have seen them seining them around North Cape, in Prince Edward Island, with purse-seines. This plan of taking mackerel with purse-seines 1s injurious to the fisheries. I never saw any Canadian vessels using purse- seines. The Americans take codfish mostly by trawling inshore and off shore, and wherever they can catch them. Trawling, in my opinion, will be the ruination of the codfish, as by it the mother fish are taken. Tn trawling, the bait lies still upon the bottom; in hand-lining the bait is moving, and very few fish are taken. Upwards of twenty five years ago I have seen Americans trawling. Nova Scotians. never made a practice of trawling until the last four or five years, when they were com- - pelled to do so in order to compete with the Americans. 6. The throwing overboard of offal I consider very injurious to the fishing grounds. I have seen the Americans throw overboard fish under a certain number of inches, which [ also consider injurious tothe grounds. By these practices the fish are glutted and driven away. The throwing overboard of the sound-bone I consider injurious, aud I have often 1388 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. caught fish with sound-bones in them in a consumptive state. This offal is also destructive to the spawn. 7. The Americans made but little difference under any treaty. They fished inshore when the cutters were out of sight, and made off when the cutters appeared. It was reported again and again that the Amer- can vessels carried two registers. S. The inshore fishery is double the value of the off shore fishery. 9. Ihave often been lee bowed by the Americans. I have often seen them running into Nova Scotia vessels, and I have had my own vessel injured by them. They used to throw overboard bait and take the fish away from us. 10. The Americans get bait and ice all along our coast in the bays and harbors, wherever they can get it quickest and cheapest. They get this bait in order to carry on the Bank fisheries, and without this bait and ice it would be impossible for the Americans to Carry on success- fully the Bank fishery. 11. Since 1871, the number of fish has not increased. This is owing, in my opinion, to overfishing and the improper methods employed by the Americans in taking fish. 12. The Americans, since 1871, have injured Canadian fishermen by taking large quantities of fish by trawling and other improper methods of taking fish. 13. The herring are chiefly taken inshore, and the Americans pur- chase them for bait in order to save time. 14. The mackerel feed inshore and make inshore to spawn, and I call them an inshore fish. 15. I have seen Americans land their fish and then go out on the fishing ground to take more. By so doing they save time and expense nite take more fish, as a vessel can carry home more than she ean fish with. 16. It would, in my opinion, be impossible for the Americans to carry on the deep-sea fishery around our coast unless they could procure bait* and ice in which to pack it. They purchase bait in order to save time. 17. The Americans are mostly all fitted out on leaving home, and only purchase supplies, except ice and bait, when they run short. 18. I know of no benefit to Canadians in the right of fishing in Ameri- can waters, 19. The Americans make bait scarce for our bankers, and carry away large quantities of fish from our men. 20. I have often heard of Americans smuggling goods around our coast, aud exchanging them for fish. 21. If the Americans were excluded from our inshore waters, it would be a great benefit to Canadian fishermen. THOMAS RITCEY. Sworn to at Lower LaHave, in the county of Lunenburg, this 7th day of August, A. ID. 1877, before me. JAMES H. WENTZEL, J. P. No. 254; In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, WittiAM D. Surru, of Port Hood, in the county of Inverness, merchant, make oath aud say as follows: a AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1389 1, I have been actively engaged in the fish business in the way of a supplying establishment for the past thirteen years. I am owner of the fishing establishment on Port Hood outer island, and furnish sup- plies to fishing vessels and take fish in payment, and have a pretty good opportunity of judging of the condition of the fishing business on this part of the coast. 2. During the period I have been engaged I have known as many as 200 American vessels in Port Hood Harbor at onetime. Mackerel and codfish are the chief fish obtained by the Americans in the gulf, though they take small quantities of haddock, hake, and halibut. 3. The average cargo of American fishing-vessels is three hundred barrels per trip of mackerel and from 600 to 1,000 quintals of codfish, and they make on an average from two to three trips during the season, The American vessels begin to arrive at about the first of May to pro- cure bait for that cod fishing. In July they arrive here for the mackerel fishing, and continue fishing in the gulf and on the coast for several months until November. 4, The catch of mackerel has somewhat decreased during the past two or three years, but there is no reason to believe that this has been due to any falling off in the number of mackerel frequenting our coasts and waters. I believe that our mackerel fisheries will be as productive dur- ing the next eight years, if properly cared for, as during any past time. 5. The American mode of fishing in our waters is very destructive to our cod fisheries. Their system of trawling is very injurious; meeting the fish and killing the mother fish early in the season before they have spawned. I believe this mode, if continued by the Americans, wil] do serious damage to our fishing grounds. 6. Iam not sufficiently familiar with practical fishing to understand fully the injury done to our fishing grounds by the practice of the Amer- icans of throwing overboard offal; but I have understood that the fish were glutted by it, and I attribute the falling off in the catch of mackerel during the past two years as due to this practice of throwing bait over- board, which has prevented the mackerel from biting as treely as be- fore. Our own fishermen exercise greater care in disposing of the offal, _and usually bring iton shore with them. » 7. I cannot speak positively as to the relative quantity of fish caught by the Americans at the time of the Reciprocity Treaty inshore and out- side; but I know that the Americans fished there inshore, and I know that the inshore fisheries are much more valuable than those outside. 8. The Americans have injured our boat-fishing by their system of throwing bait overboard to entice mackerel to leave the shores. This at one period was a source of great damage to our boat-fishing. 9. The effect of the use of purse seines by the Americans in any great numbers would be the destruction of the fishing grounds and the glut- ting of the markets. The fish would be caught in such large quantities that many of them would be lost and thrown into the sea dead, which would be very destructive to the grounds. 10. The Americans, I understand, do catch small quantities of herring and squid for bait inshore, but chiefly purchase their bait from traders. The small fish used for bait is taken almost exclusively inshore and in bays and creeks. 11. Since the Treaty of Washington, to the best of my knowledge there has been a slight decrease in the number of codfish frequenting the gulf, and I attribute the cause of it entirely to the system of trawl- ing adopted by the American fishermen. 12. The herring fishery on our coast is a very large industry, and very 1390 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. important to our fishermen. Herring are caught altogether inshore. The Americans do not prosecute herring fishery to any great extent now, but should they do so at any time, as under the Treaty of Wash- ington they may, they would very greatly injure the grounds, and their competition would be a great loss and injury to our fishermen, who are now profitably engaged in the business. 13. The mackerel spawn near the shore, and must necessarily feed near the sbore, as the small fish upon which they feed only frequent shoal water. 14. It is unquestionably a very great advantage to American fisher- men to be allowed to land and dry their nets and cure their fish. And a'still greater advantage to be permitted to transship cargoes, because it enables them to land their fish and refit for another voyage at our ports, without returning to the States, and greatly saves time during the sea- son. It also affords a reasonable likelihood of building up a profitable trade for the Americans by preserving the fish in ice and transshipping them fresh to the American markets. 15. It is one of the greatest advantages which the Americans gain under the Treaty of Washington to procure bait in our waters and ports.. Most of this is purchased from our traders; but the Americans only adopt this mode of obtaining it, because it is more profitable to them than catching it. Our own fishermen procure it with much greater facility than the Americans can, and it would be a serious drawback for them to have to catch it now, and would involve extra time and extra outfit. 16. It would be nearly, if not quite, impossible for the American fish- ermen to carry on cod fishing and other deep-sea fisheries around our coast if deprived of the privilege of resorting to our ports for bait. Their bait will only last three weeks on ice, and to be entirely depend- ent on their own ports for this would be destructive of all profits in the business. 17. Another great advantage to Americans under the treaty is the privilege of resorting to our ports for ice, which they obtain from our traders every season. 18. The cash value of the privileges accorded to American fishermen in respect of our fishing grounds can be measured by the value of our fisheries to them; for if they were deprived of them, their cod fishing would be ruined, and their mackerel fisheries in the gulf at least be greatly crippled. 19. I know of no advantage which Canadian fishermen derive from the privilege of fishing in American waters, and I never heard of any Canadian vessel going to fish in these waters, save that I read an account this spring in an American paper of one vessel that had been fitted out at Lunenburg for that purpose. 20. I do not consider the privilege of sending our fish into American markets free of duty anything like an equivalent for the use of our fishing grounds. In fact, it is ouly a trifling advantage to us anyway. WILLIAM D. SMITH. Sworn to at Port Hood, in the county of Inverness, this 20th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. JOHN McKAY, J. P. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1391 No. 255. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, ARCHIBALD B, SKINNER, of Port Hastings, in the county of Inver- ness, trader and inspector of fish, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in the fishing business for the past thirty-two years. I have been a practical fisherman and am familiar with the gen- eral character of the fishing business on this coast. _2. During the Reciprocity Treaty a large fleet of American fishing vessels came to this coast during the summer season to carry on a fish- ing business. The number increased during the treaty, until at the ter- mination a fleet numbering hundreds of vessels were engaged in fishing around the coast of Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, Prince Edward Island, and the Magdalen Islands. These priucipally took mackerel and cod- fish, but they took other fish as well. The average cargo of mackerel was at least three hundred barrels per trip, and the cargo of codfish ranged, to the best of my knowledge, from six hundred to a thousand quintals. They made two or three trips per season. 3. After the Reciprocity Treaty the American tleet began to fall off very much, and their business and profits began to decline, and I believe it would have gone down much more, and possibly have been abandoued, if American fishermen had not violated the law. 4, During the past two or three years the mackerel fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence has fallen off considerably. The number of American vessels has been decreased and the catch diminished. This has been merely accidental and temporary, and not permanent. The reason for few American vessels coming here | attribute to the falling off in the price of mackerel in American markets; and also to the injury done to our fishing-grounds by American fishermen, by their system of seining and their throwing bait and offal overboard, which gluts the fish and tends to destroy the catch. 5. Our herring tisheries are among the most valuable and important ' we have, and are the source of great profit to our own fishermen. Nearly _ the whole herring fishery is carried on inshore. 6. The inshore fisheries are considered more valuable than the outside. During the prosperous years of our mackerel fishing I have no doubt but that the larger number were taken inshore. I believe that our mackerel fisheries, if properly protected, will be more productive and valuable this year, and for the next eight years, than for some time past. The number of American vessels arriving here this season and passing through the strait is larger than it has been for some time past, and the mackerel season is only beginning. I know no reason why there should ‘Not be as large a mackerel-fishery in these waters during the remaining term of the Treaty of Washington as under the Reciprocity Treaty. 7. The privileges granted to American fishermen under the Treaty of Washington, of catching and procuring bait in our waters and ports, is exceedingly valuable to them. In fact, without that privilege, | cannot _See how they could carry on their cod fishing in these parts with profit. All their bait is procured here and preserved in ice obtained from our traders, and I do not have much hesitation in saying that if the Amer éans were entirely dependent on themselves for bait they would have to abandon cod fishing on the British-American coast. 8. The privilege of reshipment of cargoes which the Americans obtain _ under the Treaty of Washington is exceedingly valuable to them. They 1392 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. are, to my knowledge, taking advantage of this privilege at the Strait of Canso. They have an advantage in this over Canadian fishermen, because by using American vessels they are able to avoid inspection, and they do avoid it, as in my capacity of inspector of fish I happen to know. 9. A large portion of the American fishing-fleet is now going every year up to the eastern side of Cape Breton and fishing in the vicinity of Seatarie, Cape North, and the section around there. I understand that these grounds are very rich in fish. 10. The value of the privileges acquired by American fishermen under the Treaty of Washington cannot be estimated accurately by the money value to each vessel engaged. It is worth nearly as much as their entire fisheries on this coast, for if deprived of all these privileges they would scarcely be able to carry on their fisheries on this coasu with any profit without violating the law. 11. Iam not aware of any advantages which Canadian fishermen de- rive from the privilege of fishing in American waters, nor do I know of avy of our fishermen who have availed themselves of this privilege. 12. It would be a great advantage to our shore fishermen to have exclusive use of our fishing grounds. They would preserve them and derive greater profits from them than they possibly can when the Americans are using them in common. I consider the privilege of sending our fish into American markets no kind of an equivalent for the privileges given to Americans under the Treaty of Washington; in tact, it is only a trifling benefit to us at all. If we had exclusive use of our own grounds it would be better for us, even though the American Government imposed the highest duties on our fish. A. B. SKINNER. Sworn to at Port Hastings, in the county of Inverness, this 25th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. PETER GRANT, J. P. No. 256. In the n atter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, WILLIAM MUNROE, of Whitehaven, in the county of Guysboro’, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1, I have been engaged in the fisheries during the last forty years, and have a personal knowledge of the matter hereinafter deposed to. 2. The Americans in large numbers fish in the North Bay for mack- erel, and frequent the Canadian coast for bait and other necessaries. I have known a hundred and fifty American sail come into Whitehaven Harbor during a single season for bait. The cod-fishing vessels average from ten to twelve men, the mackerel-vessels will average fifteen men. The tounage will range from sixty to a hundred tous. 3. The present condition of the fishery on the coast of Nova Scotia is not as prosperous as formerly. Cod-fishing particularly has declined. I consider trawl-fisbing the principal cause of this decline, as it kills the mother fish. j 4. The principal portion of the American mackerel fishermen fish with hook and line. A small portion with seines known as purse-seines. The American cod-fishers fish with trawls or set-lines. Herring are principally taken by them with seines, and a few with nets. Halibut are fished in the same way as cod. They throw away all the small cod, AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1393 - sometimes in as large quantities as three hundred pounds per vessel ‘per season. This I consider very destructive to the cod:fishing The cod thus thrown away is similar to those caught inshore by the dian fishermen. ; 5, The practice of throwing offal of every kind carried on by Ameri- ean fishermen on the fishing-ground I consider very injurious. [t kills the fish and drives them off the ground. 6. The inshore fisheries are of greater value to Canadian fishermen than the outshore fisheries. I consider the inshore fishery of double the value of the outshore ones. _ 7. All kinds of fish are caught inshore by Canadian fishermen. Since 1871 the price of fish has gone down. This is due to the privileges granted to the Americans of fishing, landing, &c., inshore, thereby en- abling them to produce a greater quantity than they otherwise would. 8. Herring fishing is all inshore, with very few exceptions. A meri- cans fish herring inshore for bait. 9. Some mackerel spawn in Whitehaven Harbor and along the coasty but their principal spawning-ground is in the North Bay. They al- ways feed along the coast wherever they go. 10. It is a great privilege to the Americans to be allowed to land on our coast to dry their nets and cure their fish as well as to procure sup- plies, &c. The privilege of transshipping their cargo is of advantage to them, enabling them to make more trips per season, catch more fish, and thus compete with greater advantage with the Canadian fishermen. ‘ 11. I am of opinion that the privilege of being allowed to procure bait inshore is of very great advantage to the Americans. Without this privilege they could not fish with profit. They fish or buy as it pays them best. If they were not allowed the rights granted by the Wash- ington Treaty they could not carry on their fishing operations at all. 12. To the best of my knowledge the privileges granted to Canadians by the Washington Treaty of fishing in American waters is worthless, as they have enough fisheries of their own. I never heard or knew of a Canadian vessel fishing in American waters. 13. It is an injury to Canadian fishermen that the Americans are al- _lowed to land and fish inshore. Canadian fishermen have now to sink their nets for safety from vessels frequenting the inshore, and even with this precaution the nets are destroyed. Cana. his WILLIAM + MONROE. mark. Sworn to at Whitehaven, in the county of Guysboro’, this 24th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me, first having been read and explained. JAMES A. TORY, J. P. for the County of Guysborough. No, 297. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. : I, MarrHew Munrog, of Whitehaven, in the county of Guysboro, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. I am acquainted with the fisheries during the last twelve yearss and during that time I have been three years fishing with the Americans, both at cod and mackerel fishing. 88 F 1394 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2. [ have seen as many as three hundred American sail fishing for mackerel during a single season at North Bay. Each vessel would, if allowed to discharge at the Strait of Canso, make from three to four trips per season. If not allowed to land they would not make more than from one to two. The vessel I was in one trip took only three hundred barrels. This was a very small catch. We fished round Bay Chaleur, on the north side of Prince Edward Island, on the west side of Cape Breton. The average crew of each American vessel would be fifteen men. The average tonnage would be from fifty tons to one hundred tons. I last fished five years ago with the Americans. 3. During the time I was fishing with the Americans we came into Cavadian ports for bait and ice on an average four times each season, We bought ice and bait because we got it cheaper, and because it was of very great advantage to the American fishermen. If we could not land and procure the bait and ice in Canadian ports we could not have fished, and would have been compelled to have given up the voyage and returned to the United States. 4. I have known the American vessels raise schools of mackerel close inshore, and entice them out by bait. After they went out into deep water the fish were lost and the vessels had to work inshore to find others. I have known the American vessels to fish so near shore that there was not room to lie to for to fish, and were compelled to come to an anchor and spring up to their cables. I have known this take place on many occasions. The practice of enticing the mackerel by bait from the inshore is very bad for the people living on the Nova Scotia shores. I also think the practice of baiting the mackerel in the bay keeps them from coming along the shore later than they otherwise would, and thus hinders our fishermen from catching them. 5. Almost all the mackerel is caught inshore. The Americans do all they can to fish inshore, and will run every risk to do so. Unless they were permitted to fish inshore they could not fish mackerel with any profit. 6. The privilege of fishing in American waters by Canadians is worth nothing. I believe the privileges granted to the Americans by the Treaty of Washington worth half the value of the fish they catch. 7. The right of the Americans to fish inshore is of loss to Canadian fishermen, as they catch the fish which the Canadians might otherwise catch, and compel them to sink their nets for the purpose of protecting them from injury by the American vessels. The nets thus sunk do not catch as many fish as they otherwise would. MATTHEW MUNROE. Sworn to at Whitehead, in the county of Guysborough, this 24th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES A. TORY. J. P. for the County of Guysborough. No. 258. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Isaac W. RENNELS, of Port Hood, in the county of Inverness, master mariner, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in the fishing business for the past twenty- six years. For nine seasons I was engaged on board American fishing- vessels, and fished in both American and Canadian waters. I have ‘és AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1395 sailed in American fishing-fleets on the coasts of Nova Scotia Cape __ Breton, Prince Edward Island, Magdalen Island, Gaspé, Anticosti, and the Bay Chaleur, and have had excellent opportunities during that period of understanding the whole fishimg business. I am at present - engaged in Canadian fishing on this coast. 2. While in the American fleet I carried on fishing on the coasts of the United States as well as British America, and found that the latter were much richer and better than the former. The Americans reckoned that they could catch twice as many fish in Canadian waters and make double the profits. When we fished in Canadian waters we chietly took - cod and mackerel, though sometimes other kinds of fish. We took from _ 300 to 500 barrels of mackerel at a cargo, and from 600 to 900 quintals of codfish, and made about three trips a year. 3. The insbore fisheries are much more valuable than those outside. We always took the great bulk of our mackerel inside of three miles of theshore. In the autumn the fisheries are chiefly carried on inshore. 4, After the Reciprocity Treaty I was engaged in carrying on Cana- dian shore-fishing, and we had the best fishing ever known when the American vessels were not allowed to come inshore, aud were kept off by the cutters. The grounds were better preserved, the mackerel would bite freer, and we made better catches and more money. When the American vessels are allowed to come inshore they come up to our boats where we are catching, and throw bait overboard and entice the fish away, So that our chances are ruined. 5. I believe the American fishermen have done and are doing great harm to our fishing grounds. Within two years I have seen Americans using the purse-seine within half a mile of the shore, and this cannot but injure the grounds. The number of fish is not diminished, but the catch is lessened. 6. The reasons that the Americans do not catch mackerel on these shores in as large quantities as formerly are twofold. First, they have injured the grounds by their mode of fishing, so that the catch is di- minished. ‘This, I believe, will only be temporary. Second, the price of ~mackerel has so declined in American markets that they find it more profitable to devote themselves to cod-fishing. If the price of mackerel should go up, I have every reason to believe there would be as many Americans fishing there for mackerel as there were under the Reci- -procity Treaty. 7. All the American fleet does not go through the Strait of Canso now. During late years I have known of American vessels going up the east side of the island, around Scaterie and Cape North, instead of coming ‘through the strait. This is especially in the cod-fishing business, and ‘I have understood there were some good fishing grounds in that part of _ the coast. : ISAAC W. RENNELS. Sworn to before me this 9th day of August, A. D. 1877, at Port Hoods in the county of Inverness. eave -. JOHN McKAY, J. P. No. 259. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Jonn McApams, of Port Jollie, in the county of Queen’s, fisherman and dealer in fishermen’s supplies, make oath and say as follows: 1396 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1. I have been engaged in the fisheries for forty years. I have fished along the southern coast of Nova Scotia, on the eastern side of New Brunswick, around Prince Edward Island, on the Labrador coast, and on the banks off the Canadian coast. I have taken all the kinds of fish found on the above-mentioned coasts. ; 2, About ten years ago I have seen over four hundred American ves- sels in Port Hood Harbor at one time. I have often see two hundred in one fleet fishing together at one time. These vessels were all engaged in taking mackerel, and took the most of their mackerel within three miles of the shore; and in my opinion it would not pay to send a vessel into the North Bay to fish mackerel unless she could catch mackerel within three miles of the shore. 3. During the past twenty or thirty years there have been supplied to Canadian vessels in this harbor large quantities of clams for bait ; from forty to fifty vessels every year down to the present time. These vessels use the clams in taking codfish and mackerel. In cod fishing they use the clams for hand-lining, and could not use them in trawling. The clams are used for mackerel in the North Bay. 4, Our Nova Scotia fishermen say that the clams that they get here are superior to American clams. his JOHN + McADAMS. mark. Sworn to at Port Jollie, in the county of Queen’s, this 18th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. SDN. SELDLON dP. No; 260. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, DoNALD CAMPBELL, of Port Mouton, in the eounty of Queen’s, trader, make oath and say as follows: 1. Iam well acquainted with the inshore fisheries in Queen’s County, and have dealt largely in inshore fish in this county for twenty-four years. 2. During the past twelve years many American vessels are in the. habit of running here for bait, and they have got ice here in which to pack their bait. During the last six years between twenty and thirty American vessels, at the least, have got bait here yearly.. The Ameri- cans say it is a great benefit to them to be able to procure this bait, for without it they could catch no fish. Six years ago an American vessel, commanded by Capt. Randall McDonald, ran here for three trips of three weeks, to a day, taking fresh halibut on each trip, going to Glou- cester and returning here within the said time. 3. The cod-fishing vessels have to return to get a new supply of bait, and they do this every fortnight or three weeks. The Americans take their codfish off on the banks within fifteen or twenty miles from the shore, by trawling principally. DONALD CAMPBELL. Sworn to at Port Mouton, in the county of Queen’s, this 17th day of | August, A. D. 1877, before me. S.T.N.SELLON, J.P. | vonennaih In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Tre AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1397 No. 261. aty of Washington. a I, JOHN DANIEL RICHARD, of La Have Island, at present of Getson’s Cove, in the county of Lunenburg, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. [have been fishing for about forty-five years. I have fished around Cape Breton, on the eastern side of New Brunswick, around Prince Ed- ward’s Island, around the Magdalenes, on the Canadian coast of the Labrador, and on the southern coast of Nova Scotia. I have taken all the kinds of fish found on the above-mentioned coasts. 2. Six years ago on the Magdalene coast I saw four American vessels, each equipped with four trawls, and on each set of trawls were a thou- sand hooks. I asked the American skipper how many fish he had on his trawls. He said nine hundred, and of these nine hundred he only took seventy on board. The fish thrown overboard interfered with our fishing. These fish, to the best of my knowledge, were taken within three miles of the shore. JOHN DANIEL RICHARD. Sworn to at Getsou’s Cove, in the county of Lunenburg, this 9th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. BENJAMIN RYNARD, J. P. No. 262. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Cotin McLEoD, of Brooklyn, in the county of Queen’s, merchant, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have during the present year supplied American fishing vessels with ice, about twenty tons. I have supplied about twenty tons to Canadian vessels. The Americans say that if they could get plenty of bait and ice in this harbor it would be of great benefit to them, They say that if they can get plenty of bait they would be more likely to get larger fares. - COLIN McLEOD. Sworn to at Brooklyn, in the county of Queen’s, this 16th day of Au- gust, A. D. 1877, before me. S. T. N. SELLON, J. P. No. 263. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, James BusHEn, of Port Mouton, in the county of Queen’s, fisher- Tnan, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have fished for eighteen years, every season down to the present included, principally inshore, in Queen’s County, and on the banks off this coast. I have also fished in an American schooner for two years on the Western Bank. 1398 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2, During the past six years from twenty to thirty American vessels run into this harbor for bait, and without this bait they could not carry on the cod-fishery, and they only get this bait around the Canadian coast. If they caunot get it in one place they run to another. They buy this bait because it pays them better than to catch it, as it would take too much time to do so, and it would be too much expense. These American vessels take from about eighteen to twenty-five barrels of bait each. 3. The codfish vessels run here about every three weeks, and do so for about three times before they make a full fare. They make a trip in from six to nine weeks. These vessels take from seven to fifteen hun- dred quintals each when they make a full fare. They catch their fish from fifteen to twenty miles off this coast, and principally by trawling, which I consider a very injurious method of taking fish. 4, I have been fishing on the banks off the coast of Nova Scotia for eighteen years, and I have never seen so many American vessels fisbing on these said banks as I have seen during the present summer. JAMES BUSHEN. Sworn to at Port Mouton, in the county of Queen’s, this 17th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. S. 1; N. SHELON, cd: P. No. 264. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JOHN P. GARDINER, of Cape Sable Island, in the county of Shel- burne, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. Ihave been engaged in fishing for thirty-eight years; mostly in the inshore fisheries on the cape off here. We catch large quantities of codfish within three miles of the shore, and all the mackerel taken around here are within three miles of the shore and in large quantities. Last summer and this present summer I have seen American vessels trawling within three miles of the shore around here. The Americans get bait in this harbor, which is a great advantage to them, asit enables them to carry on the trawling on the Banks off shore. This trawling in my opin- ion is spoiling the grounds. JOHN P. GARDINER. Sworn to at Cape Sable Island, in the county of Shelburne, this 27th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. D; Ge. DALEY, J.P No. 265. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, ALEXANDER GILLIES, of Port Hood, in the county cf Inverness, justice of the peace, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have lived in this place and been familiar with the fishing busi- ness here for fifty years. I have fished some myself and have had good opportunities of observing and knowing the general character and con- dition of the fisheries in these parts during the past half century. =. Sr se eee ee oor + PSS i is = i AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1399 2. I recollect well that previous to the Reciprocity Treaty in 1834 the few American vessels that used to come and fish in these waters on the coast of Cape Breton, complained all the time of the disadvantage of not being able to fish inshore, and the men used to say that they could not carry on a profitable business without it. As soon as the Recipro- city Treaty came into operation the number of vessels from American ports increased at once, until there was soon a large fleet. [am safe in saying that I have seen over four hundred American fishing-vessels in Port Hood Harbor at one time during the Reciprocity Treaty. 3. After the Reciprocity Treaty terminated, there was at once a great falling in the American fishing fleet on these coasts, and their business was not nearly as lucrative and profitable, and I believe if they had not violated the law they would scarcely have been able to carry on fishing with profit at all. : 4, The American fishermen catch all kinds of fish in our waters. The larger part they take is mackerel and codfish; but they also take her- ring, halibut, hake, and haddock. Their average cargo is about four hundred barrels of mackerel, and when they take codfish they do not average less than from six hundred to a thousand quiytals each vessel. They will average three trips per season. 5. There has been something of a falling off in the mackerel ecateh in these parts during the past year or two; but I would not say that there had been any diminution in the number of mackerel in our waters. I regard the falling off as merely temporary, and I believe it will be as good mackerel-fishing here if the grounds are not injured by the Amer- ican fishermen during the coming eight y2ars as heretofore. I believe the falling off in the catch of late has been largely due to the mode in which Americans carry on the fishing. 6. The inshore fisheries are much more valuable than the outside, and more fish are caught within three miles of the shore than outside. More than half of all the fish which the Americans take from our waters are taken inshore. 7. American fishermen are doing great damage to our boat-fishing by coming up near our boats and throwing bait overboard to entice the fish away, and they leave at once, and thus seriously interfere with the profit of our own shore-fishermen. 8. Our herring-fisheries are the most important and valuable we have, and probably our fishermen derive more profit therefrom than from any other. All herring are caught inshore and nearly all taken within one- half mile of the shore. If the American fishermen should go into the herring-fishing along our shores they would be almost certain to ruin | the grounds and would do great damage to our own fishermen. - 9. It is undoubtedly a great advantage to American fishermen to be allowed to land and dry their nets and cure their fish. It is also greatly to their advantage to be able to transship cargoes, and it enables them to make more trips and take more fish each season. 10. It is also the greatest advantage to American fishermen to be allowed to catch bait and procure it by purchase on our shores. All bait is taken inshore, and upon the privilege of getting bait.at our ports and in our waters the very existence of the American cod fishing de- pends, for it would be utterly impossible for the Americans to carry on the cod fishery in these waters if they were compelled to get all their bait from American ports and waters. Bait for cod-fishing will only Jast three weeks on ice, and the ice used to preserve it Is procured by the Americans from our own traders. ; 11. From a pretty careful estimate of the matter from its various = . ,? eo 1400 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. points, according to the best of my knowledge and experience, I would say that the privilege derived by the American fishermen from the use of our fishing-grounds and the privilege of getting bait, outfit, and sup- plies at our ports was worth at least half as much as the entire Ameri- can fishing business on the coast of British North America every year. If all the privileges given by the Washington Treaty to American fish- ermen were taken away, they could only make fishing profitable here by violating the law. 12. I know of no advantage which Canadian fishermen derive from the use of American waters. Our own fishing grounds are well known to be more productive than the American. I have never heard of any Canadian vessel going to American waters for the purpose of taking fish. 13. The presence of American fishing-fleets on our shores is undoubt- edly very injurious to our own fishermen, who would be able to take larger quantities of fish and carry on a better business if they enjoyed exclusive rights. They would also take better care of the grounds and preserve them better. ALEXANDER GILLIES. Sworn to at Port Hood, in the county of Inverness, this 21st day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. ALEXR. McDONALD, J. P. No. 266. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty ot Washington. I, HENRY HEMLOW, senior, of Liscomb, in the county of Guysboro, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: I have been engaged in the fisheries during the last sixty years. 1. The principal fishing at Liscomb is cod and herring fishing. At times I have seen as many as forty or fifty American vessels going iu and out at once. Each American vessel would catch, on an average, between six and seven hundred quintals per trip. They would make two trips each season, and afterwards fish on their own coast or on the coast of Newfoundland. ; 2. The cod-fishing has improved lately; so has the herring fishing, but they are not so good as formerly. The Americans do not fish for bait in Liscomb Harbor, and this, in my opinion, accounts for the better state of the Liscomb fishery. When the American fishermen used to come in, they threw the fish guts, heads, &c., overboard and destroyed the eggs or young fish. This practice also drove out the fish from the harbor. 3. I consider the value of the outshore fishery much less than the in- shore. Cod and halibut are principally caught outside, while all other fish are principally caught inshore. Formerly the Americans caught mackerel with hook and line; now they are caught by them with seines and purse-nets. Fishing with seines and purse-nets is injurious te the fisheries. 4. Haddock, codfish, and other fish caught inshore are fished by the Americans iv the inshore waters. Canadian fishermen use the inshore fishery to a large extent, and it is of the greatest value to them. Very iew herring are caught outside. 5. The food of the mackerel is found inshore. The privilege of land- AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1401 ing, drying their fish, &c., I consider of great importance, as is also the _ opportunity of transshipping. This enables them to make more trips _ in the season, and also enables them to watch the best chances to fish. _ Without the privileges granted by the Washington Treaty, I am of opinion that the American fishermen could not fish with any prolit to themselves. 6. I never heard of any Canadian fishermen frequenting American waters, but the American fishermen interfere with the Canadian tisher- men by disturbing tieir seines and in other ways injuring the fisheries. It would be much better for the Canadians to have the sole right of _ the inshore fisheries, and no right to sell fish free in the United States than the rights they enjoy under the Washington Treaty. 7. Since 1871 an American lobster factory has been opened in Lis- comb, and the lobster fishery has largely decreased. The canned lob- sters are principally sold in England. his HENRY + HEMLOW, Sr. mark. Sworn to at Liscomb, in the county of Guysboro’, this 19th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me, first baving been read and explained. JAMES A. TORY, J. P. for the County of Guysbore’. No. 267. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. 1, WILLIAM WATTS, of Port Hood, in the county of Inverness, fisher- _ man, make oath and say as follows: 1, I have been for eight years past engaged in fishing, and during two seasons I made trips in American fishing-vessels, and made trips and caught fish in the gulf and on various parts of the coast of Nova Scotia, _ Cape Breton, and the Magdalen Islands, and have had pretty good op- '-portunities of judging of the fishing business done on this coast. 2. I have seen since the Treaty of Washington as many as four or five hundred American fishing-vessels in the harbor of Port Hood, and I should say that the whole number engaged in fishing in the gulf and _ around the shore has been as high as six or seven hundred in a season. _ These vessels were engaged principally in catching codfish and herring, _ although they take small quantities of herring, hake, haddock, and hali- _ but. The vessels rate from 50 to 80 tons and are manned by trom twelve _ to twenty of a crew. They usually average about three trips during _ the season, and in the codfish season take from five to seven hundred quintals-at a trip, worth from $4 to 85 per quintal. Their average cargo “of mackerel would be about three hundred barrels, worth formerly about $15 per barrel. __ 3. Ido not know as there has been any great increase or decrease in © the cod-fishing in these parts of late. It is about as good this season as usual. There has been something of a falling off in the catch of mack- - €rel within the past year or two; but I don’t think there has been any falling off in the numbers of the mackerel. They would not bite so well; that is all. I cannot tell why this should be, unless it is on account of _ the American fishermen using seines and throwing _ Offal, which makes the mackerel less free to bite. a iy - Huds 4 bait overboard and 1402 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 4, Within the last two or three years I have seen American fishermen using the purse seines in the mackerel fisheries, and I consider that this practice is very injurious to our fishing-grounds. Sometimes as many as a thousand barrels of mackerel are taken in one haul, which cannot be cured or saved, and part of them have to be let out and many are killed. This must be destructive to the fishery. I have never known Canadian fishermen to take this course, and most of them catch mack- erel in boats. 5. American fishermen to my knowledge have caught mackerel since the Treaty of Washington within one mile of the shore and even less. Within two or three years I have seen them catching in this harbor. It is always considered that the best fishing is within three miles of the shore. When I was ou board of American fishing-vessels we took nearly all the cargo inshore. 6. I have seen Americans catching bait within three miles of the shore—in fact, all bait is caught inshore, being smaller fish, which only live in shoal water. Now the Americans buy most of their bait, because it is more convenient and profitable for them to do so, and our fisher- men catch it with greater facility than they do. Not less than fifty or sixty American vessels have baited here this present season already, chiefly herring and squid. 7. The American practice of throwing bait to entice mackerel away is very injurious to our boat-fishing. ‘heir vessels often come along where we are fishing, and throw bait overboard, and the fish leave us ole in the direction of their bait, which is very damaging to our catch. 8. Our herring fishery is one of the most important and valuable we have. Large quantities of this fish are taken by our shore fisher- men now. I have known as many as one hundred and fifty bar- rels ot herring to be taken by one boat in two days. If the Americans should enter into this branch of fishing under the Washington Treaty, aud they do somewhat now, and use their seines, it would injure our business very seriously and damage the grounds very much. 9. To the best of my observation and experience as a fisherman, I say that the main body of the mackerel feed around the shore in shoal water. Their food being small fish, they must necessarily be obtained vear the shore, and in the fall season especially the mackerel cluster near the shore, and it is there chiefly that they are caught. 10. { consider it a great advantage for American fishermen to be allowed to land in our ports and dry their nets and cure their fish, and still more to be allowed to transship their cargoes. There can be no doubt about this. They do it continually, and say themselves that it is a great advantage, as it enables them to fit out for new voyages and ship men without going back to American ports. They can catch more fish in a season by means of this privilege and take more trips. 11. 1 regard the privilege of being able to catch and buy bait in Can- adian waters as one of the greatest advantages the American fishermen get from the treaty. If they had not this privilege they would have to abandon cod-fishing in our waters and on our coast altogether. They begin the cod-fishing about the first of May, and get bait continually all the season. When preserved in ice, which they get from our traders, the bait is allowed to last about three weeks. If they could not get it from us, and ice to keep it, the only way they could preserve it would be to salt it, and this injures the quality of the bait. If the Americans had to go back to their own waters and ports to get bait every three July, A. D. 1877, before me. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1403 weeks they could do nothing with their cod-fishing, and it would be im. ssible to carry it on profitably. 12. I could not tell in figures just what the money-value is to each American fishing-vessel to be allowed to fish in our waters and get bait and supplies, but I do not think it is too much to say that it is worth nearly as much as their entire fisheries at present on these grounds, for without these privileges they would find it very difficult, without violating the law, to carry on fishing of any kind profitably in the gulf or around the British-American coast. They could not possibly take as many trips, nor could they carry on their business with any facility. 13. I know of no advantage of any kind which our Canadian fisher- men gain from being able to fish in American waters. I have heard American fishermen admit that our grounds were the richest and best. I have never heard of any Canadian or British vessel going to Ameri- can waters for the purpose of fishing, nor can I imagine any reason to induce them to do so. 14, If our fishermen had the exclusive right to fish in our own waters on the British-American coast, and no American fishermen were allowed to compete, I am certain we would be able to catch more fish every year and make more profits out of the business. Our fishing grounds would also be better preserved, because our fishermen carry on their fishing with much greater care and do not destroy the grounds as the American fishermen do, by throwing offal overboard and using purse seines. WILLIAM WATTS. Sworn to at Port Hood, in the ccunty of Inverness, this 21st day of JOHN McKAY, J. P. No. 268. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JosHua Samira, of Port Hood Island, in the county of Inverness, Cape Breton, fisherman and trader, make oath and say as follows: 1, Iam a member of the firm of J. & H. Smith, which has been ae- tively engaged in the occupation of fishing and supplying fishermen for the past fifteen or twenty years, and I have had ample opportunities of becoming familiar with the general business done on the coast of Cape Breton. Our firm has dealt in mackerel, codfish, haddock, hake, and herring to the value of over $3,000 annually. 2. I have known as many as five hundred sail of United States fish- ing-vessels engaged in the fisheries around the Island of Cape 3reton. This was during the Reciprocity Treaty from 1854 to 1864. After that treaty terminated the number of American vessels very much decreased. These have fished around the coast of Cape Breton, Antigonish Bay, Prince Edward Island, Magdalen Islands, and the coasts of Nova Scotia proper. They take mackerel chiefly. Also codfish in large quantities and herring and halibut in smaller quantites. 2 ; 3. The average tonnage of United States fishing-vessels is 0 tons, and each of them has a crew of about fifteen men. During the Keetp- rocity Treaty each vessel averaged about three hundred barrels of mackerel per trip and made from two to three trips per Season from this coast. This average was much reduced after the Reciprocity Treaty. 1404 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 4, During the past two or three years the catch of mackerel has been somewhat less than formerly on the coast of Cape Breton. But I regard this diminution as merely accidental and temporary. These grounds are exceedingly rich in fish, and I have no hesitation in giving it as my opinion that the mackerel fisheries on this coast will be as productive and valuable during the next eight years as during the eight years just past. The mackerel season forthe present year has only just commenced, but the prospects are favorable. 5. From what I have observed and from information received from American fishermen, I should judge that at least one-half of the car- goes taken from this coast were caught inside of three miles of the shore. And always late in the season as the autumn approaches much the larger part of the fish are taken within three miles of the shore. The privilege of the shore-fishing is valuable on account of prolonging the fishing season. 6. The privilege accorded to American fishermen of taking fish with- in three miles of the coast is of very great value to them. I have no hesitation in saying that if they were restricted to the Treaty of 1818, they would be compelled to abandon the fisheries or nearly so. 7. The American fishermen do catch bait within three miles of the coast to some extent, but they purchase a great deal of it now from traders. The privilege of catching and procuring bait from our ports I consider a very great advantage to the United States fishing-fieet, and enables them not only to carry on their operations with greater facility, but to make more trips per season than if they were compelled to pro- cure their bait exclusively from American waters and ports. 8. I consider it decidedly an advantage to American fishermen to land and dry their nets and cure their fish on our coasts. 9. A large number of American fishing vessels get supplies every season from our establishment, and from other establishments on the coast. They call here annually for outfits, men, and boats to land cargo, and to refit for other voyages. I certainly consider it an advantage to American fishermen to exercise this privilege. The United States fish- ermen also procure ice in our ports for preserving fish, and I have sold ice to Americans for that purpose during the present season. 10. IL am not aware of any advantage that Canadians will derive from the right to fish in the American waters, nor of any they have derived under the Treaty of Washington, unless it is procuring pogies for bait. 11. I consider it would be a valuable advantage for the British fisher- men to carry on the inshore fisheries exclusively, and without competing with American fishermen, and this advantage I would estimate at one hundred per cent., or equivalent to the entire value of our fisheries. 12. I would not like to state positively the cash value to each American vessel of the privilege of catching fish within our coasts and bays, and of procuring bait and outfitting, but Iam safe in saying it enables them to double their voyages at the very least. And without such privileges I don’t know as American fishermen would be able to prosecute their business on this coast. 13. The privilege of transshipment enjoyed by American fishermen under the Treaty of Washington is important and valuable, and may become within the next few years a source of great profit. JOSHUA SMITH. Sworn to at Port Hood, in the county of Inverness, this 19th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. DUNCAN CAMPBELL, J. P. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1405 _ No. 269. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. | : I, Livineston Coaerns, of Westport, in the county of Digby, fisher. man, make oath and say as follows: : 1. I fish out of this port in a schooner of forty-three tous, manned by eight hands, and we fish off to twenty miles off shore, and in the spring close inshore. Large numbers of Americans fish on the same grounds ; often seeing four and five in sight at one time, mostly trawling. In this county the Americans trawl halibut off from six or seven miles to close inshore. This trawling is very injurious to the fishery, as the mother fish are taken, which is not the case in hand-lining. On Bear Cove ground the Americans trawl inshore for all kinds of fish. The Amer- icans which trawl on our grounds throw overboard their gurry, which is very injurious tothe grounds. From this port, including Freeport, there are fishing out every year twenty vessels, from fifteen to forty tous each. The most of these vessels hand-line, and use kids on board for the gurry. These American vessels which trawl on our grounds get their bait in- shore at Grand Manan and in this county. LIVINGSTON COGGINS. Sworn to at Westport, in the county of Digby, this 31st day off Au- gust, A. D. 1877, before me. Hes PAYSON: J. P., County Dighy. No. 270. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, MARTIN WENTZEL, Lower LaHave, county of Lunenburg, fisher- man, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been upwardsof twenty-five years engaged in the fishery, and have fished along the southern coast of Nova Scotia, around the eastern side of Cape Breton, around Prince Edward Island, the eastern side of New Brunswick, and around the Magdalen Islands, and am well ac- quainted with the inshore fishery in Lunenburg County. I fished mostly . aster; and am part owner of a vessel at present engaged in the ery. 2. From three to four years ago I fished in the Bay of Chaleur, and have there fished mackerel and bait. About nine years ago I have heard persons in the bay say that there were upwards of two hundred vessels there at one time fishing mackerel. The American vessels carried from fourteen to eighteen men, and some as high astwenty. The Americans fished the mackerel mostly all inshore, within three miles of the shore. If I had not been allowed to fish inshore in the Bay of Chaleur for mack- érel, it would not pay me to go there, and I took more than three-fourths _ of my cargo inshore. 3. I have seen the Americans take codfish inshore in the Bay of Cha- leur. The Americans fished inshore in boats for codfish, and wherever there was fish. The Americans made the fish scarce for us inshore, and _ they took large quantities. 4, In fishing mackerel the Americans often lee-bowed Us, and threw By = ad ‘. 1406 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. over bait to take the fish away from inshore. I have often seen the Americans running into Nova Scotian vessels, and being so many, we were often afraid of them. as 5. The Americans fit out their vessels to take from three to eight hundred barrels per vessel, and take on an average of from three hun- dred to four hundred barrels to each vessel on each trip, and make about three trips. Some years the Americans do better than this and some not so well. Our vessels are not so large as the Americans, and I have taken three hundred barrels of mackerel in one trip. About four years ago I took codfish in the Bay of Chaleur, and took in my vessel eight hundred and twenty-five quintals, mostly all inshore. 6. The Americans carry on the fishing by trawling, and I think this kind of fishing should not be allowed. 7. The Americans fished inshore when the fishery was protected by the cutters, and used to run off shore when the cutters were around, and used to come in when they disappeared. It would not pay the Ameri- cans to fish unless they could catch fish inshore. 8. The Americans get bait here year after year, and this spring have got bait at Mosber’s Island, in this harbor, and have, during the past five or six years, got ice in this harbor in which to pack their bait. MARTIN WENTZEL. Sworn to at Lower LaHave, in the county of Lunenburg, this 7th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES H. WENTZEL, J. P. No. 271. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, WiLLiaM B. CHRISTIAN, of Prospect, in the county of Halifax, and Province of Nova Scotia, at present of the city of Halifax, make oath and say as follows: I keep a general store and do a general mercantile business at Pros- pect, supplying our fishermen and others with goods and supplies. I also supply ice and bait to American cod and halibut fishermen, and advertise in the Gloucester Advertiser to that effect. Several others at Prospect tried this last business, but could not do it with success. Another person at Prospect doing that business to the extent that I do it would render the thing of little or no profit or advantage. I purchase goods in Boston every year, personally visting that city; but the trade of the American fishermen with me, except for bait and ice, is very trifling. When in Boston, I usually each year go on to Gloucester to settle up with those who buy ice and bait, and arrange for further business in those things, and I am thus in frequent communica- tion with American capitalists, whose vessels fish in our water. I am aware that it would be useless for the Americans to attempt to carry on the cod or halibut fishery in our waters without the liberty now enjoyed since the Washington Treaty, of procuring ice and fresh bait on our shores. This year an American halibut-fishing vessel came into Prospect, the William Thompson, a new vessel, belonging to the well-known firm of Cunningham & Thompson, of Gloucester, and had sixty-five thousand pounds of halibut on board, which required immediately four or five eS aoe J . a FP ~ ae a es 4 _tons of ice to save it from being destroyed. This ice could not have been supplied anywhere nearer than Cape Sable or Liverpool, and there would have been great risk of losing the fish in attempting to ‘reach that place. I was the only one who could supply this at Prospect, and shipped it at the usual rate of $2.50 per ton, and this whole fare of hali. but was thus saved and $3,700 at Gloucester. Two fares of halibut were saved in the same way by my supplying ice at Prospect last year. | I never carried on the mackerel fishery in the waters of the Galf of St. Lawrence, but I am aware, from the United States fishermen them. selves, that they catch their mackerel within the three mile limit, as they term it, on our coasts. I never heard anything to the contrary from any mackerel-fishermen. : About 100 American cod-fishermen on an average are supplied at Prospect with bait and ice, and very often they run in from the cod. fishing ground on our coast in eight or nine hours fora fresh supply, and usually run in three or four times, on an average, from the Westeru Bank, and about twice, on an avérage, from the Grand Bank of New- foundland. Many of the American cod-fishermen fishing on the latter Bank are supplied with fresh bait and ice at Canso, which is more con- venient than the Newfoundland coast in May and June for that pur- pose. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1407 W. B. CHRISTIAN. Sworn to at Halifax, in the county of Halifax, this 31st day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. JOHN DOULL, J. P. INO; 272, In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, ALEXANDER MCDONALD, of Port Hood Island, in the county of In. verness, fisherman and trader, make oath and say as follows: 1. Ihave been engaged in fishing and in a fish tradinge stablishment | for the past fifteen years, and have had large opportunities for persona! * observations and experience in the business. _ 2. Under the Reciprocity Treaty I have known as high as five hundred or five hundred and fifty American vessels engaged in fishing on this coast during one season. After the Reciprocity Treaty the number be- came much less. These have carried on fishing on the coast of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton, Prince Edward Island, and the Magdalen Is- land and Gaspé. Each vessel averages about 60 or 79 tons, and has a crew of about fifteen men. They fish for mackerel and codfish chietly, | but catch some hake, halibut, and herring. , 3. The American vessels usually carry about three hundred barrels of | mackerel per trip each vessel, and from 600 to 1,000 quintals of codfish. They make on an average three trips per season. During the Recipro- city Treaty the price of mackerel was about $15, American currency, per arrel. . 4. The cod fishery on this coast is about the same as usual. . There | has been something of a falling off in the mackerel fishery in this part during the past year or two, but I do not regard this as permanent. I believe that mackerel always exist in great quantities along our coast, and I know no reason why there should not be as productive a catch dur- ing the next eight years as in the eight years past. The prospects for [ . ) 1408 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the present season, so far as I can learn, are good, and more American vessels are coming to these parts this season than for two or three y ears ast. : 5. The American fishing-vessels begin to arrive here in May each year for bait to carry on the cod fisheries. In July they come for mack- erel, and continue fishing along the coast until as late as November. The American fishermen are in the habit of throwing offal, &c., over- board, the effect of which is liable to glut the fish and injure the young. About here, so far as I have the means of knowing, Canadian fisher- men are more careful in their mode of carrying on fishing than the Americans. 6. About two-thirds of the entire American catch during the Reciproc- ity Treaty was taken within three miles of the shore; and I think since the Washington Treaty the proportion is about the same. 7. The inshore fisheries are much more valuable than those outside, and the privilege of using them is very important, because when it comes late in the autumn nearly all the fish are taken inshore, and if the American vessels could not fish inshore it would shorten their season. 8. After the Reciprocity Treaty, the practice of the American fisher- men of throwing bait overboard to entice the mackerel outside was con- sidered an injury to our boat fishermen. 9. The American fishermen do catch bait within three miles from the shores here to some small extent, both herring and squid; but the larger portion of the bait used by them now is bought from our people. 10. 1t is a great advantage to American fishermen frequenting Cana- dian waters to be allowed to land and dry their nets and cure their fish, and it is so recognized by them. 11. It is also a great advantage to Americans to be allowed to trans- Ship their cargoes. It enables them to take more fish and make more trips each season. 12. The privilege of procuring bait both by catching it and purchasing it in Canadian waters and ports is a great advantage to American fisher- men; and though they are getting in the habit of buying it rather than catching it, yet this is done simply because they find it more profitable to do so, and not because there is any difficulty or obstacle in catch- ing it. 13. I do not see how the Americans could carry on the cod and other deep-sea fisheries around our coasts’ without the privilege of resorting to our waters and ports to procure bait. It would compel them to make at least one less trip every season, and it would be less convenient for them in every way. 14. It is likewise a valuable privilege for Americans to be able to re- sort to our ports to procure ice and other supplies and outfits. Large numbers of American vessels are coming to Port Hood every season for this purpose, and I consider it a great advantage to them. 15. The value of the rights which the Americans acquired by the Treaty of Washington to fish in our waters and to get. bait and supplies is very great. I would not fix a money value, but it enables them to fish with much greater facility, to take more trips each season than they could possibly do otherwise. Without these privileges just referred to they would have to abandon our fishing grounds altogether, or nearly 80. 16. The privilege granted to Canadian fishermen to fish in American waters is no advantage that I know of whatever to Canadians. I never heard of a Canadian vessel using these waters, and know of no reason whatever why they should. ALEXANDER McDONALD. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1409 Sworn to at Port Hood, in the county of Inverness, this 21st day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. ; ALEXANDER GILLIES, J. P. No. 273. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. ; I, ANGUS GILLIES, of Port Hood, in the county of Inverness, justice of the peace, make oath and say as follows: ; 1. For the past eighteen years I have been a part of the time engaged fishing about the coasts of British America, and during all that period I have been familiar with the fishing business done here. I have been engaged on board of American fishing-vessels during that time, and have been myself master of a vessel, and have otherwise had pretty large opportunities of becoming familiar with the general business. 2. [have known as many as five or six hundred American fishing- vessels engaged in fishing on these coasts during one season under the Reciprocity Treaty. Each vessel would average about sixty or seventy tons, and was manned by from twelve to fifteen men. The average cargo of mackerel would be three hundred barrels, and the average cargo of codfish would not be less than from five to seven hundred quintals. 3. After the Reciprocity Treaty the American fishing-tleet on this coast declined very much, and their business materially lessened. They were not able to take as many trips during the season. Their mackerel- fishing, which was chiefly inshore, fell off very much. 4, Now, the American cod-fishing in the gulf is about as large as ever. They get bait to carry it on in our waters, and from our traders. Their mackerel-fishing has greatly fallen off, which has been caused chietly by the result of their mode of fishing, which has injured the ground. This has been done by their system of seining, and of throwing bait and offal overboard, which has caused the mackerel to be less sharp in biting. The other cause of the falling off in the mackerel-fishing is the low price of mackerel in the American markets, which makes the fishery less val- uable and profitable. If the price of mackerel should go up, I believe the Americans would fish for mackerel now as much as ever. 5. The richest and best grounds for mackerel-fishing are within three miles of the shore. Most of the mackerel are caught there. When [ was on board of an American vessel, we took nearly all our mackerel inshore. 6. The best mackerel-fishing we ever had along this coast was after the Reciprocity Treaty was terminated and the American vessels were _kept off our grounds by the cutters. Our Canadian fishermen had the best catch then that ever they had, because they were undisturbed. When the Americans have the right to come within three miles, they _ watch our boats taking mackerel, and come up close to us, and thea throw bait overboard in large quantities, and entice the fish away from ‘the boats. They could not do this if they were not allowed to come , inshore, because our boats take the fish in the bays and harbors, and Within a mile from the shore; and it is only by coming close up to us _ that they can entice the mackerel away. Their vessels often run down | our boats, and it is with difficulty that we escape out of the way. , 7, The privileges which the Americans gain by the Treaty of Wash- ington in being allowed to catch fish inshore, and to catch and buy bait, _ and to procure ice and outfits at our ports, | am safe in saying, |S © orth “at least half as much to them per season as their whole fisheries 00 this 89 F 1410 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. coast. I do not see how they could carry on their great cod-fisheries if they had not the privilege of getting bait and ice from us. All bait is got inshore, and the great part of it very close to the shore. AGNUS GILLIES. Sworn to at Port Hood, in the county of Inverness, this 23d day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. JOHN McKAY, J. P. No. 274. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JAMES O. FRASER, of Saint John’s, Newfoundland, having been duly sworn, do depose and say that I have carefully examined the ac- counts of the government of the said island, and compiled therefrom the cost of erecting and maintaining the light-houses and fog-alarms between Cape Ray and Cape Race, and from thence to Quirpon, and that the annexed statement marked A, contains a true statement of the average annual expenditure for the maintenance of said light-houses and fog-alarms, and as deponent believes of the original cost of the said light-houses and fog-alarms. ; In answer to Mr. Foster’s question, I say that caplin continue upon the Newfoundland coast for a period of from five to seven weeks. Halifax, Nova Scotia, fourth day of September, A. D., 1877. JAMES O. FRASER. Maintaining light-houses and fog-whistles on the coasts of Newfoundland, between Cape Ray and Cape Race, and from thence to Quirpon. A. cS) r= B eres © ah Be ince 2 sé =z Ze ) =) Oo do Fort :Amhersts. 2. scccescucccsscscee loees etcectcetseessetetacocecsusscsececccoesse $9,000 | $1,300 rarbor' Grace light): 22.252 sca ce stees estan tcnacausessmascecoseueseu secs saaaetcawe 14, 000 1, 500 Harbor, Grace Deacon! < . c. 0.35 cscs cease easensscls Watnaeuicclawciasccontloe woes pa ceesen 400 400 PaSCaHGu lo. she T he oS eels coh Sa aa ce se Seeded eae Sew Da Maton oe dos cbacecccatascowasicescs 12, 000 1, 600 Groen Weland 252. 0201 oc siwcescnicwicwexa oo. cuaisdcuee eeneensicon soecencesscuescewe acne 7, 500 1, 500 Bonavista ........ 10, 000 1, 900 Wadhams...... 10, 000 1, 400 Cape Spear..... 11, 000 1, 500 Ferryland Head... 12, 500 1, 600 Cane St. Marya s225 2.52 feces set eee cs ness 12, 000 1, 700 WADE EDO sc cacti recs coe seat sees es Soest aienlo ne hse a eeinslod SESS Sak Ce aaa ee owen 12, 000 1, 560 Dodding ‘Head... ccc csc css ee eect cease eee b abe cok Goats bau een ceccteeea-weccades 12, 000 1, 500 PRTG es = frets a a aissssint cha a Acasaee. ne a erecre a ae ao ha ees cae dace eae eee 9, 000 1, 250 Toolongate, Long Points: 255.52 s0csfccsss eae lcc a: Ccaccsanoceks cateciweseccsecesees 12,000 | 1,900 Pati nlela odie fice hoo e vise ae oe eee hele ae se eos a ee 2, 500 1, 000 BROWS PEABNCUG> ties nae ated ache cet: oN eae ae ie Aza meee oat reed cee ke eee a 2, 600 1, 000 @haneliHead) / cor soe cee tae ese e aaah oe ays ee eee anes 2, 500 1, 000 Maun slend es seca sss ci ete s ee occas eens os oes aioe an ald heen 2, 500 850 PORE GIBNO oc eo eo eac coe te ae va cous cota eae tds che ae Ee ae hs CoS te on eee 2, 500 900 WSOMOTOIN oo os scie's'n's Sends since soso oe wes Ua soos etec be ce ceed Ben todo donewe nc cte a sass 800 250 POPLI POM) 0. ona co ceee souls es x Cae oe cee as Sar w oe OE ase ey he cece s 600 250 Garnish beacon): ..<. 5252382... re are a te A 400 220 Maske Pointyi3. 22 eee y “| 1,800 600 Catbonens Walind « :c: s5.525 cs 2520025. cece “| 3,000 | 1, 000 Cape'St Francis light-house'and) alarin..52. 02550 oso rsckcasccscccdesce -| 20, 000 5, 000 CFOOGFE) TODEITS 25555. ooo eo ed oe as a Sone on Dae cae Ra eas deen ee er a AOMGLRS POUR: Sb.) OUT BE 6s oes snot cin ae 3 eens Satake clase eee ee 1, 000 300 Cape Race light-house and alarm, Imperial Government..............-20.-eeeeeee eee 40, 000 9, 000 Cape Ray alarm, Imperial and Dominion Government...........-.ccece-ceeceececeee re ee Horr 214,600 | 44, 130 3 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 141] In the ma ‘ter of the Fisheries Commission, at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. : I, JOHN BETHELL, of West Barcrow, in the county of Shelburne fisherman, make oath and say as follows: , 1. [have been engaged in taking fish for the last seven years inshore, by means of a trap set one hundred and fifty fathoms from the shore, low- water mark. We take in this trap all kinds of fish, principally mackerel], pollock and herring. Last year we took one hundred quintals of had- dock. We take in each year about five hundred barrels of both mack- erel and herring. Outof this, on an average each year, there would be one hundred and fifty barrels of mackerel. 2. Last year I supplied thirty-three Canadian schooners with bait and ice, besides supplying seventy-eight boats engaged in the inshore fish- eries. The Canadian vessels took on an average of twelve dollars’ worth of bait to each vessel. The boats takeon an average of three dollars’ worth of bait. Last year we supplied about forty tons of ice to Canadian ves- sels; this year about the same. Last year is about an average year’s supply to Canadian vessels and inshore boats. This year we would have sold double of this supply to Canadian vessels if we had the bait. During the past four years I have supplied on an average ten American vessels. They took on an average between twenty and thirty dollars’ worth of bait. The Americans always are very anxious to get this bait, and if they have bait they are almost always sure of fish. JOHN BETHELL. Sworn before me this 29th day of August, A. D., 1877. D. SARGENT, J. P. for the County of Shelburne. No. 276. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty ; of Washington. I, EpwarpD D. TREMANIN, of Port Hood, in the county of Inverness, collector of customs, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been, from information received from American fishermen and otherwise, somewhat acquainted with the fisheries on the coast of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton, Prince Edward Island, and the Magda- len Islands for some years past. 2. Among the last years of the Reciprocity Treaty, I believe that about eight hundred American fishing-vessels were yearly engaged in the fisheries along our coasts from the Strait of Canso northward. 1 Should estimate the total tonnage of the American fleet in these waters at that time to be over fifty thousand, and as many as ten thousand men engaged. Their occupations embraced principally mackerel and codfish, but I believe herring, haddock, hake, and halibut were also taken. 8. The American fishermen begin to arrive on our coasts about the first of May each year, and continue their operations till about the tenth of November. Their vessels average about three trips per season. 4. American vessels were, under the said treaty, in the habit of fre- - Quenting this locality for the purpose of landing, procuring extra bait, obtaining sets of sails, getting men and outfits for extra trips, and occa- ea; 1412 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. sionally for reshipping cargoes to the United States. I consider the | privilege of doing this granted by the Treaty of Washington a very valuable advantage to American fishermen. 5. I estimate the average money value to each American fishing-ves- | sel taking advantage of the free access to provincial ports, bays, and | harbors for piling, shipping bait and supplies, &e., at something between | seven hundred and fifty dollars and one thousand dollars per season. : 6. I believe the concession of the right to fish in American waters by | Canadians is no advantage whatever to Canadians. I am not aware ot any Canadians who have availed themselves of this privilege. : EDWARD D. TREMAIN. Sworn to before me at Port Hood, in the county of Inverness, this 23d day of July, A. D. 1877. JOHN McKAY, J. P. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty | of Washington. I, RoBERT CURRIE, of Louis Harbor, in the county of Shelburne, justice of the peace, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been well acquainted with the inshore fisheries in this | county for forty years now past, and have had vessels engaged on the | Labrador coast, and there is at present a vessel fishing out of this port on the Labrador coast. This vessel carries eighteen men, and is fitted out to take two thousand quintals of fish. 2. The vessels fitted out here get bait in this harbor, both herring and | clams, the latter principally. At Port LeBear, six miles from here, large | quantities of clams are obtained for bait, and the Americans get these | clams at Port LeBear for bait. In this harbor and at Port LeBear | these clams are dug on the shore and barreled, and sold principally at | Lockeport. These clams are used in hand-lining. ROBT. CURRIE. Sworn to at Louis Harbor, in the county of Shelburne, this 22d day | of August, A. D. 1877, before me. JACOB LOCKE, J. P. In the matter or the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty | of Washington. I, PARKER MATTHEWS, of Black Point, in the county of Shelburne, | fisherman, make oath and say as follows: ‘ 1. About thirty years ago I fished in the schooner Rapid, of Lockeport, in the North Bay for mackerel, and in three months we only took 80 | barrels ; the said schooner carried a crew of 10 hands. I supply, at the present time, fishing schooners with ice. Last year | I supplied three or four American schooners with ice; and the same © number this present year. These vessels took about from eight to ten tons of ice last year, and the same amount this year. Last year and | the present reat I supplied from eight to ten Canadian vessels with ice, | from four to five tons each. . The Americans could not carry on the fisheries on the Banks off this | -AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1413 coast without bait and ice. With the ice and bait which they procure here the Americans fish on LaHave, Brown, and Port LeBear Banks Until this year the Canadian vessels took codfish all by hand-lining. The Americans always trawled with the bait and ice which they pto- cured from me. I consider trawling a very injurious method of taking PARKER MATTHEWS. Sworn to at Lockeport, in the county of Shelburne, this 22d day of August, A. D. 1877. : AUSTEN LOCKE, J. P. No. 279. (In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. : I, RoBER’T DEAGLE, of Souris, in the county of Kings, and province ‘of Prince Edward Island, but at present of Harbor-au-Bouche, in the } county of Antigonishe, and province of Nova Scotia, fisherman, make | oath and say as follows: 1. I have been a practical fisherman for the past twenty years. ) During ten years of that time I have been employed in American ves- sels from the port of Gloucester principally, and I have had large ex; perience in and have a very perfect knowledge of seine-fishing. I have fished both on the American coast and in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, » and on the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador. )p 2. I am well acquainted with the cod fishery as carried on by the American fishermen in our waters, and I believe the practice of trawl- ing, followed by the Americans fishing for codfish, tends to destroy the } mother fish when they are spawning, and otherwise is injurious to the | fishery. ; 3. Lestimate that there has been an average of three hundred mack- ) erel-catching vessels from United States ports in our waters during each of the last twenty years. I myself have known of four hundred sail of United States fishing-vessels in our waters in a single season, aud there » woild be a great many of which I would have no knowledge. It is im- possible for any one person to know of all the American vessels fishing in our waters in any one season. The average catch of mackerel each } season is about three hundred and fifty barrels per vessel. Last spring there were ab ut one hundred vessels fishing for herring at the Magda- Tens, and they caught their usual catch of from seven hundred to one thousand barrels per vessel. I have known oue American vessel in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence to get fourteen hundred barrels of mackerel in » asingle season. - 4. I have been seine-master of American fishing vessels, and have ‘used seines in catching mackerel both in American and Canadian Waters, and I perfectly understand fishing with seines. In American waters I have used seines two hundred and twenty-five fathoms long )} and thirty fathoms deep, and in our shallower waters | have fished, ) While employed in American vesseis, with seines one hundred and eighty fathoms long and twenty fathoms or less in depth, The American ‘Mackerel fishery has been almost destroyed by using these seines, and it will not take long to ruin our fisheries if the Americans are permitted to use them here. It is only during the last two or three years that these “ purse-seines,” as they are called, have been used in our waters. 1414 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. - Fish are uselessly destroyed and the schools broken up and driven away by this practice. 5. From 1871 to 1874 the mackerel fishery in the gulf was fair. Their scarcity in 1875 and 1876 was owing to the variableness of the fish, which are sometimes scarce for a year or two, and then come in again as thick asever. The prospect this year is very good, and quite a fleet of Ameri- can vessels is already in the bay, and in all probability there will be three hundred or four hundred of them here this season, as there are no mackerel on their own coasts. I saw an American vessel, called the Eastern Queen, take from their seine at one catch what I was afterwards informed by the crew amounted to one hundred barrels of mackerel. On Sunday last four American mackerelers got very good catches; two of them got one hundred barrels each, and the other two got eighty and fifty barrels, respectively. 6. The inshore mackerel fishery is, to a large extent, within 3 miles of the shore, and I estimate that two-thirds of the mackerel caught by American fishermen on our coasts is taken within 3 miles of the shore; and I have no hesitation in saying that the inshore fishery is of far greater value than the outside, so far as the mackerel are concerned, and the herring fishery is almost altogether 11 shore. 7. Our boat fishery is much hindered by the Americans running in among the boats and drawing the fish off shore by means of throwing bait, and the bait they use is much better than what our fishermen have; thus they are enabled to entice away the fish, as the mackerel will follow the best bait. I think it would be better for our fishermen to have the inshore fisheries to themselves, even if the Americans puta heavy duty on fish. 8. The Americans cannot profitably carry on the cod and other deep- sea fisheries without resorting to our shores for bait, of which they buy a large quantity from our fishermen and merchants. 9. The privilege of fishing in American waters is of no advantage whatever to Canadian fishermen, and I have never heard of Canadians availing themselves of it. _ 10. The spawning and breeding places of the mackerel are principally in shoal water and inshore. I am of opinion that the great gale of 1873 may to some extent have caused the scarcity of mackerel in the gulf during the years 1875 and 1876, by driving out and destroying the small fish on which the mackerel feed. 11. Of late years tae Americans are getting a good many halibut on the shores of Anticosti and near the Seven Islands, in the Lower Saint Lawrence. ROBERT DEAGLE. The said Robert Deagle was sworn to the truth of this affidavit at Harbor au Bouche, in the county of Antigonishe, this 28th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. , EDWARD CORBET, A Justice of the Peace. No. 280. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JAMES CAREY, of Port Mulgrave, in the county of Guysborough > area 2 ea ° and Province of Nova Scotia, fisherman and trader, make oath and say as follows: ee AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1415 1, [have been a practical fisherman for twenty-five years of my life and fishing was my sole employment up to the year 1871, since which time I have been both fishing and trading. I have fished for mackerel all around the shores of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and in Chedabueto Bay. I have been herring fishing at the Magdalens, and on the shores of Labrador and Newfoundland. I have fished for codtish in the Straits of Northumberland. During about ten years of the twenty-tive, | was employed in American fishing-vessels. ; 2. I am of opinion that the American mackerel-fishing fleet up to the year 1874 would average four hundred sails at least each season. In 1875 and 1876 they were not quite so numerous. These vessels carried a crew of about fifteen men each, and the tonnage ranged from tifty to one hundred tons. The American herring fleet has averaged about thirty or forty sails each season. These mackerelers fish all around the Galf of St. Lawrence, and the herring fishers go principally to the Magdalen Islands. 3. The average catch of mackerel per vessel during the whole twenty- five years that I have been acquainted with the fishery has been about five hundred barrels each season, worth from ten to twelve dollars per barrel. The herring fleet catch each season between eight and nine hundred barrels per vessel. 4. I consider the herring fishery about as good as ever it was. The mackerel are a variable fish, and in some years they are scarce, and then become plenty again after a year or two. In 1875 and 1876 they were somewhat scarce, but it is my opinion that they will come in again as plenty as ever they were. 5. The herring are caught almost altogether with seines. The mack- erel are caught principally with hooks and lines, but of late years the American fishermen are using seines also to some extent. 6. Daring the Reciprocity Treaty the American fishermen fished for mackerel toa large extent within three miles of the shore. The herring fishery at the Magdalens is altogether inshore. 7. In my opinion, at least one-half the mackerel are caught within three miles of the shore, and almost all the herring are caught within that distance. e 8. The principal breeding-places of the mackerel are, in my opinion, inshore in shoal water. Their coming inshore in the spring is, I believe, for the purpose of spawning. 9. It is an advantage to the American fishermen who supply the mar- ket with fresh fish to be allowed to procure bait on our shores. It is also very advantageous to them to procure ice on our shores to preserve their bait, and also to procure other supplies on our coasts. _ . The foregeing statements, according to the best of my knowledge and belief, are true in substance and fact. - 118 JAMES + CAREY. mark, The said James Carey was sworn to the truth of this affidavit, the Same having been first read over and explained to him, at Port Mul- grave, in the county of Guysborough, this 30th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES PURCELL, 4 Justice of the l’eace. a 1416 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 281. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, THoMAS PINKHAM, of Booth Bay, in the State of Maine, master mariner, make oath and say as follows: 1. 1 have been engaged in fishing for thirty-four years. I have fished along the American coast down to Cape Harrison in Labrador, and have taken mackerel, codfish, and the fish found on the above-mentioned coasts. I have fished ou the Banks along the above-mentioned coast. Cod fish on the Banks is taken principally by trawling, which I consider a bad method of taking fish, as the mother fish are destroyed, which is not the case in hand-lining. 2. In taking mackerel, purse-seining is employed to a very large ex- tent, which I also consider a bad way of taking mackerel. Large quan- tities are wasted, the schools of fish are broken up and frightened away. This year scarcely any mackerel are taken on the American coast. This I attribute to the large amount of purse-seining that has been done on that shore. 3. We get bait and ice in the Canadian ports to carry on the Bank fishing, which benefits the inhabitants, and enables us to carry on the Bank fishery. THOMAS PINKHAM. Sworn to at Sand Point, in the county of Shelburne, this 24th day of August, A. D., 1877, before me. JOHN PURNEY, J. P. No. 282. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, REUBEN HARLOW, of Shelburne, in the county of Shelburne, mer- chant, make oath and say as follows: 1. Iam the proprietor of an ice-house situated at East Point, in the above-named county. IJ sold two hundred and fifty tons of ice this year and last—one hnndred tons to Canadian vessels and one hundred and fifty to American vessels. About fifteen American vessels have been supplied each year during the two now past. About one hundred have called which have not been supplied. The Americans say it is a very valuable privilege to be allowed to obtain this ice in our ports. REUBEN HARLOW. Sworn to at Shelburne, in the county of Shelburne, this 24th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. JOHN BOWER, J. P. No. 283, n the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. i JUDAH C. SmiTH, of Barrington, at present at Lockeport, in the county of Shelburne, master mariner, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged since the first of May now past in the taking SS SE 2 eee so ee AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1417 of fish by a trap, for the purpose of taking deep-sea fish. At this trap large numbers of vessels are supplied with bait, most of whom are Cane. dian. During the past five days, six American vessels have run here for bait, none of whom we were able to supply. If the Americans do not get bait here they run to other Canadian ports for this bait. for without it they could catch no fish. Since the first of May I have baited eight American vessels, which took, on an average, twenty-five barrels of bait each. Twenty Canadian vessels have been supplied with bait and have taken on an average fifteen barrels each. JUDAH C. SMITH. Sworn to at Lockeport, in the county of Shelburne, this 24th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. : AUSTEN LOCKE, J. P. No. 284. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, AMos H. OUTHOUSE, of Tiverton, in the county of Digby, make oath and say as follows: 1. Have been engaged in the fishing business for thirty years. 2. At least five hundred American vessels from all ports of the United States annually fish for mackerel, codfish, and halibut, in the Bay de Chaleur, and on tke shores of Nova Scotia; this is within my knowledge for the past thirty years. 3. The average quantity of mackerel taken by each American fishing: vessel in the Bay de Chaleur is about three hundred barrels, and seven hundred quintals of codfish. 4, The present condition of the fishery is not as good as in the past, for mackerel, codfish, halibut, berring, hake, and pollock. 5. The Americans use trawls chiefly for codfish and halibut; mackerel by hook and line and seins. 6. Great injury is done to the fishing grounds by the American fish- “ermen throwing overboard offal; it drives the fish from the fishing grounds. 7. American fishermen usually fish close to the shore, and have before and during the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, and before and during the Treaty of Washington, at the Bay de Chaleur and Bay of Fundy. 8. The value of inshore fisheries are more valuable than outside. 9. American fishermen catch bait within three miles from the shores and in the bays, with nets, on the shores of Nova Scotia, to a great extent. 10. Halibut, codfish, haddock, hake, and pollock are caught by the American fishermen in the inshore waters of Canada, and the same kinds of fish are also caught inshore by Canadian fishermen. 11. Since the Treaty of Washington of 1871, the fish have decreased very much in the Bay of Fundy, for the last five years, as much as twenty per cent., which is caused by using trawls. pe ove 12. American fishermen have caused great injury to the fisheries in the Bay of Fundy, by the use of trawls, since the Treaty of Washington. 13. The herring fishery in Canadian waters is greater inshore than out- side, and American fishermen catch herring for bait and for sale in the Bay de Chaleur, Bay of Fundy, and St. Mary’s Bay. 14. Mackerel caught in Canadian waters are as good, if not better, 1418 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. than those caught in American waters; take one year with another, the price would be about the same in the United States market. 15. The opportunity of transshipping cargoes enjoyed by American fishermen since the Treaty of Washington is a great advantage to them. I have known American vessels to make three trips in one season, by transshipping their cargoes at the Bay de Chaleur. 16. It is a great advantage to American fishermen to procure bait in the Canadian inshores, and it is more profitable and causes them less delay to buy it than to catch it. 17. The American fishermen cannot carry on the cod and other fish- eries of the deep sea around ow coasts, without the privilege of resort- ing to our inshores to procure bait, and would have to abandon the business to a great extent if they were deprived of the privilege. 18. It is a great advantage to American fishermen to resort to Cana- dian inshores for ice and other supplies required in their fishery business. 19. The privilege of fishing in American waters is of no practical ad- vantage to Canadian fisherman. I never have known any of our Cana- dian fishermen to make any use of their fishing-grounds. 20. The privilege to each American vessel of procuring bait and trans- shipping cargoes in Canadian inshores, would be at the least one thou- sand dollars. 21. The Americans having free access to our Canadian inshore fisher- ies, and the large quantities of all kinds of fish taken by them, hinders the Canadians from getting as good a market as they would if they had the exclusive right of the inshore fisheries. 7 rue foregoing statement is correct to the best of my knowledge and elief. Captain A. H. OUTHOUSE. Sworn before me at Tiverton, in the county of Digby, this 13th Au- gust, A. D. 1877. JOHN A. SMITH, J. P. No. 285. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty ot Washington. I, JoHN MERCHANT, of Hardwicke, in the county of Northumberland, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been fifteen seasons, or years, engaged in business as a fish- erman in Bay Chaleur, Miramichi Bay, Gaspé, all through the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and all along the shore of Kent Count y; and was also five years as master on board of various American fishing-vessels—say three years in the Oak Grove, two years in King Fisher, both belonging to the port of Belfast, United States. The balance of the fifteen years I was chiefly engaged in small and large vessels of Miramichi Bay and Prince Edward Island, and in different places around our coast. — 2. During the years I was master of Oak Grove and King Fisher, the number of sail would average about 500 sail, would average about fifteen men each, and tonnage about 75; and the places fished were Prince Edward Island, Bay Chaleur, Miramichi Bay, Gaspé; the kind of fish caught, mackerel. ; 3. I would say the average catch during the five years I was fishing was about 400 barrels each vessel, valued about 812 ‘per barrel. 4. Mackerel are as plentiful now as when I fished. ifs va “= “ AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1419 5. Modes chiefly used in capturing mackerel were seining ane jigving . 6. I consider the fishing water injured by throwing overboard offal from mackerel; but offal from codfish is very injurious, as the bones nperaeibi by the mackerel penetrate the fish, causing a large quantity to die. : 6. I would say, two-thirds of the mackerel, during the time I have fished, were caught within the three-mile limit. 7. I consider the inshore fishery of great value to the American fish- ermen, and, in fact, could not do without it. 8. American fishermen still use the seine for taking mackerel. The manner used is: The seine is stretched out and around the school of mackerel, then hauled in together, then scooped out into the boats. I do not think the manner any way injurious, as when they find more than can be cared for, the seine is tripped and the mackerel let go. The seines are used inside the limit the same as other places—in fact, any place where mackerel is seen. ; . 9. Mackerel have not decreased since 1871, as in some places. They are plentiful. The winds and feed is the cause of their scarcity in differ- ent localities. 10. Herring are caught entirely inshore. 11. Mackerel canght in Canadian waters are fully one-third better than caught in American, and bring prices one-third more than Ameri- can mackerel caught in American waters. 12. The food of mackerel is about equally divided within the ‘limit and outside. They feed on shrimps, smelt, fry, and smaller fishes. Their breeding places are around the sheltered bays and estuaries, dur- ing the months of May and June. 13. I consider the privilege to land by American fishermen very great. If deprived of this privilege they could not carry on their business. 14. Itis a great advantage to be allowed to transship cargoes. It saves great loss of time and expense to owners. It enables them to make two trips during the season, sometimes three; and once | knew of five shipments of two hundred and fifty barrels each. 15. I consider it a great advantage to be enabled to buy bait from Canadian fishermen, and much easier and more profitable than fishing . for it, as the bait is not procurable always when wanted. 16. It is considered impossible to carry on deep-sea fishing in Cana- _ dian waters without being enabled either to catch or buy the bait in- shore. 17. I consider the privilege of fishing in American waters of no valae to Canadian fishermen. I never knew of a Canadian fisherman resort- ing to American waters to fish. 18. I have known instances where United States citizens have car ried on considerable trade with the inhabitants of the localities where they fish. 19. Do not consider that it hinders the operation of Canadian fisher: men. J. S. MERCHANT. ‘Sworn to before me, at Hardwicke, this 14th day of August, 1504.) ALEXANDER MILLS, Jd. P. Be 1420 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 286. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, WALLACE TRASK, of Little River, in the county of Digby, fisher- man, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in fishing for twelve years now past, and am still so engaged, altogether on the inshore groundsin this countv. I fish trom close inshore to off six miles, and catch most of the fish I take within three miles of the shore. I fish every year on the north and south side of Digby Neck, and take codfish, haddock, hake, pollock, halibut, and herring, the latter principally for bait. 2. On the north side of Digby Neck, the place at which we fish is called Whale Cove; on the south side the port is called Little River. 3. At Whale Cove I have counted forty sail of fishing-vessels at one time, in the latter part of June; most of these vessels were American, from the State of Maine. These American vessels are from five to forty tons each, and carry from five to twelve men on each vessel. They take tish altogether by trawling, and do so close inshore among our boats, within three miles of the shore. 4. These American vessels set their nets for bait inshore, close in to the shore, and so many of them take up the grounds and carry away the bait from us. o. These American vessels take from two to six hundred quintals of fish to each vessel. They throw their gurry overboard on our inshore boat grounds, and sometimes among our nets. 6; eg fishermen all bring their gurry inshore, in order to protect the grounds. 7. At Little River, on the south side of Digby Neck, from fifteen to twenty American vessels have fished inshore for the same kinds of fish as we take. They set their nets for bait, and throw “‘gurry” overboard on the inshore grounds. 8. Since 1871 the Americaus have come upon our inshore grounds and interfered with our fishing. 9. American vessels come around here with purse seines for mackerel. WALLACE TRASK. Sworn to at Little River, in the county of Digby, this 1st day of Sep- tember, A. D. 1877, before me. ds W.- DEN TONG dine. NO; 287; In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, GEORGE E. MosLey, of Tiverton, in the county of Digby, fisher- man, make oath and say as follows: , 1, I have been engaged in fishing for twenty years now past, and am still so engaged. . I fish from inshore to offshore three miles, and take codfish, haddock, hake, pollock, halibut, and herring, the latter princi- pally for bait. 2. From eight to ten American vessels come here on our inshore grounds on which we fish, and trawl for the same kind of fish that we do. They have come on our inshore grounds since 1871. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1421] 3. These American vessels are from nine to sixty tons each, an from eight to ten men each. These American vessels carry aw hundred quintals of fish each. . 4. They set their nets for bait on our inshore grounds, which interferes very much with the setting of our nets, as they take up the ground and take the bait away fromus. They keep their nets set both day and night a whole week at a time. aad 5. They throw overboard their offal from their fish on our inshore grounds, which is very injurious to our grounds. Our fishermen, of which there are about two hundred out of this place, bring their gurry inshore on the gurry-grounds set apart for this purpose—both boats and vessels. There are from eight to ten vessels, from fifteen to twenty five tons, engaged in fishing out of this port, besides a large number of boats. The vessels bring their gurry ashore, having kids on board to keep the gurry. 6. Large numbers of Americans come into St. Mary’s Bay every spring for fish. Thirty at least come and trawl around here for all the knds of fish found in St. Mary’s Bay. American vessels also come with purse-seines on board for mackerel. 1 carry ay four GEORGE E. MOSLEY. Sworn to at Tiverton, in the county of Digby, this Ist day of Septem- ber, A. D. 1877, before me. JOHN A. SMITH, J. P. No. 288. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, uuder the Treaty of Washington. I, CHARLES H. PAYSON, of Westport, in the county of Digby, mer- chant, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have during three years now past supplied American vessels with ice—about thirty tons each year, and about twenty tons to Canadian vessels. These vessels use this to preserve their (? bait); and with this ice and bait they fish on the coast along here. ©. He PAYSON. Sworn to at Westport, in the county of Digby, this 3lst day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. H. E. PAYSON, J. P., County of Digby. No. 289. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, ELEAZAR CROWELL, of Clarke’s Harbor, in the county of Shel. burne, merchant, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in the buying and selling of fish for twenty years. I have gone fishing for seventeen years, mustly in the inshore fisheries in this county. Sean 2. Large numbers of American vessels run in here for bait. Thes come and go here every week. With the bait the Americans get here _ they trawl for codfish and halibut. 1422 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3. Around this harbor large quantities of mackerel are taken, princi- pally in traps, and the Americans purchase them for bait. The selling of these mackerel to Americans is of no advantage to us, as we can sell them in other markets. Thousands of barrels of mackerel are taken around in this vicinity; aS many as six thousand barrels at least last year were taken. The mackerel taken in here bring better prices in ‘American markets than the mackerel taken in American waters. I have been informed of Americans being interested in traps for mackerel around here. The Americans purchase the most of their bait here, be- cause by so doing they save time. All the American vessels which run here carry nets to catch bait. 4, American vessels run in here and sell their small fish; by so doing they are enabled to purchase bait and supplies, and carry home a cargo of large and valuable fish. The Americans run in here for supplies when they run short, sometimes for salt; by so doing they are greatly benefited. 5. The trawling carried on by the Americans on the Banks off the shore is, in my opinion, very injurious to the fisheries. Trawling has been carried on to a considerable extent lately by our fishermen. They have been compelled to do so, in order to compete with the Americans 6. The Americans also get large quantities of herring here for bait. These herring are all taken inshore within three miles of the shore. On this island there is a population of over two thousand, and there are upwards of four hundred boats engaged in fishing around this island. Many of these boats take one bundred and seventy-five quintals of fish each. ELEAZAR CROWELL, Merchant. Sworn to before me this 27th day of August, 1877. DG. DALEY, Sik. No. 290. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, DANIEL V. KENNY, of Cape Sable Island, in the County of Shel- burne, fisherman, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged in the fisheries for twenty years now past, mostly in the inshore fisheries in Shelburne County, and have been en- gaged in American vessels in Bank fishing from 1870 to 1874. We got our bait in Canadian ports, and we could not have carried on the Bank fishing successfully unless we got this bait in Canadian ports inshore. When fishing in the American vessels we took codfish on the Banks by trawling, which I consider very injurious to the fisheries, as it destroys the spawn fish. When fishing in the American vessels we trawled in- shore around Cape Breton, on Anticosti, and around Newfoundland within three miles of the shore. In getting bait our supply is interfered with by American vessels, as they often gobble up the bait from us and make it dearer. DANIEL V. KENNY. Sworn to at Cape Sable Island, in the county of Shelburne, this 27th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. DGC DADEY 5.2: oan AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1423 No. 291. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, GILBERT MERRITT, of Sandy Cove, in the county of Digby, fish- erman, make oath and say as follows: : . 1. I have for seven years now past been engaged in fishing in this county all inshore, off to six miles from the shore. The most of the fish I take is within three miles of the shore. I take codtish, haddock, hake, pollock, halibut, and herring; the latter principally for bait. 2. Since 1871, large numbers of American vessels come round here to fish, and fish upon our inshore grounds, within three miles of the shore. In this harbor many American vessels come. I have seen here this last spring from eight to ten American fishing vessels at one time. They buy and catch bait. They catch more than they buy by setting their nets inshore, within three miles of the shore. 3. These American vessels which come here are from ten up to sixty tons each, and carry from six to twelve men, and are fitted out to take from one hundred to four hundred quintals each. They generally take full fares. 4, The American vessels which get bait here fish in this bay (St. Mary’s), which is here only five miles across. . 5. Last summer and this American purse-seiners were here for mack- erel, and have hove their seines and taken them here. 6. Out of this port there are twenty-seven boats engaged in fishing inshore, and three vessels which fish part of the time off-shore. These boats and vessels carry seventy-four men, and bring their gurry inshore and use it on their farms for manure. The Americans who fish around here on our inshore grounds throw their gurry overboard, which is very injurious to the grounds, 7. Inside Sandy Cove and the outside Sandy Cove, the latter being on the Bay of Fundy, from eight to ten American vessels fish on our inshore grounds every year. These vessels are of the descriptiou already stated. 4 GILBERT MERRITT. Sworn to, at Sandy Cove, in the county of Digby, this 1st day of Sep- tember, A. D. 1877, before me. SAMUEL SAUNDERS, J. P. No. 292. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty : of Washington. 1, CHARLES W. DENTON, of Little River, in the county of Digby, fishermen, make oath and say as follows: 1. Ihave been engaged in fishing on the inshore grounds in Digby County for seven years, and am still so engaged. I have always taken the most of my fish within three miles of the shore, and have taken ‘codfish, haddock, hake, pollock, and halibut—herring we take princi- pally for bait. : -2. On the north side of Digby Neck, the place at which we fish Is called “* Whale Cove”; on the south side of Digby Neck the port is called “ Little River.” 1424 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3. At Whale Cove I have counted forty sail of vessels in June last, the most of whom were American, all engaged in fishing inshore, within three miles of the shore. These American vessels are mostly from the State of Maine. They are from five to forty tons each. They carry from five to twelve men on eash vessel. They take fish altogether by trawl- ing, and do so close inshore among our boats within three miles of the shore. At Whale Cove there are upwards of sixty Digby fishermen engaged in fishing, and there would be more if the Americans were not allowed to fish on our inshore grounds. These American vessels set * their nets for bait inshore, close in to the shore, and so many of them take up the grounds and carry away the bait from us. 4. These American vessels take from two to six hundred quintals of fish to each vessel. They throw their gurry overboard on our inshore grounds and sometimes among our nets. 5. Our fishermen bring their gurry all inshore in order to protect the grounds. 6. At Little River, on the south side of Digby Neck, where we com- mence fishing in April and fish until June, then going to Whale Cove, from fifteen to twenty American vessels fish inshore for the same kinds of fish as we do. They set their nets for bait, and throw gurry over- board on the inshore grounds within three miles of the shore. 7. American vessels come around here with purse-seines for mackerel, and I have heard they took two hundred barrels in one day. CHARLES W. DENTON. Sworn to at Little River, in the county of Digby, this lst day of September, A. D. 1877, before me. ov. Wa DENTON aime. No. 293. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JosepH E. DENTON, of Little River, in the county of Digby, fish- erman, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in fishing for 15 years now past, and am still so engaged altogether on the inshore grounds in this county, going off sometimes six miles from the shore. I fish every year on the north and south side of Digby Neck, and take codfish, haddock, hake, pollock, halibut, and herring; the latter principally for bait. 2. On the north side of Digby Neck, the port at which we fish is ee , Whale Cove”; on the south side the port is called “ Little iver. _3. At Whale Cove I have counted forty sail of fishing vessels at one time, in the latter part of June, most of whom were American vessels from the State of Maine. These American vessels are from five to forty tons each, and carry from five to twelve men on each vessel. They take fish altogether by trawling, and do so close inshore among our boats. 4. These American vessels set their nets for bait, and so many of them take up the grounds and carry away the bait from us. + 5. These American vessels take from two to six hundred quintals of ' fish to each vessel. 6. These American vessels throw their gurry overboard on our inshore grounds, within three miles of the shore, among the nets sometimes. 7. Our fishermen bring their gurry on shore in order to protect the. grounds. SS gee AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1425 8. At Little River, on the south side of Digby Neck, from fifteen to twenty American vessels have fished inshore for the same kinds of fish as we have fished. They have set their nets for bait, and thrown their gurry overboard on the inshore grounds. 9. Since 1871 the Americans have come on our inshore grounds, and this sammer more numerously than ever before. : 10. American vessels come around here with purse-seines for mackerel and one is said to have taken two hundred barrels of mackerel in one day within three miles of the shore. The bay here is only six miles across. I mean by the bay, St. Mary’s Bay. JOSEPH E. DENTON, Sworn to at Little River, in the county of Digby, this 1st day of Sep- tember, A. D. 1877, before me. i J. W. DENTON, J. P. No. 294. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treat y of Washington. I, Joon McKAy, of Tiverton, in the county of Digby, master mariner, make oath and say as follows: _ 1. [have been engaged in the fisheries in this vicinity for ten years, and am well acquanted with the fisheries around St. Mary’s Bay. We take around this bay codfish, haddock, hake, pollock, balibut and herring, mostly all within three miles of the shore. 2. Large numbers of Americans come around here since eighteen hun- ' dred and seventy-one, and have fished on our inshore grounds. They have also set their nets for bait in this harbor and around here withiu three miles of the shore, which interferes with our supply to a large ex- tent. 3. From eight to ten American vessels fish around this harbor on our inshore ground, aud from twenty to thirty at least in St. Mary’s _ Bay. These are from the vessels in this harbor and in St. Mary’s Bay, are from ten tons to sixty tons, and carry from five to twelve men. (Sic.) 4. So many Americans coming here interferes with our inshore fishery to a large extent, by taking away the fish from us, by trawling aud catching bait, and throwing overboard their gurry. 5. Our boats and vessels bring their gurry ashore on to gurry grounds _ Set apart for this purpose. 6. American vessels come here every year with purse-seines for mack- erel. JOHN McKAY. Sworn to at Tiverton, in the county of Digby, this 1st day of Sep- tember, A. D. 1877, before me. JOHN A. SMITH, J. P. No. 295. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, WHITEFIELD OvTHOUSE, of Tiverton, in the county of Digby, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1, I have been engaged in fishing inshore in this county for thirty 90 F 1426 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. years now past, and am still so engaged. I fish from inshore, off to three miles, and there are about fifty boats here so engaged. We take codfish, haddock, hake, and pollock, and herring, the latter principally for bait. 2. From eight to ten American vessels since 1871 come here on our inshore grounds, and take fish in our harbor, and within three miles ot the shore. These vessels are from nine to sixty tons, and carry from five to nine men each. They take fish mostly by trawling. They trawl in this harbor close inshore. They get bait by setting their nets, which interferes very much with the inhabitants here, as they take up the grounds so that we find it difficult to get a place for our nets, and take away the bait from us. They set their nets Saturday, and keep them set on Sunday, which the inhabitants here do not. They keep their nets set during the day-time, which is injurious to the herring fishery. 3. The Americans here throw their “‘gurry” overboard, which our small vessels and boats do not do. We have a gurry ground here laid out, where our fishermen throw their “ gurry.” 4. There are eight vessels owned here which fish off to four or five miles from the shore, and from that into the shore. These vessels are from fifteen to twenty-five tons each, and carry from six to ten men. These vessels take on an average each year eight hundred quintals of fish each, and bring all their gurry inshore. 5. Every spring, from 1871, American vessels, at least thirty sail, come into St. Mary’s Bay, and around here, and trawl for fish, which, is a great injury tous fishermen. These vessels come mostly trom East- port, Me. Every summer American vessels come here with seines— purse-seines—for mackerel. WHITEFIELD OUTHOUSE. Sworn to at Tiverton, in the county of Digby, this 1st day of Septem- ber, A. D. 1877, before me. JOHN A. SMITH, J. P. No. 296. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Joun W. Snow, of Digby, in the county of Digby, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in the fisheries for thirteen years now past, and am still so engaged. 1 fish in Annapolis Basin and in the Bay of Fundy. I take fish within three miles of the shore; codfish, haddock, pollock, hake, halibut, and herring, the latter principally for bait, and get this herring all inshore, within three miles of the shore. 4. Since 1871 I have seen in this harbor at one time from eight to ten American vessels, These vessels come here to harbor and for bait. They set their nets here in Annapolis Basin and along the Bay of Fundy. They all set their nets for bait inshore, the same as our own fishermen. With this bait they trawl for fish both inshore and off shore around the coast ip this vicinity. 3. These American vessels which fish around here throw all their ‘ gurry ” overboard, which is a great injury to our fisheries. 4, Since 1871 American purse-seiners come around our inshore grounds for mackerel. There were two American purse-seiners in this harbor this summer. ee ee eer a, ae 5. The American vessels which come around here nearly all trawl, | A on EP Ga eI a ecm ey AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1427 which is a very injurious way of taking fish. Our fishermen have commenced trawling to any considerable extent within the now past, and have been compelled to do so iu order to con the Americans. only two years Ipete with JOHN W. SNOW, Sworn to at Digby, in. the county of Digby, this 3d day of Septe A. D. 1877, before me, ; y eptember, JOHN DAKIN, J. P. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. ‘ I, JAMES PATTERSON FOSTER, of Port Williams, in the county of Annapolis, merchant and dealer in fish, make oath and say as follows: 1, I have been acquainted with the fisheries along the coast of this county for twenty-five years now past, and am at present acquainted with them. 2. I have dealt in codfish, hake, and herrings. 3. Since 1871, about half a dozen American vessels come in here, principally for bait, which they get by setting their nets inshore within three miles of the shore, mostly within a mile of the shore. This num- ber have come here every year since 1871. Some of them take cargoes of herring. ' * 4. Some of these American vessels take from four to five hundred bar- rels of herring around this port and in this vicinity inshore within a mile of the shore; at least four or five do so every year since 1871. These American vessels are from twenty to fifty tons each. 5. The herring taken in this vicinity range in price from two to four dollars per barrel. _ 6, The American vessels fish off shore beyond three miles from the shore for codfish, haddock, hake, halibut, and pollack, and get the bait which enables them to do so inshore by setting their nets for it. _%. The American vessels which fish around here come early in April, and remain until the last of August. , 8, It would be a great advantage to the fishermen in this vicinity and along the coast of Aunapolis County if the Americans were excluded from our inshore grounds, as they take large quantities of herring for bait, and also cargoes of herring from our inshore grounds, and injure our inshore grounds by throwing “ gurry” overboard. 9. I have never known nor heard of any of our fishermen going to fish on the American coast, and this right given us by the Treaty of - Washington is of no value to us. JAMES P. FOSTER. Sworn to at Port Williams, in the county of Annapolis, this 6th day of September, A. D. 1877, before me. a JOHN ANTHONY, | Justice of Peace, Acting in and for the County of Annapolis, No. 298. Tn the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. za t, Byron P. Lapp, of Yarmouth, in the county of Yarmouth, mer- chant, make oath and say as follows: _. 1, [have been engaged in trading and outfitting fishermen for the 1428 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. last twenty-five years; at Westport from 18438 to 1870, the remainder in Yarmouth. é 2, The fishing by American vessels in Canadian waters varies very much from year to year; from fifteen to twenty vessels yearly usually. put in at Westport for supplies, &c.; during my residence there, have known years when mackerel were plenty ; as many as seventy or eighty vessels fishing in St. Mary’s Bay; the number of American vessels in other waters on the Canadian shores, I have no personal knowledge. 3. There is an improvement in the inshore cod fishery for the past four years. 4, American fishermen use trawls chiefly for cod-fishing, seines and hook and line for mackerel, nets for herring. 5. I consider the value of the inshore fisheries much greater than the outside, particularly for mackerel. G. American fishermen use purse-seines, and they are considered very injurious to the mackerel fishery. 7. American fishermen yearly catch codfish, halibut, hake, haddock and mackerel on the inshores of Nova Scotia. 8. Americans buy herring for bait from our inshore fishermen. Do not think they fish very much for them. 9. My opinion is that the mackerel caught in the Bay de Chaleur are better than those caught in American waters, and would command a higher price in the American markets. 10, Mackerel feed inshore. 11. lt is avery great advantage to American fishermen to land their fish in Canadian waters. 12. The privilege of transshipping cargoes of fish by Americans in Canadian waters is very great, particularly the mackerel fishery; it enables them to prosecute that fishery to much greater advantage and profit. 13. It is more profitable to the Americans to buy bait when they can; they only fish for it when they cannot buy it. 14. The Americans could not carry on the cod fishery with any profit enon having access to our Canadi .n inshores to procure bait and other supplies. 15. The privilege of fishing in American waters is of no practical value or advantage in any way to Canadian fishermen. The foregoing statement is true and correct to the best of my knowl- edge and belief. BYRON P. LADD. Sworn before me at Yarmouth, in the county of Yarmouth, this 10th day of September, A. D. 1877. ENOS GARDNER, J. P. No. 299. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, ABRAM THURSTON, of Sanford, in the county of Yarmouth, fish- erman, make oath and say as follows: 1. Have been engaged shore-fishing for the last twenty-eight years, mostly boat-fishing for codfish, halibut, pollock, herring, and mackerel. _ 2. Inshore boat-fishing for halibut and codfish is not as good as it was in the past; haddock are much more plenty; berring are aboutthe same; mackerel are much more plenty, particularly the present year. The in- crease iu the catch of mackerel is very large in the county of Yarmouth. Neen AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1429 3. I believe that the practice of throwing fish offal on th grounds is very injurious, and is practiced to a large extent. 4. Some few years ago American fishermen fished close in to our shores in the Bay of Fundy for halibut. 5. The value of the inshore fisheries are much greater value than the outside. 6. American fishermen catch halibut in the inshore waters of Canada: they catch some codfish inshore. Halibut, codfish, haddock, hake aud pollack are caught inshore by Canadian fishermen. 7. I can only speak of the locality in which I reside for boat fishing, mostly since 1871. Codfish are not so plenty; halibut has also de. ereased ; and my opinion is that trawliag in the past by American fish. ermen, and some also by our own fishermen, have injured the halibut fishery very much. 8. The food of mackerel is chiefly inshore. The first mackerel that comes on our shores are full of spawn; their principal feeding and breed- ing places are inshore. 9. Should think the privilege of transshipping cargoes enjoyed by American fishermen since the Treaty of Washington is a very great ad- vantage to them; it would certainly allow them to catch more fish and make more trips. 10. It is a very great advantage to Americans to be able to procure bait in the Canadian inshore bays, creeks, and harbors, and it is more profitable for them to buy it than catch it themselves. I supplied two American vessels with fresh mackerel for bait this present year for e fishing $120. 11. I do not consider or believe that the American fishermen could earry on the deep-sea fisheries around our Canadian coasts without the privilege of resorting to our inshores to procure bait. 12. It is a great advantage to Americans to resort to Canadian in- shores for ice to preserve bait and other supplies to carry on their fish- ery business. 13. The privilege of fishing in American waters is no practical value or advantage to Canadian fishermen ; do not believe our fishermeu make any attempt to fish in the American waters. + 14. I know that it must be very much to the advantage of American fishermen to procure bait and transship cargoes in Canadian inshores, but cannot give an estimate of the value. 15. American fishermen in their operations do not hinder Canadian fishermen, but the large quantities of fish caught by them would cer- tainly make a lower market for Canadian fish than if they were ex- cluded from our inshores. The foregoing statement is true and correct, to the best of my knowl. edge and belief. ; ABRAM THURSTON, - Sworn before me at Sanford, in the county of Yarmouth, this Sth day of September, A. D. 1877. ee ENOS GARDNER, J. P. No. 300. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. ‘I, SaMuEL M. Ryerson, of Yarmouth, in the county of Yarmouth, merchant, make oath and say as follows: 1. [have been engaged since 1861 in outfitting fishermen for cod, 1430 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. mackerel, and herring fishery, and am at present engaged in that busi- ness as one of the firm of Ryerson & Moses to a small extent. 2, I know that there are several hundred American vessels yearly en- gaged in fishing in Canadian waters; they average from ten to fifteen men per vessel. They fish in the Bay of Fundy and St. Mary’s Bay for codfish, halibut, and mackerel. 3. They take from 800 to 1,500 quintals codfish per trip. Halibut is taken to their market in ice in small quantities ; cannot give estimate of mackerel trip, as their fares are generally carried to their ports with- out stopping here. 4. The American fishermen use trawls mostly for codfish, halibut, and haddock; mackerel on the Nova Scotia shores are mostly taken by seines by them. 5. Most of the mackerel caught on the Canadian inshores are caught close inshore, from half a mile to three miles from shore. The Ameri- cans catch large quantities of halibut inshore, from one to three miles from the shore. 6. The value of the inshore fisheries are as valuable as the outside ; for bait they would be more valuable. 7. I know that American fishermen use purse-seines for taking mack- erel, and have taken large quantities in that way, and they are very in- jurious to the fishery wherever they are used. 8. I know that American fishermen set their nets along our shores for the purpose of catching bait, and get all they require. 9. Large quantities of halibut, codfish, pollack, haddock, hake, and mackerel are caught by American fishermen in the inshore waters of Canada; the same are caught inshore by Canadian fishermen. 10. There has been a large increase in the eod fishery since 1871. Mackerel has also increased in the county of Yarmouth the past few years. 11. I American fishermen had been prohibited from fishing in Cana- dian waters, the Canadian fishermen would have probably caught double the quantity. 12. The herring fishery in Canadian waters is nearly all inshore. American fishermen catch herring for bait; they buy them for sale. 13. I do not think there is any difference in the quality of the mack- erel caught in the Canadian or American waters, and the value in their markets would be about the same. © 14. The mackerel follow the shores and feed. 15. It is a great advantage to American fishermen to transship their cargoes at Canso; it enables them to catch two fares during the fishing season. 16. American fishermen could not carry on their fisheries, or make profitable voyages, without the privilege of buying and catching bait from the Canadian inshores. 17. It is a great advantage to Americans to have the privilege of pur- chasing ice to preserve their bait from Canadian inshores, large quanti- ties of which is furnished to American fishermen during the fishing season. They also employ large numbers of our men for crews, which they also find is greatly to their advantage. 18. Do not think Canadian fishermen use American waters for fishing rd olga it is of no practical use, our own fishery being so much etter. 19. Should think the privilege to American fishermen procuring bait and being allowed to transship their cargoes in Canadian inshores would be ut least from six to eight hundred dollars per vessel yearly. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1431 20. I do think that fishing by American fishermen hinders the fishing operations of Canadian fishermen. Our vessels would take many more fish if they had the exclusive right to the inshore Canadian fisheries. 21. Our fishermen are employed largely by American fishermen, and take their supplies in American ports. The American vessels land the goods to the families of the fishermen without paying duties, and in the fall the wages are mostly expended for supplies, which come over in some of our coasters, aud landed in the same way. The foregoing statement is true and correct, to the best of my knowl- edge and belief. : SAMUEL M. RYERSON, Sworn before me at Yarmouth, in the county of Yarmouth, this 11th day of September, A. D. 1877. ENOS GARDNER, J. P. No. 301. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, ROBERT S. EAKINS, jr., of Yarmouth, in the county of Yarmouth, merchant, make oath and say as follows : 1. Referring to my memorandum made 12th August, 1873, as then I have some indirect knowledge of the fisheries from 1865 to L876. ; 2. The extent of American fisheries in Canadian waters during the (11) eleven years from 1865 to 1876 was very great; I should say from 1,000 to 1,500 vessels from all ports of the New England States fished in Canadian waters, averaging about twelve men to each vessel, during years 1865 to 1870. 3. The quantity of fish usually average, if codfish, two thousand quin- tals; if part of year codfish, fourteen hundred quintals; balance year mackerel, three hundred barrels for trip. 4, As far as my knowledge goes, the American vessels usually trawl their codfish, halfbut, and haddock partly in our waters and partly out- side. The mackerel are principally caught in seines, purse seines, dressed on board the vessels, the offal being thrown overboard. 5. For mackerel, in Bay de Chaleur they always fish with hook and line, or used to, during the years I named, and always inshore, quite close to the land, near Magdalen Islands, Prince Edward Island, Cape Breton, and Nova Scotia. 6. I should say the value of the shore fisheries was much greater than outside, more especially for mackerel fishing. 7. The American fishermen use purse seines, by means of large boats Sweep it around a school of mackerel, draw in the bottom, and have the fish in a sort of large bag, from which they are taken on board the vessel and dressed at leisure. : F 8. American fishermen yearly catch more or less fish inshore tn our water, such as halibut, codfish, and haddock, besides mackerel, which are alomst entirely caught inshore. 9. Do not think the Americans trouble themselves mach about cateh- ing herrings; they buy them when they can from our people for batt. 10. We formerly considered our Bay de Chaleur mackerel the best a America, but for some years past the quality has not been so good as formerly. I have known our mackerel to sell by the cargo in the United States at $26 per barrel gold in the years 1859 and 1860. 11. I am of the opinion that the mackerel feed principally inshore. 1432 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 12. It is considered a great advantage to American fishermen that they are allowed to fish, land and dry their nets, and cure and transship their fish in the Canadian inshores. 13. The transshipping of cargoes by Americans has been carried on for many years and much to their advantage, as it allows them to make more trips for the fish during the season. This 1 think is principally done in the mackerel-fishery department. 14. The Americans, while cod fishing, buy large quantities of bait from the Canadians. They only take time to catch bait when they can- not buy it to advantage. 15. 1t would seriously injure the American fisheries if they were pre- vented from using our shores to buy bait and catch it. 16. It is considered a great benefit to the American fishermen that they have the privilege of procuring ice to preserve their fish, and to procure supplies such as trawl-lines and hooks, which they often lose; also to procure other articles and salt. 17. I never kuew of an instance where our people fish in waters of the United States. 18. Could not say what value would accrue to American vessels by being allowed to procure bait and transshbip fish, but it must be very considerable, perhaps from $400 to $300 to every vessel making use of these privileges. 19. Cannot say that Americans being allowed to fish in our waters prevents our fishermen in their general operations, except that it affords larger and more valuable cargoes to be taken by the Americans than they would get were they deprived of our fisheries ; and the catch being by them large, generally reduces the price of fish, which, of course, in- jures our fishermen indirectly. The foregoing statement is true and correct to the best of my knowl- edge and belief. ROBERT S. EAKINS, JR. Sworn before me, at Yarmouth, in the county of Yarmouth, this 11th day of September, A. D. 1877. ENOS GARDNER, J. P. No. 302. DOMINION OF CANADA, Province of Prince Edward Island, Queen’s County, to wit: I, DANIEL Ross, of North Rustico, in the said island aud Dominion, fish-merchant, make oath and say: 1. That I reside at North Rustico, in Prince Edward Island, and have resided and carried on the fishery business there for the past eleven years, previously to which I had, for about six years, been engaged in the fishery business as an employé of Captain Marshall and others. 2. That my knowledge of the fishing business, as carried on at and near Rustico, covers a period of about twenty years. 3. That, during the past eleven years, while carrying on business for myself, | have owned each year four or five boats, and employed about thirty men each season. 4. That the average catch per season of my boats has been about one acaba barrels of mackerel each, and each boat takes a crew of about ve men. 5. That 1 myself am a practical fisherman, and engage personally in the catching and curing as well as in the sale of the fish. (a AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1433 - 6. That the best mackerel-fishing is about one mile or one mile and a half from the coast-line of the shore, and very frequently the best catehes are made much closer to the shore than that. 7. That the mackerel-fishing prosecuted in boats from the shore is chiefly within the limits of two miles. At times the schools of mackerel go farther out, extending as far as three miles and and beyond that : but I have no hesitation in positively swearing that at least nine-tenths (9-10ths) of the mackerel caught by the boat-fishermen are taken within the three-mile limit. 8. I have known good catches to be taken as much as five miles from shore in the fall of the year, but that is a very rare occurrence, 9. The American fishing-fleet are frequently, during the season, fish- ing off Rustico shore. The fleet follow the schools of mackerel, and con- sequently fish within the limits of three miles, but I have never fished on board any of them. When ont fishing in my boats, however, I have found the fleet frequently all round us prosecuting the work and eatch- ing the fish. With an off-shore wind they approach as closely to the shore as they can with safety, and then throw bait and drift off, cateh- ing fish all the time and drawing the fish off shore to sea. Sometimes they would drift away from the school, and then beat up to windward and again drift over the school. This practice is adopted within the three-mile limits, and it is with reference to these limits alone I am now speaking. 10. My experience has been that the presence of the fishing fleet tends to break up the schools of mackerel, and our fishing is consequently in- jared. I mean the boat-fishing. The boat-fishers all look upon the ar- rival of the fleet among them as the signal for good fishing to cease. One cause is that too much bait is thrown from the vessels; and the boats which are anchored have to make way for the vessels which are drifting. It’s universally looked upon among the shore-fishermen as a great injury and loss when the fleet arrives to fish among them. 11. In the month of May, from the opening of navigation till about the 10th of June, I prosecute with dories the herring-fishery. ‘These her- rings are all taken within about half a mile from the shore. My aver- age catch of herrings per season would be a little over one hundred bar- _ vels. These herring are used by me for mackerel, and such is the cus- tom all around the shores. If put up in barrels for sale they are worth about $3 a barrel. 12. As soon as the herring fishery is over we fit up our large boats for the codfish and follow them. My catch is small, averaging per season from one to two hundred quintals. This would be the catch of my five boats. The cod-fishing lasts from one month to five weeks, or until the mackerel strike, and then we at ouce turn our attention to mackerel, which we follow the rest of the season. DANIEL ROSS. ' Sworn to at Charlottetown this 18th day of June, A. D., 1877, before Ihe, : JAMES D. IRVING, Commissioner, &c. No. 303. _I, Jonn ARtTEmMAS McLEoD, of Kensington, in Prince County, in Prince Edward Island, merchant and fish dealer, make oath and say: _ 1, That I have been engaged in fishing since the year 1867, both in _ Vessels and boats, and know the fishing grounds from Boone Bay, New- 1434 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. foundland, round this island, Cape Breton, New Brunswick shores, and up the St. Lawrence to Seven Islands Bay, and the Labrador shore, Newfoundland from Boone Bay to Cape Ray. 2. That, at the present time and for five years past, I have been engaged in fishing at New London Harbor, and there are about one hun- dred and fifty boats engaged in fishing out of that harbor and round the sand hills and beach, and the number is increasing fast and has doubled within the last year; and three years ago there were not more than thirty boats where the hundred and fifty are now. The boats are now larger, better built, and equipped, and, in fact, superior in every way to what they were three years ago. I should say, from my own actual know]l- edge as an owner and employer of boats, that the capital invested in the boat fishing has increased from fifteen to twenty fold in New London and neighborhood during the last three years. Where three years ago I could sell one hundred bushels of salt for curing fish, I can now sell five thousand bushels, and where I had five hundred dollars invested then I have ten thousand invested now. Three years ago there was only one fishing-stage doing business on New London beach—doing business with three boats —and now there are eleven stages doing busi- ness on the beach, giving employment to about fifty boats and about two bundred and fifty men. 3. That the causes of the increase in the boat-fishing is that men found it paid, and that they could make money easier in that than in any other way; it also gives employment to the men at home, as there is a surplus population growing up who have no lands for farming, and who are able to find remunerative employment in boat-fishing, while they would not be able to get employment in other ways without leaving the country. 4, That the average crews of the boats, taking one with another, are about four men to each boat, clear of the stage and shore men. There is generally one stageman employed for every boat. Besides these, there are also coopers, cooks, and clerks, and sometimes inspectors em- ployed, the number of whom vary, and it would be difficult to give an estimate of their number, although they are a good number. 5. That the boats, as a rule, catch about ten quintals of codfish before the mackerel come, and when the mackerel strike, the boats, taking small and large together, catch, on an average, one hundred barrels of mackerel each during the season, worth about $1,000. 6. That nine-tenths of our mackerel are caught within one and one- half miles from the shore, and I may say the whole of them are caught within three miles of the shore. There may be an odd catch of mack- erel got more than three miles from shore, but that does not often happen. The greater part of the codfish caught by hand-line are caught at from two to five miles from the shore, and all the codfish caught by the trawl or set lines are caught within three miles from the shore. There are no mackerel or codfish at all caught by the boats outside of the three-mile limit—that is, outside of a line drawn from points three miles off the headlands ; while the herring are all caught close inshore, within two mniles of the shore. 7. That I have fished about five years in the bay, in schooners. I fished in five British vessels in the bay, and in one American. I was master of four of the British vessels, and I was master of the American vessel after we cleared from Boston. An American had to clear her out of Boston. 8. That in the British vessels 1 have taken, on an average, three hundred barrels of mackerel each year. =— AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1435 9. That in the year 1870 I fished in the American schooner Ida EF Davis, of Harwich, in the United States, a schooner of about fifty tons burden, and carrying thirteen hands. In her we were out about two months, or about half or two-thirds of the mackerel season, and caught two hundred and thirty barrels of mackerel. Nine-tenthsof these mack- erel were caught within two miles of the shores of the Magdalen Islands and of this island. The Dominion cutters were round that year, and we risked the vessel and outfit in order to fish near the shore. The outfit belonged to me. 10. That it would not be worth while for vessels to fit out for the bay fishing if she could not fish within three miles of the shore. During the five years that I was fishing in schooners I never saw a schoouer get a good catch more than three miles from the shore. 11. That I should put the average catch of the American schooners in the bay during the last ten years, at the least, at from three to four hundred barrels of mackerel each. 12. That the American schooners do harm to our boat-fishing, be- cause, when they see the boats getting fish, they come in and drift down upon and lee-bow the boats, taking the fish away. They come iushore and drift down on the boats, and off the shore, throwing bait aud carry- ing the fish off with them. The boats have often to get under way to avoid being run down by the schooners drifting. When the American fleet comes, fishermen look upon their arrival as the end of the good fishing. They break up the boat-fishing ; they also do harm by cléan- ing their fish on the fishing grounds and throwing the offal overboard. Fish will not stay on the grounds when the offal has been thrown over. 13. That I have been engaged for seven years herring-fishing at the Magdalen Islands, Anticosti, Labrador, and Newfoundland, and the her- ring are all caught within oue mile of the shore. That there is a large fleet of American fishing vessels getting herring at Magdalen Islands every year. They seine the herring and ship them off to the States and West Indies. At the Magdalen Islands and at Auticosti the Americans do a lot of trawling for halibut near the shore. At Labrador aud New- foundland the Americans have from one hundred and fifty to two hun- dred vessels fishing herring every year. These herring are all taken in the rivers and bays, and are sent to the States, to Sweden and to the West Indies.. They use these herring for baiting their Georges and Bank fleets. 14, That we find that the mackerel strike in here from the notthward and work up towards the south and along the shore, and towards the end of the season they work back. The Americans, and all experienced fish- ermen, know about the way the fish go, and are able to follow them up. 15. That the right of transshipment is a very valuable privilege to the Americans, as they save thereby about a fortnight each trip, which would amount to about a trip saved for the year. I have made a trip in the bay in eight days. They can also refit here as cheap or cheaper than they can at home, and in less time. By being able to transship they are able to watch the markets; they can send the fish in in time to get good prices when the prices are up. They can get the fish in quicker by steam than if they took them on themselves. The mackerel market is more fluctuating than any other market, and therefore 1! Is @ great advantage to be able to watch it. The fish also get worse by being kept in the hold of a vessel, as they have to be rehandled and repickled ; they lose in weight, don’t look so well, and they weigh less b ine j bh good prices. oy being kept on board, and do not bring suc aa 1cee, oLEOD. 1436 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Sworn to at Kensington, in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, this 14th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. THOMAS H. SIMS, Justice of the Peace for Prince County. No. 304. I, JAMES McDONALD, of Chepstow, in King’s County, Prince Edward Island, master-mariner, make oath and say: 1. That I have been engaged in fishing in one way or another ever since I was old enough to fish, in both boats and schooners; some of the schooners belonged to this Island, and the rest of them belonged to the United States. That I have been fishing in schooners for seventeen years, and have fished all round this island, from North Cape to East Point, and from Schimenac to St. Annes, on the Canada shore, and then to Seven Islands, the Labrador shore, up Bay Chaleur, Gaspé Bay, and all round the Magdalen Islands. 2. That, taking one year with another, since 1860, the average fleet of American fishermen in the bay would be fully five hundred sail; there were not so many last year, but this year they are coming down again. This year they are coming down seining. I was on board one this year, and they had seines for both deep water and for shallow. 3. That in the American schooners, in which I fished, we used to catch on an average five hundred barrels of mackerel each year. I have fished on both this shore and the American shore, and this is much better than the American fishing. That two-thirds of the fish caught in American and other schooners are caught within a mile and one-half from the shore; the best fishing is generally closeinto the shore. I was master of an American vessel about five years ago, and have sailed in Ameri- cans as fisherman at other times. I have been part of three seasons fish- ing on the American shores, and the other part fishing in the gulf, and there are more mackerel in the gulf round our shores than there are round the American shores. 4, That in the spring of the year vessels from all parts go to the Mag- dalen Islands to catch herring. I have been there often. It is the best herring fishery in the gulf. There are Americans, Nova Scotians, and others. There are, on an average, about two hundred sail of American vessels getting herring down there every year. The herring are all caught right close inon the beach. There are large catches made there. The Americans send a great part of these herrings to Sweden now, that being their market. 5. That in the fall of the year there are large numbers of vessels down in Newfoundland, at Boone Bay and other places, getting herring. There are about one hundred sail of American herring-fishermen which go down to the northward of Newfoundland every fall. In the winter about two hundred sail of Americans go down to Bay Fortune to get herring to freeze for the New York and other markets. 6. That the right of transshipment was of considerable advantage to the Americans, as they could send their fish on in the steamers, without having to go home in their own vessels with their fish, and they could in this way save much time. They save about four weeks in this way, which would be equal toa trip saved. They can also fit out here as cheap, or cheaper, than they can at home. The great advantage is, however, that it enables fishermen to watch and take advantage of the markets; they can find out what the prices are, and sell their fish “ to arrive.” In the schooners in which I fished, we several times trans- shipped in Charlottetown, and sent the mackerel on by the Alhambra and other steamers. We never lost anything by sending the this way, and we made money by catching good prices, JAMES McDONALD. Sworn to at Souris, King’s County, Prince Edward Island, this 21st day of July, A. D. 1877, before me, the words opposite my initials being first interlined or erased. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 143 fish on in JAMES R. McLEAN, J. P. No. 306. I, DANIEL McCorMACK, of Black Bush, in Township Number Forty- five, in King’s County, Prince Edward Island, fisherman, make oath and say: 1. That I have been engaged in fishing in schooners for ten or eleven years, in both Island and American schooners, and have fished all down this gulf, and for three years mackerel and cod fishing on the American coast, and I know the fishing-grounds well. 2. That the first five years [ was down here in Americans we used to get from seven to nine hundred barrels of mackerel each season. I was in a small vessel. In 1871, or the year the cutters were around, I was down in the Annie Lewis, from Maine, and we only got one hundred and forty barrels; the reason we got so few was that the cutters kept us away from the shore, and the mackerel were on shore so we could not get good catches. 3. In the year 1874, I was down here part of the year on board the Clytie, and that season she got five hundred and forty barrels of mack- erel. These fish were caught right in as close as we could get to the shore. 4, That I fished for some time on the American coast, and the seining there has destroyed the fishing. The seines both frighten the fish and kill large quantities of them. This year and last there have been no fish to be had there, they having been frightened away or destroyed by the seines. The seines take a large body of fish, both large and small, and they can only cure a small quantity of them, and the rest, including all the small fish, are thrown overboard and sink to the bottom. These fish rot at the bottom and poison the other fish or drive them away. I believe, and all practical fishermen believe, that this seining has been the cause of the breaking up and destroying of the American fisheries. Their fisheries are not now worth much for that reasou. They are only now beginning to seine round here now. When we left their shores on the fourth of this month, the Americans were intending to come down here with their whole fleet, as they could not get any mackerel on their own grounds. 5. That the right to transship here is of great advantage to the Americans, as they save nearly three weeks, as a rule, by being able to land and transship here instead of having to take their fish home'ln their own vessels. This would be equal to another trip iy the summer, They can also refit here cheaper than they can at home. I have known some of them come down here and fit out instead of doing so at home, on account of its being cheaper. f 6. That, judging from my own experience of the two coasts, I amo Opinion that it would not pay the island or Canadian vessels to Mt out for fishing on the American shores. ‘IC DANIEL McCORMACK. 1438 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Sworn to at Souris, in King’s County, Prince Edward Island, this 24th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES R. MAcLEAN, Justice of the Peace for King’s County. No. 306. I, ANGus B. McDoNALD, of Souris, in King’s County, in Prince Ed- ward Island, fisherman and trader, make oath and say: 1. That I have been engaged in fishing out of the United States, off and on, for the last twelve years. I fished one summer in an island schooner, and traded one summer in an island vessel. The rest of the time I was in United States vessels. I have not much acquaintance with the boat-fishing. In the schooners I have fished around this island principally; also at the Magdalen Islands, and for herring at New- foundland, and also up Bay Chaleur, and on the New Brunswick and Quebec coasts. 2. That there are large fleets of Americans, numbering from eight hun- dred to one thousand sail, engaged in the different cod fishing waters, and these all get their bait along the shores of the Dominion of Canada and Newfoundland, and without the bait got on these shores they could not go cod-fishing. They can only get bait on their own shores for a couple of months in the year, and that bait won’t suit the cod-fishing on the Banks, as it consists of pogies, and they get spoilt before they get down to the Banks, so that now they must get herring for bait on our shores, or they cannot get codfish. From Gloucester, and other places in the United States, there are about four hundred sail in the winter season en- gaged in fishing herring at different parts of the Dominion and New- foundland shores. They freeze these herring for bait and also for their city and country markets. From Bay of Islands and other parts of New- foundland there are about fifty American vessels engaged in carrying herring in bulk. The vessels engaged in cod fishing use about four bun- dred barrels of herring each, during the run of a year, and these have all to come from our shores. These herring are all caught right in on the shore, all of them within a mile of the land. They are seined and netted. Large quantities of the herring are also sent away by the Americans from those shores to the Swedish and other foreign markets. I have been engaged myself for two winters in Boston, putting up New- foundland herring for California and other States. At the present time and for years past the Bank cod fishing is entirely dependent on the herring fishery. I have fished a great deal on the Banks; at one time 1 fished on the Banks of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia for three years in succession, winter and summer, and as soon as our herring were done we had at once to start for the British Possessions for more, or our voy- age would have been at an end. 3. That on an average each cod-fisherman takes 3,500 quintals of cod- fish in the year, or 350,000 poands weight of pickled fish, all of which are caught with the herring, canght as mentioned in the last section. Even the codfish caught on the George’s Banks are taken with herring’ caught on the British shores, as also the haddock caught for the Boston aud other markets. I have been engaged at that business a great deal. 4, That I lived in both Boston and Gloucester, and fished out of both places, and boarded many of the American fishermen, and my own per- sonal experience, and what I learnt from other practical fishermen with whom I came in contact, all pointed to just what I have said about the herring and cod fishing. “ AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1439 _ 5. That many of the British fish are better than the American, such as the Strait salmon, and help to sell the American fish. 6, That I was engaged in mackerel fishing in American vessels for four years in the gulf; the first year I was out mackerel fishing was in 1865, on board the B. D. Haskins, of Gloucester, of about 60 tons, and carrying 15 men. We got within a few barrels of 800 barrels of mack. erel in her that year. The greater part of these, I should say three- quarters at the least, were caught within two and three miles of the shore. Near the shore is always the best mackerel fishing. 7. That in 1866 I was out in the Helen M. Woodward, of Gloucester, of about 80 tons burden, and carrying about 18 hands. We caught 600 barrels of mackerel in her. These were all caught in close to shore; half of them were caught when we were sprung up to anchor at the _ Magdalen Islands, not having room to drift. 8. That in 1871 I was fishing in the gulf in the Adele, a Charlottetown vessel chartered by Americans. She was about 70 tons burden, and carried 16 hands. We took 700 barrels of mackerel in her, all of which were caught inshore; after the mackerel fishing was over she went to Newfoundland for the herring fishery. 9. That I was out part of the season of 1872 in the yacht Rambler, for two months and a half; she was an Awerican, and carried nineteen hands. We caught four hundred and seventy barrels of mackerel in her. They were all caught right round the shore of this island and close inshore. We used to have to watch the cutters close that year. 10. That I was out in the River Dale, the fourth American vessel, in the gulf for about a month and one-half, after the 5th of September. We caught three hundred and twenty barrels of mackerel in her. She was about sixty-five tons burden and carried fifteen hands. Before coming in her that season I had made two trips to the Banks in the Yosemite, and in her we took over three hundred thousand pounds weight of codfish. 11. That when I was in the gulf there used to be a fleet of five hun- dred sail of American schooners fishing down here in the gulf, and nearly all their mackerel were caught close to the shore. It would not have been worth while to come down to the gulf at all for fish if they Were not allowed to fish close to shore. 12. That the cutters interfered a great deal with the American fishing when I was out, as at sight of the cutter’s smoke the schooners had to leave the fishing-grounds and clear out, sometimes losing the fish for a week on that account. The sailing-cutters were better than the steam- ers, as the smoke of the latter could be seen a long way off, and we could either salt our fish or throw them overboard before the cutters reached us. 13. That the American seiners are now seining down here already ; they have left their own shore because the fish on their own coast have been destroyed or driven away by the seines. The seiners take a school of mackerel or other fish in their purse-seines and scoop as many of them on board as they can, and then the rest of the mackerel get smothered ‘in the purse of the seine and sink, and the seiners hive to let go their lines and empty the fish out, or lose their seines. These dead fish sink to the bottom and rot, and poison or drive away the other fish, whether mackerel or codfish. There are large quantities of herring killed in the Same way. The opinion of fishermen, even the seiners themselves, 18 that the seining destroys the fishery. _ 14. The Americans clean their fish on board and throw the blood and gurry overboard, and that poisous and kills the fish, That kills the 1440 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. boat-fishing altogether; it does not hurt the schooners much, as they can run somewhere else for another school. 15. That the right of transshipment is a very valuable privilege to the Americans, as they cau refit here as cheap or cheaper than they can at home, and they save on an average at least two weeks the trip by not having to run home, which would amount to another trip during the season. They also gain a great deal by being enabled to get their fish down quick to market, and being thereby able to watch and take advantage of good prices. When there is a large quantity of mackerel on board, the barrels get knocked about and get damaged so as to lose the pickle, and then the fish get rusted and spoiled so that they lose their quality and are sometimes entirely destroyed. The right of trans- shipment prevents this, as the fish can be taken out of the holds of the vessels and shipped away without getting damaged. ANGUS B. McDONALD. Sworn to at Souris, in King’s County, in Prince Edward Island, this 24th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me, the words opposite my initials having been first interlined. JAMES R. MAcLEAN, Justice of the Peace for King’s County. No. 307. I, PETER McDONALD, of Souris, in King’s County, in Prince Edward Island, master mariner, make oath and say: 1. That I have been four seasons fishing in British vessels, and four seasons in American schooners ; always mackerel-fishing. 2. That I fished in the Mary Ellen, of this port, for part of one sea- son, or about four weeks. We got about one hundred and eighty bar- rels of mackerel. She carried sixteen or seventeen hands. 3. That I fished about eight weeks one season in the Comus, of this port, and we got two hundred barrels of mackerel. She was about fifty tons burden, and carried fifteen hands. 4, That I fished in the Dominion, and was master of her one season, until August the 24th. We had then landed two hundred barrels of mackerel. She was sixty-nine tons burden and carried sixteen hands. 5. That I fished in the Florence Silver, of Charlottetown, the rest of the season that I was out in the Dominion. We got over two hundred barrels while I was in her. She was sixty tons. 6. That the first American vessel I fished in was the Abbie M. Heath. I fished about half the season in her. We got three hundred and twenty barrels of mackerel in her in that time. She was about sixty tons and carried sixteen hands. 7. That the next American schooner I fished in was the Oriental, a schooner of about fifty-five tons and carrying fourteen hands. We were out from September till the eud of October in her in the same year that I was in the Abbie M. Heath, and in her in that time we caught three hundred and fifty barrels of mackerel. 3. That 1 sailed two seasons in the Jobn Smith, and the first summer we got six hundred and fifty barrels, and the next season we got four hundred and fifty. We only made one trip the second season, and two the first, taking our fish home ourselves. She was about sixty tons and carried fifteen hands. : 9. That I was out in 1871 in the Cadet, an American schooner, and got six hundred and fifty barrels. That was the year the cutters were round. Part of the time I was master of this scbooner. We trans- shipped at Canso, and were in that way enabled to make three trips. — el heehee . AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1441 10. That three-quarters of all the fish caught by usin any of these vessels were caught within three miles of the shore. In the Cadet they were all caught close into shore; in fact, two of her trips were almost entirely caught while she was sprung up to anchor off Nail Pond and other places along the shore. The cutters disturbed usa great deal otherwise we would have caught more fish. We had to watch the cut. ters close, and had continually to hoist sail and leave the grounds on their account. 11. That for my own part I would not fit out a vessel for fishing if I had not the privilege of fishing within three miles of the shore. 12. That the American schooners, to my own knowledge, interfere considerably with the boat-fishing, as when they see the boats getting fish they make up and lee-low them, taking away the fish. I have often seen that done, and have been in vessels myself that used to do that. That of course spoils the fishing for the boats. 13. That the Americans clean their mackerel on board their vessels and throw their gurry overboard. That spoils the boat-fishing, as the mackerel will not bite when there is any blood or gurry about. It does not hurt the schooners, as they work away from the gurry. 14. That the seining breaks up the schools of mackerel and frightens them off. That, in seining fish, large quantities of fish are taken that cannot be cured, or are too small for use, and these are lost entirely. I have seen large quantities of herring destroyed in this way. Seining is the destruction of the fisheries. This bay is now beginning to be full of seiners. Seven seiners have come into this harbor (Souris) this even- ing. They destroy the boat-fishing entirely. 15. That the right of transshipment is of considerable value to the Americans, as they can fit out here and in Canso, except for bait, cheaper and just as well as they can at home. They also save enough time in the summer when the fishing is good to make another trip. They can save about a fortnight each trip. 16. That there are considerable numbers of American vessels engaged every season at the Magdalen Islands seining herring. They get as many herring there, as a rule, as they want. These herring are salted or smoked, and numbers of them sent to the West Indian market. + 17. That I have been on the Newfoundland coast when the American cod-fishermen came in to get bait and ice. They get large quantities of herring and ice there for the cod-fishing. At that season they could not get bait for the codfish anywhere except on the Newfoundlaud or Nova Scotian shores, so that the cod-fishing is dependent on the herring fishery. If the cod-fishermen could not get bait on the British coasts they could not get it anywhere else, and consequently could not get any codfish. 18. That in the spring of the year the codfish and mackerel come into the bay from the southward and strike the Magdalens, and then the mackerel go toward the Bay Chaleur, and then they strike up toward Bank Bradley and North Cape, and toward the middle of the summer they begin to work back again. The American fishermen understand the routes and customs of the fish, and know where to strike them at the different parts of the season. The mackerel season lasts trom about the beginning of July till about the middle of October, here. _ : : PETER McDONALD. Sworn to at Souris, in King’s County, in Prince Edward Island, this 24th day of Juiy, A. D. 1877, before me, the words opposite mny initials having been first interlined. ae z JAMES R. McLEAN, Justice of the Peace for King’s County. 9LF 1442 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 308. I, Joun McINtyRE, of Fairfield, Township No. 47, in King’s County, Prince Edward Island, master mariner, make oath and say: 1. That I have had experience in the mackerel-fishing for the last thirty-five years, and also in the cod-fishing, in both boats and schoouers, in both island and American schooners, having fished all round the gulf fishing grounds, and also on the United States coasts, and I know the fishing grounds well. 2, That from East Point to Black Bush there are about one hundred boats, besides dories, engaged in fishing, that is in a distance of fifteen miles. The number is increasing fast. The number has doubled in the last year, and are still increasing; there are not yet enough boats for the crews. 3. The reason I give for the increase in the boat-fishing is, that fish- ing pays better than anything else, and it affords employment to people who can get no other employment. It is a ready-money business, and puts a lot of money into circulation. 4, That these boats take, on an average, crews of three men to a boat. The boats along here are small, as we have to beach the boats. 5. That the boats get as many herring on this shore as are required for bait through the season, and also for home use. They do not try for more than that. They might take quantities to export, if attention were given to the business. There are any quantities of them along the shore. These boats for the whole season, taking one season with another, take, on an average, one hundred quintals of codfish and hake to a boat; some years more and some years less. They also average fifty barrels of mackerel in the season to each boat. The herring are taken right inshore, within a couple of hundred yards of the shore; in the summer season they are taken as far as a mile and a half from the shore. The codfish are all taken at from half a mile to three miles from shore. All the mackerel here are taken inshore, within a mile of land. 6. That I was fishing round this island shores in the island schooners /Eneas McIntyre and in the Emerald. In the former of these I fished two years, and was master of her. We packed out the first year three hundred barrels of mackerel—we were only out six weeks that season. The second year we were also out six weeks, and got two hundred barrels. She was a schooner of sixty-two tons burden, and carried fourteen hands. In the Emerald we were out not more than five or six weeks, and we got about two hundred and sixty barrels of mackerel. as fish were all caught inshore, none of them more than three miles off. 7. That I fished for seven or eight seasons in American vessels, among which were the Isabella, Robert D. Rhodes, the P. H. Corliss, the Horatio Babson, Albert Clarence, B. S. Young, the Lucinda, and the Native. 8. That I was on board the Isabella the same year that I was in the Emerald, for ten days, and in that time we took two hundred and sixty barrels of mackerel. She carried thirteen men. 9. That I was in the Robert D. Rhodes for three weeks, and in that time we took two hundred and seventy barrels of mackerel. She was about sixty tons burden and carried thirteen hands. 10. That I was three weeks in the P. H. Corless, during which time we took two hundred and sixty barrels of mackerel. She was about fifty tons burden and carried twelve hands. She fished round this island, between here and North Cape. having been first interlined or erased. AWARD OF LrHE FISHERY COMMISSION 1443 11. That I was fishing in the Horatio Babson about four weeks, dur- ing which time we took two hundred barrels of mackerel. She was about seventy tons burden and carried fourteen or fifteen hands. 12. That in the Albert Clarence we fished about the Magdalen Islands. I was in her for five weeks. We took two hundred and eighty barrels of mackerel. She was a vessel of one hundred and ten tons burden and carried nineteen hands. 13. That I was out in 1873, the year of the big August storm, in the B. 8S. Young, for four weeks. We did very little in her, only taking one hundred barrels of mackerel. She was a vessel of eighty tons burden and carried seventeen hands. 14, That in the Lucinda and Native we fished principally on the American shore. We fished principally out ten or twelve miles from the coast and on the Banks, We did pretty well in the Native but not in the Lucinda. 15. That in all the vessels in which I fished in the gulf, we fished along the shore of the bend of this island, and at the Magdalens right inshore. From one to three miles off is the best fishing-ground. 16. That, including the whole gulf, the American fishing fleet for the past ten years has averaged good six hundred sail. I have counted over three hundred sail of them within sight at one time. They begin to come down here about the middle of June and stop till November, mak- ing two or three trips each season. ; 17. That the American fishermen, both cod and herring fishermen, clean their fish on the fishing-grounds and throw the offal overboard. That hurts the fish. It sickens and poisons the fish, and drives them away from the grounds. . 18. That the Americans are now coming down on our shore seining. Some of them have already caught large quantities of fish by seining. Seining destroys the fisheries, as it scares the fish and kills a great many. That is what has injured the fishing on the American shores. 19. That, from what I know of both shores, it would not be worth while for Canadian or island fishermen to fit out for the American shores. It would not pay them to do so. 20. That the privilege of landing their fish, transshipping, and refitt- ing is a great advantage to the Americans, as they lose so much time, | should say,.on an average, three weeks each trip, by having to go home with their fish. They can also refit here as cheap as they can at home. The time saved during the season would be at least equal to a trip saved during the year. Itis also a great advantage, as enabling them to watch and take advantage of the fish markets, which are very changeable. 21. That I believe the fish come into the gulf through Canso and by Cape North, and then strike for the Magdalen Islands, and from there they strike up towards the North Cape of this island, and towards the north shore generally. The American fishermen understand all about the routes of the fish and follow them up. Ave JOHN McINTYRE. Sworn to at Fairfield, in King’s County, Prince Edward Island, this 26th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me, the words opposite my initials JAMES McDONALD, Justice of the Peace for Kings County. 1444 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 309. I, MicHAEL McDONALD, of French River, in New London, in Queen’s County, Prince Edward Island, fisherman, make oath and say : 1. That I have been engaged in fishing for about twenty-five years in both boats and schooners. I have been in island, New Brunswick, and American schooners, and I know the fishing grounds well, having fished up the Bay Chaleur, round this island, Cape Breton, the Magdalen Islands, and elsewhere. 2. That there are about one hundred and fifty boats fishing out of New London, the harbor and beach, and the number is increasing fast ; it is only about six years since the boats began to go in for fishing to any extent. 3. That the boats take on an average crews of four men each, besides the men employed at the stages, of whom there are a good number. 4. That the boats are now better built, better modeled, and better fitted out than they used to be; people are paying more attention to the business than they did a few years ago; they find that the fishing pays, and that is why people goin for it. There is a class of men now coming on who give their whole attention to fishing and attend to nothing else. 5. That I have been fishing in island vessels for the last eleven years. On board these vessels we used to get from two hundred and fifty to three hundred barrels of mackerel a trip, and we used to make on an average two trips a summer, making for the whole summer average catches of from five to six hundred barrels of mackerel. 6. That we caught about three-quarters of our fish close to shore, within three miles from land. The best fishing is from one mile and one-half to three miles from shore. We used to catch our fish up the Bay Chaleur, round the island coast, and Cape Breton. 7. That I sailed out of Portsmouth in New Hampshire, in the United States, for two years, one year on board the schooner Commonwealth, and the other year on board another schooner, both of which fished down in the bay. They did not do very well, as they did not get more than sixty barrels of mackerel each year. The reason for the smallness of their catch was that they were not well acquainted round the bay and fished too far from the land, catching most of their fish about nine miles off the shore. They would bave done better in closer to the shore. At that time the cutters were about and the Americans were afraid of them; some of their schooners were taken by the cutters those years. 8. That I was out one season in the schooner Water Lily, of Carlton, New Brunswick, and on board of her we did pretty well, getting over six hundred barrels of mackerel. She was of about seventy tons bur- den, and carried seventeen or eighteen hands. These six hundred bar- rels were nearly all caught around the island shore, mostly all at from one and one-half to three miles from shore. 9. That there have been large fleets of American vessels down in the gulf fishing every year; I have seen as many as two hundred at one time in Port Hood, and that would be only a part of their fleet. 10. That the right to refit and transship the fish is a great advantage to the American fishermen down here in the gulf. They are able to land their fish, send them away in the steamers, and take in another outfit without losing much time. By being able to transship here and refit instead of going home with their fish, they save a fortnight each trip, and that right in the fishing season. That would amount to another | trip in the course of the season as a general thing. 11. I do not think it would be worth while for the Americans to fit R a AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1445 out and come down here to fish unless they were allowed to fish within three miles of the shore. MICHAEL McDONALD. Sworn to at French River, in New London, Queen’s County, Prince Edward Island, this 12th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. © JOHN SHARPE, Justice of the Peace, No. 310. I, THomAS WALSH, of Souris, in King’s County, Prince Edward Island, master ma iner, make oath and say: 1, That I have been connected with the fishing business, asa practical fisherman, since the year 1851; that is, twenty-six years, in both boats and vessels. I fished for seven years out of Gloucester, United States, in vessels; thirteen years I fished out of Rustico,in boats. I ran a fish- stage there and I am well acquainted with the fishing and the fishing grounds. I have fished down to Seven Islands, up the Bay Chaleur, at Anticosti, the Magdalen Islands, and in fact all over the gulf fishing grounds; and | fished for herring for two winters, in an American ves- sel, on the coast of Newfoundland. 2. That out of Rustico, New London, and round that side of the island, there is a vast increase and improvement in every way in the boat fish- ing. There are now twenty boats on that side engaged in fishing, to the one there was when I[ went there in 1862. The boats themselves have improved two hundred per cent.; they are better in every way. There is now a very large capital invested in the business there now, and it has all been put in during the past few years. These boats, taking large and small together, take crews of four men to each boat, besides stage- men and others employed on shore, who are a large number. 3. That these boats average about fifty quintals of codfish each, and about one hundred barrels of mackerel each, during the season, besides large quantities of herring. There are also plenty of hake in about six fathom of water, or about two miles from shore. The fish caught in Rustico are nearly all, in the spring, sent to Charlottetown and Suam- merside and the country while fresh, and there sold for good prices. Over there they catch as many herring as they want for mackerel bait, besides what they sell fresh and what they salt for the winter. . 4, That the mackerel are nearly all caught from one to four miles from the shore. The greater part of the mackerel, fully two-thirds, are caught within three miles of the shore. The herring are all caught within a few hundred yards of the beach. In the spring the codfish are caught about two miles from land; as the season advances they go fur- ther off. 5. The reasons for the big increase in the boat fishing are, that peo- ple find there is money in the business, and consequently go into It There is now also a large class of men whose number is constantly In- ereasing, who have not got any land, and who depend entirely upon fishing. The boat fishing affords employment to these men, which they could not get in any other way. The business, in fact, keeps these men home; it is the support of their families. a 6. That I was out for seven years in vessels belonging to the t nited States. We used to catch from three to eight hundred barrels of mack- erel in the season; we would average good five hundred barrels during the season, taking one with another. These fish we caught nearly al- _ together close to shore, within three miles of the land. The trath is, 1446 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. there are not many caught more than three miles off, the good fishing is all near the shore. Here this week, the Americans are taking the mackerel with seines close to the shore. The mackerel are now school- ing close in, and there are few or none more than three miles off. These seines doa great deal of harm, as they kill a great many small mack- erel and other fish, which are thrown away, the seiners only taking the large mackerel. I saw twenty sail of Americans fishing in one bunch within about two miles of the land. on Thursday Jast, some of them seining. They were fishing between East Point and Saint Peters. The seining destroys the fisheries. The Americans are now scattered all down the coast; they are just now beginning to arrive. There will be a large fleet of them here this summer. There are already about forty sail of them along this shore, and they are coming all the time. 7. If the Americans were not allowed to fish in near the shore, they would not be able to get enough fish off shore to pay the expenses of the crew while out. They might get an odd catch, but that would be all, and they know this. 8. That when the cutters were about these coasts, they prevented the Americans fishing near the shore to a great extent, and consequently damaged their fishing. There were not enough cutters around to keep the vessels off altogether; they used to watch the cutters, and when the smoke was seen the schooners would clear out. I have known some of the Americans leave the bay and fish on their own shore, on account of the cutters. 9. That I fished one summer and four or five falls on the American shore, and there are more fish here than there are on the American shores, and the bay mackerel generally command a better price than the others. There is very poor hook-fishing on their shore; they can only seine. 10. That I have been four or five times down at the Magdalen Islands herring fishing, and there are often a hundred sail of Americans down there for herring. Their cod-fishermen get much of their bait at the Magdalenes, and they catch large quantities for the Swedish and other foreign markets. These herring are all seined close inshore. That is about the best paying branch of the fishing business. 11. That I was two winters at Fortune Bay,in Newfoundland, in Amer- ican vessels, getting herring. The last winter I was there (1862) there were forty-two sail of Americans in Fortune Bay. In the fall they go up to the Bay of Islands. The last winter I was in Gloucester, there were over twenty sail from that port alone, down at Newfoundland after herring. In the winter time they freeze the herring and send them down to bait their George’s fleet ; and they also send them to their towns and cities to retail. That is a big business down there for the Americans. 12. The right of transshipment is a very great advantage. I look upon it as the greatest privilege the Americans have got. They can run in from the fishing grounds, land their fish and ship them away to market, without loss of time. They thus save, on an average, three weeks in the trip, and when they have to go home, it is generally right in the good fishing. It is alsoa great advantage to be able to refit here, as they can buy all their general stores here cheaper than at home. The right of transshipment is also of great advantage to the Ameri- cans, as they are thereby enabled to keep themselves well posted up in the markets, and can send their fish in so as to catch good prices. This is @ very great thing, as I have known a rise of three and four dollars a are in two days for mackerel. The mackerel market is a very varia- é one. | aS TEES SOU aw 13, The mackerel, I believe, in the spring and first part of the summer strike in to the northward first, arid then work up to the westward along by Bay Chaleur, the North Cape, and the bend of this island. The Americans and all skillful fishermen know about the habits of the fish and follow them up. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1447 THOMAS WALSH. Sworn to at Souris, in King’s County, Prince Edward Island, this 21st day of July, A. D. 1877, before me, . JAMES McDONALD, Justice of Peace for King’s County, Prince Edward Island. INO.) Le I, Dominick DoviAnt, of North Rustico, in Prince Edward Island, farmer and fisherman, make oath and say: 1. That I have been engaged in fishing for over twenty years at North Rustico aforesaid, both in boats and schooners, but principally in boats, and am thoroughly acquainted with the fishing business and best grounds for catching fish. 2. That there are about eighty boats used in fishing out of North Rustico, with an average of from five to six men in each boat, besides ae man to each boat engaged in attending to the stages and fish on shore. ' 3. That within the past ten years the number of boats has more than doubled, and are very much better in build and outfit, as well as larger. 4. That this increase is owing to more attention being paid to fishing now than was formerly—men now using it entirely as a means of liveli- hood, whereas some years ago they combined fishing with some other occupation. 5. That the average catch of each boat is, taken one year with another, from one hundred and forty to one hundred and fifty barrels of mackerel, and about fifteen quintals of codfish—the cod-fishing being only followed about one month before and after the mackerel. 6. That a small schooner of fifteen tons will catch about one hundred and eighty quintals of cod in a season. * 7. That on this island there are very few schooners employed in either the cod or mackerel business, the American vessels principally doing that kind of fishing. _ 8, That the American fishing fleet around this island generally num- bers about five hundred schooners, averaging a catch of between four and five hundred barrels of mackerel each in a season. 9. That the Americans generally fish between two and two and one- half miles from the shore, sometimes nearer. The great bulk of their mackerel being caught inside of three miles from the shore. ; 10. That invariably the American fishermen spoil the boat-fishing when they come near them, lee-bowing the boats and drawing the fish away, and after a catch throwing the offal overboard and sickening the fish so that none can be caught in the same place for a day or two after. 11. That: the right of transshipment is valuable to the Americans, both on account of the time saved between landing the fish here and taking them home, and from the cheapness of fitting out here and the better opportunities of “ catching” the market. his DOMINICK + DOVIANT. mark ae 1448 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Sworn to at North Rustico, in Queen’s County, Prince Edward Island, this 10th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me, having first been read over and fully explained to the said Dominick Doviant. WM. S. McNEILL, J. P., Queen’s County. I, RoBERT CARSON, of North Rustico, in Queen’s County, in Prince Edward Island, fisherman, make oath and say : 1. That I have been engaged in fishing in Rustico for about six years, and that my experience has been mostly in boat-fishing, and I am acquainted with the fishing-grounds on this side of the island. 2. That there are about eighty boats fishing out of North Rustico, averaging about five hands to each boat as crew, besides the men em- ployed on shore at the stages curing the fish, the men on shore being about one man for each boat, so that each boat gives employment t about six men. 3. The boats catch, on an average, about one hundred barrels of mackerel to each boat, besides hake and codfish. About two miles from the shore is the best part for mackerel fishing. They are sometimes caught farther off. 4. The boats have doubled in number in the last five years. The boats themselves are much better than they were, both in hull and rig- ging, and they are still increasing in number and improving in outfit and in every respect. 5. That there is a class of men about here who are entirely devoted to fishing and go in for nothing else. The reason people go in for fish- ing about here is that it is found to pay, and it affords employment to men who otherwise would be unemployed. 6. There are large numbers of Americans fishing off this coast every year. They often fish close inshore. Fishermen look upon the coming of the Americans as an injury to the fishing; they draw off the fish. They come inshore, throw bait, and drift off, taking the fish with them. Their coming is looked upon as an injury to the boat-fishing. They dress their fish on the fishing-ground and throw the offal overboard, thus causing great injury to the fishing. Fishermen never want to see them around. 7. The right of transshipment is invaluable to the Americans, as they are thereby enabled to come in and refit, and ship away their fish with- out loss of time, so that they are nearly able to make another trip while they would have been away carrying their fish home. They are also enabled to take advantage of the markets; if there is a good price for mackerel, the schooners can come in, land their fish, and ship them away without loss of time. 8. The Americans generally fish at from two to three miles from the shore, although at odd times they fish farther off. 9. The fish generally come down from the Magdalen Islands to our shore, and the Americans follow the fish. ROBERT CARSON. Sworn to at North Rustico, Queen’s County, Prince Edward Island, this 10th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. WM. S. McNEILL, J. P., Queen's County. 2 ——— AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1449 No. 313. I, CHARLES MCEACHAN, of Township Number Forty-six, North Side justice of the peace, and manager of fishing stage, make oath and say. 1. That I have been engaged in boat-fishing on the north side of this part of the island for the last twenty-four years, and am well ac juainted with the fishing on that side. 2. That from the North Lake to Saint Margarets, on the same side. a distance of fourteen miles, there are, this year, at least sixty boats engaged in fishing. The boats are increasing in number and improving. The number of boats has trebled in the last three years. The reasons that I would give are that there is now good encouragement given to men to goin for fishing; the business pays now; and many men who formerly went to the States to fish on the American shores found they could not do so well there and returned here, and many of them have taken to boat-fishing. The fishing employs a great many people who could not get employment, and could scarcely exist in any other way. The fish- ery is aready-money business, and puts a lot of cash in circulation. The boat-fishing for the past two years, when the Americans were not so numerous on the shore as they were before and as they were this year, has been better than it was when they were around. 3. That the boats, in the distance mentioned above, take from three to five hands each as crew; they would average four. That does not include the men who are employed on shore, who are a considerable number. These boats get herring enough for mackerel bait and for home use every year; if attention were directed to that branch, there -could be as many herring taken as could be required. The average catches of the boats are at least sixty quintals to the boat; some boats double that number and others do not get somany. A great many more codfish might be taken, only the owners of a large number of the boats are farmers as well as fishermen, and only fish when they have time from their farming, and that lowers the average all round. The boats also take at least thirty-five barrels of mackerel for the season, and the average is greatly lessened by the same reason given for the codfish, _ that the men farm as well as fish. * 4, That nearly all these fish are taken at from one to three miles of the shore; along the shore is the best fishing ground. 5. That there are nearly every season over five hundred sail of Amer- ican fishing schooners fishing in the gulf. We can see them passing along by where we are fishing. I have some days seen two hundred of en passing by ina day. These vessels fish very much close in to the ore. 6. That the Americans do a lot of harm to our boat-fishing by coming in shore and lee-bowing the boats, and taking the fish away from the latter. They come in, throw bait near the shore, and drift off, drawing the mackerel after them. We always look upon the coming of the Americans as the end of the good fishing. They clean large quantities of fish on the grounds and throw the offal overboard; this gluts and poisons the fish so that they won’t bite, and our boat-fishing is thereby spoiled. ; _ 7. The year the cutters were about they kept the American schooners off toa great extent, and we were very sorry when the cutters were _ taken away. 8. That the American seiners are coming round here this year ; Les of them took a hundred barrels at one throw of the seine, off ™) erik Shore the other day, and they kill more fish than they use. The fis 1450 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. thatfare killed in this way are thrown out and rot in the water, and that goes, still further to ruin the fishing. Fishermen believe, by what they see, that this seining will destroy the fishing in a short time. CHAS. McEACHAN. Sworn to at Souris, in Kings County, in Prince Edward Island, this 24th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES R. MACLEAN, Justice of the Peace for Kings County. No. 314. I, DANIEL C. MCLEAN, of Black Bush, Township Number Forty-five, in King’s County, in Prince Edward Island, fisherman, make oath and say: 1. That I have been engaged in fishing in both boats and schooners; in both island and American schooners. I have fished in both in the gulf and on the American shore. 2. That this year there are more boats in the fishing on our side than there were ever before, and the number is increasing very fast. The reason for the increase is that the fish are becoming more valuable, and it is a better business than anything else to engage in. 3. The boats along our side take crews, on an average, of three men each. These boats get in the spring all the herring they want for bait in the other fisheries during the season. These boats last year averaged fully forty quintal of codfish each, but they were only at codfish for three weeks last season. They also get large quantities of mackerel. This year promises to be a goodyear. I have not seen as many mackerel in the bay for the last twenty years as there are now. 4. That three-quarters of the fish caught by the boats are taken within three miles of the land. Along the shore is the best fishing. In the fall of the year they are farther off. 5. That I was out one trip in the island schooner E. Hodgson. We did very well in her, but I forget the exact amount. The fish were all taken within three miles of the shore. 6. That I was out one trip one season, at the end of the season, in the Queen of the Cape, an American schooner. We got about one hundred and eighty barrels in her. We were only out in her a short time. 7. That I was out part of one season, in fact for a trip of ten days, in the Ida D. Spoford, in the gulf. We got over two hundred barrels in that time. She carried fourteen hands. 8. That I fished all the early part of one season in the Queen of the Cape on the American shore. The fish there were small and not worth catching. The fishing was so bad that we left and came down to the gulf, where we did well. 9. That the American schoorers are now going in for seining here, and that destroys the fishing on the coast. It scares and kills the fish. They purse the mackerel up in the seines and the fish smother there, and quantities of them are destroyed in this way that cannot be cured, and are thrown into the water again. This is the ruin of the fisheries. There are a lot of seiners down here now. DANIEL C. McLEAN. Sworn to at Souris, in King’s County, Prince Edward Island, this 25th dlay of July, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES R. McLEAN, Justice of the Peace for King’s County. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1451 No. 315. I, DaniEL McINTYRE, of Black Bush, Township Number Forty-four, in King’s County, Prince Edward Island, master mariner, make oath and say: 1. That I have been engaged in fishing since 1859; in vessels all the time except two years. Five years I fished in American schooners, and the rest of the time in island vessels. I fished all around the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, in the herring-fishery, on the Newfoundland shores, and one fall on the American coast mackerel-fishing. 2. That there are now about seventy-five boats engaged in fishing be- tween this and the East Point, a distance of about eighteen miles. The number has increased very much this year; last year there were about forty or fifty boats. These boats take crews of from three to five men each. They get a large quantity of both codfish and mackerel, and what herring they want for bait. 3. That the mackerel are caught by the boats at within two and two and one-half miles from the shore ; the codfish are farther off. 4, That I have fished in schooners belonging to this island for twelve years. In the P. Aineas McIntyre I fished one season after August, and we caught three hundred and forty barrels of mackerel. She ecar- ried sixteen hands. ‘The next year I was in her for four weeks, when we got one hundred and sixty barrels. The same year I was in the Jane for five days, when we got one hundred and ten barrels. The year fol- lowing I was in the Mary Ellen for about six weeks; we took one hundred and seventy barrels; she carried sixteen hands. After that I was in the Amateur for about six weeks in one season; we took a hundred and thirty barrels; that was a bad year. After her I was in the Willie, and we took one hundred and seventy barrels. The next year I was one of the crew of the Dominion; in her we brought in about four hun- ‘dred and fifty barrels of mackerel. She was a schooner of sixty-four tons burden. The year following I was in the Tyro, and we got four hundred and seven barrels. She was forty-one tons burden, and carried fourteen hands; that was six years ago. After that I was in the Flor- ence Silver, and we took four hundred and twenty barrels of mackerel. ‘She was sixty-eight tons burden, and carried sixteen hands. After her I fished in the Lion; in her we got four hundred and thirty barrels of mackerel. She was thirty-eight tons burden, and carried fifteen hands. 5. That these fish, caught in the island vessels, were caught along the island shore, the Bay Chaleur, at the Magdalens, and in the gulf generally. The greater part of the fish were taken within three miles Of the shore. Along shore is the best fishing ground. 6. That I fished one season in the Alfaretta, an American vessel—we took two hundred and fifty barrels of mackerel; that was in 1809, Atter her, I was in the Daniel McPhee, another American, and we got one hundred and ninety barrels. After her, I was in the Daniel Webster for one trip of five weeks; we caught two hundred and fifty barrels ot mack- erel ; she was seventy-four tons, and carried fifteen hands. After her, I was in the Nanadaha one season, and we got two hundred and fifty barrels ; she carried fifteen hands. After her, I was in the Grape Shot for the season, when we took in eight hundred and forty barrels of mackerel; she was about sixty-five tons, and carried sixteen hands ; she made three trips, landing twice in the Gut of Canso. 7. The most of these mackerel were caught within three miles of the shore, a good many up the Bay Chaleur and at the Magdalens. I do 1452 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. not believe that it would be worth while to fit out for fishing in the gulf if fishermen were not allowed to fish pear the shore. 8. That one fall I fished iu the Isaac Walter, on the American coast, but we did nothing. 9. That the Americans hurt the shore fishing ; as they come in, heave a lot of bait, and drift off, dragging the fish after them. They also clean their fish on the grounds, and throw the gurry overboard, and that in- jures the fishing; that frightens the fish away from the grounds, and they won’t bite while the gurry is about; it sickens the fish and poisons them. 10. That the right to land here, transship, and refit is a great advan- tage to the American schooners, as they can save about two weeks and a half each trip right in the heart of the season, which I should think equal to a trip saved in the summer. They refit here just as cheap as they can at home. 11. That I was two falls down at Boone Bay and Bay of Islands her- ring fishing; the fish are netted there. The Americans go down there for herring, which they send out to the southward. The Fortune Bay herring they freeze for bait and for market. The bulk of the bait for their cod-fishing vessels comes from the shores of these provinces; in fact, their cod fishery is dependent on the herring fisheries of these provinces. 12. That the Americans are now beginning to seine in this bay, and that destroys the fishing. The seiners frighten the fish and break up the schools, so that line-fishermen cannot get fish. Large quantities of fish are also killed by the seines. Large quantities of herring are taken in the seines, and these are killed and all thrown away. Besides her- ring, they kill large quantities of other fish and mackerel, which cannot be cured and are thrown away. These fish, sinking to the bottom, rot there, and further injure the fishing. There are, 1 should say, fifteen or twenty seiners down here already, and they are only just beginning to arrive. 13. That there is a large fleet of American fishing-vessels down here every year. Last year there were not more than one hundred sail; this year a large fleet is reported to be coming. 14. That the mackerel, in the spring, come into the gulf from the southward, and work from the south towards the north. Skillful fisher- men know about the courses the fish take and follow them. DANIEL McINTYRE. Sworn to at Black Bush, in King’s County, in Prince Edward Island, this 26th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES MACDONALD, Justice of the Peace for King’s County. No. 316. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, THOMAS MILNER, of Parker’s Cove, in the county of Annapolis, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been acquainted with the fisheries on the shore of this county for forty years. I have taken pollack, hake, and haddock, and large quantities of herring; about 2,000 barrels of herring being taken in this vicinity every year. 2. Twenty-five American vessels come along the coast of this county AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1433 for the same kinds of fish as we take. They get their bate inshore within a half a mile of the shore by setting nets in which they take ber. ring. With this bait they fish off to twenty miles and take codfish, haddock, hake, and pollack, and early in the spring large quantities of halibut by trawling, which is injurious to our fisheries. 3. These American vessels average from sixty to sixty-five tons regis. tered tonnage, and carry from eight to fifteen men each. They take eod- fish, haddock, hake, pollack, halibut, and herring, and fish all along the coast of this county. They take from four to twelve hundred quintals each. They take about 100 barrels of herring to each vessel for bait. 4, These Americans get all their herring within half a mile of the shore for bait, and without this bait they could not carry on the fishing in this vicinity. The most of them bring their ice with them in whieh they preserve bait. 5. These American vessels come here in April to trawl halibut, and remain on our coast until August, included. 6. The Americans which come on our coast bring their own supplies. They obtain bait which enables them to carry on the fishing iu this vicinity. They have to get a fresh supply of bait every week. 7. If the Americans were excluded from our coast it would be a great benefit to our fishermen, as their supply of bait would not be interfered with, and fish would be more plentiful. 8. The right of fishing on the coasts of the United States is of no ben- efit to the fishermen of this county, as I have never known or heard of any of them fishing there while large numbers of Americans come on to our coast to fish. THOMAS MILNER. Sworn to at Parker’s Cove, in the county of Annapolis, this 4th day of September, A. D. 1877, before me. ¥ JOHN ANTHONY, Justice of the Peace, acting in and for the County ef Annapolis. NOs, ol ‘In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. _I, James W. Cousins, of Digby Town, in the county of Digby, fish- erman, make oath and say as follows: 1. Ihave been engaged in fishing for eighteen years now past, and am still so engaged. I am at present in charge of a vessel of thirty- two tons register, and manned by ten men, and can take five hundred quintals of fish in one cargo. wae 2, We catch bait in Annapolis Basin and in the Bay of Fundy, all inshore, within three miles of the shore. American vessels get bait upon the same grounds, by setting their nets and by buying; mostly by Setting nets. 3. We take codfish, haddock, hake, and pollack, halibut and herring ; the latter for bait. We take this fish from close inshore to off fifteen tiles. We get the most within five miles of the shore, and I have this year, up to this date, taken in my vessel nine hundred q uintals. ; _4, The Americans take fish the same as we do on the same grounds. - Twenty sail at least of American vessels fish on the same grounds as we | _ 5. These American vessels are from ten to thirty tons each, do and carry 1454 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. from five to ten hands; the average would be from seven to eight men to each vessel. They are fitted out to take on an average at least three hundred quintals of fish, and more often make full fares than fall short. 6. These American vessels are a great injury to us, as they catch the bait, carry off the fish, and throw their gurry overboard on the grounds. By gurry, I mean the offal of the fish. 7. American purse-seiners come into this harbor, on Annapolis Basin ; this harbor is on Annapolis Basin. I have seen two American purse- seiners in this harbor this summer. JAMES W. COUSINS. Sworn to at Digby, in the county of Digby, this 3d day of September, A. D., 1877, before me. JOHN DAKIN, J. P. No; 318. I, Davip Swaln, of Port Clyde, in the county of Shelburne, trader, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged and am acquainted with the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, and Prince Edward Is- land, for over fifty years, and have been engaged in catching, curing, and trading in fish in this province and on Labrador. 2. I have dealt chiefly in codfish and mackerel. . 3. The American schooners which run into this harbor average about sixty tons and carry about twelve men each. They take codfish, hali- but, and mackerel. 4. These American vessels fish for cod, halibut, and mackerel ; for mackerel principally in the North Bay. Fifteen hundred quintals is a small average take for these vessels. The value of their cargo is about nine thousand dollars. 5. I cannot say how much they take within three miles of the shore oreeee mackerel, which is mostly all taken within three miles of the and. 6. These American vessels fish along our coast from May till Novem- ber, inclusive, and some all winter. 7. In this vicinity from twenty to thirty American vessels come and go yearly in order to procure men, bait, and small stores. 8. It is of very great value to Americans to come into our ports to land, dry nets, cure and repack fish, transship cargo, obtain bait and supplies, and is worth 25 per cent. of their whole catch—including the herring and mackerel fisheries in the North Bay is worth from 70 to 80 per cent. 9. It would be a great benefit to our fishermen if they could carry on the inshore fisheries without local competition on the part of the Ameri- cans. This summer inshore boat-fishermen have complained to me of Americans trawling on their grounds. 1f the Americans were excluded, it ott be worth forty per cent. to our fishermen on their present catch. 10. The privileges ceded to the Americans by the Treaty of Washing- ton is worth twenty-five per cent. of their entire catch. 11. The privilege of fishing in American waters I consider of no value to Canadian fishermen, as our own grounds are better and nearer. 12. From 1854 to 1864 I never knew nor heard of any Nova Scotian vessels fishing in American waters. DAVID SWAIN. ST AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1455 Sworn to at Clyde, in the county of Shelburne, this 28th day of August, A. D., 1877, before me. : WM. HY. COFFIN, J. P. No. 319. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. ; I, ROBERT HENRY BOLMAN, of Sand Point, in the county of Shel- burne, make oath and say as follows: 1. Ihave been engaged in the fisheries for twelve years. I have bought codfish from American vessels and sold them herring for bait, I am well acquainted with the inshore fisheries in Shelburne County. 2. During the last three years I have supplied American fishermen with bait and ice—about 100 during the three years now passed. Last year I have given orders to American vessels to get 175 tons; the year before 275 tons. The American vessels take from 15 to 40 barrels of bait to each vessel. Each American vessel takes from three to tive tons at each baiting. They bring a considerable quantity of their ice from home, and if the weather is bad at home and they have a long passage, it is more profitable to buy it here. 3. The American vessels which are baited here fish on the Western Bank, on LaHave, Roseway, and Brown’s Banks, and must have fresh bait if they trawl, which the greater part of them do. These vessels take fish along the coast in this county within three miles of the shore, during the last two years in particular. Last summer and this, Ameri- ean schooners have fished inshore—within two miles of the shore. These vessels bring in here cusk and small fish, which enables them to procure funds for ice and bait instead of drawing on their owners, and they are enabled to go home with a cargo of large and valuable fish. Formerly the Americans threw their cusk and small fish overboard. The American vessels which run in here for bait require to be baited three or four times during the trip, and unless they got this bait in Canadian ports they could not carry on successfully the fishing on the Banks along this coast. Last year and this the number of small Amer- ican vessels have increased in our inshore waters. These American vessels carry about twelve men each, and go home with from four to six hundred quintals of fish each. ROBERT HENRY BOLMAN. Sworn to at Sand Point, in the county of Shelburne, this —— day of _ August, A. D. 1877, before me. JOHN PURNEY, J. P. Pen Dix: OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE YEARS 1827 TO 1872, INCLUSIVE, SHOWING THE ENCROACHMENTS OF UNITED STATES FISHERMEN IN BRITISH NORTH AMERL CAN WATERS SINCE THE CONCLUSION OF THE CON. VENTION OF 1818. No. 1. [Extract of dispatch from the Right Hon. Earl of Dalhousie to the Right Hon. Earl Bathurst, dated Quebec, June 8, 1527. } “The nomination of the superintendent of the fisheries in Gaspé, obliges me to ask of your lordship some more accurate information on that sab- ject than I have been able to obtain here, even from the officers of the navy whom I have had any opportunity of couversing with upon it, and who have been employed in cruising in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence for the protection of our fisheries. i “Your lordship knows that repeated complaints have been made by those occupied in the fisheries along the shores of Gaspé and Bay Chaleurs, that they have been for the last ten years wholly overpow- -ered by the American fishing-vessels which resort there annually; an average of 1,500 sail pass at Canso into the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, Spreading early in the season along the Labrador shore, high up in the salmon fisheries, near the rivers of the Mingan and Seven Islands, then to the Magdalen Islands and Cape Breton shore, and latterly coming down upon the Gaspé shore, Orphan Bank, and north shore of Prince Edward Island, completely driving the British fishermen out of their Way.” No. 2. HER MAJESTY’S SHIP ALLIGATOR, Halifax, November 9, 1827. Sir: In compliance with your orders, I have the honor to inform you that the night. after I left this place I anchored off Canso light-house, and the next day visited the light-honse and the Fox Islands. The Fox Islands I found had been perfectly quiet for some time, and the broils which had taken place seem to have been very much exaggerated, and only to have been such as must always occur in a place where 3,000 men (for that, I understand, is the number congregated there in the fishing season) of different nations, English, Irish, and French, meet together without any legal authority to control them. The priest who has lately been sent there seems to have great influence, and will, I have no doubt, be the means of preserving tranquillity. I met the Chebucto as I was _ coming away, and Captain Potter informed me that they had been per- -fectly quiet since he had been there. The light-house, which I visited _ the same day, appears to be kept in perfect order, and very clean, by 92 F 1458 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the persons who are entrusted with it; but the light is very bad, and cannot, I should think, be seen far enough, as it consists only of lamps with eight common cotton wicks in each, without any reflectors. There is no register kept at the light-house of the American fishing-vessels which enter the Gulf of Saint Lawrence that can be depended upon, as many pass in the night, and the greater number of those which go to the Labrador go round Cape North; but from the best accounts which I could get there have been from 1,600 to 1,700 in the gulf this year, with crews averaging from seven to ten men. They nearly monopolize the Labrador coast, and have the greater part of the Bradelle and Orphan Banks. From Canso I proceeded round Cape Breton, the winds being always westerly, to the Magdalen Islands, calling at Sydney on the way. At the Magdalen Islands I heard great complaints that the French and American fishermen had taken all the best fish away this year, very much to the prejudice of the revenue, although to the advantage of the lawless inhabitants, who thereby receive French and American goods without paying any duty, as the subcollector has no power of enforcing his demands, which are openly set at defiance, and his own life threat- ened, whenever he attempts to execute hisduty. The civil law in these islands is in perfect abeyance, as there is only one magistrate whose authority is doubtful, as he has, since receiving his warrant, changed his religion to the Roman Catholic, and has been suspended. The only remedy that I can see for these evils would be the having a small armed vessel frequently to visit the islands during the summer. Nearly 400 Americans have dried their fish on the Magdalen Islands this year, paying 10 per cent. to the inhabitants, chiefly in goods, without duty ; and an American man-of-war schooner anchored in the roadstead for two or three days, for the purpose of inspecting their fishermen. I learnt here that the fishing season is entirely over on the 28th Septem- ber, that being the day to which all the fishermen are hired, and none continuing above a week after it. I therefore intended to have gone to Pictou from the islands, but meeting with strong contrary winds and currents, I went to Antigonish, where the court was sitting, and from thence to Port Hood, from whence, after remaining a few days, and finding the season was too far advanced for it to be useful or prudent for me to remain longer in the gulf, 1 went to Pictou for letters and came direct thence to this place. I have, &c., W. P. CANNING. Rear-Admiral Sir C. OGLE, Bart. No. 3. TO THE KING’S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. The joint address of Your Majesty’s Council and House of Assembly for ae Provinces of Nova Scotia, now in General Assembly con- vened. May it please Your Majesty : We, Your Majesty’s Council and House of Assembly of this, Your Majesty’s loyal Province of Nova Scotia, now convened in general as- sembly, beg leave most respectfully to submit to the consideration of a AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1459 Your Majesty’s Government the great importance of preserving unim- paired the rights and privileges belonging to Your Majesty’s subjects engaged in the fisheries upon the coasts of this province, and also to prevent foreigners from interfering or participating in such rights and privileges. That by the statute of the Imperial Parliament passed in the 59th year of the reign of our late most Gracious Sovereign George the Third, power was given to His Majesty, by and with the advice of his Privy Council, by an order or orders-in council, to be from time to time made for that purpose, to make such regulations and give such directions as may be necessary to prevent fishermen of the United States from taking, drying, or curing fish in the bays or harbors of His Majes- ty’s dominions in America, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges by the treaty and act of the Imperial Parliament reserved to them. That as no such order in council has passed, it may be presumed that it may be extremely difficult for Your Majesty’s council to submit such order to Your Majesty’s consideration as may be best adapted to meet the exigencies of the case in all Your Majesty’s dominions in America. That Your Majesty’s subjects in this province bave experienced great inconvenience and loss in this branch of industry by foreign interfer- ence, and the revenue is injuriously affected by the illicit trade carried on by vessels ostensibly engaged in the fisheries, who hover on the coast, and, in many cases, combine trade with the fisheries; a tratlic prejudi- cial alike to the revenue, the importation of British manufactures, the honest trader, and the political and moral sentiments, habits, and man- ners of the people. To prevent the continuance and extension of such evils the legisla- ture of this Your Majesty’s loyal province of Nova Scotia have embodied in an act such regulations and restrictions as they conceive will most effectually prevent such interference in the fishery and the illicit trade connected with it, and thereby secure the rights and privileges recog- nized by the treaty, and intended to be guarded by the statute. This course has become the more necessary as the act of the Imperial Parlia- ment contemplates the further regulation of the fisheries by some such means, of which all persons concerned will be bound to take notice. Many of the irregularities complained of may have taken place from ‘the want of such regulations. There is no intention of intimating that the Government of the United States approve of or sanction any inter- ference with a branch of the fishery which they have expressly reliu- quished. iA } We therefore most earnestly but respectfully pray that Your Majesty will be pleased to give your royal assent to the said act, and, by an or- der of Your Majesty in council, declare the said act to contain the rules, regulations, and restrictions respecting the fisheries for the coasts, bays, ereeks, and harbors of Nova Scotia. In council, 22d February, 1836. BRENTON HALLIBURTON, President of His Majesty's Council. In the house of assembly, 24th February, 1836. S. G. W. ARCHIBALD, Speaker of the Assembly. 1460 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 4. TO THE QUEEN’S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. The bumble address of the legislative council and house of assembly of . Nova Scotia in Provincial Parliament. May it please Your Majesty: The council and house of assembly of your loyal Province of Nova Seotia humbly approach Your Majesty with their complaints against the citizens of the United States of America, who violate with impu- nity the provisions of treaties existing between the two nations, to the injury and detriment of the inhabitants of this colony. Your council and assembly humbly refer Your Majesty to the conven- tion made in the year 1818, whereby the American Government obtained for the citizens of that country privileges not ceded to them by the treaty of 1783, and under the effect of wuich these provinces have lan- guished ever since, and the operation of which is fully explained in the annexed report and documents. The commercial eagerness which characterizes the people of the United States of America, aided by the spirit of their government, has for years caused them to transgress the bounds defined by treaty, and exercise rights over the fisheries of these colonies not ceded even by the unfor- tunate convention alluded to. Their fishermen, in violation of that con- vention, enter the gulfs, bays, harbors, creeks, narrow seas, and waters of these colonies; they land on the shores of Prince Edward and the Mag- dalen Islands, and by force, and aided by superior numbers, drive Brit- ish fishermen from Banks and fishing grounds solely and exclusively British, and by carrying on an unlawtul intercourse with needy and un- protected fishermen, induce them to violate all the laws of trade, and introduce feelings and opinions destructive to the principles of a well- intentioned but secluded and uninformed portion of Your Majesty’s sub- jects, thus demoralizing and contaminating the ignorant but loyal in- habitants along our extensive shores, and most essentially injuring the manufacturers of the United Kingdom, the merchants and ship-owners of the empire, and the revenue of this and the other provinces. Your council and assembly solicit your royal attention to the address of this province to His late Majesty George the Fourth (hereto annexed) as prophetic of the effects of the Convention of 1818,and urge Your Majesty to mark the fulfillment of its anticipations in the report of 1837. Aware of the solicitude of Your Majesty for the happiness and welfare of your faithful North American subjects, your council and assembly humbly pray encouragement and protection of their commerce and fish- ery, and that Your Majesty will order small armed vessels to cruise on the coasts of these colonies to prevent such encroachments, or direct two steamboats to be added to the fleet on this station, to resort to the various fishing-grounds during the season. And the legislature will cause depots of fuel to be provided for them at the provincial expense. Confident that Your Majesty, considering the foregoing facts, and mark- ing the character of the times, will adhere to the enlightened policy which has distinguished your illustrious house, and extend to your faithful and loyal subjects of Nova Scotia that protection of their inter- ests which they ask as Britons, and which may prove consistent with the claims of other portions of Your Majesty’s extensive dominions. In council, 22d March, 1838. J. B. ROBIE, President of the Legislative Council, a En = AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1461 In the house of assembly, 20th March, 1838. S. G. W. ARCHIBALD, Speaker of the Assembly, No.. 5. Proceedings of the general assembly of Nora Scotia upon the convention concluded between His Majesty and the United States of America, pub- lished by order of both houses in general session, at Halifax, in April, 1819. j HALIFAX, 88: Robert Molleson Cutler, of Guysborough, in the county of G uysborough, esquire, a member of Her Majesty’s legislative council for the Province of Nova Scotia, maketh oath and sayeth: That he had been engaged upward of thirty years in commerce and the fisheries of Canso, Fox Island, and Crow Harbor, in Chedabueto Bay, where, until within the last four or five years, immense quantities of mackerel were annually eaught and taken in seines and nets by persons resorting thither from various parts of this and the neighboring provinces; that since the citi- zens of the United States have prosecuted the mackerel fisheries to any extent in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, those of Chedabucto Bay, aforesaid, have every year gradually decreased, and are now so seriously injured that they are no longer considered by merchant or fisherman au object of profitable pursuit; that being apprehensive the almost entire failure of the fisheries in the said bay would compel many of the fishermen, resident on its shores, to abandon in utter despair an occupation no longer likely to yield them adequate support, and cause them to remove with their families to a foreign land ; and being desirous of ascertaining the practicability of prosecuting from the bay the mackerel fisheries upon the System on which they are now carried on by American subjects in British waters, this deponent, by way of experiment and to stimulate others to follow his example, sailed from Guysborough, aforesaid, in the month of ‘Angust last, in a vessel equipped and manned by him for the parpose, on @ mackerel voyage to the Gulf of St. Lawrence aforesaid, where he re- mained about five weeks fishing, sometimes on the shores of Cape Bre- ton and Prince Edward Island, within the distance of three miles, and at Other times within a half a mile of the shore ; that he frequently observed American vessels in numbers of from fifty to seventy along the shores of Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island, many of which were fishing ‘Within the distance of three miles therefrom; that it is the almost in- Variable practice of the American fishermen to make a harbor every Saturday night and remain at anchor until the Monday morning follow- ing; that during hissaid voyage this deponent frequently anchored in the larbors of Prince Edward Island and under Marguerite Island, distant about four miles from the shore, and at Port Hood, in the Islaud of Cape ton, in company with from forty to sixty American fishing vessels, Which seemed to enter the said harbors as freely and with’ as little re- ‘straint as the vessels of British subjects; that this deponent Is now per fectly satisfied from actual observation that the manner and system on _ Which the citizens of the United States prosecute the mackerel fishery on _ the shores of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, iu numbers almost incredible, Se thust be in the highest degree injurious to the net and seine fishery ibe Tied on by British fishermen on the eastern shores of Nova Scotia; ane e ae Se 1462 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. hesitates not to declare it as his deliberate opinion that if prompt and . effectual measures be not soon adopted to prevent encroachments upon our coasts, and the open violation of existing treaties by the fishermen of the United States, the hitherto important and valuable net and seine fishery of Chedabucto Bay, and of Nova Scotia generally, already so much diminished, will ere long be entirely destroyed. R. M. CUTLER. Sworn to at Halifax this 23d March, 1838. JOHN LIDDELL, J. P. GOVERNMENT Howse, Fredericton, January 27, 1838. Sir: With reference to the subject of your excellency’s communica- tion of the 10th instant, and the document by which it was accompanied, I have the honor herewith to transmit a copy of information upon oath from two most respectable individuals of this province, detailing in very clear and forcible terms the unwarrantable proceedings of American fishing-vessels within our waters on the northeast coast of this province, These informations, resting on no equivocal authority, I should feel obliged by your excellency taking an opportunity of communicating to his excellency the vice-admiral commanding in chief Her Majesty’s naval forces on the North American station. I have, &e., J. HARVEY. His Excellency Maj. Gen. Sir COLIN CAMPBELL, K. C. B., déec., de. {Inclosure in No. 6.] NEw BRUNSWICK: ; Duncan Hay, of Carraquette, in the county of Gloucester, in the Province of New Brunswick, British North America, yeoman, and Charles Coughlan, of the same place, yeoman, make oath and state as follows: First, the said Duncan Hay deposed and saith that he has lived in Carraquette, in the Bay of Chaleur, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, for three years last past, and that during that period and for three years before was personally employed in carrying on the fishery at Point Miscou, being the outermost point of the island of Miscou, a fish- ing station very much resorted to by the inhabitants on both sides the Bay des Cha- leurs as well as other British settlements both in this Province of New Brunswick as well as Nova Scotia, embracing a line of coast of nearly 100 miles; that for the whole of the period of time above mentioned the said tishing-grounds have been during the fishing-season frequented by great numbers of American fishermen, who are in the constant habit of coming within the line marked out by the treaty subsisting between the British and American Governments, and in so doing interfering with the British fishermen, to their very great detriment and the prevention of their taking fish, the destruction in a great measure of the beneficial use of the said fishery by British sub- jects, and dispersing the shoals of fish. That this deponent has witnessed every year, from the commencement and during the continuance of the fishing season, in the months of June and July, American fishing-vessels, varying in numbers from 30, 40, 50, and sometimes 100 at a time, actively employed in taking fish, and, not content with so doing in the deep waters, they approach within the small bays and close in with J the shore, as well for catching fish as for the purpose of taking bait, without which latter the fishing cannot be carried on, and in so doing frequently directly interfere with the inhabitants and British fishermen, and, in some instances, being the most pumerous, and, therefore, not to be restrained or prevented, take such bait out of the nets and seines used by the said inhabitants for taking such bait, and also by the number of vessels extended in continuous lines in positions that break up and turn the shoals of fish from entering the different bays and places of resort to which the AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1463 __ gaid bait and other fish have been and are in the habit of resorting. T | the British subjects in the right of fishing it will require more Manicn pve ahd bese, | of an armed vessel—some permanent establishment during the whole of the fishing. [ season, in the opinion of the deponent, will be necessary to do away with the ee ference and annoyance above detailed. es . And the deponent, Charles Coughlan, for himself, saith, that he has resided at Car- raquette aforesaid, thirty miles from Point Miscou aforesaid, about nine years last past and has also been employed in carrying on a fishing establishment, and that the fore. oing statement as relates to the interference of the American fishermen in taking sh, and the other interruptious mentioned by the deponent, Duncan Hay, are correct and true, and that he perfectly coincides with him as to the means of preventing the | same. F DUNCAN HAY. | CHAS. COUGHLAN. 4 wedge this 24th day of January, 1838, before me, at Fredericton, in the county of | ork, : lf THOMAS C. LEE, J. P. _ _ Dunean Hay and Charles Coughlan, the deponents named in the accompanying affi- davits, further by way of general observations relating to the subject of the interfer- ence of the American fishermen, would particularly mention the mode in which they earry on their fishing, which they, these informants, consider to have a very injurious effect on the fishery in general. In the first place, they, the said American fishermen, are in the constant habit, after _ catching the fish, of bringing their vessels in very near to the shore, frequently as near as they will ride, and in that situation clean their fish and throw overboard the gar- € hage; which at that season of the year shortly becomes putrid, and has a direct tendency to drive away the shoals of fish there resorting. 4 Secondly, they are in the habit, when their vessels are surrounded by a shoal or shoals of mackerel, of cutting up with machines calculated for that purpose, quantities __ of fish into small pieces, and then scattering the same about to keep the shoals about _ their vessels, and at the same time throwing into the water quantities of dry salt, _ which the fish seize together with the small cut up bait, which is supposed to stupefy _ or have such effect as to detain them, and thereby the fishermen are enabled to take fish in great quantities and break up the shoals. They also throw into the water, ' together with the said small bait and dry salt, quantities of Indian meal, which ren- _ ders the surface turbid. This course being pursued by a large number of vessels sta- tioned generally across the entrance of the bays and other places into which the mack- erel are in the habit of resorting, necessarily turns their course and prevents the Brit- ish fishermen from taking the same into those bays, coves, and inlets, where they have always, before the American fishermen were in the habit of frequenting the said fish- ing-grounds, been accustomed to take fish. DUNCAN HAY. fe CHAS. COUGHLAN. _ FREDERICTON, January 24, 1838. oN ee me Lt No. 7. _ [Extract from the Royal Gazette, vol. 8, dated Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island ; Tuesday, June 26, 1832. ] On the evening of Sunday, the 17th instant. the bark Sir Archibald Campbell, Tait, from Maramichi for Sunderland, in a thick fog, and the - sea running high, struck on the reef off the North Cape of this island, and is a complete wreck. The crew got on shore the same night. Next morning a boat put off for the wreck for the purpose of saving what they could. An American fishing-vessel was seen leaving the wreck ; and on the boat’s crew arriving on board, they found that the cabin had been rummaged by the Americans, the lockers broken open, and that all the provisions, and every article they could lay their hands upon in the cabin, carried off, except two flags. Not contented with this, ~ _ had also carried off the hawsers, two new sails, part of the rigging, ane the jolly boat. Another boat had in the mean time put off teste _ Shore after the American, and demanded the bark’s jolly-boat, whic ta! ~ sail “ oe r A 1464 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION they observed her to have in tow. On their demanding it, they were told to be off or they would sink them. The shore boat was close enough to discern the name of the schooner, and the port she belonged to. Captain Tait and his crew were busily employed landing all they could from the wreck, but as there were no less than forty-eight sail of Amer- ican fishermen close in upon the reef, he was under continual apprehen- sion that some of their crews would land and plunder what he bad saved. It is certainly high time that some means were adopted to put an end to such depredations on our coasts, and for the protection of the fisher- ies from the Americans. A few days ago there were a number of them in the barbor of Richmond Bay carrying on their avocation. No. 8. Copy of a dispatch from Lieutenant-Governor Sir J. Harvey to Lord Glenelg. GOVERNMENT HOUSE, Fredericton, March 19, 1839. ‘ My Lorn: I have the’ honor herewith to transmit to your lordship copy of a report of the House of Assembly of this province, relative to the encroachments which continue to be made on the fishing grounds of this province. A copy of this report will also be transmitted by me to the naval commander-in-chief upon this station, and to Her Majesty’s minister at Washington. I have, &ce., J, BARVEY: The Right Hon. LORD GLENELG, c., de., Ge. ({Inclosure in No. &.] House or ASSEMBLY, March 18, 1839. The select committee, to whom was referred that part of the petition of Wilford Fisher, James Chaffey, J. Snell, esquires, and 181 others, of the parishes of Grand Manan, West Isles, and Campo Bello, in the county of Charlotte, relating to the encroachments which continue to be made on the fishing grounds of this province by vessels of the neighboring states, report: That the aftidavits of ten credible persons, residents of Grand Manan, sundry certifi- cates of the overseers of the fisheries of the same island, with a mass of other evidence, have been laid before your committee, and had most deliberate consideration from them. That it manifestly appears that the aggressions so often complained of, and so fre- quently brought under the notice of the legislature of this province, not only have not ceased, but have actually increased, to a degree which calls loudly for the immediate interposition of government. It distinctly appears, from the affidavits and certificates, that from ten to twenty sail of American fishing-vessels are almost continually to be found at anchor, catching fish, within one mile of the shores of Grand Manan, in audacious violation of the rights of the people of this province, and in open and avowed defiance of any force which the inhabitants could possibly bring against them. That those persons, restrained by no fishery regulations, either British or Amerivan, carry on their lawless practices in a most reckless manner, to the great and lasting injury of the fisheries; and that they do not hesitate to have recourse to violence in repelling the fishermen of Grand Manan from their own fishing-grounds, by means of which, and of many other outrages, this valua- ble source of provincial wealth is almost wholly wrested from its natural possessors. It has been satisfactorily shown to your committee thac the overseers of the fisheries of Grand Manan, in the due execution of their public duty, have frequently endeavored 'g AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1465 to prevent these proceedings, but in vain; but they have bsen threatened with cor- poral violence by the American fishermen, who on several occasions have attempted to capture and carry them off to the States. rom undoubted information laid before yoar committee it is manifest that Ameri- can aggressions of this nature are not confined to the southern shores of the province The Bay of Chaleur and the adjacent barbors are annually infested by American fish- ing vessels, carrying on an illicit trade with the inhabitants and committing such dep- ations upon the fisheries as ought no longer to be endured. Your committee earnestly submit the subject to the grave consideration of the honse and cannot forbear expressing their hope that the wisdom of the house may suggest such prompt measures as will immediately remove the grievances complained of. W. F. W. OWEN. JAMES BROWN, Jus. W.. VEE: CoMMITTE-Room, March 16, 1339. This report being accepted by the honse— Resolved, That an humble address be presented to his excellency the lieutenant-gov- ernor, communicating the foregoing report and requesting that his excellency will be pleased to take such measures thereon as to him shall seem expedient. CHAS. P. WITMORE, Clerk. No. 9. (+ TO THE QUEEN’S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. Most Gracious Sovereign: We, Your Majesty’s dutiful and loval subjects, the legislative council and assembly of Prince Edward Island, in general assembly convened, humbly approach the Throne, with sentiments of the most sincere and - affectionate attachment to Your Majesty’s person and government. We beg leave to state to Your Majesty that the subject of encroach- ments upon the shores of this island by American fishermen has been _ brought to our notice by bis excellency the lieutenant-governor, in his _ Opening speech at the commencement of the present session; that we _ have given this important subject due consideration; and from informa- ion that we have collected, we find that the Americans are constantly ‘in the habit of fishing within the prescribed distance, as defined by the convention of the year one thousand eight hundred and eighteen, of Tunning into our harbors, bays, and creeks, whenever it suits their con- venience, to procure bait, and of thus seizing the opportunity to carry _ OD a contraband trade with the inhabitants of this island. That the ship of war graciously sent by Your Majesty every season, | for the purpose of cruising round our coast to protect the fisheries, is _ theffective, inasmuch as it cruises to visit the several fishing stations | around the shores of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, for which they are better ‘adapted than for the shallow waters around this island, and the Ameri- ¢an fishermen take advantage of the absence of the ship of war to con- tinue their encroachments. That an armed steamer, drawing but little water, would, in the opin- jon of the council and assembly, be much more effective In protecting our fisheries from the encroachments of the Americans than a ship of ‘War, as the steamer could take advantage of the light winds and calms | 80 frequent during the fishing season, and could run into the smaller . bays, rivers, and creeks of our shores, and seize American vessels, if the _ €rews thereof are acting contrary to and in violation of all the terms of the Convention. : : _ * We, therefore, humbly pray that Your Majesty will be graciously a ee 1466 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. pleased to order that an armed steamer, drawing but little water, be placed upon this station every season, to protect our fisheries from the encroachments of the Americans. And, as in duty bound, we shall ever pray. Council chamber, 24th March, 1843. R. HODSON, President. House of assembly, 24th March, 1843. JOSEPH POPE, Speaker. No. 10. [Extract of dispatch from Commander Cochran to Vice-Admiral Seymour, dated Her Majesty’s sloop Sappho, Halifax, October 3, 1851.] I have the honor to inform you that on Jeaving Pictou I proceeded to visit, in accordance with your orders, the north shore of Prince Edward Island. Off the eastern shore and about East Point, from fifty to sixty schooners were catching mackerel. Five of these were English, the rest Americans. One of these, being within the limits, I ordered off. St. Peters —A small schooner named the Experiment, fitted out by Sir Alexander Bannerman to test the value of the cod fisheries to the northward of the island, was at anchor in the bay. She had not been very successful, beiug too small to ride on the grounds in blowing weather. Warned off four American schooners hove to within the limits, though not actually fishing. Passed thirty sail of schooners at night. Richmond Harbor.—Four schooners were absent, engaged in the fisheries. New London.—Two schooners engaged in the mackerel fisheries. Casumpeque.—Two schooners belong here, engaged in fishing, and a few boats. Forty English and 120 American schooners have been seen at anchor in this harbor at one time, engaged in mackerel fishing. Miscou Island.—The only firms residing are those of Mr. Botillier and Mr. Alexander. They have caught 2,000 quintals of cod, which is con- sidered a good average. The firm of Mr. Boutillier think of abandon- ing the island, as the fishing is falling off very much. This island, once famous for the quantity of bait that used to strike in, is now compara- tively deserted. I was informed that forty American schooners had been fishing close off the beach a few days previous, catching No. 1 mackerel. : - Paspebiac.—Mr. Robins and Mr. Boutillier have large establishments. Five vessels of Mr. Robins’s were at anchor, representing 1,056 tons. The catch of fish had averaged 50 quintals per boat, which was con- sidered very good. The number of boats twenty-five. Complaints of the American fishermen catching mackerel close to the shores, and of their attracting and drifting off shoals of fish. Thirty or forty are said to have been fishing close to the beach. | Yew Carlisle, I was informed, has eighteen boats. Port Daniel.—Though open to the southeast, is said to be a very safe anchorage during the summer. Winds from that quarter are said not to blow home. The cod-fishing has been very successful, the boats, of which there are thirty, having taken four or five quintals per day. The fishing-grounds are about five miles from the land. Pierre.—The quantity of cod taken is very large, averaging per boat | : AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1467 (of which there are 120) ninety quintals. Complaints of American fish- ermen fishing close to the shore and attracting mackerel to sea. One schooner took seventy and another sixty barrels in one day close to the a? Mr. Robins and Mr. Botillier have the largest establishments ere. Mal Bay.—Made two American vessels weigh and proceed to sea, who were at anchor without any good reason. In consequence of a strong current was unable to reach St. Peter’s before dusk, and being a dan- gerous place to visit at that hour made:sail for Gaspé Bay. St. Peter's has eighty-two boats and the cod fishery has been successful. Gaspé Bay.—Owns uearly 200 boats, of which Douglas Town claims thirty. The average catch has been fifty quintals per boat, which was considered good. M. Botillier, Janvein, Wilson, and Prichard have establishments in Gaspé Harbor. Three English schooners engaged in the mackerel fishery, which they prosecuted by seines, arrived trom the Bay of Seven Islands, Labrador, in which harbor they bad seen as many as forty American schooners engaged in mackerel fishery ; almost all had left in consequence of the fish not having struck in. It was stated that the Americans had set fire to the woods, and made themselves very troublesome. Five schooners belong here engaged in the whale trade, and have been very successful, and three schooners in the cod fishery. At Grand Greve as many as fifty American schooners have been fish- ing close to the beach for mackerel. h REMARKS. ; The curious circumstance that about 1,000 sail of American schooners find it very remunerative to pursue the herring and mackerel fisheries _ on the shores of our northern provinces, while the inhabitants scarcely take any, does indeed appear strange, and apparently is to be accounted for by the fact that the colonists are wanting in capital and energy. The Jersey merchants, who may be said to possess the whole labor _ market, do not turn their attention to these branches. Tbe business of the Jersey houses is generally, I believe, with one exception, carried on by agents; these persons receive instructions from: their employers to ~ devote their whole time and energy to the catching and curing of cod. Such coustant attention to one subject appears at least to engender a perfect apathy respecting other branches of their trade. They are all _ aware, I believe fully aware, of the advantages to be derived from catching the herring and mackerel, when these come in shoals within a few yards of their doors, but still nothing is done. Commercial relations of long standing, never having engaged in the trade before, possible want of the knowledge of the markets, and the alleged want of skill among the fishermen of the method of catching and curing these fish, together with the twenty per cent. duty on Eng- lish fish in America, may tend to induce the Jersey houses not to enter into these branches. Added to all these reasons the capital of the prin- cipals is, I am informed, in most instances small. It will probably be difficult to find about the Bay of Chaleurs and Gaspé any fishermen not engaged by some one of the numerous Jersey houses; and it may be ‘said that a new branch of industry would much interfere with the eod fishery, but so lucrative a trade as the herring and mackerel ove would prove would enable higher wages to be given than are done for cod, In fact I believe that very small, if any, wages are given at all, the money due to the fisherman for his summer labor being absorbed in food and clothing for himself and family, repairs of boats and fishing gear, almost 1468 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. always deeply in debt in the spring, or at any rate sufficiently so to insure his labor for the ensuing summer, and so more persons would be induced to resort here the summer season. The want of knowledge of the method of catching and curing could be easily remedied. A little practice, with the aid of some government inspectors well conversaut with the whole operation, together with the method of curing herrings in the Dutch fashion, who should inspect and brand the barrels, would soon remedy the evil complained of, and give a character and value to their fish. The fishermen, when asked why they do not catch mackerel, replied that they have not the means, and that the Americans have some secret of catching the fish, which con- sists, Iam told, in throwing overboard chopped and crushed bait, thereby attracting the fish around their vessel, when they are ready with plenty of hands and good gear to take advantage of the opportunity. The American schooners engaged in fishing during the summer in the gulf are, Il am told, in the winter employed in the coasting trade, and some fish off the Banks near New York. This employment during the winter is an advantage which the vessels of our colonies would not have, but this is counterbalanced by having the fish so abundant along the shores at all points as to render the necessity of employment of vessels devoted to that purpose almost unnecessary. About 600 American schooners passed through the Gut of Canso this year in the prosecution of the mackerel fishing, many of which have returned with two or three cargoes. There are three qualities of mack- erel—those taken in the spring are of an inferior quality, called No. 3; later in the year No. 2, and in the fall No. 1. It is said that from 60 to 70 more schooners this year than last, many of them new, are in the gulf this season. No. Ph (Extract of a dispatch from Sir A. Bannerman to Earl Grey, dated Prince Edward Island, November 15, 1851.) 6. To the United States Government the fisheries are of vast im- portance, and they will become more so in this part of North America when the New Brunswick Railway runs, as is proposed, near to Shediac, within a few hours’ sail of the harbor of Bedoque in this island, from which the produce of the fisheries would be sent to Boston in a very short space of time, leaving the fishing-vessels to prosecute their occu- pation, instead of carrying home their cargoes, as they frequently do, and returning to the fishing-grounds in the same season, performing a voy- age of 1,200 to 1,500 miles. 7. Your lordship will have some idea of the magnitude of the Ameri- ean fleet of fishermen when I inform you that about the latter end of September 250 United States schooners came into Malpeque, on the north side of this island. They are beautifully equipped, averaging from 60 to 110 tons, and their crews consist of from ten to twelve men each. About 1,500 of them landed at Prinee Town and attended an agricultural show there. They behaved as well and peaceably as so many sailors congregated together could be expected to do; but this will not always be the case where brandy and rum are to be bad cheap. They are under no control, and, as they daily infringe the treaty by fish- ing close to the shore, the United States Government eannot be ex- = -e AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1469 pected to send one of their cruisers to enforce it, and otherwise to keep the peace among them. Should any disturbance hereafter take place which, from many accidental causes, is not improbable, the lieutenant. . governor of this colony would be placed in a delicate position with the subjects of a foreign yet friendly power. No.. 12. TO THE QUEEN’S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. We, Your Majesty’s dutiful and loyal subjects, the legislative council and assembly of Prince Edward Island, in Colonial Parliament as- sembled, humbly beg leave to renew our assurances of devoted loyalty and attachment to Your Majesty’s person and government; and we beg again to approach the foot of the throne on the subject of our joint ad- dress, forwarded to Great Britain so long ago as the year 1849, praying for an abrogation or relaxation of the Treaty of 1818 with the United States Government, as concerns the fisheries surrounding this island. This address, as we were informed by Your Majesty’s colonial minister, was most graciously received by Your Majesty, and, we were told, would receive the earnest consideration of Your Majesty’s Government. . We beg to state that this subject becomes of daily increasing moment. Your Majesty’s representative, the lieutenant-governor of this island, in the late fishing season had the opportunity of personally witnessing hundreds of fishing vessels, belonging to the United States, fishing on our shores and frequenting our harbors, in direct contravention of the treaty of 1818. His excellency has not the means of preventing an intrusion so detri- mental to our best interests; the single ship of war of Your Majesty’s fleet usually employed in this duty being inadequate to the extensive service required of her. The citizens of the United States have an advantage over the subjects of Your Majesty in this island, which prevents all successtul competition, as our own fish caught on our own shores by strangers are carried into oa ports by themselves, whereas we are excluded by high proteetive aties. : The legislature of this island passed an act in the twelfth year of Your Majesty’s reign which offered to reciprocate with the United States in ‘the interchange of certain enumerated articles, notwithstanding whieh offers our fish and agricultural produce, tor which latter there is an ex- tensive demand in the Northern States of the American Union, remain subject to high duties. And although the British navigation laws have been so relaxed that foreign-built vessels owned by British subjects may obtain British reg- _ istries, a. concession from which the citizens of the United States have very recently derived great advantages by the sale of their vessels ‘stranded on the shores of this island during the disastrous gale of last autumn, no reciprocal advantage is offered to us, which, if obtained, would be of immense importance to the builders of ships and fishing vessels in this island. ; eee Her Majesty’s subjects are desirous to continue to cultivate the good- will of the citizens of the United States by every reasonable concession, and with a due consideration of the value of the intercourse which, ou * 1470 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. a basis of reciprocal advantage, might be established. They presume that the immense importance to the United States of an uninterrupted right of fishing on the shores of this island as a basis of treaty ought to insure for them valuable concessions; and if this be not possible, that the fisheries ought to be scrupulously maintained in the spirit of the treaty of 1818. We most humbly pray that Your Majesty will be most graciously pleased to take the premises into your favorable consideration, and cause to be removed the restrictions of the treaty of 1818, prohibiting American citizens from fishing within certain prescribed limits on the shores of this island, provided the American Government admit articles the growth or production of this island into the United States duty-free, in accordance with the act of the general assembly of this island passed in the twelfth year of Your Majesty’s reign, entitled “An act to authorize free trade with the United States of America in certain enumerated articles, including fish, also vessels built on this island to American registry.” And as in duty bound we shall ever pray. R. HUGDSON, President. COUNCIL CHAMBER, February 9, 1852. ALEXANDER RAE, Speaker. HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY, February 9, 1852. No. 13. Copy of a dispatch from Lieutenant-Governor Sir A. Bannerman to Earl Grey. GOVERNMENT HOovwsgE, February 12, 1852. My Lorn: In reference to the accompanying dispatch, I beg leave to direct your lordship’s attention to a colonial act, 6th Vict., cap. 14, page 698 of the volume of statutes which I recently forwarded to your lordship. The act to which I refer is one which received the royal as- sent on the 3d September, 1844, and an order was on the same day made by Her Majesty in council, declaring “that its clauses and provisions should be the rules, regulations, and restrictions, respecting the fisheries on the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of the Island of Prince Edward.” 2. By the provisions of this act officers of customs and excise, sheriffs, magistrates, and any person holding a commission from the lieutenant- governor, are authorized to board, search, &c., vessels within three ma- rine miles of the coast; “and if found fishing, preparing to fish, or to have been fishing ” within that distance, such vessels, with their cargoes, to be seized, and forfeited, &e., &e. 3. The provisions of this act have never yet been enforced, but should the fishery question remain much longer unsettled, in all probability attempts will be made to seize American vessels and such attempts will be resisted, which may lead to collisions, the consequences of which are not easily to be foreseen. 4. To guard against any such occurrences, I think it would be very desirable for Her Majesty’s Government to order a steamer to be sta- tioned here from the Ist June to the lst October, the commander of - AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1471 which, in addition to his instructions from the admiralty, would be fortified with a commission from the lieutenant-governor of this island enabling him, in terms of the act and order in council, to legally enforce their provisions within the limits prescribed by the act; for I consider that the powers which the statute vests in custom. house officers, &c., &e. in so far as the fisheries are concerned, to be very dangerous ones, and such as ought only to be intrusted to those who have the means as well as the authority to enforce them. ; 5. I understand that there is nothing more likely to urge the Ameri- can Government to an amicable settlement of this long-vexed question than an enforcement of the treaty around this island, where their fisher- men catch most of the mackerel sent to the United States, and where, last autumn, one of Her Majesty’s steamships could in a few bours have seized and got legally condemned property amounting to upward of £50,000. 6. Notification of the royal assent: to the act alluded to and order in eouncil were published in the Royal Gazette of this island on the 8th October, 1844; but lam ignorant whether the United States Government are aware of its provisions; and it will be for your lordship to determine if any intimation should be made to that government on this importaut subject. 7. [trust from what I have already stated that Her Majesty’s Govern- ment will perceive the peculiar position in which this colony is placed in regard to the fisheries, so very different from the adjoining provinces. Lapprehend that the lieutenant-governor, irrespective of any other in- terests, is entitled to carry that law into effect, applicable to this island, which has received the sanction of the sovereign, and that the legisla- ture may modify, relax, or abrogate such law on conditions subject to the approval of Her Majesty’s Government. The importance of the sub- ject will, I trust, be my excuse for troubling your lordship at such length. I have, &c., A. BANNERMAN, Lieut. Governor. The Right Hon. EARL GREY, céc., &e. INOfrL4. PRINCE Town, July 2, 1852. Sm: On the Ist of July there was a number of American fishing: schooners in this harbor, and I boarded them to collect anchorage daty from them; they would not pay, and positively affirmed that they would not comply with the law; and I had not force enough to take so many __ vessels, each of them comprising a crew of from twelve to fifteen men, and I could say well equipped for a defense ; and I beg to state that we _ have neither ammunition or any weapons of defense that if all our popu- lation would turn out, and the men will not turn out to my assistance ; _ they state that the law does not compel them. I issued a eapias for one _of the captains, but they only made fun of us. Hoping that your ex _ eellency will adopt some means to make them comply with the laws; _ if not, it will be useless for me to demand it at all; when two or three hundred sail comes in, the same as tiiere was last year, they will do as cok i : yee amen ny ’ + ; ¥ 1472 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. they please ; they state that if the lights were up they would pay, but not till then. I have, &c., Hon. J. WARBURTON, Colonial Secretary WILLIAM H. MKAY, Harbor Master. No. 15. COURT OF VICE-ADMIRALTY AT HALIFAX. A return of the number of American vessels seized for violation of the convention made be- tween the Government of Great Britain and the United States of America, in the year 1818, and prosecuted in this court, with the dates of their seizure and condemnation or restoration, | . | Condemnat’n}, . |Condemnat’n Name of vessel. Dare ot SelZ- | “or restora- | Name of vessel. | i een Seiz- | “or restora- : tion. | i tion. | i WVOYO. sess ec eee -uioae é June 1, 1838| Jan. 28, 1839 |) Director............. | Sept. 18,1840 | Dec. 8, 1840 GComuene: .-c25.s-50<% Nov. 1,1838| Jan. 26, 1839 || Ocean .............. | Oct. 1,1840| Dee. 8, 1840 Shetland e222-.2226- << June 4,1839] July 8, 1839 || Pioneer ............. | May 6,1841| Aug. 18,1841 PAVE aioe ares ier sinis'a| May —,1839| Aug. 5, 1839 || Two Friends ........ | May 20,1841 | Restored. Independence .-...... ‘May (26:.1839' |" Ang: 1°5;'1830' |} Mars. s osu). cocci cc's | Sept. 20,1841 | Nov. 2,1841 IMGONIONS «cowie scicacteus May 25,1839 | Aug. 5, 1839 || Egret .............-- | Sept. 20,1241 | Nov. 2, 1841 art 222255. dss-50--5-|) May —, 1839) Aug. °5,.18399'|| Warrior’. .<- 2c 6365 Oct. 13,1841! Nov. 9, 1841 Batelle on. stccedenie 5: June —, 1839 | July 8, 1839} Hope....-.....-...-. | Oct. 13,1841 | Restored. Hyder: Ajly.s6..ccand in reply to state that copies of my instructions to officers under my orders were transmitted to Her Majesty’s minister at Washington, and were by him communicated by the orders of Her Majesty’s Government to the United States Secretary of State. Although it is not within the scope of my authority to furnish you with these documents, [ may state in general terms, which will probably be sufficient for the purpose you have in view, that the duty enjoined on the commanding officers of Her Majesty’s ships is to prevent any in- fringement of the arrangement agreed on between the two governments in respect of the fisheries in the treaty of 1818. That treaty expressly defines the purposes for which alone United States fishing-vessels are to be allowed to enter ports within certain limits. The words used are as follows: ‘‘ Provided, however, that the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, and curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them.” It appears to me that the expression “for no other purpose whatever” excludes them from procuring ice, bait, and other supplies; and the offi- 1496 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. cers have therefore, in my judgment, properly notified fishermen against — attempt to infringe the treaty, and by so doing also disobey the British aia colonial laws in reference thereto, in which the very same terms are used. I have, &e., GEO. G. WELLESLY, Vice-Admiral. His Honor Judge JACKSON, _ United States Consul, Halifax. No. 39. Captain Hardinge to Vice-Admiral Wellesley. VALOROUS, HALIFAX, September 17, 1870.. Sir: Agreeably to article 3 of your instructions, dated 3d May last, I have the honor to make the following report: Owing to the seizure of the schooner S. G. Marshall, on the 31st July, the ship has been much detained at Charlotte Town in prosecuting her to condemnation. In consequence of the evidence obtained of various vessels in the em- ploy of and belonging to Mr. J. C. Hall, an American citizen, doing bu- siness in Charlotte Town, being illegally registered, and wearing Eng- lish colors, to enable them to prosecute the inshore fishery, my attention has been greatly given to the detection of these irregular vessels. The presence of a ship of war at Charlotte Town, I consider, would be of great assistance in exercising supervision and checking these frauds on the statutes. This port, being on no fishing station, is rarely visited, and, in conse- quence, the officials, to whom it was my duty to apply, were unable to render me the assistance I required. In exercising a supervision over the shipping here, which is much wanted owing to the class of persons who form the customs authorities, and who here are appointed solely from political reasons, the irregular vessels would in time be suppressed. it must be remembered that these irregularly-owned vessels are fitted out to obtain their cargoes in a short space of time, e. g., the S. G. Mar- shall had on board two seines, one of 200 fathoms long and 18 feet deep, the other 100 fathoms in length and 12 feet in depth. The cost of the first one was about 400/.,the smaller one about 2001. In addition she had four boats. In evidence, the master stated that if he had remained where he was taken he would have filled his vessel in forty-eight hours. __ With regard to the fishery on No. 6 station, I have, owing to the lim- ited space of timeactively employed, but little to record. The cod-fishery was a good average catch from the Bay of Chaleur along the coast to Peter Point. The mackerel fishery was hardly an average, if the American fisher- men are to be believed. The English vessels made good catches off Bathurst and other places close to the shore where the fish schooled. By this, I do not mean it to be inferred that the American fishermen do not fish inside the limit and sl > ae shore fishery. 1 Share in all the advantages of the in : AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1497 1 have seen as many as thirteen vessels at one moment fishing close inshore, but of course the whole were outside the limit before they could be approached. The inhabitants of Port Daniel complained that, prior to this season, the Americans were in the habit of hauling their a in the bay, greatly to the loss and impoverishment of the inhab- itants. The inhabitants of Gaspé Basin and the neighborhood complained of the behavior of an American, Mr. Ebenezer Marshall, of the schooner 8. T. Marshall, last year. They stated that he hauled his large seines on Sandy Beach, forming the harbor, and had brought to land large numbers of young codfish, which were useless to him. The spot always had been a favorite breeding-place for the cod, and they feared that its character would be totally changed, and great loss to them ensue, if that practice was pursued. They also stated that they feared the mackerel would avoid the bay for a season if the seining was persisted in. With regard to the best method of protecting the fisheries during the ensuing season, I beg to make this suggestion : That in the Gulf of St. Lawrence the stations 4, 5, and 6 be placed under a senior officer, so that any one of the cruisers under the altered system might be able to refer any question or difficulty to him. The senior officer would then be able to clear up questions, and explain mat- ters of a delicate character, on the spot. He also would be able to re- lieve the cruiser, in the event of a capture having been made by her, by receiving the necessary witnesses on board, instead of the capturing ship being kept off her station for a length of time. The fact of being able to communicate on the spot with a superior immediately engaged in the same duty would naturally strengthen the position of those engaged in an arduous duty of the character for the first time, and lessen the isolation now experience. In my opinion, it requires a personal acquaintance with those engaged in the fisheries, and also a knowledge of the class of officials met with, to be able to detect the subterfuges to which they have recourse in order to gain their ends. With respect to the Dominion cruisers, and their fitness for the duty ) required of them, I am prompted to make the following remarks : ‘Of those which I have fallen in with, the Ella T. Maclean draws too much water to be a serviceable cruiser. The England is too indifferent a sailer to be of much service. I observe that I have omitted to mention that the master of the 8. T. Marshall last year, and complained of to me, is the same Ebenezer Mar- shall in command of her when captured. I have, &c., E. HARDINGE. No. 40. | [Extract of a despatch from Captain Phillimore to Vice-Admiral Fanshawe. } | | SPHINX, HALIFAX, November 15, 1870. | Simm: With reference to Article III of the fishery restrictions, I have | to inform you that the most plentiful sorts of fish on the western coast | of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence are salmon, cod, ling, mackerel, and herring ; and the best baits that are used for catching them are small } t ] 1498 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. kinds of fish, which are wots Pape ne dragging those parts of riv- yhich become small pools at low water. ; spe lan cod, and tie are found at the mouths of rivers where these boats are, and in about the same proportion of number. ; Mackerel and herring naturally come into shallow water at certain seasons to spawn, and are then in the best condition for human food; but they can be enticed, and very easily, if along a bank, to more than three miles from the coast, and then caught there by a vessel standing out to sea, and throwing overboard large quantities of bait as she goes along. These fish are cured and packed on board the fishing vessels directly they are caught, it being necessary to do so in order to preserve them. As the nearest principal markets for the sale of fish are New York and Boston, and as there is a tax in the United States on fish landed from British vessels, but none from American, and as fish are more plentiful near the coast, it follows that the fishing business on this coast is most profitable when it can be carried on close to the shore, and under Ameri- can colors. Also, as fishing is apparently most profitable under Ameri- can colors, and there is an American law which prevents a British-built ship from ever being able to sail under American colors, it follows that the shipbuilders in the United States have a better market for their fish- ing schooners than the British. On the other hand, it is a disadvantage to the United States Government for vessels to fish under their flag, for they lose the tax which they would get were the fish to be landed at their seaports from British vessels instead of American. The residents about the coast of the Gulf of St. Lawrence have in- formed me that their inshore fishing this season has been good, and that they attribute this in a great measure to the American fishing schooners having been kept off the coast. Large numbers of these schooners have been fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence this year, and have been fre. quently seen doing so within three miles of the coast, notwithstanding the precautions that have been taken to prevent them. These fishing schooners generally go about in fleets, and their crews are made up of a mixture of all nations, with but a few;bona fide Americans among them. These men receive no wages, but a certain share of the proceeds of the sale of the fish caught during the No. 41. (Extract from a letter from Commander Knowles, of Her Majesty’s ship Lapwing (No. is - f race 7th November, 1370, addressed to Vice-Admiral Fawnshawe, commander- “Cilel, PORT HOOD. 2. The inshore fishing in the Vicinity of the port has by all accounts been far above the average, the mackerel coming in through the Gut of /anso about the commencement of June, when there was an immense catch in this harbor; they then went northward toward East Point, a and off Sea-Wolf Island and Chettican. The herring fishery here has been i ae A Li en excellent; the summer herrin came in in July, the fall herrings for three nights in September, and I believe that as much as ten thous an Island and outside Smith's Island. Geri tone omen Hent® | The cod fishery here has not been remarkable. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1499 This port seems to be a great harbor of refuge for the American schooners ; about fifty of them were frequently at anchor at a time, and previous to the treaty large supplies were obtained from the storekeep- ers on shore, but owing to the constant presence of a man-of-war the traders now derive but little if any profit. The general feeling here is that the abrogation of the license system and stringent manner in which the laws have been enforced have had the effect of greatly improving the catch of the inshore and coast fish- ermen. N. B.—Although, as will have been observed, some of the foregoing correspondence appears in the form of extracts, the selections so made have been introduced in their present shape simply for the sake of brevity; and to avoid wearying the attention of the Commissioners with matters irrelevant to the present inquiry. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1500 “oH BPl Iou00yos ‘A107, Y'SUL od OH VYS -doomg JOUOOYOS *JOVGOUIB,) “OY “HL *OUUOIPVUB) BT Tomooyos ‘OOARTT “NT “uBe'JOW “*) VILA JeUOOYOS ‘89,04 “OCH ‘OL ‘od “oH BPl Jguooyos ‘Li0 7, yee ‘apucl eum eunzos wom Le soquenagy ‘ayvp 0}; MOeDI¥ ;w2L4nd ay) Busanp gop) anudaa4 puv haoysy dy) fo woyDvpoOLA 4of B4o8In4r Ut “Sat -puod qjns ‘ xesteH ‘qanoo Aq[BIlUIpB-901 A se eteeeeeseeees Oprteees *osueyop Ul poureyzor [9suN0d * Sut -puod [Ws ‘ xByTeyH ‘4an00 Aj BALULpB-OOT A ‘Plos paw poumopu0o £qanoo Aq[BaluIpe-oo1A ur ooqont) 9B poly, “HOrMsunAg MON JO 8}uno0o Ut UOTPBS PIT JO osanoo Uy Se nesiaisieneen ae sts op'*** ‘ostlajop Ut pourezor josunoo ‘Zur -pued Was | xeeR ‘yanoo A}[ BIT ULpE-eOl A | | xv | 1B ET 9v yanoo Aqywapur -pe-vora 4q Vacated one oop Wo STByo [9.10 “seul pus poold-qsy ysouy osye £41Bq Ysouy WIA =porreq §=syooy pus ‘sd sanity puvjom [oro youu YITA punoy Ayyenjoew =pue ‘eA00 oy} UL poysy Suyavyy teseeesceees SapssNUG “wouTT-SUlysy Racclig} Sunseo MO1D pue ‘g7eq4no Surmo.ayy, “ynq “T[BY XIS OIOM GOI AL uo ‘408 Soul] ‘LOqous FP ‘QINZIOS JO OWT} ye Ysy OF Sutavdoad pues ‘1oqieyy gdsvxy ul skep UdALS BULYSLT ee eisiis Suyssnwg yo pourra AysnorAoid u90q Suravy ‘yods 04} uo ueyZB} ‘ploy oyy UL SuLwoy 444 nwo Ysoy | Jo Aqiguunb v puv ‘ysg 04 Sutredoid soyoue FV | “BOI IT9Y} ULSaTpNVy Jo you oy} UL pavoq Wo UeUI : ‘S°N “0040 1e, odeg ‘QA0D prolg 78 ‘e10q8 JO So[tUr OM} UIUITM ‘S‘N ‘poopy Wog vou ‘puv[sy Aguoy JopuQ ‘SN ‘mojorg ede jo a10ys Jo soll ¢ UTGITM pus pursy jJlomBeg jo YJNOs sou G WEY} S80'T ‘e10Ys MOTIF Spavd 0Se ‘ooqoudy jo our -AOIg ‘OOUGIMYT 9S jo j[ny ‘osoys YQI0U ‘Avg s,joivsieyy 4S seqond JO OOUIAOIT ‘1oqieyy gdsey opieur FYDIT oY Jo o[LULB eae rereenon Sey AGEL *puelsy ysiuosuy Jo opreuy Ajoqu pours pus “sg ‘Nn ‘ystuosuy jo Avg jo opis 4svo uo ‘e10ys TOI, YAU] 89[qQuUo ee ded | 0f BEL Adsy jo axons Naiaoe ey} yo ‘e1oys oy} ct “390 LI “ydog € ‘deg Le ‘dny 81 ‘any | 8% | oun. ou} ‘Surysy APEaAWoy wos soya Fp yuoqy 1% omg | | ‘josn09 | yer PS seo (sess. eens mvog | ¢ ‘Buy j------ edug qwon *eujudol toy Uy |" ***** AOqaeAT puouyory ay |” icietcieteign |) ecg lente seoe"snOM | °""8°°"** TOUR pO, |= "** Ops |e s*<" STMT Altes). |G: ORO Wes oo puowqoyy ‘OL ee ee Sch TA RG 1) | ele teed bee my Re | Pave oe suosieg jor 825°" suoBlvgd |**"** op***"|°""* uaony epoawg | & “Bny |-----"°°°> - og 0d STM GOAT] UIYITA IOgoUvyV |” scsi¥csi*\ pavry suwagy "7" * -*+ uosuyoyg [oo tt *" t+ UOSUTOIg | UvoOJoMW |*""*"*- PRON A EL |e Buy |---- puomygony yo 0d Seeees tonsa siacesas ors Ope ee foros EM ONOTIOTIBGD | (Poo eo gIBeds |) see tese ee eral cs. ops?" |"cccauy qoquzyq |B ‘Buy [otto od ‘oT [escccasoesie ss “OMB UIIOIOL AOR! | oo oc5: S22 = OCUCL) OAER | oc BANOO Wines et Hoon | qsipsug |" eysuq qs | FAs gl IGE ie od 20, GRRE oc sansces BLLIOKO esese*'s2*'GIIZON() | 22 OP eiiross ess esnopeduly % Ajne eeecccacccess oO | “eq UIT] poqisosord . UIQATA YSE OF JOU Tawa OL |°77*7* PUBIST OLIOTT IS |°°°"** -s- eugene |-“oo esos oupene |--* Youory |---* sc ouryene ary | 9% Apap j**7-** were Our srisemessccccenn= 29 2Opese= eS ‘'N ‘jood10avT Saome. preuoqoyy |---"°"** preaoqoyy | “°° op’-**|-*7°°** Beery Asdyxyy | 9% Apne jo-cete seer od hoes Pes sicseseced teas Onesssaeiitesssr 5 yee SUT 1 Selatan Aa ka 1) 0 (8 9 Yl ae eg DUAIOL) es LOp sehen Tos se ouLoyIey | 9% Atue jot RTI rs weet ewe eww wee opstscc: Srila se ese ETCH: tte Racers TOL: BO eC kd PRM AOD ee tomas co ee Oe 9% Ane Vs tsticeess Ory ‘paryls] PABA PIT “MOTPVULLOFUT UYVIqQO OF, |" GN ‘puBsy possuy |-----* ppwaoqoyw |*--**-"* pywuoqoyw |'*~ ystsug |-** saomporg eeaqy, | 93 Ale | cousrg Jo4urod yaug “OL8I “SYAVMOY ‘popavoq osodand yey 10,7 “SupBuojoq Wog “1048U]T “10UMO eaicawat q| ‘Tssea Jo owny | oa | “popavoq otst] AL “02st ‘1990100 fo 181% pun OLET ‘Aine fo YrSe 242 woan}0q g PUD y “SON BUOYS fisoysyf UO Pap *SLLIYSLT PUD aursoyy fo LaysmUenyy 9Y) LOT “AHHOLIH A “HA ‘gow Suyddrys yUvYorow OT} JO UO}OOS pEOT JO UOLLLOJA ‘ospy “AoJsvUT ‘UIVOF] MANTTILAL PUB ‘TOUMO "TUTTO" Sav OG} GALT sopOIJAV 8.dIqs ON} INQ ‘1948LJ01 TO PEMvT OF » “eP “ON nog 8)088aa-burysyf fo y8vT “OLE ‘PL aqua ‘VMVLLO ‘(HONVUG SHIUANSI[) SHIUANS UNV ANIUVAL JO LNIWLAVdad AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. *IOAO 3 et “snolo[B A *S ‘WH ‘od “AVI 1098.4 Jou “OOYOS ‘SHV Woqry ‘od ‘uonvoipn {ps 1OJ UYOL “3G 04 uyVT, “HOLMAsunig MON JO syIn00 UT e1OT}VT1}{] JO O8.1N00 UT “sso00rd ur 1198 fwoyiworpalps 1oy XUpT[VH OF WOW, “OTL odureg soe peo qe ysy wudoig ue -“uvyy puviy ‘spur[sy OOlY,L 78 POgsH OapAv Hy ceeeeceeeees A sSNUg “OTL9EL odmvyg ‘1oqieyy poy “a “N ‘0990] -rvyO Aqunog ‘javq A Bu0AtQ ‘Avg youg ee eweeeee ewww awee S36 “AON 8 ‘AON 900 eee ee eee "SQ “ssEX ‘1oysoon0[y § ‘a ‘ouyeyy ‘qu0dysugy ‘8 ‘0 “Seuy_ .$UMOJIOULAOLT [eqsavyy “AL seeeeee==* JOATIO “I ‘pu “A PAI carat nas oq Vv > ese “H's p90 | “Tae OFAN re ee sseweels iii vsinges] sa08+6h semen AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1502 op:**: tee) oper ODiae Opes: Ops: OD a5" (1 | eae opott: Ope ttt opere: opis? “UvOLLoMm Vy ysysa fete oper teees opree: “uvOlouLy | jute _—— “w10[O0 WwyM sopay seeeees’ OQ190Y8[BT "75> Opes tt}: puowABYy OTL con sODreesices2. = aoe ONTTAK Pere = Op: 2" |°* = 2" BIIassIOg see8- Oprreiss"*** JONB OTTIEA. Ree OPies toe ssa OU PIPL (ses /O-+-"|22->== = DUNT AN “uvofzoury |°--"*""* ey, soUE --yousuge [oss AYFNY avy] uvonomy [ross npg: Away “-ysypdug foot + dneywury Peer ODaa |p asts ea AO LOU TT “ UBULOOI YS, OLY “*7* Josuvy UBvodG— Ravi ste ads SOO. “sre INAS Duras0 yy “spuoulAey "FT AL sores oqny soury emmmmmme (COLL T. see" -SINOT TOILY “775 ven?) PUL] VYIUVMB], JoLLIVA "5° OLQOOLT blir emtieal Oi) th i & ins 22 SOVOS (007 “prrree Jeg{gnY) sOuLYy UBIJO POI ‘Wf 004) “BUOKIV WUT AL *o-o[ Bul *S AIO Woepetyy o1MO quoting oyaay Prin, uovnd pure] -*uesauyy winey] “eoyuuy paar] "7" ORPNO’]T OLIV 5g die Series wow) ieeire tas eeene ono | puopy “Af wel) | 1 | *[OewOA JO CLIENT weg | | ‘aredos ‘rogue yy puv dozJoys a0y | UMOJOFZI004) UL AOYouN 4¥ |- ecceees Ladin ‘od stacereeeeceacewsreces py renee:|- tere eeeees UyTMg ‘od BUH) CoP: ALJ i ECO COL! Cs a 1) | a “* Jyyueuy cerece = STUUOCT “OL Staten etentete sess Qpecere:|seesereeeeee ses Opereres[eeneees MOB LOP, [7777+ OYIUTD UYOL “OL et eeee SIGOS OSU SOG SS (ce ssessees? augkog |**""""9""""" poo “0d stn teeaeeeeeeseeeesens QIectee:|seeeereeeeneres QOpeetees|eeeeeeeeeerogang [ottrst ttt Osi, PAOROUR LO ss ere ce tone ee O Drie oa pinsicsie see TOIIAONOE)) 2-02 ce OstoR 4 t=" *= ===“ oRtod By CCR Ge Ce oil eam CRE TO ORION | ata Pencecerecss® KINQMON |*="**2"* pABMOR °°" "72 MEQINg, “py PAOP OUR IO: | 22s S ens cece t soe Opera's rasesc ces TO}SOONOL): | 2 CUO Mis -2= lB op) DDO: SWOMBULIOO LOM fos eet ne eee oes SO Per sree seers oon ‘YRTUOs NY -* STUUGT seeees AOUSNT, "LOPEM JOT Op rrr’ |rseseeess* sey ‘ULeTBg “sdtiid "7°" UMOIG *“MOTPVUULOJUL LOY, Opts ecto sers22" TMOIeR LOOP) [°° 76°" °° * JIT MOU) plen0qoyw *LOQ.LU FT ‘od UAMOJOSLOOY) UT TOYOUB YY |o---7* =TOPROONO[A iis wee TOPOM | Juvyonvg soprwyDO 0d Panam ie cage ital ene te Op srises|--cseres-os- Aue TOS BSC AOMOU alee sna uvoyoW ‘OT “IOAN OT[TATOD) YYO Loyouu yy |o---7- “ss s""JoOyRVONOTY) |BUOsIV SYMON, | SUOsIET WRIT A “OL se eadsencensctieses'’s see gprrtt [reeset eeseees oprttet frets = gopep fot serree Oper *1OYWM OJ UT °°" =" += : SOP sce sete mere “OW ‘Uoysugy |----+-"** Aydoage [77 "° 77°" paoyauy HOTSGS LOJAUy sons ss Ss aee sce Sock Op Tsai ts sce eres. se Opeass 2. soreecrces Op--'|--re40TQ 3 spuTeq OL (Saw dce cee geen ar age OD eos stall Pome errr JoOySOONOLH [ow FYWOI [ors ABT, zw ppog TAO CAN LOS Wee Gages een aes et OP ce alnc eee es OW ‘jaodyynog [+--+ *+++** peqoy |°7*7* 7" uOlOWIBD *LOPUAL *"LOQAV]T pur so0rjoqs oy uy | UMOJORI0Vy Uy AOYOUB BY [oo- rrr Oprr ett ere seee es gpa [ones piece SIMO'T ‘OL "75°" UMOJOTIONL) AOYOUB YY frre Aaquqqoogel|2s<=5 =<" Eno gT | csce se as OBUIg *10}[OYS 1OJ UL | PUBIST J[OAA Oplsuy soyousyy [errr tte THPGONO[H) [Sree 8s ="sMA | Ss57. UvO'T PIARCL cae 3255" MOWMBULIOLUT Og) |" ° = 7S =2 = = ONNB OdUD),"*"2<""" ediiqa jo 2 = memosty AL MOTEM TOP MY. ieee ces sicinie si ae, y ppod SPOOM AOTMT |S ssa secs ser tee Ope csrn sy samiise meta OW ‘uowmelg |--ouvoy wut, |°7"* OUBEY OF1002) “AOMous aOP Up [rrr ete seers ee eeeees operees [reer eceee eee oprttttt|sceee UUIIWOW ot op: “LOJUM JOJ UT |" * POOTT yao YO oyous yy [oot “* LoysoonoTy) | o[Fuq sopawyo |--suosavg Wer AA eae oe “* UOPJUGMOJUT LOT | 7777" OOO, ANOqaURT |-- +> * MOON |e eee - QOL ‘satudod Joy uy |ot77* sviess seers ts ODF SS ree’ Se Re CUI AL Sr" "Bl TOcy || roses "7" MULL “Oo | veeceeeeeeee seseecees Qpretess|sseses esses: Auer qqoog. [ott t- “**-qgomg |°-*"*" -* + 1uquIEy “OL | se tteeseeeeeeeee sees: Qprrters [steers eeeeeees Qprecet: [sees eeeeees Meee [sees BUTTON UNOS *10Q.1¥ FT | ‘OT | UMOJOFIOOFNH Uy AOYouW AY [ort Oprtt tt | eaTypog wuyTTA, |[°77* Ysauyy eF1004) “0 | Retad tererste viet sioras fete opr ecteaeee recess oprrtees [eee tee sees eaux, [oo op:7*- OT jesrsse Joqavy oy Up IOYouB YY |r AOYwOONOTA) |---* 7 MO{TUB_, [ott * pau dug Pay ate was WOPWOLLOJ UOT [ree KUCH oe poopy [oon **" 19 *JORCM JOR UY | “> °°" > °° Joqavy ay soyouw yy |r a2 e% BUOUA ore 2072? OUVIOCT |= est ourMed ie ee sposavq-ysy Dayddyyg o-oo toqBeono] 4) |--Apusry sumo, | *** paetsg sopaeq,) “eYswM}y] | “popavoq osodund yy 104 | ‘Duytaopeq yog | “1OeUy | ‘100.40 ‘pountyaoy— osx | ‘42qo9Q So 91% pun ‘oat ‘Apne fo yas oy woonjag G pun p er eee *s0N suoyjpjs A.oysy uo popasvog speee-buryoy’ Jo p97 ss"""> I MOJOTIOOL seetee serene ogy “o"-qulog 48egl JO ve eeerete See ogy steer eeeees ogg steers eee es oc veeeeeeeeees OCT see eeeeeeeee Og MOATY OTLLATOD) BO a teeter tees og ary 6 sage! od a od pooH WoT o71001) edu.) uMO ATION) od uwoyjeq.) jUyog Auo’] ; Od ee cud vabsdwmnow) “Peprecg 2709 =F -ON *OLST 18 4999990 “7 “T ‘q ‘unojanojsvYy/) ‘sapupmwmoy) ‘ANV10d ‘¥ SANVLE ‘ ‘UAAOT, JowBeyg 8,.A48ofeyy JopT ‘oU0S S[OSs0A UBOJOUTY []e AjJvoT 8y10deI ‘807g poJTUQ IOJ Futavoy yen | “dONeIS JO] ‘UOJOIG Od¥g Yo Suysy uoorx Moy B JO UOTZdeOXE YALA ‘s[oss0A UBOLIOULW Ll8 sju0doey , 1503 72°" TM0JOTIOON ‘IOYOuUR YW [ott ree IO}SOINOTH) |°- == 778 GOOD [ores errr aoddny, |-uvorroury |7--*-yqITITOFT “SVD | 9T °990 |---* 7" ++ og acai >> og *pourejog | Arepunog 04} UIQIIA Surysyq 7777 t* ss****Joysoonopy | -Apvry sewoyy, pus ‘svyO | uvoloury |-*-puoligy “q Baet | og “ydog |----- yulog Suo'y yo ecm nannesse cciuecias OD e es - ouangIaNg) |* ">>" = TTomosy. [754° TlOMOIg |°"""* Ops-**|*"-**"--epmmy aseg | 6% Ydeg |---°-"-*-*---og vor seeeseeese- TOIBUIIOJUT 10g |" puv[sy ‘Svyy ‘ysuoqury |----7** qosuvpog |*"""*"""* pavyoneg |-"* ystsugq |**---- pavgoned “V | 6% ‘3dag |---°+77+ + 0g a @ pelan| coat eotereseslceesoy op>=2:=" wslesivnsinis secises Opssssertessscense WSO AN |r Seer tos = 95 peau: ose" Opes cass eerie: AB100gq | 6% “dog |-- "°°" oO od tlecsectececeee=dccnd= Oscar: sores Sees opyrerer| eo sessse5 avdy [-°o°* seereeess MOT |*"°*° Ope-""leqzUBMBY, JortIBA | 6S “Ydeg |--°°-°7+ °° er sos! Mill hee arent Wa GOA |‘ earabhl WERDORR Ee wccinen | Sata Uokeccueame Si | Fal bead SERA dnarh: Sl eis Social lake OAUPIEM. | 68 “3dog |--*7->- Seaee lig 7 kan ge EOS: DOB O LO IO SECC OD=se" secse erie ene SOD ener BOCES EE. Ta a Wipe pocsse AjoeHy |*---* ops***|- ABA “Gg YUOBIVG | GZ “Ydeg |------- TIENT sj COC ed 2 Sseees<= PREG EIS-ON 1 Neck Bo COOP) COC RBCS CRD: MVUB |S 22" Bul qIe 182 Opran 7 |r sss =e 4OlVZIVPT | 6% “Ydog |---oeoe- ++ °-- od “I}JOYS oJ UT |--- °° 7-77 7- Stenapercos Orr nsnslcorcceseesencee Cy COUR SS EGR oor GIBMI9G [2-2 °° "2 °*"-- log |°="2* Ops---|>°<2=" ysanqs4440%) 66 “deg «sees oe accces od *smostaoid aoyuy |-- 7777777 BLING JO loyoUB YW 77°77 87 AO\S9ONOpD |°77 7777 Ss SNOGTe ul 2> =< =<" "-GnOsIv) |°=- > Oprs=< its ace JosuBy uBedQ | §% Ydog | ------ ++ ---- + SLING “19}[9YS OJ uy | 7777 UAMO0}JOS1004) ‘IOYouR yy |-°7 7 *==* OPT OUMSE iia f= ===" NOSE | 25s PIOJMBID |°-7*- ODreclteenece ees SiIULT, |/SS9deR |= 2o72>>----- 0G, Oe F | Pse5s52erccesese eens Opses=: [rsesere OW ‘340g Yynog |*---*--- PAVYOIH? | *s555°* “TOWED 2" 270352" |soane we TIBF1O9VM | CS “Ydeg |-------+--e°- od au ie eta Fie = Ngee gee eS go OR RTS ae ace ene Oy ees aril eer avoJOR |'""°°°rr* Xoppeyy j----~ OD ee GS UVilTV ydosor ic ydog Re aca reste | ¢ | “sauder puv1o0j]oqs 1opuy |----7 7° pec cetare OPr amar ipece es” sae <2 ABOOUOT Ey | 2 aoe 22s GAMO ds |=" =* =" 2700) op ah@aer ao - On sseltses2 +++ qvurxoy, | sz ydeg |-----°- P2222 oq SOF =a [Sars ee perms serers? OD re sstce Pe Op seta [asses ++ mojopdegg |o--*->- “> wove j---** op’-**|**-efSeq uvolsoury | ¢Z ydog |--°--+-++----0q “JOJEM TOF UT |o---on ees seeestessses Oprrrsesfesssess eeeesees -Mereg |ossstt 7 > guBhig |o--tere** apse | ‘UBoTIOUrY |----*--- qo oweRT | cz dog |----- ae od “MOTJUUIIOFNY IO] |*--"WA0Z05100H Yo royoue yV |-*---" GQ ‘Avg uoyyy |-rroe teres OMIT, | worsen ourz |*--ysysug |*---- meray Asng. | cg ydog |------- UM0JOF100H * od ween weet ew wens op se eee ee oss Opiec= = go aa NT ‘g rerreoos> TOMZIOT ia eo eDODras serrres> TON BOG 61 ydag stew ew ww wwes od “Ioqoys 10g |----- "~~ EAD OERP CATS OPe cess |e eens Joysoonopy |****- wossoy do |**"** Org, 3» MBag | UBOTIOUTY |*""* syaNG eTIONT | GT “ydeg |------- ees COM OG a itarssceenccrn ss lta ) Uap atae ecee So ‘kempoyy [-77° 77> + aepaBO [°---- secesse TVPOLO Nee OPs eho ees Ad o0yg | 61 “deg |---+++-+-*-- 0g “WOFSUIOJUT JOT |---oooe emer este = Oprmrses|oreeee es" UMOIOTIOVH) |--°---- WOSIEIIB |----°8°°--°- SUEMO |* "GSS |*--*----°*-BLAWIOO | GI “deg |---°re------- od “THTOYS TO [ooo oer tere eeces Oprrers lsee* Gey GnoyoouMOD |-*-*7** UOyTIMBA, |***°°° eee" - Buory |-uvopsoury |*------ yor “soy, | 6T “3deg |----°°- osSs52 0G “WOPSULIOFUY TOT |-----*8- eee e eee Op iter es|eseen- $O ‘Sanquouny |------- IB[sey *], |'7-7* ---Aespury wy |-*-qsysagq |-ceee- 77 addy |;epiydegi|=-* += ss Or od ween weet e ee wwe ope 225: Farrersswsicesc Op tween el ew eee om wwee LH tee tween Aeq‘s's Peo pse 5 ss 89" TOG JOMIB YT 61 ‘ydog tween IAAL |G | IOGE.. 5 |S tere sssseret es skein: ce ies ad BIG siFreessssiopesce=s|iss¢ roo" STAB |°*“TTOHSBH jonureg |*---* op'*--|*----ToxsVH ‘seyD | LE “yog |--++-+-------og ‘od ~—s|- Avg puomyory uy zoyoun yy |----- Peerssss Opsrroat acne sions? S18000)140.~ "5 sie a5 ops tones Op*72"[4" °°" QATORD BUNS | LT Bde] (=“"<°*==2" “od “TOROS JOT |--- 777 Sess ccere ca op=-52: soressss ter" AMSOONOTS) IIe sc= 10° sodduyy.|7o"""*2s*" redding, [252° op ---|tr7*"- BySVAA PRAT | LT “3dog | --*°--* > puomqorny *UOTPWUULOJFUT JOY [=== - = 7-77 SR, oath BOSC 17 CO. Uk pal (bite sospoy |'--****7*** sospox |---ysysug |------ sacaces onry | pT ‘ydeg |---*- sss2=2"Oq "OG 5 [22222252 2- ppb Opr ers isieccn=* sseen ss anqmoN |*7"" °77* pawaoH [-7-*-* Sooe=* Og. 2 Op:"""|7"""** ON BUWBIL | PL “dog | -----------*-og SO gm | Gare paseee eae OD sae sea ica eeee erensec sees muopeg |-"""* ses guedeg |----* soreees GoTBMA: [°° * Opi=**/1e2°°> >" Gory OMT | FT “deg |‘=<<*9**"*""2oc7 “1ozfoys IO |-"-*"* pain here sauce hae: OD lage oe ae Oa te se teesesre== AQnGG. pene aa Le Fe AOL Ae: OR 1d cco oe eee Tae “qydeg bigirtosigele se. | <8 Wiis | (eee S SPL CCU cry “TOK | eee eek CRE Opimernt|soos-sre792 gaBde [eres se sens Ops" -fe+=2 pens *|4°*"""8z0¢ PONTO), | PE Ades | 92 oem 9 Oe a ee | | RS mprts Ops "2scie yee zrpedensex- Optocsst|sresess<—\apMIeEp irra eseescessslepins-lerere gptant ’T | $T “dog |*---"**""--" 0g om semeqescses essa mits > Gms wee tr tetseree= 194890NOLD cote wm wnne SssLoyy torrecwsees TOUKeT Tabdasi ces od te.” + od tee we em een nn nne cose OM sr* sausessee se Sur>*-nores serersr= OTLIOGIO rreees == TT FIgIU POL [rrcrasteteteteesseseees Opreeses|sneeereeeeeeees Qpeeters|seeeree* grauayy |-=**** ae, FP AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1554 * goon d ImereuI gl ‘sny ae 068 seeeesees Oprres| sets 9s QIOTANT Posie he Px peer cisiteslnt caratal sale SteltsloticeWeres oe . cae vy Aueyy |---*°7°°* opel ar : “3 OD. 2 25/-"S 252" > OTOOM 81 (OOT : verses s=* SBUTLILOA BES A ite f-42 pee S OPT ature ss OnOpaE a SO wal KOOL : secs nee MOUS IO “7 "UA\0907.100 9) - veeer* JOATO Gog |°""""* JOATIO Wo “*ployy AV oyaq Vv : aden ohics ox “*""""Q90HT(OM [°° SMOLING ‘FL |°"°** SMOLING “_ “="* pOooOagyY ‘GS ') |" puoumyory | Sr LL a a ele soorsesoos: Ope lar dn Vy 07 ¢6g Aine | 08 4 fT Oper yer pjoumopowyy |" 998D 2 ITU weno? = JQUOUIION:|-9? 225 Opre—< 8p “1880: i) ° . Yo Suayqsy uooq pvy | pursl Td HO |*7--*- "sup ¢| 8 Bee OD a 55 48 SUBD = "OTE AN wie a Ics ‘oy Buy 25 ‘SYAWWIAY “qyAnwo G10 AY “OUNLT, 3 3 Fi -Baojq 420g “LOpRUy | “1VUMO 3 ‘Lowy | = 25 | |= a | | |B | : vers eee. uowvoy Bury ayy buat puns] &pavnpy aus fo 8}#v00 ay} uo ediys 8 pany 4azy fiq puny ay} pp wayime 24y} MY; pepsvog sprees Ubsasof fo jer] econ — —— —— aE 4 1505 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. “dij puooog "oumoly dinar pu o.10ut Suv CET ANOIS TEAL *oWOly uinjeat paw o10ul B[alaNq CG ANOS TILAK “getuo T¥OLlULYy Jo sarysy uooq sup “ysu09 uvoLiouly yo Surysy “poo U9eq SB ‘oO, S[Itivq OL a0y8 TEAL ‘omy mingar paw .eloul S}OLIVG OG A098 TILAA ‘osneg Jo yny ut ysy poddiyssuray, “uo yseg 7B OF4vO WAY poddiyssuv diy pe” “e00r B[ALIvq OGE MAOIs uULD “od “O1OUL KOLB CBE AOIs UBD ‘O10UL B[O11UG OTT AOJS URL) “uany “Al Jou paw omoYy oF {UE []Wy Goda f eaour B[9LIVq OG OFS UBD pass] “Ad BO |" --* “77> doywaonO]L) se eaisind: op": teeters: opts SOCCOCOCET Uo nna LOIS OST steeeeee open: veeeeeees gyre = opett: * UMOJPIOULAOI te eteeees apres: seeeeeees opree: vs eeeeees oprre se eeeeees Oper steeeeees opie: (ee teeeee opeee Te" BOAO "CW | ~-uoqotdug "pa nwaUe'oy uqor beach CN. 0 fe, os plorogg "C “O 25?) UBATLOW "T veee’* COU dO ‘d “|}oo* sano pr eZ100 Fy "Trt OMO “EL sae weee Aud 9) "M “> GoUULyOW “d “"" osuBog ‘Af soorees ATOM “VW "7 WIOyoD ovNs] slessein sone" OL “=? UUULOOL] "PY eceree=* Ka90I0 ‘C WORT ’S | seeees K1I9qQIVy “(' geeele << GUORIv EL --UvWeddy ‘O'V tees yORT Dy ss oor gf “2298 MOUGg 'S'N pasewsss MOU tf “ poongry: “UHL CITT wear a9 (09 wy 1ivy, ‘ppog “UIs souny “"* OLVVIG OTA10ef) seers PUOsSIV “AL cee pawa fuy -q “OD ZW UoPqdyo'y | “* puoi OF4004) "77" OMOY SOUL’: | ee es OAO TF UOBBEL “HYD “7°09 3 OMO'T ‘GC ps3 osuvog “WL “* puoi ydosor YOu] overy Settee qBOAA TAL “** UvUlOOLy "py ene P=" KQ90I0)- 6 “oA "VW BUSI UCAS *- IAQ iis Oe > UOS[OYOIN *V etre are cued: Geo] eens suno0ox "Sg "TTT MOUS '§ "N vst eeee== MOUg "Lf “**pooagzy “UW “** TORT “A QervO ALey, '4) "SUL ~ebiglets LpPuy reg s+ “ aed, L say “uosntor yy “-OUIUT "CE “BBD et ie te --- oymg Aug oe vee UMUT OFT AL ete iia s VULPUOTY “7° Aa0zPg WOTppy weeeee ory peso DL GIIGA Cy Al 6) “* gsugT ott} JO 1ByS * puOLy ‘S osu y veer" 118 “A Ugqor parses ory op uwgy “7 BDUIDEL PUly + KqQsoay "PL uosley] “*puOUlURE O1ZZV'] ~* SULYTpOF vyoc] “loyaBg "(7 VsedeT, OUIUGUSE AA ONTTAL cone eSPROT VED) sececee Sunox ‘Sd “BLOTTING “pplog) “*" MOUS 'N OMLON *- UOWON "AAPA =" 10)8qO AA BIR I | 199A AQ YO tl soos *? BEMUg! 6 Ne eee op 6% BLINOG 6% “" daATY MOTD LS Op --° | 3% op 7 te eubodurnoseg | 16 | | BI Op = ee ad tod “seeeeees ope BE see se sss OD. sa el “*"UMOJOT.LOBL) | BI = se es=< =< ST NOGI GE SsesceeOWe2 =. ind § seeeeeees ope: BT ceeeeee opts’ ar rieom gu ctley miseeess ms /BE eee ca ales sete Opt OE oie an ere Seer a | eee ‘ydog ‘suv “ydeg AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 1506 i *e10UL S[O1IUG GLT MO UBD ‘ORB JO JNA) UT [Od “vq og poddryssuely, ‘diay puoong ‘diy paoo0g ‘ORURD JO Quty Ul 8[O44Uq OGL papue’yT “diy puvoeg “ORTUPS) JOIN) UT STqq 00% PepuLl_ diay paooeg “WHIM? “qWlOg I8Bq puv od.av0r odeg eters sitet op'- “PUPIST A “d BO soould Judo soovtd yuoraytd puv[sy ‘oy ‘gq puv 8p, [8] UolupsRyY *y8u00 sqird = yuoaayid svould yuosogt(] soourd quo19 Id “pave! Ad JO + op 7 soould yuowe gid “ay Auwos oso Ay ‘ponupa0g—"of ‘edrys eer es - yoo | SYOOM Z | “gro, , any “+5 eHOOM ¢ 81 '}do0g 07 13 “SNYy 81 Oy | Sny “""" BYOOM 6 simeoeere op -* SYOOM PQ #119007 & 4dag G #YVOM PL ~ Cc 4 ‘our, 00F ieeaase iG) tue 6 hepa = ope: ti | POOHOIOM (Cook 1 fesse ar eek a “7* Augr qyoog cere ope Oth "rete" 1O}8OKT 083 sree quod 903 8 “* wopuo'y MON : sseess=-qgupiog Neg asaes ** ueWOIg OL | x ~-gaod Ang Avo NY rd & a verses JOSSUTTOL) i] 06% a | puoqarqie CtG ol | Pinatas op**< OST ns “so5"° OIS]T 100(T OOL ie) resets ops. 220 2} sl OAR TT ALON, 00% | 4 eee op - Teen OfT | _ | ee ey op vee Og Rl nceeeees op" 906 al eR ee Opesr 008 ii ee er OFS Matte op:7- on 0] Bees sop OLS e a op see it) ; Se So LOpr ss ORG 8 Ee ye Oprse CB pie REECE 1 | aco 003 or ges Ops 5G eee eer Op: >: OL "77" Lo}ROONOT DD S19 oe aa = ¥ a “O74 Buy 3 5 = -Buopoq qaog a5 | 80qQOTT * wey surdong — | Sy Aqury ‘aH MOLIVE LOISUBY Sieioisicareliche SUM Or] e""" TOISPUA 's sooo Seta aly “‘SUOS.IV SBULOTT, “== TOMO “HW “* mosdMouy, “Of 7" MOLB1FI0d “PA "=" SOQ MOOD "FT * euDOy VW) taise=es AQUGU.) “WRIT OT WYO rk SOUT ta yp bare LOLMBG @) --SyUBE UIVILLA teres BITTE ‘007 sroree = SpOraBC] “f | | "=== 9300C UgOL es onulorog ‘Wd 'O “"** prsuoqon “£ Poy WenyTLAL qaoq [An “Uy eww svwee UoILV “UM eee" TOBUTOL ‘gq ae 1A18QO "HO qums HD “) TORLOY OTN") “BUORIE WBF) “JOP8U IK (7 WSaN900 OF 7" MOLIBET OBBRT Eee A fe TOspo HT 09 2 [[VINO OW Re eas uospoy{ veeees (Oy oBesy “77° Sosyeq "qd AL “-+ Soppuad MA ‘£7 Seren uoT "WD "757" 80qm100() "H sees" OUOOY “WT ‘OH “7° "OF) 2 OJLING “MOS Y TIPU “Y “""OC) ZY URAL ne a qv AV OM “"""QQOM YIOS “SByUvE WITT | pleuoqoy siaoy * 20y901g somIu ‘so MOU | pus xoppryypy jrorc parnmdug ‘q | ada y RTUTACT “BOUBOG FY OYAVIO AIVIO “DY 09 Y YUS eee a ee 09 Y eInNYS "8938S Poway pias aa BTISAA V “mug zata “UND Y [[17U07)9g DaypRy Ay pavuoo’y] OF VIS HTS) uoyQzioy # puy Cae WILY PIAvG 10d} “s0U MY) “10/009 Tey vAjerfopy sayy iq puvy fo wajym vosy) uryjin popavog #)aeea ubivi0f Jo jer] — PP dado “y sopreqg “77 RIAO'T OL) 104) "71 Quwig [¥s000H vaoldiq eevatises opusepee “7° Lovsyeq ‘aA ‘S8}OQOU "AA Uo =" You Seuog y, “-""-qyamoX Uqor “-* uBuue'yTOyy ‘0ar) Sen aerese ~ ene 10}80q "WW Woo y] (tet cee esses ee story 777" SIMO'T OLN pvoa yoo] ie alae VPRAON Peciclse O ydesos Gedeeh ok GOT[V “A “Lf OMIRCT *-C BOTATTD sxoAOIy) YNY UO)[NG "WAY Secs ost Cy vjouy "7795" QBOML OLIUTT -* quuy] eae wan, TE &no sued “A Nav yy stansisls Jopry) lopnwy “oy otuaEg “aww ms ON “"OIBVBUYMLAL HV | vseeee** “SLMS “ aeyNg Sun0x | ww www wee ops settee es per tetesees ope “"UM0303.1004) deaieeeisen op: “SlINOS *1M099F.1004) “o* puourqory sreeetees ope onbadmnosey op = “* UMOJOTIONL) op FLinOS “wa0q A ‘papswoy suy ‘qdeg gt ‘any ‘po dag sny rie) st CL dog wIK] 4 1507 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. UI SfedzVq YCsZ pepur’y | | | “uoysog 38 sjoieq | 00g pepury di43 puodeg | *Y8BOO B9IVIG poyay uo ysg oy woos ZSUlAey spuejUy ‘e10ul S]LIeG OG MOS TED | | ‘osuey Jo | oduy ‘saviznyy quog | qe Sjotieq OE pepur’y | | | “soould guoregig | or Snyoyrdéque org a eae op =" "|"""" 81.0} 01 Buy | * ae Peer scents ops |--7** syooME OL SUC CROSS CT gig SCD Gia SHOOM Z| OOT | ae sll gras reese op =" | ST Sny oy csAne OTs “purysy “A ‘d BO [70077 BYOOM G Ce ‘soovld Jueroyiq |-* 77°77 * SYOOM F 00% PLA Led OG Or Bet 00) eh aa SYOOM C CLG Lees sess pers :|-s-2---+ syoom g | ORF Geese = OP Se hiss re eae SYOOM G NCB - gooutd quosayiq | -***77*- SYIOM Q ZS WP 'O 008 teeseeess opts i iecrhe writ Wore, pee Te POOL ‘|oo> oxy TouTIBg *-**£q8010 “AA ‘A "|" 1O9SqQO.MA ‘AL [77 premio pravq 3 Sea ei ft 8 “""TBVUlee.y "VY * pence aeaTT[ng "9 soveee: qaBAlg “T van ee Aounry "WW “*** play o31005) smepy Od FL "* pyeureg prard "Yor ake qq99 BUSA “"- uvmMoo.y "VL ‘oe: "00 8 TS0Nngaq * ewer weoee op---" “7+ surydoy “W'dD sisle.e sion of Auaey + £qQso1g "foley oe PIE come x ee wabin sowie moysog sees Sarypaeqg eoelty “-1eqseqO (TL, Bane] “77 JOLyO pueypysiyT soug Arey Yony orvsy --* JaIREYS sopByD seen ewe PIs Vowerer ens Sie: “7* ULL, [BUOd 109 | op'*- teeteeees opite teeteses copes: --"7.M0907.100-4) “slInog seeders op:*- seeteees opens: eee eee wee op:*2* *"UM0JOTIOVE |. eee we Va; cr Ck wees >. PS Se. 1508 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 45. List of United States fishing-vessels in the waters of Prince Edward Island, distinguished but ; not boarded by Her Majesty’s ships, in 1872. Jodie Ue PCCD oes re ce cee ses Carvliva Raashlight Abbey Heathe .............--2s- DH Manafleld: ...65..42.205¢. Regt, Charley Colfax ........-.------- Edward Evelyn. .............2--- DYNO as 25s aw osising oes Sesic ce Bshahle Curtin. fe conosco cscs ee coe Goltan Bagléicscicss sss see cs A MUIO Mo sca5 cece tcnemsns scasin PERGDOG yor ce cabs soos ee ese sete = se Mos bound ooo. cee Green dence Massasvit Maria Tatt BB Sabi g csicessceesictsclsace Aoee PU MONGY.: «<6 i iseecedsssees Gardwe nr. sess oc see Argate ClGonk) hrsscctssvevessesc cease Bd Williams; 22i23222cehu5s: Laara A. Dodd) =<. 2.222252 Greynonnd i ..s sceesee sees Géderr Steele. 2522525 oA. COSMINAl «32s semarcesiseckr sess ye Ww. Prownley pie lale-s.eleieie.a)6.6:bia/> o> (OH. Robertaon:, 20: 2oseo2.0056 Sylvia ccss25ec-s Gloucester. Do. Vessel. Port. Blynn GASCUp se. ess scar ee ee a Gloucester. VONMPSUCARGE cate oes ete. poemcs Do. MlMOrad Ofter tise ce eees voice seecs Do. PiG@e Be Sab Wer: a4 soca: acsmraieatetes Do. Alice M. Gould Portland. | Wins -Hisher: «22.0 Do. Wivadsinece acces sect eo ce we seins Do. Colambiarse2csc cee os ootsecoss Deer Isle Columbine <2. 15652. -nacescsk. Do. Golden Eagle sccec. cscs csece Do. SILVOEINLGOU ems ants sarteacrctioes Southport. Wis Ao Rental | 1853. | | | | | Dried codfish ......... qtla (Soesan cnt 2o 20,888 | 60,993 901,830 | 2,631,423 | 922,718 | 2, 692, 416 Core codfish ...... ..-. QO: |= s2.< :- 2504 Dbis | ec sees 10 | 42 40 192 | 50 240 Halibut ...... eae gts |..... ee 12 | 10 rr pas A a ae e | ; 10 Caplin: 225553 s-eovecc- ERGs | Sent sce cw llata~ sees waste == | é F H i : Hens ea eco hole Devanio ass | 6.640 18,326 4, 500 133,863 , 55,140 | 152,189 Raleson ss. 23: 7523%- fiercest. Se tecce ee | 18154}, (27,033. © 125040 41,881 | 3,355 68, 914 Tongues and sounds pkgs. pa ce 152 | 240 468 744 | 620 984 feet. roe ees 15 | 91 49 293 | 64 384 Oils, viz re eect ERE eer ece 325 | 51,101 3, 180 497,755 3,505 | 548, 856 Cod liver 52 | 17,270 318 106, 503 | 370 | 123, 773 Reali:s2-5 25225) ne 6 1, 080 8,131 | 1,312,925 | 8,137 | 1,314, 005 Blabber and dregs £0 2, 443 206 6, 298 8, 741 Seal-skins | 5,333 4,320. -516, 450 418,401 | 521,783 | 422, 721 Whalebone............ t | acide Aiea acces [caters Bente 1 170 Ovystlera:.0. 0. ...25.0 ant Ko 7 ey (ae ee a ee ee ie) OE eR ON HR eee tend a et a 8 | te Ae POtel ease races aces | -++2- 105'-|scaaces pA GG i ee ee 5156; 634012 ==. eee 5, 339, 589 es 1854. | | Dri-d codfish ......... qtls (eae ie 24,731 79,881 | 749,386 | 2,422,776 | 774,117 | 2,502, 657 Hervipg <<< -2. 2. vers |v] 1) Vee Pererienen Peeapeaenes | 2,166 4 939 33, 986 77, 678 , 152 82, 617 Salmon s : 2, 833 37, 694 3.753 51, 307 Mackerel 2 10 Qi 154 Halibut 71 132 71 132 Turbot 7 23 | 7 98 Trout 78 700 | 78 700 Ced sounds and tongues, | | ra dd et) 1, 383 1, 023 1, 728 rT ene 655 849 674 873 Oil. viz | ig 403 | 7,137 aa 560,645 3,200 | 567, 782 Cod liver tie tetee NOs] acest teens 10 5, 956 113, 016 | 209 | 118, 972 arte corte de | nee see. 5 960 5, 502 1,047,312 | _5, 567 | 1, 048, 272 SMOG Fonia a sicraie oe tal iter iene ea 146 120 398, 724 327, 312 398, 870 327, 432 OS ETO Soci cocks bush. 24 BS) ic ac ales ee reer mente ie ll, Cee nee aan | fn Label ite ae ca ROtal sGecstocese oss lee ease 158 loss zee TPS SIO) te 4: 589/595 ose sase ss 4, 702, 654 IES. i eh Pe — Dried codfish Ti eihecsccate ee 66,379 195,509 1,041,010 | 3, 069,849 1,107,388 | 3, 265, 358 ed and pickled fish . RUD sch ches rau lee ripen ae a 078 a 1: 078 4.294 aid on Rintelcaa tee ee : bbls LaiSeeeiices oh 8, 904 29, 968 23, 138 65, 044 32) 042 95, 012 Mack ord eet na tae cee 2,210 47, 750 849 16,466 | 3,059} 64, 216 fackerel..2.3.3..3... UO ors e ie eee es 61 1001. el 1 Turbos |... SOC be ole ee lin sear ee 2 ras | 3 Bounds a: id tong ues <. pkgs finch ie clay as hag ee ae 390 1. 347 390 1, 347 Trost oe. Uble cis 2 eas c5 Ae males 19 "204 | 19 "904 Wii Roe ed) Sal mista ceh * a CH vias i loners Caer Cree real Re Ne te 113 604 113 604 Co ( a ites te vceseusace cane Ba ie we oo She, 1-1 i 34, 814 3, 615 763, 738 3, 796 552 PY ea ek ae 29 14, 193 233 131, 151 | 262 | 145,344 Other fish and d oils not Sache ee 194 > 784 3, 7443 739, 412 3, 760 742, 196 meornted. ss weatnaceita cpu sb at eats ee Eat 3 Wy eet! eect es eee 5, 832 Total : a orieehrtr seeese vee ses ; R30 B50 ga2s 55 ene ETOMOTE foececeeits 5, 124, 821 of AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1511 Return showing the quantities and values of fish and products of fish, §c. —Continued. Imported | *. , Exported to Uni-| Exported to other oo ted States. countries. Total. Articles. | : I 7 uanti- nti- | nee | \Value ae | Value. | pet | Value. | st | Value. == | | 1856. | 4 | | Dried codfish ......... Qtlasts-22-s|oescee 64, 293 | $193,795 1,204,041 $3, 594,000 1, 268, 344 83, 787, 795 sah codfish d sa } O79 | 4,119 9, 547 | 6, 046 | 14, 126 aplin ..... | 158 336 686 | 402 844 Herring ..... 6,652} 22,824 | 25,642 69,432 | 32, 294 256 Ralmons. 5.200602 1,121 24,388 1, 352 22,656) 2,973 47, 044 packere! Sr OMG COReL ULB ecerrty Boren pace re | Sea atlas | 12 180 12 180 POOG eae eecosens hoseemallesecoa ls aaaaemeline aeaess ie | 6 95 6 | 95 MRM DGE. <2605n cece cess Qtigsids.e-| seas lessees Shee ee 30 129 30 | 129 Sounds and tongues. pkgs + |eeeeeeleeweeel en woncccleecenneee-| 1,346 2, 467 1, 346 | 2, 467 Seal-skins..............) <3) Eee Mea SS 5, 370 3,868 | 337, 287 338,784 | 361,317 342, 652 ge wats saetausads bush.| 104:|, $9 [55525225 Pee cee leat saciserleeeencas ses [peters Irsaseene es , Viz | | | ALE ieee nee tunsalczsers eases 752 149, 409 3,247 629, 691 3,999 | 779, 100 Cod-liver 2.2225-<-22- GOcalesosse |e ssece 28 | 11,204 180 | 65, 054 208 | 76, Dekh, Set: dp sti eeecdl teehee 3274, 70, 444 4,681} 966, 384 5,009 | 1, 036, 828 DINbher and dregs, = . 122 $2, 342 122 $2, 342 Other fish and oils, not enu- WOOCAGCO 2. oc. ooo en as|-sas--\ve~ma<|ncer cee: $3,100 Sesec-ankalteset scoccet| secs eoe ces 3, 156 Motel See See: ie eee 182, 241 |.......... | 5) 604506 Io ce 5, 786, 835 1862. Dried codfish.......... tlan|eeoes leeaeee 14,516 | 54, 256 |1, 255,321 | 4, 488, 356 1, 269, 837 | 4,542, 612 Core codfish ........... Oss sesneslacene: 400 480 20 2 420 504 MOOK cscs - ens eo s4 GO| sovccd=||sscees| tease sel teean cess 1, 135 2, 728 1, 135 2, 728 Tae ae esd eens Boceas 16 19 63 V7 79 96 merring’.....-<--.-.00XES il D lesernwen| sever lene d|cos nea stecin creases = tease ate eemacnien BO sce erenee bla: es ee |ees 13,251 | 31,800} 21,513 51,520 | 34, 764 £3, 320 BORG loo. sis aeceees (1 Ca! Panes ees 507 4, 868 42 40: 549 5, 271 malnon << 2s22c<0552 tierces | 2sc.-:loeca<: 1, 778 25, 604 3, 657 52, 660 5, 435 78, 264 DOs PIeSOrvoed:..-CASEB) |) eee. |scccien|scocsee|enesensce- 14 134 14 134 Mackerel ............. An 9 esccice! BSAoee 170 1, 016 47 283 217 1, 299 PNG o sews secs es QUB |-one5-|c.--.- 12 33 46» 134 167 Tongues and sounds. cies igs aengeal Pesce: 589 422 488 350 1, 077 772 SOKING > er a 3 INGE vats | ase, 1, 050 760 | 267,574 192, 652 | 268, 624 193, 412 fnd-TO06's. 55-552 -- bh BSS OR Peers) pisdeaese PROr reesei 28; 118 283 Oil, viz: 4 Od 2522 ccdesnsesce tinsel sscet soot 2303, 41,504 2, 528 130, 265 2,758} 171, 769 pea: HVet. cccsset sen. O02. |2232 3. eos ses 6x 19, 680 286 82, 420 354 102, 100 saeties cease tses GOs faews laseeetencee atieaean eenee 3, 433 659, 246 3, 433 659, 246 Whale See anadaeee domes ec seencas | seeenoet Comoe n ase 17 2, 420 17 2, 420 MIOITIN G2 cose soo GOL asec clases ulososasscilesecasicee. 1 144 i 144 Dogfish’: 5 /s's2ssseieias'- POV. saw esie |e seics | sswes sey |oscss's sac 19 2, 696 19 2, 696 Blubber and dregs...-. Gor S2cct5|sacee 69 1, 324 133 2, 564 202 3, 888 ated ote teats teat ee Slo segtene 161, 706.|u.cc2coes: 5, 669, 359 |----+2 220 w+] 5,858 5, 851, 125 1863. | Dried codfish.......... tid Wo 14,247 | $68,385 | 984,842 | $4,075,120 | 999,089 $4, 143, 505 Core codfish ........... ria Fra) SES ee aoe nein ae ss cee 50. 605 50. etic ote saan [Lk el Saas Besos 35,736 | 120,072 | 32, 840 110,345 | 68,576 | 230,417 peering, smoked .-..boxes.| 695 | $336 |....... |......--.. 254 139 139 Ea esc SMorcel |\o2-2- hese. 2,710 42, 546 3, 818 60, 005 6, 528 102, 551 enn, proserved .- cance: |2<- 22.15.52 2c eens. Spr aane 8 77 8 iT OSCE neces eee 0 a ee rss aces APS beeen 43 408 43 408 BMA Ga toe 3s waece ss DKgS) | os. 2s| ssesalicessecs|icccce see: 495 - 600 495 600 BEMBKOTO! <<- 252-3. S05 DBS: fees ccl es ee seen eases eeewe: 23 144 23 144 Meat: 22-2 sce. BS) Peace oaleewe ce eee e ae: | secre scece 190 547 190 547 meenas : and tongues. peas See) Pete Banc Gare 692 499 692 499 scaswiaciciea ss Ae seelecelsws sees cece ess) acanaseee's 346 830 346 830 Beal china Seeasickaaeases - S| eS Bee 2, 690 6,240 | 284, 461 200,510 | 287, 151 206, 750 sters ......---..... bush.| 12 Ue BSAA naa Sneneep feroor neces barrio aaeeens Inosecl ened coc coene. viz: Pe, ee toe tons eee cers 1814) 41, 755 2, 715%) 625, 859 2,297 | 667,614 od-liver ............ HOE BAaasal Beesar 25 12, 230 199 98, 169 224 110, 399 Pe oacteescoceacses C1 fs ed eel Ie 4 878 4, 162 900, 408 4, 166 901, 2°6 SEMPTING so5. ccceess «. G0. esas sce selecoccccrl assesses 17 2, 419 17 2,419 BP UGIG csccsactcessss GOsnlecsees|tecccele actseedoasessoaes 22 3, 182 22 3, 182 | SP ee ae ore |e. | ae een: eee ee 11 1, 569 11 1, 569 __ Blubber and dregs... 00: o|:cic2-|s22ees|soucecet|seensasee: 147 2, 808 147 2, 808 Other fish and oils, not mmainerated << 2. o..csc00-|seecee)o2 wat |Sescee st LO; 947 | eee esccslcecese sees |= aateae s 10, 747 TVteln Se 945) |iicoee oe S027959)| acess: 6, 084, 243 | bemueesace 6, 387, 096 1864. ed codfish ......... qtls.| 300 |1,080 | 7,068) 40,994 1,009,166 | 4, 451, 861 |1, 016, 234 | 4, 492, 955 Ooek =c6.2s252 22 (Eel piesa (eS oe ees: oats chiNe 1, 021 3,441 | . 1,024 3, 441 Core codfish ........... Ons Beers eee 168 201 240 288 408 489 a ese an: 4 Reed Baer Pereira eee 8 24 8 24 Eee ere bbls! (= eee 22,512} 81,043 | 18,321 64,976 | 40, 833 146, 019 eosring, Bmeked\.... boxes. (1, 978)} 616)|..-.. 5. |2-...552--. 682 413 682 . 413 ieceetoe ee tierces |......|.-....} 1,211 | 20, 688 1, 904 32, 682 3, 115 53, 370 Serene Frosorrod....boxes. pee ea) Keoaere lenny atl Ie aaaees 23 110 23 110 guabnaawascasces Lu) Fel ese eae eee 718 , 993 1l 105 Dr pices. ees ig ae Eee, 18 19 387 465 aeapkerel ne eae ae DOIG ccecsleeses 158 Ty ER ae, Caen eee 158 $0 Maetrinn cusses: (204 bees bases 130 312 478 1, 147 608 1, 459 “Bongues and sounds. pkgs |......|...... 273 259 182 177 | 455 436 1514 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, Return showing the quantities aud values of fish and products of fish, §e.—Continued. Exported to other Imported Gr from United acid sh ry Ska | countrias! Total. States. Articles. r= a | ‘Quan. y uanti- | Quanti- Quanti- itis eg, Value _ tities. | “alae. | “ties, Value. ties. Value | } God:roem 222222250; <2: DbIS' acess |Pansandeacses=< |b eepectm se | 8 $19 8 $19 Lobsters, preserved. .Ca8eS ......0 2---- -e eee eee tiicieisrerevereters | 20 96 20 96 Oysterad sc:2i2225238: Bushs); 35:5 $247 sscccs:: levseaectere IReReao cis ete COSSeHeCy ootenEec 4 ier aa Seal-skins SESS NO cece ceiceses clan aes sub sceciseie cies | 125, 950 90, 686 125, 950 90, 686 Ol, viz: Coe ir secasexa te Cit, Si EERE eal leoceoe 1353, 332, 577 2, 1763 522, 336 2,312 554, 913 Cod liveriiesc-2 ese do. Be aaae selec el tecallteaacs see 172 126, 624 172 126, 624 Beals scccece esse sees OO se be ceed ree casts Acewtes = See sc 1, 629 371, 457 1, 629 371, 457 Herring . 13 259 1 259 W hale 24 3, 777 24 3, 777 Dogtish ...... 2.000. 15 2, 366 15 2) 366 Blabber and dregs. .. 263 5, 069 297 5, 717 Wate! cess ctaeseieotl| ae. yp Rene ae ee ey ec | eee 6,016, 518 | ce ee 5, 863, 062 1565. | | Dried codfish........-. Gee fs cbecs|ochses 14,116 63,522: 982,998 | 4,011,069 | 997,114 | 4,074,591 Core codfish ........... do.. 6 | Haddock 3: <3: 5 s excess reaccus0Os-t deca itaces 181 | 41,580 3, 086 709, 994 3,267 | 751, 574 Setrisg imate tek GOs) sees posses 33} 541 3 438 63 979 Whale #255 c skeen Ci et ea (Ree eee 90; 13, 879 2 289 92 14, 168 Ue NE eerie: (se jee aan 19 | 2, 958 11 1, 730 30 4, 688 Blubber and dregs... eGOrc [ase salicees: 21 | 405 324 4, 066 255 4, 471 Golal Ooh se eee 546) 199)| aoc coos 5, 608, 735 |.......--- 6, 154, 918 186. i hon codfish 8,445 | 928,740 | 2, 713,343-| 930, 447 | 3, 721, 788 Senca Seca ach 61, 052 2,150 59, 880 4,319 | 120, 932 Herings ........ 122,871 | 162, 825 488,475 | 203,782) 611,346 Freee nr tieeysacee=s 3, 744 7 531 305 4, 275 Beal gcse 171, 880 3, 739 597, 678 4,813 | 769,558 eee Bx OCON iy ose Cees 20 NEN 48 8, 202 ea 48, 655 2, 748 508, 380 3,011 | 557,035 ede a 7837 Q15 70, 703 78, 540 Blubber and | dregs. ‘ do.. ee eae St | aS He ? ae 108 r v6 Soalakine ee Soca No 1,620 | 1,215 | 309, 645 232,933 | 311,265 | 233, 448 Loar peates 860 | 3, 440 564 2, 256 1, 424 5, 696 print aa aa 10 | 20 332 664 342 684 ee a acl taped Me Veer seater Sty 457 914 457 914 alebonn............ CWO... ze cokes 250 20, 000 250 20, 000 Perec Ace Nag AT? Oe ees Leen | 308 398 177 , 177 485 ’ 485 Le thertiet blcbdeen no NOCHE ISHE rea aren + an o7 Salmon preserved, 22... .ohocce ta eo in O76 | sees sees) ee ee ee een e es 5, 320 1, O76 Pickled fish ....... CWE #419)” WO cee | Bae aeeshasess isa ance ae as ME cee eae re ot es Wi Tiscee | 446,564 |5 2. cc..ce. Dy COU, AND |e eencn se =< 6, 146, 006 1467. aoe a ae Dried codfish. ......... | 5 Prekied codtsh Baise qtls aa 8, 881 | 35, 524 |1, 057, 334 | 3, 163, 121 |1, 066, 215 | 3, 198, 645 Ra ey | ra] S| fet) S| ee eae eee | 2,536 683 1,415 1,317 3, 951 . * AWARD OF TIIE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1515 Return showing the quantities and values of fish and products of fish, §c.—Continued. Imported ‘ Exported to Uni- | Exported to other from "United ted States, T ehauteles. Total. 5 States. Articles. Cs a - uan- Quanti uanti- uanti- | y, Qn os, Value} “tics, | Value. men pa | Value. | oa pak | Value. MOrbot:.-.--sc..ces--- bbls |......|.-.--- 5 $20 3 | gi8 8 | $48 TES Rada Sea ee K PGi) escclencens 2 2 ree 73 15 15 Sounds and tongues ...do..|.......--..- 655 655 161 | 16! R16 | 816 MEMROLL snc acasnesss TIOKCOS ||\sce=-t-5oe 8 967 23, 200 4, 373 | 56, 910 5, 340 80, 110 BRMINGS:. co cscciesas =~ DDIBE ce eac} ewes 37,418 | 112,254) 112,358 | 247,208 | 149, 776 359, 462 BROORKOFOl . ...c202s.002 COR SEA ASA eee 17 1s Ieee gel bert eas 17 102 4 76 4, 608 561 | 4, 488 1, 137 9, 960 Sa chmeeleata ss ae 763 | 2, 2&9 763 | 2, 289 300 240 389, 372 \ 350, 464 389,672 | 350, 704 243 34, 123 3, 940 | 568, 229 4,183 602, 352 69 17, 424 203 53, 296 272 70, 720 67 | 10,781 5, 075 770, 803 5,142 | Tl, 594 24 3, 418 40 6, 310 64 9, 728 10 .1, 601 1 | 47 1l 1, 648 Wotal esececsetescees 246, 498 fess sccces ee Odd" we. Sosa ct 5, 474, 531 1868. Dried codfish ......... qtls 69, 736 |1, 150,029 | 4, 025, 082 |1, 169,948 | 4,094, 818 BEMULOOK (2s cocecacaccce EO. wens achesseasluccrsss-|oacrnecase= 837 351i 83' 2,511 MEDNG cce cece wenn s do.. Soe 749 1, 498 749 1, 498 Herrings ..........--. bbls 120,597 | 146, 964 440,892 | 187,163 561, 489 meaokerel. 2:0): 2.5.2. do.. Da |cc ccesettcsenscesicns 9 54 BMG’. 220 eerste cette. do. 6, 768 69 552 915 7, 320 EMBL TOOR 2-52 occ Se couse. COs s|eecccelasce sls cece ieteven awn 1, 092 2,184 1, 092 | , 2, 184 MOOR ; acai sess ac! tierces 48, 018 4, 140 82, 042 6, 503 130, 060 RDG ccc: >. Seasen ce bbls.| . 6 30 186 32 192 Sounds and tongues. bia : 13 487 | 487 500 | 500 iW halebone..........-- LOO; | coos eo cokltetes couse os ze 100 BERLOTA Secor eco ne: Hal Gebsnet Souilhee Seeweccltectesase/sseelee EY ree: oe PBR RHE Sao No. 12,635 | 317,522 254, 017 333,316 | 266, 652 , viz | BAG cocsesccaceesens tuns 83, 020 2, 478 346, 920 3,071 | 429,940 mnd-liver’....-5.--..< do.. 22, 000 142 , 250 225 | 36, 250 BBO so. Secs cect ss C0: 3 420 72 10, 080 75 | 10, 500 Ob thet ceresss do. | 63, 520 4, 458 713, 280 4,855 | 776, 800 ey eee do ite eee 34 5, 100 34,5, 100 Binbeee and dregs.. OD ap ENR BS Fy pepe 86 1, 720 86 | 1, 720 Totals-2 esse ae | Seee ee prsani [lose 426/887 |< os- cee SOOO AON oes ee | 6, 327, 5 964 Tongues and sounds .pkgs.|...-..|----- 719 | 719 840 840 1, 559 eeesters, PIOKCLVOU ©. 2c oilscanos| ecoses|s cases oe CO Pee a oe 47 (oh eee pins eines ee [OS ah” Hise fy ee Lea ee Be eee iene rein MEP eP es Seal sking Peo ieee Noaleescss |rsoees 2, 000 2, 361, 021 361,021 | 363, 021 Z: of Seer pare tuns seeeeeieeeeee 572 | 91, 600 4, 016 578, 544 4, 528 | BOM VOR <<< .-- 02.52 G02.|------ Toes | 15, 875 270 67, 375 333 | a aia aes ee dos pete focetnae 1,784 | 303, 3, 796 645, 235 5, 580 | EOIN ics ca seco. donkoce (ee 3 | 18 2) 555 21 | site CRS Sree G0: \ecsoce sacs 4 Ua 294 4, 395 30 “TIED RSE ae ie Goziss2 = ae ry 80 10} 1, 690 11 | Biubber and dregs...do..|......|.----- 4| 8 197} 3, 160 198 | OE ecco os occas Hines = Re G2 ST Dee 1870. | | | Dried codfish ...... BELG UH aseae leave 17,033 | 67, 987 {1,196,704 | 4,544, 213 /1, 213, 737 Core codfish ........... Bislrecees aes 35 | 1, 907 3,051 1, 942 | taddock .............. do. eet eee eee | ere 28 44 28 a Pe ees merger 65 | 130 272 544 337 - Salmon ...... Sane tierces |......|.-.-.. 2,983 | 48, 448 3, 568 , 368 6, 551 eens 5... 22. 5 a ee ae 19, 833 ; 126, 856 316, 728 | 146, 689 Mackerel... 2220.2). FP RRS Recrae 864 «6, 912 155 1,240 | 1,019 | See ie See joes 1, 022 8, 176 308 2, 464 1, 330 MPOU-FOOS. .5..........-- Go se ee [ecoaee 10 1, 255 4, 980 1, 265 1516 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Return shorcing | the aeoce and values of fish and products of fish, §¢c.—C ontinued. p Imported | Exported to Uni- | Exported to other genes nited ae States. | countries: Total. Articles. SS SS [= | | gv Value Gyan Value. : ae | Value. se | Value. founds anc op gue k leata fee every oa 452 | | 2 OA eee meee shady Maint vo akeee 452 | $452 essai : ke se ‘Pl - eterct haces | 3,084 3,024 | 352,344 | $352,344 | 355, 428 355, 428 God Pie oe tuns | aoe ae All gaia | 225 | 32,436 | 3, 609 534, 996 3,834 | 567, 432 Cadilivercs.. 02552: Cl Ie kad Dae? | 46, 11,925 | 373 | 97, 315 419 108, 940 Sanh ee ee DOs wk ene nicer 406940 6,087 | 1,034, 790 6, 369 1, 082, 730 i Crag) secocdrnscne do. + Ge REE Ese acca noone en 2 264 2 | 264 Dogfiah =.2..2 3.06050: OOe 4). 2 8es eaes ce 6 960 |.-2.. 22. tenet eee eee 6 | 960 Blubber and dregs.) do. [22000000022.] 108) 1, 236 8 | 1013 1, 624 210 3, 360 Totalick soos ue sets lsone Aes ick a5 Seen W 16;950; 9654 .see8e sou | 7, 260, 298 1s71. | | | Dried codfish ......... AUS oso eee | 8,735 $34,940 1,319,991 $5,014,218 1,328, 726 $5, 049, 158 Core oodtish .......... ee] ae red eeaee eee ogee 640 | 1, 044 640 1, 044 Haddock WMO a aRigt sae Soa eet ee GAUL eROOR | conte ees Ce Pe 634) | 1, 890 Halibut | | 450 | 900 450 900 Salmon|, ..05ties oe: i . 2, 554 | 40, 184 3,977 63, 632 Herring | 31, 86 - 155,566 | 364,240 | 187,429 | 459, 829 Mackerel 458 | 3, 664 1,374 ~—-: 10, 992 Pa ieee pe eee 68 | 544 454 | 3, 632 Cod-roes 1, 939 | 5, 817 1, 939 | 5, 817 Turbot . 20 | 80 Soonds and ‘tongues. _pkgs. p 97 97 199 | 199 Seal-ek ind. -22ccce 2: Noolesce shite: 33,000 33,000 | 504, 094 504,094 | 537,094 537,094 Oil, viz } | | | Codless..cc25 ies. fine, |: tec hc cca: | 455 | 59,150 4, 783 632, 266 5,238 | 691, 416 Cad livee’s.22: <3: do al.nee eee: 92 18, 400 | 2 44, 902 313)/ > -68; Aare eee doce eescenle cos: 509 | 71, 260 7,995 | 1,119, 300 8,504 1,190, 560 Wiktaleys 2.2 = 25, (i OA ESR hes MEAN A tee eee ee | : 9 | 1, 152 Herring ............ re ie os emai as Beate [a eeeae eee 29 3, 000 20 | 3, 000 Dogtish.. GOs 2 [teeieets [oer cis 7 LAD teeeecee es clt eons cies ce 7 | 1, 120 Blubber and dregs. Midaric ees ek | 10 | 69 1, 104 79 | 1, 264 otal: fc: 4a. c2. fe) cnt toc: sae Wee fee: | BY Re ist beer eeael | 2,038, GOB) case ees 8, 086, 081 1872 | | | | Dried codfish .........qtls |...... 0.0... | 8544 | 34,176 1, 212, 612 | 4, 850, 448 /1, 221, eo | 4, 884, 624 Core codfish ....... 6. aL aSn Sek Oi Nena Pact) 739 739 739 Freah frozen codfish. ..do..|............. Saree eee bese aeons 358 | 1, 432 358 38 | 1, 432 Hadtioek : 22:5. 2.55. vi Cy ae eae Parkers [tees crslstee sees 12 36 12 | 36 Babut 2035.3. 6 5255 O33) SSeS nls te 429 | 858 429 | 858 Turbot ...... adn ees ears eee ee 5 20 5 | 20 Herring, phe kled oe bbls Baan eee | es | ss 959 | 121, 220 | 363, 660 | 140, 873 | 422, 619 ey APO EN crore: oo is CU Mic wctce a Vices eh 4 2 Herring, smoked ... DOXORi ccc eee kya ai Phy eet Mi ert Tai ar | = 14 mes: EE oie ecensteatss | 1,074 | - 17,184 3, 975 63, 600 5,094} 80, 784 oS 55S So wie) ad o.8)8,8')| a1@laie, @:6)].0\ o.0 Sel ee |) siaiola) aisle alee |e. a. andes uae 5 soe esecces! '? —— Stray peas Obla is eases! } 1,885 | 15, 0x0 | 304 2, 432 2, 189 | 17, 512 nr Weenie oie ie aces a Re Ne 244) = 1,952 | 360 2, 880 604 4, Sh Spree tee CO asec sete secre culcacbeenees 910 7, 288 910 | i, arnt and tongues pkgs nea ena 30 30 | 04 94 124 124 Labetors preaerved.. see fp ieesie a eo peince am Whalebone............ CW ess aleeces aed pakorencads Pico ac re 165) |G ee 169 Oysters nen teh | aby Rs ca oa eee gees a ore en eeeepet? Seal-chine Fee eale she NG Pare af emtence | 500 500 | 277,872 | 277,872 | 278,372 | 278, 372 c HK aE tans |...) eee 342 47,880} 3,791 | 530,749 | 4,133 | 578, 620 ii Aa ae peer eae 198 39, 600 23 | 221 44, 200 aah ag ale a0 Sic) sewisien (nese aclensiace stil seas ge ecu 4,228 | 591,920 4, 228 591, 920 sila ahaa ed ea eed ae eae ge 50) 7, 500 age Degtels §.5)°5,0 3.56: do ease cet ey st (ees 38 | 5, 320 38 * 9A0 Blabber and dre Pn act en |e a sae ee 8 | 1, 280 8 i, Seo eae ee 11 176 | 93 | 1, 488 104 | 1, 664 Beene eine Wills Ee eee Re eae | 6, 954, 528 1873. = — ————— ~ —= "=: —— —S Dried codfish F | | | | cicclcer phirngine Seka 9,544 | 42,194 1,359,641 4, 886,944 1, 369, 205 | 4, 929, 138. Maddock cc 20 80/03 |g aba |" 3,523 |” a TOROS oer Pal seen bn ieae "773,606 [Pereestheed armed Rr) ae Herring plokled . Q; 48 3 696 [eeeese zr ltttt st sttse: 1, 848 3, 696 Herring freah Med id 75, 342 a 7, O76 | 243, 438 122, 608 318, 780 Herring amoked LOO) 1 VS), GOO denen (ince eee ees 10, 550 a | 200 | 200 200 att aay Ju AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1517 Return showing the quantilies and values of Jish and products of fish, §¢.—Continued. Imported Be ported to Uni. | Exported to other ay held United ted S:ates. countries. Total Articles. a Be a — | | | ; uan- | Quanti- uanti- , Quanti , Sent Value om | Value. | Ruant Value. Ait Value ne eeepeeace ( $10,795 | - 7,076 $806, 5 7,711 | $317, 266 Salmon, preserved eieeberen Gertie 8, 660 Seat 8, 660 1,620 | 1,147 4, 588 1, 552 6, 208 196 19 133 47 329 { Selzcisscell wens iceoeesalenape roe sys | 852 57 858 2,574 BEUERETS DI GSORV GC )22 ee sheer) ee a wercsines See esotacliees Manes D300 % Te Se Seine 1, 390 Sounds and tongues. ‘pEas retest l wcosee 79 | 10), | ee seceeen a ae 279 279 OTRAS aceostencaat (es MASE al eaten ee diel Lace ois 135 igo 135 135 Oysters ....------..-- foe TECH S1S0 se aaa Ce Mace icuate neh sSteeke or leeaee ee pee Maetaking .....- ..---:- INO: | cece temas 2, 010 2,110 461, 521 484,597 | 463,531 | 486, 707 MMAIODUNG! 2 = oes ace eee os] es ce tl cose ale oscges [Soee cl esee |ceocencer G48 i carters, 648 Oil, viz: POR caress ac sesies VEY yt eee es 227; 32,060 3, 127 521, 500 3, 954 553, 560 TBC) Aeron Come |e etcss see 159 | 32,595 162 31, 605 321 64, 200 POUR Sere niece oe aoe A023 |Feesce eae 80-10, 400 6, 755 878, 150 6, #35 88x, 550 ht ES es vi (12 eee i (eee Free ea Hees Sean | 57 7, 296 57 7, 296 joe i Areca e. doetans st tee Santee oe a8 ec eee se | 78 9, 360 Zr 9, 360 Boao Aaa CSE (SR PORROne Pre kanme BRP RR 6 720 6 70 thee aid dices. edges | ict l BEneo co Reed peeeosoee! 143 2, 288 143 2, 288 Total ss ee acs | eee ee a eer Q1D9GT bc cees ees | 7, 895,998 ......... 2, 138, 965 1874. Dried codfish..........qtls | .....]...... | 18,004 | 85, 429 Ih 591,720 | 6,031, 462 1,609,724 | 6, 116, 951 ey Bodie: -22-ccssss Osh ccuss|cetecs | 300 510 | 604 846 904 1, 356 ES) eee aG-¢|\-... Raieistsllaioap asl [sinceietses == 18 63 18 63 Mueiiiat 2205.5 25505 2 Moe bvecce lhc. 822 | 1,644 | 627 1, 254 1, 449 2, 898 Zarbot . ponte oe eeeeen Ci Pes Wena PSs |oeeneoe pane 13 52 13 52 Liefarsaeftienieeeis Doles | ye25-2|5 2.2) 18401 55,203 | 171,553 514,665 189, 956 569, 868 science, frozen....... Ce ea et ea i BiB seats NeaNliee cos Neos ®, 300 8, 300 Biimon...........-.tieroes eee eeeeee 1,643 | 24,618; 6, 240 93, 627 7,883 | 118, 245 rg proserved.c 32. Nbs) | -35252)o-c20 elias ves ae ce ace.cs es | 36, 562 4, 875 36, 562 , 875 BA err ane: "bbls Kowcslisecos| & AIG kt ee 756 6, 048 2, 234 17, 872 Mackerel BAS e ance oat as eseeassl pares aera gen an nee | 47 376 47 376 Lobsters, preserved .. Aree | (eta) Ae eee eee Eopcci dl) Seco OLS 2,581 25, 814 2, 581 eenanes and sounds. Pkgs ee Pee 108 108 168 | 1 276 276 ( Dried codfish. ......... qt's 1, 126,227 | 5,403, 751 1, 136, 235 | 5, 453, 928 ‘Core codfish .........-. do.. ne , 460 730 1, 460 TE eee do.. 144 576 144 576 Mic agen eras cee ees do. 183 366 330 660 aig oeeame hace =do.. 15 | 60 15 60 LE ee bbls 161,881 485,643 192,639 | 577, 917 Herring, frozen fresh ..do.. [eee See ee ee see 14, 450 14, 450 ST ee erces. 6, 170 86, 330 8, 101 113, 414 Salmon, preserved ..... lbs 50, 120 | 6,683 50, 120 6, 683 smoked ....... hw Reese eee 8 (EU) Weer ee rey ie & 136 bbsters, preserved ....1bs |......). ae parte -... | 144,733 14,472 | 144,723 14, 472 _ a ap edes ue pale aie le alehhs 1, 353 8,118 | 105 630 . 1, 458 | p, 748 229 145 434 221 663 Vee ty eee Bel Brenner 164 164 9 | 46 46 55 55 450 | 52h 5, 250 57 | 5, 700 f, 272 | 2, 954 496, 028 2,990 | 502, 320 a 74 24,077 9 27, 341 21, 912 | 4, 805 634, 260 4,971 6546, 172 paneer 20 2, 560 2n 2. 560 768° 31 | 3, 968 37 4, 736 xii ae een 5 640 5 640 1518 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Return showing the quantities and values of fish and products of fish, §c.—Continued. Imported — Exported to Uni- Exported to other ee nite a States. countries. Value. ] Articles. a ey : } Quan-vatue Quasti| Value, | Quant | vaine. | Quanti | vetue Blabber and dregs ...tums.!...... Sace 4 | $62 88 | $1, 404 92 | $1, 472 Sand ak iia erate See NO Se] es oe cee cece: | 346, 924 551,001 | 346,924 451, 001 Res | | / otal res coe ccsers ee lecaes Be kn VG Oo Gites stds ave: PraeelOnGeN [e-cacses [7,345,328 = | 1876. ie : | Dried codfish ........ atls: |g. seas 4,905 | 27,958 1,359,163 5, 475, 970 |1, 364,068 5, 0°, 928 Core codfish ........--. doo shistce wens 225 450 | 734 1. 462 959 | 1, 918 Haddock .............. yet [arse apiened Inter ee ee ene | 535 | 1, 926 535 | 1, 926 Halibat! 225.0 sececess. 7 Paella nl comet 190 330 142 284 332 664 Herning ............- bbls..|......| .--. | 28,875 | 96,647] 262,876 | 419,958) 291,751 | 516, 605 Herring, smoked .... boxes |...... ERC STOR RA toy (eR an as | 200 | 5u 200 | 50 Salmon ........ cas Herees eee | IOS) 251651992 6, 326 102, 176 7,448 119, 168 Saleson. preserved |... 25.62.) 2 css ccs ehloed bones fe senceeees | 50, 288 5, 036 50, 288 | 5, 036 asker a weantateere te Dolan ses los. eer ee eed 1 Troat’: ss1s tcc, do.. ae 435 | 3, 332 532 3, 630 967 | 6, 962 Ced-roea . s..3.c ices BOM cet oe 73 | 292 642 2, 568 715 | 2, 860 Sounds and tongues. pkgs |.... | .... | 80 | 80 39 39 119 | 119 RS aah Nesvee Badeea Danone Eres 396 | 396 396 396 Lobsters, preserved ....... ee oe Widens ceulessneemeee 6, 046 29, 020 6, 046 | 29, 020- Oysters: 222224 ..20.2: bush | 150 Gig este | adhoc an tare Paetciniere se hea creer Bacau eee Bee eeu =e Fish, pickled.... .....qtls Dif Paloseueese l\cseecheeee prec aene: [wees cosa: bee owen Bib Beal kins ee Noite Weasue Sree pete nae | 341, 811 444,353 | 341,811 | 444,353 . viz | | eres tans! 65-5 eee 24 3,840 2, 348 375, 680 2,372 | 379,520 COU GOR 550.562 ick CU a Nee ne oy 1k 4, 608 | 943 24,192 1123; —_2e, 800 elle Ae eet ee do... craks, Pees 43 6124, ee 638, 010 4, o | = Go ise ieee el Fast) eee reer a eer | , 46 : Whales cu. ssire i : bre P norre Py occa cee naa (ecole Iago gh Blubber and dregs...do..)...... haeea ener gid Aone | 72: 2, 284 72 2, S42 Dotel? fossa sesor.c. sees | 165 aay: 55244 [foe eceee a: || 1% ode 450) | 2c ce ceeces 7 687, X77 A. REC APITULATION. | Exported— Nears Imported from J U . e . | nated States | To United | To other coun: | Total | States. tries. | Values. Values | Values. $82, 475 $4, 384, 460 $4, 466, 935. 524, 340 3, 935, 743 4, 460, 083 182, 955 5, 156, 634 5, 339, § 113, 119 4, 589, 535 4, 702, 654 330, 850 4, 793, 971 5, 124, 821 4x2, 640 5, 723, 859 6, 206, 499 391, 163 6, 178, 375 6, 569, 538 494, 285 5, 494, 961 5, 989, 246 494, 194 5, 830, 791 6, 324, 985 372, 610 5, 618, 747 5, 991, 357 185, 241 5, 604, 594 | 5, 786, 835 f 181, 766 5, 669, 359 5, 851, 125 ( 853 6, 084, 243 | 6, 387, 096 184, 684 5, 678, 378 5, 863, 062 546, 133 5, 608, 785 | 6, 154, 918 . 446, 584 5,699,422 «6. 146, 006 | 246, 498 5, 228, 033 | 5, 474, 531 426, 887 5, 900, 801 6, 327, 688 626, 577 7,281,860 | 7, 908, 437 f 6, 950, 965 7, 260, 298 349, 475 7, 736, 606 8, 036, OR? 236, 231 6, 718, 297 6, 954, 523 242, 967 7, 895, 998 | 8, 138, 965 225, 250 8, 226, 460 | 8, 511, 710 > ie 7, 619, 689 | ce 45, oe ‘ 7, 532, 430 | 7, 627, Total for twenty-aix y aera ee | —e enty-ix years. ...... 6, 760 | 8,417,196 157, 142, 996 165, 560, 192 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. B. 1519 Statement showing the total and average imports and exports of fish and products of fish for the four years receding the Reciprocity Treaty, the twelve years under the treaty, seven years after its abrogation, and three years under the Washington Treaty, respectively. 5 z | Exported é 3 | Z oe || oe a = Years. == | Fe | To United | To other Total A States. countries. a ED = Values Values. Values. Values RR 2 Se cee ye oN Saco ee dee aaas cee ee we oH Gece: $82, 475 | $4,384,460 | $4, 466, 925 oe gene eee ses cn hae og cadaeeesipdeceaeeesdaanes $82 524,340 | 3, 935, 743 , 460, 083 Be. oF) SO Aral CEL ESSN DUET caches uae Ne 105 182,955 | 5, 156,634] 5,339, 589 RE Ste see etre mirt eu ee kom cen My slaner eens ces 158 113,119 | 4,589,535 | 4, 702, 654 Total fur 4 years preceding Reciprocity Treaty ... 345 | 902, 289 | 18, 066,372 | 18, 969, 261 4, 793, 971 5, 124, 821 5, 723, 859 6, 206, 499 . 6, 178, 375 6, 569, 538 5, 494, 961 5, 9F9, 246 5, 830, 791 6, 324, 985 5, 618, 747 5, 991, 357 5, 604, 594 5, 786, 835 5, 669,359 | 5, 851, 125 6, 084, 243 6, 387, 096 5, 678, 378 5, 863, 062 5,608,785 | 6, 154, 918 5, 699, 422 | 6, 146, 006 67, 985, 485 72, 395, 488 SS —— SS 5, 228, 033 5, 474, 531 5, 900, 801 6, 327, 688 7, 281, 860 7, 908, 437 6, 950,465 | 7, 260, 298 7, 736, 606 #, 026, 081 6, 718,297 | 6, 954, 528 7, 895, 998 8, 138, YES. Total for 7 years after abrogation of Reciprocity ATCRLY oo scmen se tisca eran e a eacae aan nie tess 631 2, 437, 968 | 47, 712,560 | 50, 150, 528 | AS eye esi latin As ee a ere Oe enn eS re ae 79 285, 250 | 8, 226, 460 8, 511, 710 SRS Rie ate ip Seat areas ane re ew or ee S 22 | 225, 639 7, 619, 629 7, 845, 322 ee rae way An tn tate ane, ae pen See eae ere in 165 | 155, 447 | 7,532,430 | 7, 687, 877 Total for 3 years under Washington Treaty,....... | 266 | 666, 336 | 23,378,579 | 24, 044, 915 | | AVERAGES. Average for 4 years preceding Reciprocity Treaty ......- | 86 | 225,722 | 4,516, 593 4, 742, 315 g hecipr y y = : : Average for 12 years under Reciprocity Treaty .-......-. 459 | 367,500 | 5, 665, 457 6, U32, 957 Average for 7 years after abrogation of Reciprocity | | DERG oo sera i Nace en etre te a ee 90 | 348, 281 | 6,616,080 | 7, 164, 361 Average for 3 years under Washington Treaty. . 8&8 | 222,112 | 7,792,859 | 8, 014, 971 Average for 26 years, from 1851 to 1876.............-.22-- | 260 | 323, 738 | 6,043,961 | 6, 367, 699 APPENDIX J. SPEECHES OF COUNSEL INCLUDING THE FINAL ARGU- MENTS. I. At the fifth Conference held on the 31st of July, 1877, on the conclusion of the reading of the ‘‘ Case of Her Majesty’s Government”; the “Answer of the United States”; and the “ Reply of Her Majesty’s Government,” Mr. THOMSON said: This, your excellency and your honors, is the “ Oase of Great Britain”; the ‘Answer of the United States” to this Case, and the reply. The issues are plain, and are not, [ apprehend, to be misunderstood. I think I may not be presumptuous in saying on the part of Her Majesty’s Government, that we feel these issues are trusted for adjudication and decision to able and impartial hands; and if it shall happen, as I hope it may, that the result of your deliberations in this Case may be the basis upon which future and more lasting negotiations may be entered into, and so a source of continued national and local irritation be entirely removed, then I think I may fairly say to your excellency and your honors, that you will have acquired no unenviable and no unimportant place in the history of your times; and I am quite satisfied that you will have earned by your labors the lasting gratitude of two great peoples. ET. > At the twenty-fifth conference held on the 28th day of August, 1877, Mr. TRESCOT, on behalf of the Government of the United States, made the following applicaton : Mr. President and gentlemen of the Commission: As the time is now approaching when the evidence in support of the British Case will be closed, and we will be requested to open the testimony in behalf of the United States, we would ask leave to make a slight change in the order of our proceeding as it has been at present arranged. According to the present arrangement, it will be our duty to open our case in advance of the testimony by laying before you the general scheme of our argument and indicating the points upon which evidence will be submitted in its support. _The character of the testimony which has been now submitted in sup- port of the British Case, and the tenor of that which we will offer (as may be inferred from the evidence of the two witnesses whom we were allowed to examine out of order) have impressed us with the conviction that a practical discussion of the real issues will be more certainly se- - eared, and the time and patience of the Commission will be more wisely 96 F 1522 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. economized, if we are allowed to submit such views as it may be our duty to maintain at the close instead of the advance of the exam- ivation of witnesses. As we understand the wish of both governments to be that the whole discussion should be as frank and full as possible, it has occurred to us that you might be disposed to allow us to adopt such an arrange- ment as would in our judgment best enable us to lay before you a com- plete presentment of the opinions of the government we represent. And we feel more assured in that opinion as this privilege deprives counsel on the other side of no advantage which they now possess. For, beside the right to reply to the printed argument which they now have, we would of course expect that they would also be allowed the right of oral reply, if they desired to exercise it. An opening speech is not necessary, as the counsel on the other side have shown, but it would be obviously improper to submit this Case without a careful review of the testimony which will have been offered on both sides; and this can be done with much more convenience and thoroughness by an oral speech than by a written argument. To say all that it may be our duty to say in a printed argument would be im- possible, without swelling it into a volume of unreadable proportions. It is our purpose to make the printed argument a complete but con- cise summary of the contention, a clear statement of the principles in- volved and the authorities referred to, accompanied by an analysis of the leading facts of the testimony. This we can do, so as to make it an efficient help to you in your own examinations of the case, if we are not compelled to overload it with all the discussion which the evidence and the case itself suggest, but which we could sufficiently dispose of in oral argument. We would therefore request permission so to distribute the argument on our side as to have the opportunity of submitting our views orally, upon full comparison of all the testimony taken. It is no small induce- ment to make this request that we believe that upon the close of the testimony we will be able to dispense with much argument which we can scarcely avoid in the present imperfect condition of the testimony. Respeetfully, RICHARD H. DANA, WM. HENRY TRESCOT, Counsel for United States. Mr. FosTER said: As the motion just made involves a departure from the course of procedure adopted by the Commission, to which I assented, it is proper that I should say a few words in reference to it. At the time the rules were adopted, the Commission certainly cannot forget the posi- tion in which I found myself placed. Contrary to my own expectations and to the ex pectations of my government, the Commissioners decided to allow the active participation in the conduct of the case of five counsel on behalf of the five maritime provinces. I came here expecting to meet only the Agent of the British Government, and suddenly found I was also to meet five leaders of the bar from the five provinces. I felt it important not to have five closing arguments against me. Now that there are counsel here to represent the United States as well as the British Government, it seems to me reasonable that such a modification | : of the rules should be made as will i i : ade as permit the services of the counsel | who have been brought here in consequence of the decision of the Com- sion to be made available to the greatest extent. While I should have AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1523 been quite content to have discussed this matter in writing with the British Agent, finding that I had to meet five counsel, my government has been obliged to send counsel here, and it seems desirable that we should be able to use them in the most efficient way. Then, again, the evidence has assumed a very wide range, and is manifestly going to be conflicting to the last degree upon some of the points, notably as to what proportion of the mackerel taken by the American fishermen in British waters is taken within three miles of the shore. On that subject there is going to be a very great conflict of evi- dence. 1 don’t believe that such a question can be satisfactorily discussed either in advance of the reception of the testimony or in writing after it is all in. It involves so much detail, that the writing, if laid before you, would swell to a bulk that would be altogether unreasonable. I therefore very strongly concur in the application that has been made. Mr. DoUTRE suggested that the British counsel should have time to consider the matter before replying. Mr. FOSTER concurred, and said that was the reason the application and the grounds of it had been put in writing. At the Conference held on Wednesday, August 28, 1877. Mr. THOMSON. An application was yesterday made to the Commis- sion. I was not present at the time, but I have seen the written prop- osition, and I understand that it was an application made to your ex- eellency and your honors for the purpose of altering the rules. On behalf of Her Majesty’s Government—I am also now speaking tke mind of the minister of marine—I may say that these rules have been sol- emnly entered into. We have acted upon them from the commence- ment to the end so far as we have gone, but still we have no desire that our friends on the other side should be deprived of any right which they think they ought fairly to have in order to bring their cases before this tribunal. We, however, certainly deprecate any alteration of the rules; and we feel that we are just in this position. During all this time that we have been examining our witnesses, we did so under the idea that the rules would remain as they were engrossed. It is impor- tant, we think, in such an inquiry as this, that these rules should be rig- idly adhered to, unless there be some very important reason why they should be deviated from. I confess, speaking for myself, that I hardly see the force of the reasons advanced in favor of the proposed change on behalf of the United States Government. They say that their argu- ments, if placed on paper, would be so bulky as to fill a large volume. Possibly that may be so; but still that is rather more complimentary to their powers of discursiveness than anything else; and they accompany this expression of opinion with the statement that they wish to be heard orally at great length. I presume that this will all be reported by the short-hand writers, and in the shape of a lengthy volume it will meet the eyes of the Commissioners; so I do not see how this bulky volume is in any way to be escaped. Nevertheless, as I said before, we are not desirous to object to our friends on the other side taking this course in order to fairly bring the merits of their case before the tri- bunal, if they so think fit. We, therefore, are willing that they shall, if they please, be heard orally at the close of the evidence on both sides; _ but we submit—and we trust that in this respect there can be no differ- ence of opinion—that your excellency and your honors will not make _ any deviation from the rule which requires our friends on the opposite 1524 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. i , close of their case, to file their written argument, if they ma a al so todo. We contend that it would be entirely at vari- ance with the whole spirit with which this inquiry has been conducted that they should, after making their speech, call upon us, if we please to make a speech in answer, to make it, and that they then should file their written arguments. Such a course would wholly displace the position which we occupy before this tribunal. Great Britain stands here as the plaintiff, and the ordinary rule in courts of common law is this: That the plaintiff, after a short opening of his case, calls wit- nesses, as we have, and at the close of the plaintiff’s case the defend- ant, after a short opening of his case, also calls witnesses; the respect- ive counsel for the defendant and the plaintiff then make their closing arguments; after which the case is submitted to the jury by the judge. This is the course followed ; and, therefore, while we are willing, if itis really thought necessary by my learned friends so to proceed, that they should have the right to close their case by arguments in writing, or verbally and in writing, yet if they close verbally and then wish to put in a written argument, that must be done at once; and we, if we so please, will then answer them verbally or in writing, as we like, or in both ways. I confess, speaking from the stand-point of counsel, that so far as I have a voice in the matter, I rather reluctantly agreed to this, because I think that these rules were formally framed ; and, in reality, the proposition that the case should be conducted by written agreement came from the learned Agent of the United States, if I understand rightly, and we acceded to it, and entirely on that basis we have con- ducted the whole of our case. Still, I say again, that we will meet our friends half way. Mr. TrREscor. I suggest that my friend’s proposition is an attempt at meeting by proceeding half-way in different directions; the trouble is that our half-ways do not meet at all. I am not sure that I under- stood my friend exactly, but as I understand him, he claims the right of two replies; that is, the right to reply to our oral argument and then the right to reply to the printed argument, to which we have no ob- jection. Mr. THoMsON. I said we would reply to your two arguments, oral and written. Mr. TREscor. If you mean that we are to make an oral argument, and that if you do not want to make an oral argument you shall not be obliged to do so, I have no objection. _ Mr. THompson. I suppose that we will exercise our pleasure regard- ing that matter. Mr. TrEscov, If we make an oral argument, they have the right to reply. If, then, we give a printed argument, they have the same right to file a printed argument in reply ; their relation to us in the case is pre- served throughout. My friend refers to the character of the case, and taking into consideration not only the character of the case, but of the parties of the court before which we are, I may even venture to say of the counsel engaged, I do not think we ought to proceed in the spirit of @ nist prius trial. Your judgment certainly cannot be prejudiced by a full and frank discussion, Our purpose is to save time and labor. We propose orally to discuss this subject before you with a frankness and freedom that we cannot do in writing, and then to putin a printed sum- mary, giving counsel on the other side the right to put in the final one. Surely my friend does not want us to adopt. his suggestion because he wants to say something at the last moment to which we will not have opportunity to reply. There cannot be anything of a mystery in an RR GH AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1525 argument like this. We all now understand what are the issues which are before us. We only want to discuss them with perfect frankness and fullness, so that everything that is to be said on the case may be said. I want this case to be so argued, both in spirit and fact, that whatever the award may be, and whoever is called upon to submit to an adverse decision, they will be satisfied, having obtained the fullest pos- sible hearing on the subject. I want to-secure no advantage over my friends on the other side, and I do not believe that they desire to have any advantage over us; if they will allow me to borrow an illustration from the language of their witness, we do not wish to “ lee-bow” them. But I think that my learned friend is sacrificing himself to a sort of technical superstition for the word “ reply.” In this case thereis nothing mysterious, and no necessity exists in regard to having the last word. We are willing to lay our whole argument before the Commission, and then to let them reply to it, if they so wish; but if they do not choose to do it we do not intend to compel them to reply, and it is perfectly in their power to effect themselves what they propose by declining to reply to our oral argument and confining themselves to their final argument. I say frankly I would regret such a decision very much. We wish to know their case as they regard it, and without depriving them at all of their right to reply, to have a frank, full, straightforward and manly dis- cussion of the whole question. I have always thought that the fairest manner for submitting a case jis followed before our Supreme Court. Both parties put in their printed arguments, bringing them within the common knowledge of each party before the court, and then they are allowed to comment on these arguments as they please. Mr. THomson. I agree with Mr. Trescot that this cause has not to be tried as one at nisi prius; we do not want nisi prius rules here, but we want the broad principle understood that Great Britain in this case is the plaintiff, and as such she is first to be heard and the last to be heard. A great advantage is obtained by the United States by hearing our case first, and for this very simple reason, during the whole time our evidence is being given before this Court they can be preparing their witnesses to meet it. There is always this advantage given to the de- fendaut in every case. He has the privilege of hearing the plaintiff’s testimony, and during the time the testimony is being given, he has the opportunity of preparing his answer. On the other hand, when the plaintiff comes to close the case, if there be an advantage in having the last word, the plaintiff has it. So the advantages are about balanced. A “frank” discussion, under the proposition submitted by the counsel for United States, simply means that the United States would get entirely _ the advantage in this cause. There is not the slightest desire on the part of the British Government or on the part of the Canadian gov- ernment, represented here by the minister of marine, that one single fact should be kept back or forced out as against the United States; on the contrary, that they shall have the fullest opportunity of being heard ; but we submit that not only the rules solemnly adopted by this tribunal, but the rules which govern the trial of ordinary causes, should not be departed from. We have given way a great deal, when we are willing to allow our learned friends who represent the United States to take the course they propose to this extent, that they shall make their oral Speeches if they choose to do so, and if they choose, in addition, to put _in a written argument, well and good, but they must do it at once, and that, if we please, we shall answer their written argument and speeches orally and by written argument, or by one of those modes only. We _ Ought not to be asked to yield more. 1526 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Mr. Dana. Your excellency and your honors: From all the experi- ence I have had in the trial of causes, where there has been examina- tion of witnesses, it appears to me to be the best course to argue the faets of the case after the facts have been put In. Such is the practice in the United States, and I presume in Canada. This seems a simple proposition: that the time to argue upon the facts, to affect the minds of those who have to judge and determine, should be when it is fully ascertained what all the evidence is; and it is always dangerous, often inconvenient, and always illogical to argue upon supposed, assumed, supposititious, hypothetical testimony, which may never come before the Court. I suppose your excellency and your honors understand my objection. It is to arule which permits that when the plaintiff has put in all his evidence, and the witnesses have been cross-examined, the defendant’s counsel may rise and state what he is instructed will be the testimony, what he supposes or assumes will be the testimony on his side, and then to make an argument upon that testimony, assumed and hypotheti- cal as it is, and to contrast it with the testimony of. the plaintiff, and deliver his mind fally and finally on the subject. This is dangerous and utterly unsatisfactory. Consequently in the United States, and I pre- sume in the Dominion, the argument is made after it is known what the testimony is, because the plaintifi’s counsel in an ordinary cause, or the counsel representing the Government here, may rise with full belief that it will be in his power to place the case in a certain position by his tes- timony, but it may turn out that he will be disappointed in his testi- mony, that the witnesses have not said all that he expected, and that the cross-examination reduced or altered the testimony. But there is another reason. When the defendant has put in his entire case there is the right of rebuttal possessed by the plaintiff, and the rebutting tes- timony may produce effects which the defendant’s counsel had no reason to anticipate, and which, without directly contradicting his testimony, may place it in a new light. So I think every person will see, and I am quite sure this tribunal will see, it would be wasting time for us to at- tempt to impress by argument, comparison, and illustration, the effect of testimony which has not been put in. Now, when we speak of open- ing the case for the plaintiff or defendant, we do not mean arguing the ease. On the contrary, an argument is not allowed by our practice in opening acase. All you can ever do in opening a case is to state very generally what kind of testimony you expect to produce, what you think will be the effect of it, and the positions of law to which that evidence is to be applied—mere signals of what is expected to be done. If in opening a case counsel attempts to say anything about the evidence put in on the other side, and argues on the character or effect of his own testimony, he is stopped, because he is arguing. Now, if I recollect the rules of the Commission, there is a provision, not that the British counsel should argue the case upon supposed testi- mony, but that they should open their case and put in their testimony ; then, not that we should argue upon their testimony and our supposed testimony, but that we should open our case by merely explaining what evidence is expected, and when all the testimony should be in, rebutting testimony included, then there was to be a complete printed argument edges pare eh At points of law, and everything connected with the og ch searuc Paste for the Crown thought, wisely, no doubt, Makeeei wie orth w a e to have an opening at all, and they did not dnea Sth peas tee tonors might have said, ‘“ We wish you would yc ase, Decause we will better understand the testimony as it oS 8, SD ae eee AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1527 comes in, and know how to apply it, and also the counsel of the United States will have a better opportunity to understand your case from the first, and be better able to cross-examine witnesses, and adopt what course they may see fit with better intelligence of your position.” But the learned counsel for the British Government made no opening, and of that we made no complaint. Now, we are very much in the same position they were in then, only we have a much stronger reason than they had. By this time, an opening, technically speaking, is not necessary. If the British counsel thought it was not necessary three weeks ago, it is much less necessary now, because this tribunal understands the main ints taken on each side, and has a general view of the manner in which each side expects to meet them by testimony. As the counsel on the other side did not open the case, they would surely not think of maintaining that we should now open ours. We propose, as soon as they have concluded their evidence,.to begin on our evidence. If this tribunal, or any member of it, should ask that, before we proceed to put in any testimony, we should make any explanation, we are quite ready to do it; or, if the counsel for the Crown should so desire, we are ready todo it. For ourselves, we do not propose to do so, but to go directly on with the testimony. We will then be on the same terms, neither side having opened, neither thinking an opening necessary or desirable. We shall then proceed with our testimony until it is completed; the rebuttal testimony will then be put in by the British counsel, and it is not until the rebuttal testimony is completed that this tribunal can be supposed to know on what facts it is to proceed. Now, do your honors think it is desirable to have an argument before you know on what facts you are to proceed? All the facts having been placed before the tribunal, then is the time to argue the question. It may be said by the learned counsel that what I have so far stated is unnecessary, because they don’t mean to compel us to open. But 1 think your honors will see it is well to understand in advance what is meant by an opening and an argument. When the whole of the evi- dence is before the tribunal, then comes the question, in what form can the counsel for the respective governments most beneficially to them- selves, to their opponents, and, what is most important, to the tribunal that has the weighty responsibility of determining the case, present all the facts and the principles of law and policy to which they are applica- ble? Whatever mode will do that best is the one we ought to adopt. We, the Agent of the United States and, the two United States counsel, have made up our minds that it will be more satisfactory to the tribunal that has the judgment of the case, quite as fair to the opposite side, much more satisfactory to us, and more just to the United States, that the course which we propose should be taken. The only question is whether the course we propose should be adopted or the course pro- posed by the counsel for the Crown in amendment thereto. They seem to see that after the examination of witnesses and reading of affidavits, extending over a long period, an oral argument is advantageous ; at all events they do not object to our making one. It is advantageous, be- cause it can be done always with more effect. I do not mean more effect a$ respects the person who delivers the argument, but more effect on the course of justice, than a printed argument. When an oral argument is delivered, any member of the court who thinks the counsel is passing from a point without making it perfectly clear can ask for an explana- tion. We desire that this tribunal shall have an opportunity to ask, at _ any time during the argument, for an explanation, if any explanation is 1528 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. needed. It is, moreover, a hardship to those who hand in a printed argu- ment to be left in uncertainty as to whether further explanations may be necessary. Itherefore think the experience of all engaged in ascertain- ing truth by means of witnesses and arguments shows that there should be an oral argument, if possible, on the testimony and such of the prin- ciples of law as are to be affected by it. ; In this ease it seems to be thought expedient also to have a printed argument. Perhaps it may be; but if it should be given up by both sides. we do not object. If there is an oral argument only and no printed arguinent, we shall be more careful in our oral argument to examine into all questions of law. If there is to be also a written argument, the oral argument would be confined more to the facts. Now, your honors, our suggestion is that we shall, as the defendant always does, when the evidence closes, argue the facts with such reference to principles as may be thought expedient. When that is done, it is the plaintiff’s time to reply orally. The briefs are a different thing; the printed arguments are a different thing. In a great case like this—a question between the two greatest maritime powers of the world and intrusted to three gen- tlemen with absolute power over it—whatever will best tend to enable each side to understand the other fully, at the time when it is necessary to understand them, is for the benefit of justice. When we have made our oral argument, the counsel for the Crown will make their oral argument. If they choose to waive the privilege of making that oral argument, if they think their policy will be best subserved by making neither an opening nor a closing oral argument, which we cannot compel them to do, and by hearing all we can possibly say before their mouths are opened, and to have their only speeches made after our mouths are closed—if that is their view of policy, I should like to know whether the agent of the Crown here tacitly gives his consent to such a course of procedure ; that is, that the American side shall be obliged to put in both its oral argument and its printed argument, when the other side has put in nothing, and then have an opportunity to close upon us with- out our knowing from their lips anything whatever. We have had what is called the British case and what is called the American case; but they are siinply in the nature of pleadings. They do not go into the testi- mony, they do not argue the facts of the testimony, they do not state what the testimony is to be; they are of a general character, and in no nae arguments. I think this tribunal will agree with me on that point. , In regard to the amendment proposed by the other side, by which we will be compelled to put in our printed argument the moment we close our oral argument, ! will suggest to your honors some objections to it. One objection is that we shall have to prepare our printed argument before we begin to speak. Would not that be a ridiculous position in which to place counsel? They would have to prepare and print a full argument, and then come into court and make an oral argument, and a pene in epee ea argument. I hardly know how I could proceed Ther fone dae ee as that. But a stronger objection is this: pepsi 1e right, under their amendment, to make an oral argument S printed argument after we are through. So they are not going to open their mouths, and we shall not have the benefit of hearing anything from them in this case until our pieces are discharged and our. ammunition exhausted. It is then the battle is to begin on the side of hi Crown. Now, your honors will see that it comes right down to this: x ¢ propose that first an oral argument should be made on the testimony. ounsel on the other side agree that an oral argument on the testimony AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1529 is a good thing; at all events, they do not object that there is anything unreasonable in having the arguments on the facts postponed till the facts are known. The only question, then, is this: shall there be first an oral argument by the American side, and then an oral argument for the Crown, if the counsel for the Crown desire it, and then our printed argu- ment to be followed by their printed reply ; or shall we be compelled to put in both arguments before hearing anything from them ? The counsel for the Crown may rise and say they don’t intend to make any oral argument, and thereby retain all the benefit of a policy of secrecy, and then it would be our duty to put in a printed argument. They can force us to this by simply declining to make an oral argument. Then they would come in with a printed argument which would be the final argument. Nothing we have proposed or can propose can prevent the counsel for the Crown having the closing words, because if our sug- gestion is adopted, first we will make an oral argument, then they may rise and say they do not wish to make one, then we must put in a printed argument, and then they will close with a printed argument; only they cannot get the advantage of refusing to make an oral argument at its proper time, and make it afterwards out of time. Their own proposi- tion, on the other hand, is this: that they shall not be required to make an oral argument after we have closed ours, but shall have the right to transfer that oral argument from the stage immediately after ours, until the United States counsel have finished their oral argument and put in their printed final argument. Then the counsel for the Crown can argue orally on all the testimony, and in addition put in their printed argu- ment. The result, therefore, your honors, would be that you yourselves would be placed under a disadvantage. You will hear our argument _ under a disadvantage; you will always be obliged to say to yourselves, } “the American counsel have given us a printed argument, but we can- - not expect to find in it adequate replies to arguments they never heard.” All the learned counsel on the side of the Crown have been able to _ gay is, ‘‘ We have submitted the case of Her Majesty’s Government, and | they have our case.” I have reminded your honors what these cases _ are. Then as to the briefs. We put in a brief six weeks ago, and we were to have a brief from the counsel for the Crown, but we have not seen it yet, I suppose owing to the fault of the printers. That brief will not be a brief on our testimony; that, I suppose, I may assume. Mr. Forp. Yes. Mr. DANA. Therefore, as far as the facts are concerned, that brief can be of no use, and the original case of Her Majesty’s Government will also be of no use tous. I hope your excellency and your honors will fully understand we consider an opportunity tu argue the facts as of very great value to the United States, and we assume you consider it at all ;events your. duty, how much value you may attach to it I cannot Say, to give counsel the fullest opportunity to argue the facts with the _ knowledge of two things: First, what the facts are; and second, how our Opponents propose to use and treat them. Now, it seems to me that the most common justice requires that the | result should not be that before we file our final printed argument, and , leave this court and this part of the world, and return to our several _ homes, having done all we could do under the circumstances, we should | not have heard by the ear, or read by the eye, one word that would ex- | plain to us what the counsel for the Crown think of our testimony or of | their own, how they mean to use it, to what points they mean to apply | it, what illustrations they mean to use. That will be our position if the | proposal of the counsel for the Crown should be adopted. If we are i | 1530 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. into that position by the counsel on the other side refusing to ah an oral ahouintent: we cannot help it; but I hope this tribunal will not give that course its sanction 1n advance, and so compel the result, that we must open everything and they nothing. The adoption of our proposal would be of very great advantage to us. I am not de- fending myself against a charge of trying to get an undue advantage, for under no possible construction of our proposed rule would it give us any advantage, except the opportunity to know fully what is the case on the other side, and if that is an advantage, it isa just advantange. Bat I wish to say that I am quite confident the learned counsel have not fully considered the position in which they place themselves, us, and the members of this court by the amendment they propose to-day. And it would give me great gratification to see them rise and withdraw it and say: “ You may make your arguments on the facts orally when they are placed before the tribunal; we will then consider whether we wish to make an oral argument or not; if we do not, you will never know our views; if we do, you will get such knowledge as we see fit to disclose. Then you may put in your printed argument, and we will have the opportunity of putting in our printed closing argument, which ends all, unless the court should intervene and think the other side | should have a reply, because some new points were made.” That power, of course, is possessed by the tribunal, and no doubt will | be fairly administered. But I do not like to take my seat until I feel L | have impressed on the Agent and learned counsel for the Crown the fact | that, if we are compelled to make both our arguments before they are | called upon to make any observations, and before we have heard what | course they are going to take, it will be a very great disadvantage to — us, especially when we consider they will be in possession of all we pro- | pose to say on the subject of the testimony and the facts. Now, the | view which the learned counsel for the Crown may take of certain facts | may be one that has not occurred tous. The illustrations they may | furnish, and the manner in which they may deal with the various wit- | nesses, are matters regarding which we have not the prescience abso- | lutely to know. We have got, however, to make our oral argument | without having this knowledge; but if our proposal is adopted we have | at least the power of answering the other side in our printed argument. | So it seems to me fair that before we put in our second argument we | should have heard their first. Iam quite sure this tribunal will feel, | and never cease to feel, while you are discharging your present duties — and afterward, if the amendment is adopted and the counsel of the | United States compelled to deliver their arguments, written and oral, before the Crown had given us any idea of their views of the facts, how they mean to apply them to your honors’ minds—that this, though — fairly intended, is not fair, and you will say, ‘“ We find so much in the. _ final argument of the counsel for the Crown on the testimony, which — Seance was not oe by the counsel for the United States in mak- — ig their argument, that, to give ‘ i call them back.” ’ » to give them an opportunity to reply, we must | ? We do not desire that, and your honors do not desire it. As the learned counsel on the other side do not object to our proposition in| itself, butare willing to accept it upon a single condition, which condition | prec opersts ar have shown, I trust your houors will say you cannot — feared friend, ti ke Bae EA I do not hesitate to say, although my fie covienee ba a ae of the United States, is alone responsible for _ sap oe a a on by the Government, we could not accept it and e would withdraw the proposal altogether. Then we would either, — en’ AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1531 have to proceed with our testimony or make an argument in advance on hypothetical testimony. Therefore, the proposition of the Crown, unless foreed upon us, which I have no idea will be done, will be declined by us, and we fall back on our own proposition. I need not remind your honors that it gives the counsel of the Crown the opportunity of declin- ing to make an oral argument; nevertheless I think it would be in the interest, I will not say of counsel or of my own country, but of inter- national justice, that they would let us know before we submit our final printed argument, what they propose to say about the facts of the case. Mr. THomson. A great deal of Mr. Dana’s argument, and it really was the chief argument, was not in reply to what I had to say in regard to the motion ; in a great deal of what he said, I agree with him. I depre- cate as he does arguing on hypothetical evidence. Such is not the prac- tice in the United States or in ourown courts. Who asks that the Ameri- ean counsel in this case shall argue on hypothetical evidence? Who asks that they shall be heard, either orally or on paper, on a mere hypothesis? Every fact and circumstance material to the case, both on the part of Her Majesty’s Government and the United States, I assume, will have been presented before the counsel on the other side close their case. Then the counsel for the United States, as defendants in this case, will make their arguments, either orally or on paper, just as it seems best to them, supporting their own views of the case, and we, as - eounsel for Great Britain, will present to the court our arguments in an- _ swer to the arguments which they have adduced in support of their case. It was perfectly idle for Mr. Dana to bave taken up so much time in ar- _ guing that they would be called on a mere hypothesis. Is it not idle to _ Say to your excellency and honors, that you do not know what the case isabout? Do we not all know what the points in issue are; do we not allsee them? So well do the learned counsel see them that they abso- _lutely declare they do not intend to open the case—that it is wholly un- - hecessary, as the court now understands every single view that is likely tobe put forward. So they will understand, at the end of our case, every fact put forward by the British Government. _ Phe points are salient and plain and are understood thoroughly by the Agents and counsel of Her Majesty and of the United States. How, _ then, can it be said there is any hypothesis at all? My learned friend (Mr. Dana) says I am asking that an amendment to the rules should be / adopted. Iam not. So far from that, the United States are coming in | ab this late stage of the proceedings aud asking for an amendment of tules that were made in their present form, not merely by consent of, - but I believe at the instance of the learned Agent of the United States. Can it, then, be said we are asking for any amendment to be made? | They are asking as a favor that the court shall lay its hands on its own | Tules—rules made at the instance (and in the form they now are) of the | American Agent. They are asking that as a favor, and at the instance ' of Her Majesty’s Government, and with the consent of the minister of | marine, { come forward and say on behalf of the two governments that | they are quite willing to so far depart from these rules as to consent to | an oral argument if the United States counsel think it is any advan- | tage to have one, though the government I represent can see no such _ advantage. ~ I can understand that a jury may be led away from justice by specious | arguments, but I apprehend that this tribunal will not be swayed by | aay such means, and that the epitomized statement of facts given by wit- | nesses will have more effect than all the eloquence of the counsel on the | Other side. If the case is to be decided by the eloquence displayed in 1532 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the oral arguments, then I admit that Her Majesty’s Government would stand at great disadvantage, but I do not think that eloquence will have a feather’s weight in this case. I desire the court to understand distinctly that this isa motion made by the counsel of the United States to have the rules altered, and I come forward, for Her Majesty’s Agent and the minister of marine, to state we are willing it shall be done as they wish, provided always they don’t, in getting an inch, take an ell. They will have, if they think it is an advantage, the right to make a closing speech, but must immediately afterwards put in their closing printed argument. They are simply to support their own case. Weare, then, simply called on to answer the case and argument in support of the speech they put forward, and nothing else. Not one principle of ordinary justice will be infringed or departed from. In conclusion, I must confess I cannot help feeling a little surprised at the manner in which Mr. Dana submitted the motion, for he put it in an almost threat- ening manner to the tribunal, that if it was not acceded to, the counsel for the United States would withdraw the proposition altogether. That is not the usual mode in which a favor is asked by counsel befure a tri- bunal. Mr. Foster. I think I am entitled to a few words in reply. If the learned counsel (Mr. Thomson) had been present yesterday afternoon when I made the explanation which accompanied Mr. Trescot’s motion, I think he would not have made the observations which he has made. This is what I said: When I came here I found myself met suddenly by five of the most eminent gentlemen who could be selected from the five maritime provinces, and, contrary to the expectations of myself and my government, they were to be admitted to take charge of this case, and they were assisted by a very eminent lawyer, now minister of marine, who is spoken of by counsel as having largely the conduct of this case. I alone, a stranger in a strange land, baving no reason to suppose coun- sel would be brought here to assist me, found myself, I say, by the un- expected decision of the Commissioners, placed in such a position that, instead of meeting the British Agent, I had to meet the British Agent, the minister of marine, and five counsel. Now, to avoid five closing oral arguments against one, I was well content with the original arrange- ment of the rules. But the rules provided that they might be changed if in the course of proceedings the Commissioners saw fit to alter them ; and as to our application being an application for a favor either from our opponents or the Commissioners, it is no such thing. It is an applica- tion to your sense of justice. Before a judicial tribunal there are no such things as favors. Decisions go upon the ground of right and justice, and especially so in regard to a treaty. Under the oath which the Com- missioners have taken, equity and justice are made the standard of all their proceedings. Now, how are we placed? We have, in the first place, a much greater mass of testimony than I anticipated, or any of you anticipated, I presume. In the next place, we are on the eve of a much greater conflict of testimony than I anticipated; we see that very plainly. Then again, from prudential considerations, counsel on the other side saw fit not to open their case. It was a grievous disappoint- ment to me; I could not help myself, as I saw at the time, and so said, pam But it was a great disappointment to find they did not think in their opening to explain the views they intended to enunciate. As spies has gone forward for more than a month, it has become obvious to all of us that in a printed argument, prepared within ten attr eee ooze time, and compressed within the necessary limits of a printed argument, we cannot examine this testimony, and cannot render the. {| AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1533 tribunal the assistance they have a right to expect from counsel. It is, therefore, proposed that, instead of making opening oral arguments, which obviously would be quite inadequate, we should have the oppor- tunity of making closing oral arguments, to be replied to by the British counsel, and then that the printed arguments should follow, giving them the reply then also. Whatever we do, we are willing they should have the reply—the reply to our speeches, the reply to our writings. Is it possible that any arrangment could be fairer than that, or any arrangement more calculated to render your honors assistance in coming to a just and equitable con- clusion? Now, I know my friend, the British Agent, does not mean to deal with this case so that batteries can be unmasked upon us at the last moment. I know the Commissioners will not allow such a course to be taken. Unless that is to be done, it is quite impossible that any unfair advantage would result to us, or that the British counsel would be in the least deprived of their admitted right to reply, which always belongs to the party on whom lies the burden of proof, by the course which we propose to follow. What we do desire is, that we should have the chance to explain our views fully befere your honors orally; that we should then hear from counsel on the other side; and then that the printed summaries, which are to be placed in your hands to assist you, should be left with you when you go to make up your minds on this case. What do they lose by it? What can they lose by it? By omit- ting to make any oral arguments, as Mr. Dana has said, they can get the last word and unmask their batteries; but if printed arguments are to be made at all, does not common sense require that the printed argu- ments on both sides should follow the oral arguments on both sides? I put it to each member of the Commission, I put it my friend the British Agent, is not that the course which every human being knows will be _ most likely to lead to a thoroughly intelligent and just decision? If it - Was a matter of surprise; if we were before a jury, and a poor one; if it was one of those nisi prius trials, which we are sometimes concerned in, I could understand the policy of trying to have both oral and written arguments made against us after our mouths are closed forever; but 1 ' cannot understand it now. If the matter should be left as they desire to have it left, I venture to predict that either on our application, or more likely at your own request, we shall be called upon to reargue this ase after the original arguments are supposed to be closed, for you will find in their final arguments, oral and written, matters which you will think common justice and fair play, for which Englishmen are said to be distinguished all the world over, require that we should have an oppor- tunity to answer. They may close upon us orally, they may close upon us in writing, but as for their possessing the privilege of keeping their policy concealed till the last moment, I do not believe they really want it; I do not believe my friend the British Agent wants it; andif he does not want it, there is no conceivable objection to the adoption of the Course we propose. Mr. DoutTRE. May it please your excellency and your honors: My learned friend, Mr. Dana, has spoken of the usages of the courts in dif- ferent countries, and with those observations we might have agreed, until he came to claim a most extraordinary thing, and one which I am sure our learned and experienced adversaries never heard of being conceded in any country in the world—that the defendant should have the reply. |My conviction is that there is no danger in challenging our friends to name any court in the world where the defendant has the right to reply. Ithink we would be far below the standard given to us in the compli- 4 i } 1534 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ments of our learned friends if we did not see very clearly the course which they propose to follow. They would have the means of meeting everything we could state; and anything we might state after that, I don’t conceive what it could amount to. It may strike persons not familiar with courts of justice that it is strange we should insist on hav- ing the last words, and our friends magnify that extraordinary desire on our part to point out that we have not to deal here with a jury, which might be misled by the elegance of some skillful lawyer, but that we have to deal with a far higher order of judges. This I admit. But I would like my learned friends to explain the strenuous efforts they are making to get that reply. Itis nothing but such a demand that my learned friends are putting forward. Our American friends have been so extraor- dinarily lucky in all their international difficulties that they have ar- rived at the last degree of daring. We are living in hope that some time or other the balance in connection with international difficulties between England and the United States will turn on the right side. 1 do not know if we are in the way of reaching such fortunate result, but we live in that hope. Our learned friends on the other side pretend that they have been placed at a disadvantage from the fact that we did not, as they say, open our case. We did open our case. We opened through Mr. Thomson, who stated to the Commission that all he had to say was printed, cut, and dried, and ready to be read; that it set out the case in better language than he could have used in a speech, and that there was nothing to add to or take from it. I think this was the best opening that could have been made, otherwise our learned friends might have complained and said they expected to have obtained more detailed information about the case. But they felt it was a saving of time, and they have expressed the opinion to-day that it would have served no real interest to have gone any further than Mr. Thomson proceeded. Mr. Dana has complained that the brief which has been filed by the American agent has not yet received an answer. I think we are not bound to answer the brief. If we do soit will be merely out of courtesy to our friends. Our answer might come in our final written argument, and there is no reason whatever, and no right on the part of the counsel of the United States to demand to haveit sooner than that. If we choose not to answer it even then, I questionif we can be re- quired to answer it; so that if we give an answer to their brief it will be a mere matter of courtesy, because we are not bound to do so. Mr. Dana. Do we understand there is to be no answer ? _ Mr. Dourre. I do not say so. While I think we will file an answer, it wil! be done out of courtesy to the counsel for the United States. We! have been told we are keeping masked batteries for the last moment. I would like to know where we would find ammunition to serve those bat- teries, Is not all our case in the documents filed, in the depositions of the Witnesses, and in the affidavits? Can we bring anything more to bear? They are our ammunition; they are all here; our hands are empty, and we have no more to serve any masked batteries. The argu- ment may be very plausible, thatina large question, involving two great countries, it is necessary that everything should be done which tends to enlighten the minds of the judges so that a just result may be secured; edie ad dae your honors will understand, would be as good in pit ae tires : zh ae ld = obtain for the defendant the last words an heen taddced is Nese ire tribunals. Hon. Mr. Foster says he has whee Nevecs eran ee to the demand now under discussion because salar, oe vas going to be met, contrary to the expectation of hi government, by five gentlemen, whose talents he magnifies for the oc AWARD OF THE FISHERY CUMMISSION. 1535 easion, because it suits the purpose he has in view, he thought he would be under a disadvantage if the rule in question should be maintained. If we go back to the time when the rule was adopted it will be recol- lected that the five lawyers on behalf of the British case were then be. fore the Commission. If they were not admitted, it was known for sev- eral weeks that the British Agent intended to be assisted by counsel ; so the fact was fully before every one of us when the rules were adopted. Now we are asked to change these rules. So long as it is a matter of convenience and pure courtesy to the United States, we have no diffi- culty in acceding to their request, and in doing this we are acting within the terms of the written document under discussion, which says: As we understand the wish of both governments to be that the whole discussion should be as frank and full as possible, it has occurred to us that you might be disposed to allow us to adopt such an arrangement as would, in our judgment, best enable us to lay before you a complete presentment of the opinions of the government we repre- sent, and we feel more assured in that opinion as this privilege deprives counsel) on the other side of no advantage which they now possess, for besides the right to reply to the printed argument, which they now have, we would, of course, expect that they would also be allowed the right of oral reply if they desired to exercise it. So far this is perfectly correct, but it does not show their hands to us at all. We do not see their real object. for there is a masked battery. Apparently a very simple alteration of the rule is asked for, and our friend Mr. Trescot thought yesterday that it was so unobjectionable that it would be immediately acceded to. Well, if this paper had stated the whole truth, and did not cover anything which is not mentioned, we should have accepted it immediately, as has already been stated by my _ brother counsel. But we suspected that this slight alteration conceded | something, and we were not mistaken. | Mr. TREScoT. What is it? Mr. DouTRE. I will explain it, certainly. Mr. Dana says, ‘‘ You have a reply.” Certainly we have the reply, but we might reply in eight months from this, and it would be just as good. Here is the practical result: if the proposition, which is not included in this paper, but which has been admitted verbally, were accepted, our learned friends would develop their case orally, and we would answer orally. They would then come with their printed statement. Now, is not this the reply? What would remain for us to say? What would be the value of that printed document which we could give afterward? What new aspect or exposé of our case could it contain? None whatever, so that virtu- ally it gives our friends the reply, and that is the reason why they are insisting so strongly upon the change in the rule. Mr. DANA. You take the objection that under our proposed rule you would not be able to put in anything new ? Mr. WEATHERBE. All you asked for was to substitute an oral for the Written argument? _ Mr. TREScoT suggests that it would be betterif he were now allowed _ to read the amendment which he proposes to submit. Mr. WEATHERBE. It would have been better that we should have had it last evening. Mr. TREsooT. It isentirely in accordance with the paper which I | Pead last evening. Simm ALEXANDER GALT. We should have had the precise proposed alteration of the rule before us before hearing this argument. Mr. TREscor. It is precisely the same as what was laid before the Commission. I will read it. The third rule reads this way: The evidence brought forward in support of the British case must be closed within & period of six weeks after the case shall have been opered by the British counsel, ote 1536 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. r time shall be allowed by the Commissioners on application. The evidence brought forward in support of the United States counter case must be closed within a similar period after the opening of the United States case in answer, unless a further time be allowed by the Commissioners on application. But as soon as the evidence in support of the British case is closed that in support of the United States shall be commenced, and as soon as that is closed the evidence in reply shall be sommenced, After which arguments shall be delivered on the part of the United States in writing within a perid of ten days, unless a farther time be allowed by the Commis- sioners on application, and arguments in closing on the British side shall be delivered in writing within a further period of ten days, unless a further time be allowed by the Commissioners on application. Then the case on either side shall be considered finally closed, unless the Commissioners shall direct further argument upon special points, the British Government having in such case the right of general reply, and the Commis- sioners shall at once proceed to consider their award. The periods thus allowed for hearing the evidence shall be without counting any days of adjournment that may be ordered by the Commissioners. The amendment which we would move would be to insert after the words “the evidence in reply shall be commenced,” the following: “When the whole evidence is concluded either side may, if desirous of doing so, address the Commission orally, the British Government having the right of reply.” Mr. DoutrReE. [ understand this, but it is not the motion under dis- cussion. I have read the principal part of that motion, and I say this, that, if we take this to mean what our friends had in their minds when they made their application, the only alteration that this rule would re- quire would be this, ‘after which argument shall be delivered on the part of the United States, orally or in writing, within a period of ten days, unless further time be allowed by the Commissioners on applica- tion, and arguments in closing the British case shall be,” ete. Mr. Trescot. That is what Mr. Thomson proposes. Mr. DouTRE. Exactly; and this does not give any more. But there was in their minds more than this contains. We have it in their verbal explanations. Mr. TRESCOT. So far as the construction of language goes, I have no objection to your putting any construction you please or drawing any inferences you choose from the language of the application that was made last night. But that the intention of that application and of the amendment we propose to-day were one and the same thing, there can be no doubt. When we filed that paper what was wanted was distinctly known, otherwise it would have been bad faith on our part, as we would have been asking for one thing and intending to get another. There was no possible doubt what the object of this was, as is evident from | the fact Mr. Thomson suggested an amendment himself to counteract | our object, showing that he had clearly in mind what object we had in | view, ; Mr. Dourre. My answer is that by reading this we suspected the — object ot this paper was something more than to change the time when | our learned friends should address the Commission. It only meant that instead of doing So before adducing their evidence they would do so_ after the whole of the evidence had been brought in. The object that — our friends have in View is very clear in the paper which has been read | here to-day by Mr. Trescot, but it is not so in the paper which was pre- sented yesterday, and we suspected this was an indirect way of secure | ing that which is not known in any court in the civilized world, namely, unl iypag Ny should have the reply. They would have twice the | “08 abana e pine the matter, when they have no right to be- Becedan oa pare ae “ow, why is the reply given to the plaintiffs? srivil et, oo at moment the position of the defendants is far more — privileged. 1ey have all the evidence of the plaintiffs in their hands, | unless a furthe AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1537 and they know what they are themselves going to prove. The plaintiff does not know it. When we shall have closed our evidence, they will have the whole case in their hands, while we have only half of it. For that and other reasons the final reply is given to the plaintiff, and we object to our friends in this manner seeking to upset the rules which prevail in all courts of justice that ever existed. Mr. DANA. I beg that you will not sit down without explaining how you lose the reply. Mr. DouTRE. We have a reply which is worth nothing; that is what I mean. The virtual and practical reply is in your hands. That is exactly the position. I think it is necessary, in order to preserve the harmony that has so far existed here, we should not introduce in this Commission a practice which has never exisied in any court, that one of the counsel should pass over the head of his legal adversary in order to reach the suitor and ask him if he agrees to what his counsel pro- poses. Such a course as that would tend materially to impair the good relations which we all, I think, desire to cultivate. Mr. TreEscot. I have no intention of saying one word that could dis- tarb the relations that exist between the counsel on either side, and [ have no fear that anything could be said on either side that would have such a result. For that reason [ don’t object, as I perhaps might, to the application which I made yesterday being characterized as a masked request. When I read that document yesterday I had no earthly doubt that every man present knew what I wanted. So far from having any doubt about the matter, I may say that both the honorable Minister of Marine, who appears to be of counsel with the other side, and the Agent of the British Government, distinctly informed us that they would con- sent to this petition if we may call it such, provided we would take the proposition submitted by Mr. Thomson. Now there can be no doubt that when that proposal was made they understood what it was we -wanted. We stated as distinctly that we declined to accept any such proposition, and that the course they pursued was one that could not bog our approval. All [am anxious to do now is to clear myself of the accusation, for such I think it is, of having submitted a paper oa asked for one thing when I wanted the Commission to do another thing. | Sir ALEXANDER GALT. I do not think the Commission ever attributed ) Such a design to you. | Mr. WEATHERBE. Will you read the part of the paper presented yes- \terday which says what you wanted the Commission to do? | Mr. Trescor. It is as follows: “ As we understand the wish of both \governments to be,” &c. Now, what does that mean? What can it ‘mean but that when we made an oral argument they would make an oral reply, and when we presented a printed argument their printed jargument would be put in? I believe that the matter was so under- stood, and I have misunderstood the whole scope of the argument this ‘morning if every gentleman who has addressed the court has not argued ‘|Qpon the request I made. The whole argument on the other side has been for the purpose of showing that we ought not to have what we asked for. Then how can [ be told that the learned counsel did not ‘understand what I wanted? I do not know what the practice may be here, but I have never been in a court in which, if there were several counsel on each side, they did not address the court alternately, so that each side might possess the argument of the other side. . Mr. WEATHERBE. That is not the practice in England. | Mr. TREscor. That may be. I only undertake to say what we want 97 F 1538 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. and what we consider a fair course to all parties. But I am asked what is the use of such a reply? I answer, just such use as you choose to make of it. We only ask to know your case, and then having met it to the best of our ability, you can reply to our argument as you deem most judicious, Let me illustrate what Imean. You all recollect the testi- mopy as to the Bay de Chaleur—that fishing was only prosecuted on its shores—that in ‘the cores of the bay,” to use the language of the witnesses, there was no fishing. Now, if this is so, practically the ques- tion of the headlands is put aside, for it makes no difference whether we come withinthe headland line ornot. But suppose, in reply, we prove that there is fishing within the body of the bay more than three miles from either shore—low then? Recollect that up to this point, although we have been promised your brief on the headland question, we have not had it. Do you mean simply to discuss our testimony, or to main- tain the doctrine of the headland line? Under your proposed arrange- ment we would bave to make our argument without the slightest knowl- edge of what you intended to maintain. Whereas, under our arrange- ment, we would know exactly what you thought, and although we might attempt an answer, you would have the clear right to meet that answer by your final reply as you thought fit. But I bave no intention of prolonging this argument further. I think we have stated with sincere fairness what we mean, and that it is obvi- ous that the right of final reply is preserved to the counsel on the other side. Their purpose is equally obvious to keep back in their discretion just as much of their case as they do not choose to give us the opportu- nity to reply to. Jf this Commission deems such reticence proper, we must accommodate our arguments to their decision, and be content with baving said what we think justice required. Hon. Mr. KELLOGG. I should like to say, with the permission of the other Commissiouers, that I rather expected the motion would have been put ip due form last night, but I hope that this delay or omission, which has given rise to a little misunderstanding, will not be a reason for ex- | citing any feeling. I am anxious, for one, that in our proceedings we | should observe the kind of conduct that we have observed so far, and I have no idea that any thought of getting any such advantage was entertained when the application was made last night. I want to observe one thing further, with the leave of the other Com- missioners, that in discussing these questions which have arisen, and | which may still arise, we should observe due moderation, aud not get. into personal disputations with one another, but address the tribunal as — the one which will settle the matter eventually. Decision given by the Commissioners on the 1st day of September, 1877. i The Commissioners having considered the motion submitted by Messrs. Dana and Trescot, decided that— Having due regard to the right of Her Majesty’s Government to the general and final | reply, the Commissioners cannot modify the rules in such a manner as might impair or — diminish such right. Each party will, however, within the period fixed by the rales, | be allowed to offer its concluding argument either orally or in writing, and if orally, | it may be accompanied by a wri of the Commissioners, such i | written résumé, or summary thereof, for the convenience || résumé or summary being furnished within the said period.” | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1539 III. At the conference held on the 5th of September, 1877. Mr. Foster. I will read the motion that was presented on the Ist instant : The Counsel and Agent of the United States ask the honorable Commissioners to rule de-laring that it is not competent for this Cuinmission to award any compensa- tion for commercial inter-ourse between the two countries, and that the advantages resulting from the practice of parchasing bait, ice, supplies, &c., and from being allowed to trausship cargoes in British waters, do not constitute a foundation for award of compensation, and shall be wholly excluded from the consideration of this tribunal. The object, may it please the Commission, of this motion is to obtain, if it be possible, and place on record, a decision declaring the limits of your jarisdiction, and thus to eliminate from the investigation matters which we believe to be immaterial and beyond the scope of the powers conferred upon you. The twenty-second Article of the Treaty of Wash- ington is the charter under which we are acting, and this provides that— Inasmuch as it is asserted by the Government of Her Britannic Majesty that the privileges accorded to the citizens of the United States under Article XVIII of this treaty, are of greater value than those accorded by Articles XIX and XXI of this treaty to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, and this assertion is not admitted by the Government of the United States, it is further agreed that Commissioners shall be appointed to determine, having regard to the privileges accorded by the United States to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, as stated in Articles XIX and XXI of this treaty, the amount of any compensation which, in their opinion, ought to be paid‘ by the Government of the United States to the Government of Her Bri‘aunic Majesty in return for the privileges accorded to the citizens of the United States under Article XVIII of this treaty. The subject of our investigation, then, is the amount of any compensa- tion which ought to be paid by the United States to Her Majesty in re- turn for the privileges accorded to the citizens of the United States, under Article 18 of the treaty, and that is all. The other articles referred to in tbis section, Articles 19 and 21, are set-offs or equivalents, Teceived by Her Majesty’s subjects for the concession made by Her Majesty’s Government to United States citizens under Article 18. When we turn to Article 18 we find that the High Contracting Parties agreed as follows: a "It is agreed by the High Contracting Parties that, in addition to the liberty secured to the United States fishermen by the Convention between Great Britain and the United States, signed at London on the 20th day of October, 1218, of taking, curing, and drying fish on cert«in coasts of the British Nortb American Colonies therein defined, the inhabi'ants of the United States shall have, in common with the snhjec’s of Her Britannic Maje-ty, the liberty for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of this treaty to take fish of every kind, except sbell-fish. on the sea coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbors, and creeks of the Provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Branswick, and the colony of Prince Edward Island, and of the several islands there- unto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the shore, with permis- sion to land upon the said coasts and shores and islands, and also upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish; provided that, in 7 80 doing, they do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with British fish- €rmen, in the peaceable use of any part of the said coasts in their occupancy for the Said purpose. It is understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to the 8ea-fishery, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and all other fisheries in rivers and the mouths of rivers, are hereby reserved exclusively for British fishermen. ‘The concession made to the citizens of the United States is the right to fish inshore without being excluded three miles from the shore, as y were excluded by the renunciation contained in the Treaty of 1818. It gives the further right to land on the coasts and shores and islands | for the purpose of drying nets and curing fish, provided that in so doing they do not interfere with the rights of private property for British 1540 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. fishermen having the peaceable use of any part of the said coasts in occupancy for the same purpose. The liberty of inshore fishing and that of landing on uninhabited and desert coasts, where no private rights or rights of private property will be interfered with, for the two purposes of drying their nets and curing their fish, are all the concessions which Article 18 contains. Now, as we understand it, the jurisdiction of this Commission extends to appraise these two privileges, and nothing more; but the British claim seeks compensation for various incidental advantages, and a variety of other considerations. The in- babitants of the United States traffic with the colonists. They buy ice of them; they buy of them fish for bait; and they buy of them other supplies. They have commercial intercourse with them; they sell to them small codfish better adapted for the British markets than those of the United States. They exchange flour, kerosene, and other necessa- ries of life with the British fishermen, receiving in return bait and fish. For all these things compensation is demanded at your hands. In addition to that, every description of damage that has been done or which may be done hereafter by our fishermen is made the founda- tion of claims for compensation. The treaty speaks of compensation to be awarded in retarn for privileges accorded to the citizens of the United States, while the case made and the evidence offered claims damages as well. Have any of our fishing vessels lee-bowed—I believe that is the proper phrase—British fishing boats in former years, or are they likely to do it again? Are the fishing grounds hurt by gurry thrown into the water ? Have families been alarmed by American fishermen on shore?) Every description of injury and outrage, intentional or unintentional, great or small, going back to a period as far as human memory extends, is laid before you as ground for damages. The colonial governments have erected light-houses on their coasts at dangerous points, and the perils of navigation are thereby diminished ; so they present an estimate of the cost and a list of the number of the light-houses, and gravely ask you to take these things into consideration in making up your award. Whatever bas to do with fishing, or fishermen, or fishing vessels, di- rectly or indirectly, nearly or remotely, is brought before you and made the foundation of a claim. The British case and its evidence seems to me to be a drag-net, more extensive than the purse seine of which we have heard so much, gathering in everything that can be thought of and laying it before you, if by any means, consciously or unconsciously, the amount of such award as you shail render may thereby be affected. Now It seems to us, under these circumstances, to be a plain duty to ascertain if we can, aud to have recorded, exactly the grounds of your Jurisdiction as in your judgment they exist. We understand, as I have said, that you are simply to determine the value of the inshore fisheries, and the value of the right of landing to cure fish and dry nets where this eau be done without interfering with private property or British fisher- men drying nets. From the beginning we have protested against any more extensive claim being maue; this protest will be found distinctly and unequivocally made on page 8th of the “Answer,” where it is said: ; Suffice it now to observe that the ing United States fishermen to buy semblance of foundation in the trea claim of Great Britain to be compensated for allow- bait and other supplies of British subjects has no ty, by which no near right of traftic is conceded. And in the recapitulation at the close of the “Answer,” the United States maintain that the v of the treaty, such as the aud other supplies, ‘arious incidental and reciprocal advantages Privileges of trafficking and purchasing bait are not a subject of compensation, because the AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1541 Treaty of Washington confers no such rights on the inhabitants of the United States, who now enjoy them merely by sufferance, and who can at any time be deprived of them by the enforcement of existing laws or the re-enactment of former oppressive statutes. We say first, that you have no jurisdiction over such matters as a subject of compeusation, because the treaty confers none upon you and nothing of the kind is denominated in the bond. We say secondly, that we have no vested rights under the treaty, regarding commercial intercourse of this de- scription ; and that as regards such intercourse, the inhabitants of the United States stand in the same relation to the subjects of Her Majesty as they did before this treaty was negotiated. These two points though running somewhat together are nevertheless distinct. And we base our contention upon the plain language of the treaty, in which not one word can be found relating to the right to buy or sell, to traffic or trans- fer cargoes; the whole language is limited to the privilege of the inshore fisheries, both in Article 18, where these privileges are conferred, and in Article 22, which provides for the appointment of this Commission. Of course, it is not necessary for me to call your attention to the fact that commissioners, arbitrators, referees, and every other description of tri- bunals, are limited in their powers by the terms of the instrument under which they act; and that if they include in any award,a thing upon which they are not authorized to decide, the entire award is thereby vitiated ; and their whole action becomes ultra vires, and void. I cannot antici- pate that there will be any denial of this plain proposition. Now, the Commissioners will be pleased to observe, and our friends on the other side to take notice, that the United States utterly repudiate any obligation either to make compensation or pay damages for any of these matters; that they maintain, as they have from the first, that the quest’on submitted here is solely and exclusively the adjustment of equivalents relating to the inshore fisheries; aud that the United States will not be under the slightest obligation to submit to an award inelud- ing anything more than thes: things. Turning to the treaty again, we find that there are commercial articles in it, but these are not articles with which this tribunal is concerned. From Article 2th to the 31st, inclusive, various commercial privileges are given to the citizens of the twocountries. These articles relate to the navigation of the lakes, rivers, and canals, to the conveyance of goods transshipped in bond free of duty, to the carrying trade; and as to them the Treaty of Washington is a Reciprocity Treaty. As to these matters, that which is conceded on the one side is an equivalent for that which is conceded on the other, and the mutual concessions are the sole equivalents for each other. Indeed, who ever heard of a treaty of commercial reciprocity where a money payment, to be ascertained by arbitration, was to balance con- cessions granted by the one side to the other? Itis enough to say that in these commercial clauses of the Treaty, as in all other commercial |) arrangements that have ever been made between the two countries, there is no stipulation for compensation. It may be well to inquire on what footing the commercial relations between the United States and Great Britain do rest. How have they stood for more than a generation past, ) for nearly a hundred years? My friend, Mr. Trescot, has investigated the treaties, and the result, as I understand it, is this: that the Com- mercial Convention of 1815, originally entered into for four years, was extended during ten years more by the Convention of 1818, and ex- tended again indefinitely in 1827. The last clause of the second article of the Convention of 1815, after providing as to the duties to be levied -0n the products of each country, &c., and as to the commercial inter- 1542 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. course between the United States and Her Majesty’s subjects in Europe, states— The interconrse between the United States and His Britannic Majesty’s possessious in the West Indies, and on the continent of North America, shall not be affected by any of the provisions of this article, but each party shall remain in the complete pos- session of its rights, with respect to such an intercourse. Thus the commercial intercourse between the two countries is provided for by the Treaty of 1815, which, as I understand it, under its various extensions, is in force to-day. It refers back to former and pre- existing rights, to find which it is necessary to go still farther back—to _ the Treaty of 1794, commonly known as Jay’s Treaty. Turning to that we find that the third article deals with the special relations between the United States and the British North American Colonies. It might be supposed—and the argument perhaps might be correct, though I do not say whether this would be the case or not—that the war of 1812 abrogated the provisions of the Treaty of 1794, were it not that the Commercial Convention of 1815 referring to previous existing rights, quite manifestly, I think, treats as still in force the provisions of this article of the Treaty of 1794. I will not read the whole article, but it stipulates “that all goods and merchandise whose importation into His Majesty’s said territories in America, shall not be entirely prohibited, may freely and for the purposes of commerce be carried into the same in the manner aforesaid by the citizens of the United States, and that such goods and merchandise shall be subject to no higher or other duties than are payable by His Majesty’s subjects, on importing the same into the said territories; and in like manner, that the goods and merchandise whose importation into the United States shall not be wholly prohibited, may freely for the purposes of commerce be earried ito the same by His Majesty’s subjects, and that such goods and mer- chandise shall be subject to no higher or other duties than are payable by the citizens of the United States on importing the same in American | vessels into the Atlantic ports of the said States; and’—mark this—“that | all goods not prohibited from being exported trom the said territories, respectively, may, in like manner, be carried out of the same by the two parties, respectively, on paying duty as aforesaid”; that is to say, as I | understand it, the inhabitants of each country going for the purposes of | | comuerce to the other country, may export its goods, so long as their. | éxportation is not wholly prohibited, upon the same terms as to export | duties as would be imposed on Her Majesty’s subjects. Then the arti- — cle after some other paragraphs closes thus: “ As this article is intended I to render, in a great degree, the local advantages of each party, common | | to both, and thereby to promote a disposition favorable to friendship | aud good neighborhood, it is agreed that the respective governments — will mutually promote this amicable intercourse by causing speedy and | Impartial justice to be done, and necessary protection to be extended to— all who may be concerned therein.” 4 _ Gentlemen, such I understand to be the footing on which commercial Intercourse stands between the two countries to-day, if there is any treaty that governs commerce between the British North American Provinces | aug ue eee States. And if this is not the case, the relations betweay var FoR eit as that comity and commercial freedom wile : Sates an Wena izec eee The effect of these provisions, to — totes ts = é lon, is this: If the Government of Newfoundland ; 19 Problbit Its Own people from exporting fish for bait, in whieh | export, it is testified, they carry on a trade of £40,000 or £50,000 annu- | ally with St. Pierre, it can also, by the same law, prohibit United States } Se eg ‘= RG AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1543 citizens from carrying away such articles, but not otherwise. As I understand the effect of this commercial clause, whatever may be ex- ported from the British Provinces by anybody —by their own citizens, by Frenchmen, or by citizens of other nations at peace with them—may also be exported by citizens of the United States on the same terms, as to export duty, that apply to the rest of the world. If, then, Newfound- land sees fit to conclude that the sale of bait-fish—caplin, or herring, or squid—and ice is injurious to its interests, and therefore forbids their ex- port altogether, that prohibition may extend to the citizens of the Uuited States ; but the citizens of the United States have there the same privi- leges with the rest of the world; they cannot be excluded from the right to buy and take bait out of the harbors of Newfoundland, unless the rest of the world is also so excluded. However, this is of remote consequence, and perhaps of no consequence, to the subject uuder discussion. The material thing is this: Under the Treaty of Washington we can- not prevent such legislation. The Treaty of Washington confers upon us no right whatever to buy anything in Her Majesty’s dominions. The Treaty of Washington is a treaty relating to fishing and to nothing else. I am aware of the ground taken in the reply filed by the British Agent. It is this: Previous to the date of the Treaty of Washington, American fishermen were, by the Ist Article of the Convention, of 1818, admitted to enter the bays and harbors of His Britannic Majesty’s dominions in America for the purpose of shelter and of purchasing wood and of obtaining water and for no other purpose whatever. ‘ By the terms of Article 18 of the Treaty of Washington, United States fishermen were granted “ ease a pe to land upon the said coasts and shores and islands, and also upon the Magdalen Islands for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish.” The words “for no other purpose whatever”’ are studiously omitted by the framers of _the last-named treaty, and the privilege, in common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, to take fish and to land for fishing purposes, clearly includes the liberty to purchase bait and supplies, transship cargoes, &«., for which Her Majesty’s Govern- ment contend it has a right to claim compensation. Well, as the quotation stands, to my mind it would be a non sequitur, but when you turn to the 1st Article of the Convention of 1813, you find that under it the conclusion quoted is a renunciation accompanied by two provisos: And the United States hereby renounce forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of His Britannic Majesty’s domin- ions in America, not included in the above-mentioned limits. This was a renunciation of the right to fish inshore, and it is followed by this further proviso: Provided, however, that the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter and of repairing damages therein, of pur- chasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. This coupled the renunciation of the inshore fishery with the proviso, that there may be resort to British waters for shelter and repairs, an | for obtaining wood and water. Then it goes on to say: But they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusiug the privileges hereby reserved to them. _ Whenever American fishermen seek British ports for shelter, or go there to repair damages to their vessels, or for wood and water, they shall be under restrictions to prevent them from taking or caring fish therein. Now it was to remove those restrictions which prevented them from taking, drying, and curing fish, that the language framed in the 18th Article of the Treaty of Washington was adopted, which gives the —_- 1544 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. citizens of the United States liberty to take fish, and permission to land upon the said coasts and islands, and also on the Magdalen Islands for the purpose of drying nets and curing fish. You will observe that the United States renounced the right to the inshore fisheries in 1818, but these are regained by the provisions of the 18th Article of the Treaty of Washington. The United States retained the right of resorting to British ports for shelter, repairs, and purchasing wood and water, sub- ject to such regulations as would prevent their citizens drying fish on the shore; and the object of this article is to add to the inshore fisheries the right to dry nets and cure fish on the shore, and this superadded right is limited to parts of the coast where it does not interfere with private property, or the similar rights of British fishermen. Now, what argument can be constructed from provisions like these to infer the crea- tion of an affirmative commercial privilege or the right to purchase sup- plies and transship cargoes, I am at a loss to imagine. It seems to me that if I were required to maintain that under the right conceded to dry nets and cure fish on unoccupied and unowned shores and coasts, taking care not to interfere with British fishermen, couched in language like that, the United States had obtained a right to buy what the policy of the British Government might forbid to be sold, I should not have one word to say for myself. I cannot conceive how a commercial privilege can be founded upon that language, or how you can construct an argument upon that language in support of its existence. But, gentlemen, this is not to be decided by the strict language of the treaty alone. We know very well what the views of Great Britain on such subjects are, and we know what the policy of Her Majesty’s Government was just before this Policy Jest) treaty was entered into. On the 16th of February, 1871, Earl Kimber- ley wrote to Lord Lisgar as follows: The exclusion of American fishermen from resorting to Canadian ports, except for the pury ose of shelter, and of repairing damages thercin, purchasing wood, and of obtain- ing water, might be warranted by the letter of the treaty of 181%, and by the terms of the Impenal Act 59, Geo. IIL, Chap. 38, but Her Majesty’s Government feel bound to state that it seems to them an extreme measure inconsistent with the general policy of the empire, and they are disposed to concede this point to the United States Govern- ment under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent smuggling, and to guard against any substantial invasion of the exclusive rights of fishing which may be re- served to British subjects. _A month later, on the 17th of March, 1871, another letter from Earl Kimberley to Lord Lisgar gives to the colonial authorities this admoni- tion: I think it right, however, to add that the responsibility of determining what is the true construction of a treaty made by Her Majesty with any foreign power must re- main with Her Majesty’s Government, and that the degree to which this country would make itself a party to the strict enforcement of treaty rights may dep+nd not only on the liberal construction of the treaty, but on the moderation and reasonableness with which those rights are asserted. ; In such a spirit, and with these views of commercial policy, the Treaty of Wasiington was negotiated ; and can one believe that it was intended to bave a valuation by arbitration of the mutual privileges of international commerce 1 Gentlemen, suppose that the Canadian representative on the Joint High Commission, when the 18th Article was under considera- tion, had proposed to amend it by adding in language something like this: and the said Commissioners shall turther award such com pensa- tion as, in their judgment, the United States ought to pay for its citizens being allowed to buy ice, and herring, squid and caplin, of Canadians and Newfoundlanders, and for the further privilege of being allowed to furnish them with tlour, and kerosene oil, and other articles of merchan- AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1545 dise in exchange for fish and ice, and for the farther privilege of being allowed to sell them small codfish ; suppose, I say, that an amendment in these or similar words had been suggested to the members of the High Joint Commission ; fancy the air of well-bred surprise with which it would have been received by Earl Grey and Professor Bernard and others. Imagine England—free-trade England—which forced commer- cial intercourse upon China with cannon, asking for an arbitration to determine on what price Eugland, that lives by selling, will trade with the inhabitants of other countries. I venture to express the belief that the ground which has been taken here is not the ground that will be sustained by the English Government, and that my friend, the British Agent, will receive from Her Majesty's ministers the same instructions that I shall certainly receive from the President of the United States, viz, that at the time when the Treaty of Washington was negotiated no one dreamed that such claims as [ have been referring to would be made, and that neither government can afford to insist upon or submit to anything of the kind, because it is contrary to the policy of the British Empire, and contrary to the spirit of civil- ization. If the language were at all equivocal these considerations would be decisive, but with the express limits to your authority laid down they hardly need to be asserted. The next question is whether the motion that has been made should be decided by you at the present stage in your proceedings. We have brought it before you at the earliest convenient opportunity. The case of the British Government was not orally opened, and in our pleadings we had interposed a denial of the existence of any such jaris- diction. Ifthe matter had been discussed in an opening we might have replied to it, but as it was we could not. The case proceeded with the introduction of evidence: Now, if the evidence offered in support of these claims could have been objected to we should have interposed the objec- tion that such evidence was inadmissible; but we could not do that, and why? Because the treaty expressly requires the Commission to receive such evidence as either government may choose to lay before it. Toavoid | the manifold inconvenience likely to result froin discussing the ad missibil- | ity of evidence, it was stipulated and we haveallowed—I suppose with the | approbation of the Commissioners—every piece of evidence to come in | without objection. We conceived that we were under obligation to do / 80. We could not bring the question up earlier, and we bring it up now, | just before our case commences, and say, that we ought to have it now ' decided; first, as a matter of great convenience, because the course of | Our evidence will be affected by your devision. There is mach evidence | which we shall be obliged to introduce, if we are to be called upon to Waive the comparative advantages of mutual traffic, that would other- | wise be dispensed with, and that we think ought to be dispensed with. | Moreover, we maintain that we are entitled to have your decision now _ on grounds of precedent. A precisely similar question arose before the Geneva Arbitration. The United States made a claim for indirect or consequential damages. That claim appeared in the case of the United | States, and its evidence which were filed on the 15th of December. The British case was filed at the same time, and on the 15th of the next | April Lord Tenterden addressed this note to the Arbitrators : | GENEVA, April 15, 1872. The undersigned, agent of Her Britannic Majesty,is instructed by Her Majesty’s Government to state to Count Sclopis, that, while presenting their Counter-Case, under . the special reservation hereinafter mentioned, in reply to the Case which has been pre- ; Sented on the part of the United States, they find it incumbent upon them to inform the arbitrators that a misunderstanding has unfortunately arisen between Great Brit- 1546 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ain and the United States as to the nature and extent of the claims referred to the tri- banal by the I-t Article of the Treaty of Washington. This misnnde standing relates to the claims for indirect losses put forward by the Goverument of the United States, under the several heads of—(1.) “‘ The losses in the transfer of the American commercial marine to the British flag.” (2.) ‘‘ The enhanced sayments of insurance.” (3.) “The prolongation of the war, and ths addition of a ee sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion.” Waich claims for indirect losses are not admitted by Her Mijesty’s Government to be within either the scope or the intention of the reference to arbitration. Her Majesty’s Government have been for sometime past, and still are, in correspond- ence with the Government of the United States upon this subject; and, as this cor- respondence has not been brought toa final issue, Her Majesty’s Governm snot being de- sirous (if possible) of proceeding with the reference as to the claims for direct losses, have thought it proper in the mean time to present to the Arbitrators their Counter-Case (which is strictly confined to the claims for direct losses), in the hope that, before the time limited by the 5th Article of the treaty, this unfortunate misun- derstanding may be removed. Bat Her Majesty’s Government desire to intimate, and do hereby expressly and for- mally intimate and notify to the Arbitrators, that this Connter Case is presented with- out prejadice tothe position assumed by Her Majesty’s Goverument in the correspond- ence to which reference has been made, and under the express reservation of all Her Majesty’s rights, in the event of a difference continuing to exis; between the High Contracting Parties as to the scope and intention of the ref+rence to Arbitration. If circumstances should render it necessary for Her Majesty to cause any further communication to be addressed to the Arbitrators upon this subject, Her Majesty will direct that communication to be made at or before the time limited by the 5th Article of the treaty. The undersigned, &c. TENTERDEN. Thereupon, after some further fruitless negotiations, the arbitrators, of their own motion, proceeded to decide and declare that the indirect claims made by the United States were not within the scope of the ar- bitration, thus removing all misunderstanding by a decision eliminating immaterial matters from the controversy. The decision was made and put on record exactly in the method which we ask you to pursue here. We say that we are entitled to have such a decision on the ground of precedent as well as of convenience; and we say further that we are en- titled to have it on the ground of simple justice. No tribunal has ever been known to refuse to declare what, in its judgment, was the extent _ of its jurisdiction. To ‘lo so, and receive evidence applicable to the sub- Ject as to which its jurisdiction is coutroverted, and then to make a gen- eral decision, the result of which renders it impossible ever to’ ascertain Whether the tribunal acted upon the assumption that it had or had not jurisdiction over the controverted part of the case, would be the extrem- ity of injustice. If an award were to be made under such circumstances, nobody ever would know whether it embraced the matter respecting which jurisdic- tion was denied or not. In illustration, I may mention the Geneva Ar- | bitration. Suppose that it had gone forward without any declaration . by the arbitrators that they excluded the indirect losses, and then sup- pose that a round sum bad been awarded, would not Great Britain have | had a right lo assume that this round sum ineluded the indirect claims to which it never meant to submit? So will it be here; unless there is | placed upon record the ruling of the Commissioners as to this point, it never will be possible for us to kuow, or for the world to know, upon | What ground you have proceeded—whether you believe that we are to pay for commercial intercourse or not. No one will know how this is unless Upou our motion you decide one way or the other. For our assist ance, then, in conducting the case, for convenience, and for the informa- | ‘lon of our respective governments, we ask you to make this decision, | and it is entirely obvious that if no decision is made it must necessarily | at al oe a ~~? AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1547 be assumed that these controverted claims are by you deemed to be a just ground of award. We never can know the contrary, unless you say so; and, if you are to say so, we think that convenience and justice both require that you should say so at such an early day as to enable us to shape the conduct of our case in conformity with your decision. Mr. THomsoNn. I would like to know whether anything more is to be said on the subject by our learned friends opposite. Mr. Foster. We understand that, as is the case in connection with every other motion, the party moving has the right, in this instance, to open and close the argument. Mr. THomson. I make this observation simply because, in the course of the American Agent’s remarks, he said that Mr. Trescot had given particular attention to the treaties, and hence I assumed that he was about to be followed by Mr. Trescot. It would be obviously unjust to the counsel acting on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government if they should now be called upon to answer the argument that has been made with- out hearing all that is really to be said on the other side. I understand that the other side have an undoubted right to reply to anything which we may say, but if Mr. Trescot is afterwards to start a new argument, as I rather infer from Mr. Foster’s remarks he will do, this might put another phase on the matter. Mr. TREscoT. As I understand the position taken by Mr. Foster, it is very plain, and stated with all the fullness and precision necessary. He takes the ground that the commercial relations between Great Brit- ain and the United States stand either on ordinary international comity or upon treaty regulations. If upon the latter, then they rest upon the Treaty of 1794, the third permanent article of which did determiue the commercial relations which were to exist between the United States and the British North American Colonies; because in 1815 the Commercial Convention, then adopted and extended in 1815 and 1827, renewed that article, even if it should be contended, as I think it never has been before by the British Government, that the permanent articles of the Treaty of 1794 were abrogated by the war of 1812. The negotiators of the Convention of 1815 took the third article of the Treaty of 1794 as a basis, but not being able to agree as to certain modifications, decided to omit the article and to declare that “the intercourse between the United States and His Britannic Majesty’s possessions in the West Indies and on the Continent of North America shall not be affected by any of the provisions of this article, i. ¢., the article of the Convention of 1815 in reference to the commercial relations between the United States and the possessions of His Britannic Majesty in Europe, but each party shall remain in the complete possession of its right with respect to such inter- course,” those rights being, as we contend, the old rights established by the Treaty of 1815. But the question has not a very important bear- ing upon our present contention, and has been suggested simply in reply to what we understand is to be one of the positions on the other side, Viz, that if we deny that commercial privileges were granted by the Treaty of 1871, and are not, therefore, proper subjects of compensation in this award, then we have no right whatever to these: commercial privileges; and I can say in reply to the very proper inquiry of my friend Mr. Thomson, that in any remarks I may make, that is the extent of the position which will be taken, but 1 do not expect to refer tothe point at all. Mr. Tomson. In reference to the time at which this motion sheuld be heard, in view of the arguments which the learned Agent of the United States has used, I shall not, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Govern- 1548 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ment, call upon this Commission to say this is an improper time for that purpose. We have no objection that this application on the part of the counsel of the United States Government should be heard at length, and so they may be enabled to understand at all times, on all reason- able occasions, the exact ground upon which we stand. There is noth- ing unreasonable in the view which has been put forward by them in this respect. They are entitled to know whether the Commission is going to take the matter named in their notice of motion into considera- tion or not. We therefore have no objection that your excellency and your honors should determine this point at once, and we do not com- plain of the time at which the motion is made. I shall now come to the substance of the motion. The Agent of the United States has traveled out of the record, and has referred to light-houses and other matters not contained in this motion. He also alluded to the injuries which were committed on our coasts by the American fishermen, and he says that we have put them all forward in our case as subjects for compensation. I am not here now to consider the question whether we have done so or not; | at present only intend to discuss whether the matters included in this motion are matters coming within the jurisdiction of this court or not. I read the motion. It states: The counsel and Agent of the United States ask the honorable Commissioners to rule declaring tbat it is not competent for this Commission to award any compensation for commercial intercourse between the two countries, and that the advantages resulting from the practice of purchasing bait, ice, supplies, &c., and from beiug allowed to transship cargoes in British waters, do not constitute any foundation for an award of compensation, and shall be wholly excluded from the consideration of this tribunal. The tribunal will see that these are the words inviting discussion; und these I am here to answer, and nothing else. Satisfactory answers could be given to the other matters to which Mr. Foster has called attention, if this were the proper time to give them. As to the light- houses, for instance, it is quite obvious that these make the value of the fisheries themselves very much greater to the Americans than they would be otherwise; but I say again that Iam not going to discuss that question now. If it should arise hereafter, I shall do so. We shall undoubtedly be obliged to discuss it eventually, at the end of the case; but the question now is, whether it falls within the jurisdiction of this tribunal to award to Great Britain any pecuniary compensation for the rights which the Americans have undoubtedly exercised since the Washington Treaty was negotiated, of coming into our waters and instead of taking bait with their own lines and nets, as by the terms of that treaty they have a right to do, purchasing it trom our citizens; of buying ice here as well, aud of getting supplies and transshipping their cargoes, It is said in the Reply of Her Majesty, page 8, I think, that these privileges are clearly incidental; that, locking at the whole scope and meaning of the treaty, it is clear that these are incidental privileges for which the American Government can afford to pay. The words of our reply, read by Mr. Foster, are these: By the terms of Article 18 of the Treaty of W granted permission to land upon the said co the Magdalen Islands, for the | ashington, United States fishermen were dc asts, and shores, and islands, and also upon parpose of drying their nets and curing their fish. The w f i air hel ahaa Fel eae whaterer are studionsly omitted by the frances of the last- ap te s, _ ae privilege in common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty rapa a pha a fishing Np clearly includes the liberty to purchase s, transship cargoes, &c., for whic Majesty’ y it baa : right tiniakomnpeacae or which Her Majesty’s Government contend A Son oii these privileges were not enjoyed under the Convention of 1818, and y evident that they are enjoyed under the Treaty of Washington. : Well, that is the argument which was put forward by Her Majesty’s Government, but whether that argument commends itself to the judg- | F | , other purpose whatever. I will now read Article 18 of the Washington ‘Treaty, and the argument I wish to found upon it is this: That the - High Contracting Parties, or rather the High Commissioners, had before || them, when they framed that treaty, the Convention of 1818, the first _ article of which contains these words: AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1549 ment of this tribunal or not is not for me to say, though to my mind it is a very strong and very forcible one. Referring to the wording of the treaty itself, and to the Convention of 1818, the first section of the latter states : Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the United States, for the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, and cure fish on certain coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks of His Britannic Majesty’s dominions in America, it is agreed between the high contracting parties, that the inhabitants of the said Uuvited States shall have for- ever, in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands, on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland, from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on tbe coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks from Mount Joly, on the soutbern coast of Labyador, and to and through the straits of Belle Isle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without prejudice, howevey, to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson’s Bay Company. Andthat the American &shermen shall also have liberty, forever, to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of the southern pant of the coast of Newfoundland hereabove described, and of the coast of Labrador; but so soon as the same, or any portion thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled, withont previous agreement for such purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground. And the United States hereby renounce forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, or cure fish, on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of His Britannic Maj- esty’s dominions in America, not included in the above-mentioned limits; provided, however, that the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter and of repairing dumages therein, of purchasing wood and of obtaining water, and for no other purposes whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them. Now, in reference to the Washington Treaty, you will find this lan- guage used in the commencement of the 18th Article: It is agreed by the High Contracting Parties that, in addition to the liberty secured tothe United States fishermen by the Convention between Great Britain and the United States, signed at London on the 20th day of October, 1318, of taking, curing, and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North American Colonies therein defined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty, for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of this treaty, to take fish of every kind, except shell fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbors, and creeks of the Provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New uswick, and the Colony of Prince Edward Island, and of the several islands there- unto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the shore, with permission to land upon the said coasts, and shores, and islands, and also upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets avd curing their fish ; provided that in so doing they do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with British fisher- men, in the peaceable use of any part of the said coasts in their occupancy for the said ag It is understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to the sea- ery, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and all other fisheries in the rivers and mouths of rivers are hereby reserved exclusively for British fishermen. Teall attention to the fact that, in this very Treaty of Washington, the framers have made as the basis of it, not only the Convention of 1818, but the 1st section of it, and in that section is contained the strong and positive declaration that the Americans shall have the right (and only that right) of coming into British waters for the purposes of obtaining Shelter, repairing damages, and of securing wood and water, and for no That the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors for the _ purpose of shelter and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of | obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. 1550 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. One would suppose that under ordinary circumstances it would have - been sufticient to have stopped with the statement that they should be admitted “for the purpose of shelter, &c., and of obtaining water,” but the framers of the Convention of 1818 were particular to add, ‘and for no other purpose whatever.” They not only so restricted the Americans by affirmative words, but also by negative words. The High Contracting Parties having this be- fore them, gave the Americans the liberty of coming upon our shores to fish on equal terms with our fishermen, and to take bait, &e. Tomy tind, the High Commissioners considered that the framers of the Convention of 1818 deemed it necessary to insert the words, * and for no other pur- pose whatever,” to make it absolutely certain that the Americans could only come in for shelter, repairs, wood, and water, and should enjoy no rights as incidental to that privilege, and that they purposely omitted those words in the Treaty of Washington. It may, therefore, be well supposed that if the Americans were to be restric ed to the very letter of the treaty, the same negative words would have been used, and un- doubtedly had those words been used in the treaty, there would be an eud of the argument. If that had been the intention of the High Com- missiovers, they would have gone on in this treaty to state in Article 18: It is agreed by the High Co tracting Parties that, in addition to the liberty secured to the United States fishermen by the Convention between Great Britain and the United States, sigued at London on the 20:h day of October, 1818, of taking, curing, and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North American Colonies, therein de- fined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in common with the snbj-cts of Her Britaunic Majesty, the liberty, for the term of years mentioned in Article XX XIII of this treaty, to take tish of every kind, except shell-fish, on the sea coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbors, and creeks of the Provinces of Qui bec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Colony of Prince Edward Island, aud of the several islands there- unto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the shore, with permis- sion to land upon the said coasts, and shores, and islands, and also upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish, and for no other pur- pose whatever. But these words were not used. Now these are the words which the learned Agent of the United States, aud the learned counsel who are associated with him, seek, in my judg- ment, to interpolate into this treaty. The framers of the Convention of 1515 were very cautious as to its wording; the framers of the Treaty of Washington had that convention before them, and it must, therefore, 1 think, be fairly assumed that if it had been the intention of either of the High Contracting Parties, in this instance, that the Americans should simply have the bare rights named in the treaty and nothing else, they would have followed the example set before them by the Convention of 1518 and used these strong pegative words, “and for no other pur;ose Whatever.” Tsay that this argument is a tair and just oue; of course its weight Is to be determined by this tribunal. TI am by no means - putting it forward as a conclusive argument, but still the fact that they did not do so Is Of great weight in my mind, though to what extent its Weight will effect the decision of this tribunal it is not for me to say, but it does appear to me to be a very strong argument indeed. Had it been Intended to restrict the United States fishermen, and, to use the language of Mr. Foster, contine them merely to what was mentioned in the bond, the High Commissioners would have added, ‘and for no other biel sae arabe and therefore their leaving that language out is open to the coustruction that the Americans were entitled to all the incidental advantages which that treaty would necessarily be under- stood to confer, Is it not a rather extraordinary argument on the part of the United | 4a AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1551 States that this privilege of theirs related only to their right of com- ing in and fishing on equal terms with our citizens, and to landing and to drying their nets and curing their fish, and that the moment they had dried their nets and cured their fish they were forthwith to take to their boats and go back to their vessels, and that by landing for any other purpose whatever they are clearly liable for infraction of the provisions of this treaty? It is certainly a curious view which Mr. Foster presents with regard to their mode of bartering along the coast when he intimates that they land merely to exchange a galion or two of kerosene oil or a barrel of flour for fish, and in effect declares—for this is the result of his argument—that for so doing the Americans are liable to punish- ment. Mr. Foster. I said that they could be excluded by statute. Mr. THomsoN. I will show you before I am through that these Ameri- ean fishermen can by no possibility whatever come into our waters without incurring the risk of forfeiture, if Mr. Foster’s reading of this treaty be accepted as correct. This would be the result of bis argu- ment; if you confine them to the very terms of the bond, to use the language of Mr. Foster, then it is clear that if they land tor the purpose of giving a barrel of flour in exchange for fish, or of purchasing fish, at that moment their vessels are liable to forfeiture. This is a strange con- struction to put upon the treaty, and these are the strange results which will necessarily follow if this tribunal adopt the view presented by the American Agent. : But there is another matter to be considered, and it is this: In 1854 the Reciprocity Treaty was passed, and under that treaty the Americans came in to fish on our coasts generally. They exercised the same rights as they do now, and no person then ever complained of them for buying bait under the terms of that treaty, though it did not in express terms authorize their purchase of bait or their getting supplies of any kind on our shores; still they did so. By a kind of common consensus of opin- ion, it was understood that they had a right to do so, and no person complained of it. And in view of the course which then was pursued, this treaty was framed. Mr. Foster has put this case: Suppose that when the Joint High Commissiouers were sitting, the British represent- ative had proposed that the value of the rights of transshipment, and of buying bait, and of having commercial intercourse with our people should be taken into consideration by this Tribunal, then, had this been the case, it would have been met by a well-bred shrug from the Earl of Ripon, and Professor Bernard. This may possibly be so; but I can say, I think it would have been very strange indeed if our Commissioners had said to the American Commissioners: Under the treaty which we propose you shall have the right to fish in our waters on equal terms with our fishermen, and have the right to land and cure your fish, and the right also to dry your nets on the land, but the moment that you take one step farther, the moment that you buy a pound of ice, and the moment that you presume to buy a single fish for the purpose of bait in our waters, and the moment you attempt to exercise any commercial privilege whatever, and above all, the moment you undertake to trans- ship one single cargo, that moment your vessel will be forfeited, and the cargo as well. I think that if this had been stated, there would have been something more perhaps than a well-bred shrug from the Awerican Commissioners. I think, therefore, it may fairly be contended, _in view of the wording of the two treaties, that these are privileges, which it was intended that this Commission should take into consideration when they came to adjudicate respecting the value of our fisheries; and 1552 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. after all, is not the value of our fisheries to these people, enhanced by the way in which they use them, and in which they generally have been using them—by coming into our harbors to purchase bait and ice? because it takes a long time to catch the bait for themselves, and they save time and money therefore—time and money being in such case equivalent terms—by buying their bait. And why is this not to all intents and purposes a privilege under this treaty? I fail to see that it is not. Why, when it is necessary to preserve bait in ice, and as has been shown by all the witnesses that the Americans cannot procure bait and ice except on our shores, should this not be considered an incidental right? It appears to me that this view must be taken. The argument put for- ward on behalf of the United States demanding a contrary construction is almost suicidal. Moreover I think I can establish that this latter view is not taken by the Americans on this subject. On page 467 of Mr. Sabine’s report, the following language is used: “It is argued that if the liberty of landing on the shores of the Magdalen Islands ”— your Excellency and your Honors will recollect that while the Ameri- caus have the right to fish around the Magdalen Islands, they have no right to land on these shores, though our evidence has shown that, as a rule, they have landed on these islands, both before and since the nego- tiation of this treaty, and have dragged their nets on the shore, and fished for bait in this way. Mr. Sabine states: It is argued that, “if the liberty of landing on the shores of the Magdalen Islands had been intended to be conceded, such an important concession would have been the subject of express stipulation,” &c., it may not be amiss to consider the sugg-stion. And | reply that if ‘a description of the inland extent of the shore over which” we may use nets and seines in catching the herring if necessary, it is equally necessary to to define our rights of drying and curing the cod elsewhere, and as stipulated in the convention. Both are shore rights, and both are left withous condition or limitation as to the quantity of beach and upland that may be appropriated by our fishermen. It was proclaimed in the House of Commons, more than two centuries ago, by Cuke— that giant of the Jaw—that ‘ FREE FISHING” included “ ALL ITS INCIDENTs.” The thonght may be useful to the Queen’s advocate and Her Majesty’s attorney-general when next they transinit an opinion across the Atlantic which is to affect their own reputation and the reputation of their country. The right to take fish ‘‘on the shores of the Megdalen Islands,” without condi ious annexed to the grant, whatever these prof undly ignorant advisers of the Crown of England may say to the contrary, in- cludes, by its very nature and necessity, all the “incidents” of a “ free fishery,” and all the privileges in use by, and common among fishermen, and all the facilities and accommodations, ou the land and on the sea, which conduce to the safety of the men employed in the fishery, and to an economical and advantageous prosecution of it. Now, it may be said that this is not the opinion of a person entitled to weight, but, at all events, it had sufficient weight to induce the legis- lature of the United States to republish this report in a volume, which contains the sessional papers of the House of Representatives of the Forty-second Coagress, second session. The legislature of the United States, therefore, thought it proper and of sufficient importance to pub- lish it; and I believe that the report was published more than once. At all events, it is from their own state papers that I quote it. The language employed is very forcible. It is very often the case, when our friends across the border are arguing matters that nearly or closely affect them, they couch their arguments in strong and uncomplimentary lan- guage to those who differ trom them ; and so, of course, when Mr. Sa-° bine writes, “that it would be well for those profoundly ignorant law- officers to govern themselves in future as to their opinions,” &¢., we can understand that language as being used, perhaps, in the American sense . of the term, and certainly not in the offensive sense in which such words would be construed bere or in England. Mr. Fosrer. It is used in the Pickwickian sense. — —_—-? AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1553 - Mr. THomson. I was about to say so. I trust that it was employed in that sense. Here is a construction which the American nation can put forward as the true construction of this treaty for the purpose of obtaining the right to land on the Magdalen Islands, and the moment the shoe pinches on the other side, they want to have the strict letter of the law, and nothing else—they then do not wish to goa single step beyond that, though the moment when it becomes necessary to extend ‘their rights, they want to obtain a liberal construction of its terms. I do not think myself that the United States can always claim to come before any tribunal and say that they have, where it suits their purpose to do so, been very liberal in their construction of treaties. In regard to this very treaty itself, your Excellency and your Honors are aware, that it certainly was an extraordinary construction on the part of the United States Government when a duty was by them placed on the tin packages in which free fish entered into the United States. I wish to show what necessarily would be the result if the United States conten- tion in this matter were right; but before doing so, it may be proper for me to notice an argument which Mr. Foster drew from the Convention of 1815, to which he called your attention, and part of which he read. He says that inasmuch as the Convention referred to previous privi- leges, which the United States had abandoned as against Great Britain, and as those privileges must have been granted by the Treaty of 1794, that therefore the war of 1812 did not abrogate those privileges, and that this was a distinct admission on the part of Great Britain that the treaty mentioned was not abrogated, and that the privilege conferred by that treaty had been in no way interfered with. I altogether deny the conclusion he thus draws; but itis not now necessary for the purpose of my argument to answer that statement, further than to say that the mention of those privileges had reference to ordinary commercial rela- tions existing between the traders of the two nations. These traders are a well-known class of persons. They are merchants and ship-owners, who send their ships to sea. These vessels have registers, clearances, manifests, &c., for the purpose of showing the nationality of their ves- sels, and these papers also show the voyage which the vessels have undertaken to prosecute—what they have on board and everything about them. If they are on a trading voyage, this states their object. But fishing-vessels have no such papers except registers. They come Without clearances, and if I understand the question at all, they are a Separate and distinct class of vessels, and as a separate and distinct class they have always been treated by both nations. The 1st section of the Convention of 1818 had reference to ordinary traders, and to thei solely. Let it be admitted, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Foster is | Tight in his construction of the effect of the language used in the Con- vention of 1815 to which he refers—though this I, in fact, utterly deny, ' but still admitting that the words to which he has directed attention in fact declared that the war of 1812 had no practical effect whatever | upon the Treaty of 1794—supposing that this was so, what do we find? ' We find that in 1818 a distinct and separate treaty is framed, referring to this very class respecting whose rights your Excellency aud your Honors are now sitting in judgment—the fishermen engaged in the prosecution of the fisheries of the United States. The Convention of 1818 was made altogether with reference to them; was it not? What | does the 1st section of that Convention of 1818 say? It is this: | '' _ Arr. 2. Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the United States, for the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, and cure fish, on certain coasts, bays, bors, and creeks, of His Britannic Majesty’s dominions in America, it is agreed be- 98 F es) 1554 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. tween the High Contracting Parties that the inhabitants of the said United States shall bave forever, in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take tish of every kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands ; on the western and northern coast of Newfonndland, from said Cape Ray to the Quipron Islands; on the shores of the Mag- dalen Islands, and also en the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks from Mount Joly, on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through the Straits of Belleisle, and thence north- wardly indetinite vy along the coast, without, prejudice, however, to any of the exclu- sive rights of the Hudson’s Bay Company. And that the American fishermen shall also bave liberty, forever, to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks, of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland hereabove described, apd of the coast of Labrador ; but so soon as the same, or any portion thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be Jawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled, without previous agreement for snch purpose, with the inhabitants, proprie- tors,or possessors of the ground. And the United States hereby renounce forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of His Britannic Majesty’s dominions in America, not included within the above-mentioned limits: Provided, however, That the American fishermen shall be permitted to enter such bays or harbors, for the purpose of shelter and of repairing damages therein, of purebasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, dry- iug, or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them. Now, I want to say, may it please your excelleney and your honors, I think it most extraordinary that the learned agent of the United States, and a man of bis high standing and great ability, should take this mat- ter up aud distinctly assert that what took place in 1815 had the slight- est bearing on the subsequent agreement which was made with refer- ence to the particular class mentioned—the fishermen—between these two nations. I must confess I cannot see the slightest bearing it has on the Convention of 1818. I deny that the construction urged by the agent of the United States is correct; and if it were necessary to do so, I think I would be able to convince this tribunal that the contention ot Mr. Foster is entirely erroneous. Still, I put it out of consideration altogether, as being in no way conbected with the matter at present at issue. What have you to do with it?) We stand here by the Treaty of 1815, which was a definite treaty affecting the fishermen of the United States and the fisheries on the shores of these provinces. By the terms of that treaty the fishing-vessels of the United States and their fisher- men were prohibited from coming within three miles of our shores and ofall our bays for any purpose whatever, with three exceptions, that is to say, they might resort to our harbors for the purpose of shelter in case of storms, to make repairs in case of necessity, and to procure wood and water, and if they went into these places for any other purpose what- ever, their vessels were liable to forfeiture; yet though this was the case, as my learned friend on the other side well knows, they incurred that liability time and again. Vessel after vessel of theirs was con- demned from the making of this treaty up to the present time, and has that treaty ever been abrogated? There is no pretense for saying that this is the case. That treaty stands in as much force to-day as it did in the year 1519, the year after which it was passed, with one exception only, except in so tar as it is interfered with by the Treaty of Wash- lngton. Now, let me turn your attention to what the Treaty of Wasb- ington says on this point, beeause so faras any privileges were renounced « by the United States in the Treaty of 1818 they have conferred on the United States by the Treaty of Washington. The 18th article of the Treaty of Washington declares— ; Ant. XVIII. It is agreed by the Hig acti arti es Te liberty secured to the United st igh Contracting Parties that, in addition to the ates fishermen by the Convention between Great Britan and the United States, signed at London on the 20th day of October, 1818, of taking, } Le 1 i AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1555 curing, and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North American colonies therein defined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty, for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of this treaty, to take fish of every kind, except shell-fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbors, and creeks of the Provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the colony of Prince Edward’s Island, and of the sev- eral islands thereunto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the shore, with permission to land upon the said coasts and shores and islands, and also upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish; provided, that in so doing they do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with British fishermen in the peaceable use of any part of the said coasts in their occupancy for the same purpose. It is understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to the sea-fishery, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and all other fisheries in rivers and the mouths of rivers, are hereby reserved exclusively for British fishermen. The only privileges which the American fishermen had in British waters are received in the Convention of 1818; and as to all other privileges, they expressly excluded themselves by their renunciation forever. Now, in this treaty, Great Britain says it is expressly agreed by the High Con- tracting Parties that, in addition to the privileges which the Americans enjoy under the Convention of 13818—that is, in addition to the privileges which they have of fishing on the southern coast of Labrador, and on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and around the shores of the Mag- dalen Islands— The citizens of the United States shall have, in common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty, for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of this treaty, to take fish of every kind, except shell-fish, on the sea coasts and shores and in the bays, harbors, and creeks of the Provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the colony of Prince Edward Island, and of the several islands there- unto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the shore. Can anything be plainer than this? Whereas, before this treaty, Great Britain says to the United States, you could only fish around the Magdalen Islands, but not land on these islands; by this treaty how- ever, all these restrictions are taken away from you; and in addition to that, the restrictions which were imposed preventing you from fishing within three miles of the shores of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island, are removed, and besides the right of fish- ing there, you also have the right to land and dry your nets on these coasts. Is not that plain? The Convention of 1818 clearly stands un- tonched except in so far as it is restricted by the Treaty of 1871. Now, what follows from this, if the Agent of the United States is correct in his contention—and I presume that my learned friends opposite have weighed it carefully—this follows: these American fishermen having en, as I have shown, no right to enter our harbors by any commercial treaty, they are governed by the Convention of 1818; their rights are defined by that convention, and extended by the agreement and | Treaty of 1871. This being the case, what bave they a right to do if the contention of my learned friend on the other side is correct?) They have a right, and that under this treaty, to tish within three miles of _ the shore in common with the inhabitants of these colonies, and there to take fish of every kind, shell-fish excepted, and to land for the pur- pose of drying their nets and curing their fish and nothing more; that is the “ bond.” : That is the bond, says Mr. Foster. That is all they have a right to do. If it is, then what follows? Then all other privileges save those of taking fish within three miles of the shore, landing on the coast for the purpose of drying nets and curing fish, are governed by the Convention of 1818. And if that is the case, then when they do enter for the pur- pose of purchasing bait, they enter for another purpose than that of Obtaining wood and water, securing shelter, &c., aud they become liable ; a dee 1556 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. to forfeiture. If they come in for the purpose of buying ice they are in the same predicament—they have not entered for the purpose of buying wood or obtaining shelter; they have come in for the purpose of buying ice, which is wholly foreign to the provisions of the Treaty of 1818. They could not under the Treaty of 1818 enter for that purpose and the posi- tion assumed by the learned Agent and counsel for the United States is that that privilege is not conferred by the Treaty of Washington. If so, they haven't got it, and every time they come in for other purposes than those mentioned in the Treaty of 1818 they are liable to forfeiture. The surprise with which I, as counsel, heard that contention will, I have no doubt, be only exceeded by that of the fishermen of the United States when they find that that is the construction placed on the treaty by the Government of the United States as represented by their Agent before this Commission. If this argument applies to buying bait and ice, a fortiori, it applies to the privilege that they now enjoy of landing and ‘transshipping cargoes. Under the plain reading of the treaty, there is no doubt about it, and if it does not come within the incidental privi- leges, | admit that, as a lawyer, 1 cannot contend for one moment that the privilege of buying bait—or at all events of buying ice, whatever may be said about bait, as to which there may be a particular construc- tion, to which I will refer presently—I admit frankly that I cannot see that the privileges of buying ice or of transshipping cargoes are con- ceded unless they are to be considered as necessarily incidental. If it is denied that they are conceded incidentally, then the moment a vessel lands for any of those purposes, a forfeiture is worked immediately. There is just this distinction with reference to the taking of bait. It has been shown by numerous witnesses before this tribunal that these men come in and employ our fishermen to get bait for them, and then pay the fishermen for doing so. Now I wish to be distinetly understood upon this point. I submit, without a shadow of doubt—I don’t think it whe controverted on the other side, at all events it will not be success- fully controverted—that if those fishermen, having a right to come in and fish, as they undoubtedly have under the treaty, choose to hire men to catch bait for them, they are catching that bait themselves. There is a legal maxim put in old Latin, qui facit per alium facit per se— what a man does by an agent he does by himself. Therefore in all these instances where it has come out in evidence that they come in and get our fishermen to catch bait for them and pay them for doing so, in all such cases the act is that of the United States fishermen them- selves. On the other hand, if the fishermen upon the coast keep large supplies of bait for the purpose of selling to such persons as come along, then under the construction of the treaty contended for by the learned Agent of the United States Government, whenever bait is pur- chased in that way, that is a purpose for which it is unlawful to enter. our ports under the Treaty of 1818, and the act works a forfeiture of the vessel and cargo, That is a startling proposition. In reference to bait there is another consideration I throw out. I do not know whether it will be dissented from or not by the learned coun- selon the other side, but this treaty does give them this power, that they shall, In Common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, have , the liberty, for the term of, &e., to take fish. May not buying fish bea taking of fish within the meaning of the treaty ? It does hot say tocatch fish. The words are not ‘to fish,” but ‘to take fish.” It simply uses the word “take.” The term isa wide one, and [am not by any means prepared to say that by a strict legal construction these people, finding the fish caught here, have not a right to take it from | as AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1557 the fishermen. I say that is possibly a fair construction of the treaty. In that case they do “take fish,” and that is all. The contention on the other side, I suppose, will be to narrow that word “ take” down to mean the actual taking of fish by the citizens of the United States from the water by means of nets and other appliances. If that be the con- struction, then it follows as a necessary consequence that in taking bait from our fishermen they infringe the Treaty of 1818. I wish to make myself distinctly understood on that point. By the Convention of 1818 the American fishermen could not enter our harbors at all except for the threa purposes of obtaining shelter, to get wood and water, and to make repairs in case of necessity. Entrance for any other purpose was made illegal. Any privileges which they had under that conven- tion remained. Any restrictions that they labored under after that convention still remained, except in so far as they have been removed | by the Washington Treaty, and if the construction be true, as con- tended for by the learned Agent of the United States Government, then the restrictions as to landing for the purposes I have mentioned are not removed. The purchasing of bait and ice and the transshipping . of cargoes are matters entirely outside of the treaty aud unprovided for. Under the Treaty of 1818, vessels entering for any other purposes than the three provided for in that treaty can be taken. As was put forward in the American Answer, any law can be passed. An inhospit- \ able law, they will say, by which the moment they do any of these acts | they will become liable to forfeiture. I do not presume that the remarks of the Agent of the United States, - in which he speaks of instructions possibly coming from his government or from the Government of Great Britain, should be taken into consid- eration, or that they can properly be used as arguments to be addressed to this tribunal, because, as the learned Agent very properly says, the -authority of this tribunal is contained in the treaty. If the treaty | gives you authority you have sworn to decide this matter according to the very right of the matter, and I presume you will not be governed by any directions from either government. Nothing of that sort can be made use of as an argument, and you will determine the matter con- scientiously, I have no doubt, upon the terms of the treaty itself. Now Her Majesty’s Government does not object to your deciding in so many words that these things are not subjects of compensation, if that be the jadgment of the court. I have advanced very feebly the views which I think ought to govern your decision upon the point, namely, that these are incidental privileges which may fairly be construed, in view of the | way in which this treaty is framed, and as inseparable from the right given to the Americans under the Treaty of Washington. ButI confess that I shall not be at all dissatisfied should this tribunal decide otber- wise. If it be the desire of the American Government that this tribu- nal shall keep within the very letter, and disregard what I have argued is the spirit of the treaty, and determine just merely the value of the fisheries themselves, and of landing on the shores to dry nets, very well I have no objection and we will accept such a decision. But Her Majesty’s Government wish it to be distinctly understood that that is notthe view they have held or wish to be compelled to hold of this treaty. If, however, pressed as you are to determine the question in this way by the Government of the United States, and in view of the declaration you have made to determine it according to the very right of the mat- ter, you can conscientiously arrive at the conclusion for which they ask, we shall not regret it at all. | Mr. Dourre. I would desire to add to what has been so well said by a ; 1558 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. my learned fiiend, that the interpretation which Her Majesty’s Govern- nent has put upon the Washington Treaty has received the consecra- tion of the whole time that the Reciprocity Treaty was in operation by the course of dealing between the two governments with reference to that treaty. The Reciprocity Treaty was in exactly the same terms as the Washington Treaty, and under it the Americans have been admit- ted to purchase bait, transship their cargoes, and do ail those things mentioned in the motion. I think that this interpretation cannot be lightly set aside to adopt the construction now sought to be put upon the treaty by our learned friends on the other side. And to show that the several provinces have not been indifferent to these matters, I would refer the Commission to a petition sent to the Queen by the legis- lature of Newfoundland on the 23d of April, 1853, which is to be found on page 12 of the official correspondence which has been filed on our side. TO THE QUEEN’S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. May it please Your Majesty: We, Your Majesty’s loyal subjects, the Commons of Newfoundland, in general assem- bly convened, beg leave to approach Your Majesty with sentiments of unswerving loyalty to Your Gracious Majesty’s person and throne, to tender to Your Majesty our respectful and sincere acknowledgments for the protection afforded by the Imperial Government to the fisheries of this colony and Labrador during the last year, and to pray that Your Gracious Majesty will be pleased to continue the same during the ensu- Ing season. May it please Your Majesty: The illicit traffic in bait carried on between the inhabitants of the western part of this island and the French bas proved of serions injury to the fisheries generally, as the supply enables the French bankers to commence their voyage early in spriug, and thereby prevent the fish from reaching our coasts. We, therefore, most earnestly be- seech Your Majesty graciously to be pleased to cause an efficient war-steamer to be placed in Burin during winter, so that by being early on the coast she may avert the evil of which we so greatly complain. Passed the House of Assembly April 23, 1853. JOHN KENT, Speaker. I think that every other province would have made the same com- plaint in a different shape, but I quote this to show that the provinces have never been indifferent to the matter of selling bait to the Ameri- cans by Canadian subjects. This is about all that I wish to add to what has been said, except that I do not know if I have well understood Mr. Foster in reference toa. class of argument which he has used. I repeat, | am not very certain that I have understood him well, that if the construction put by the American side upon this article were not admitted, the American Goy- ernment might repudiate the award made by the Commission. M r. Foster. O, no; I said that if the award included matters not sub- mitted to the tribunal, the principles of law wonld render it void. I did not say what my government would do under any given circumstances, nor am I authorized to do so. Mr. Doutre. There is no authority to decide as to the legality of the award made by the Commissioners, there is no other right than might. However, if this argument had not been used I have nothing to add to what has been said by my learned friend. If it had been, 1 should have found it necessary to address some observations which are rendered sag ranger th the fact that I have misunderstood my learned friend. ee r. WEATHERBE., Owing to our adherence, until quite recently, to oe arrangement entered into to argue this morning @ preliminary ques- tion, and considering the sudden determination of counsel on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government to enter upon the main question, and con- = = AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1559 sidering also that we are to be followed by counsel of very great abil- ity, I trust the imperfections of what few suggestions I have to offer may be excused. For my own part, I am much in favor of written argument before this tribunal whenever that is practicable. For ex- ample, it seems we quite misunderstood the learned agent and counsel for the United States, Mr. Foster. This may have occurred in other respects. Were written arguments to be submitted, and, after exami- nation, replied to in writing, all that would be avoided. The other side will probably admit their written argument would have been different from what has fallen from their lips. Mr. Foster. I hope it would be very much better. Mr. WEATHERBE. And yet an advantage of oral discussion was very forcibly stated by Mr. Dana the other day—namely, the privilege of asking at the moment for explanation for obscure and ambiguous ex- pressions; and hence, just now, in reply to my friend Mr. Doutre in regard to his interpretation—in which I must say I concurred—as to the declaration by the Agent of the United States of what his govern- ment would do in case of an adverse decision on the point under dis- eussion, an explanation has followed. The words, as we took them, would certainly form an unjustfiable mode of argument. Treaties between the United States and Great Britain have been referred to—the old treaties—and I have just examined the passages cited. But I understood the learned counsel to admit that the argument relative to these was too remote or of no consequence in relation to this discus- sion. (Mr. Trescot. That is correct.) So then I may pass over my notes on that subject. Mr. Foster, representing the United States before this tribunal, says that a formal protest against the claim of Her Majesty’s Government for these incidental advantages—the purchase of bait and supplies, transshipment and traftic—for which we are here claiming compensation under the Treaty of Washington, is to be found in the answer of the United States. He calls it a protest. I do find itin the Auswer, but I find something more. I think this highly important. Of course this Answer on behalf of a great nation is carefully prepared to express the views of the United States. We all weigh well—we have never ceased to weigh well these words—and we have within the prescribed time, many weeks ago, prepared and filed our Reply. These are the words to which the Agent and counsel of the United States refer: Suffice it now to be observed, that the claim of Great Britain to be compensated for allowing the United States fishermen to buy bait and other supplies of British subjects finds no semblance of foundation in the treaty, by which no right of traftic is conceded. The auswer does not stop there. It goes further: The United States are not aware that the former inhospitable statutes have ever been repealed. ~ Neither does it stop here, but continues: Their enforcement may be renewed at any moment. Here are three distinct grounds taken by the United States in their formal answer to the case presented by Great Britain, and the claim for the right of bait, supplies, and transshipment, &c. First, there is no right to the enjoyment of these privileges secured by the treaty. Sec- ondly, there are statutes unrepealed, by which it is rendered illegal to ore these fishing privileges. Thirdly, such statutes may be en- - forced. Therefore, we understand the contention of the United States to be - Bot only that this claim for incidental advantages—the incidents follow- 1560 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ing necessarily, the right given in express terms by the treaty to take fish—not only do the United States say there 1s no semblance of author- ity for the tribunal co consider these things 10 awarding compensation, but that in point of fact these acts on the part of United States fisher- meu have been and are now illegally exercised on our shores. In deal- ing with that part of the United States Answer, which I have read, this is the language used in the Reply, printed and filed on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government: The advantages so explicitly set forth in the Case, of freedom to transship cargoes, outfit vessels, obtain ice, procure bait, and engage hands, &c., are not denied in the Apswer, Nor is it denied that these privileges have been constantly enjoyed by Amer- jean fishermen under the operation of the Treaty of Washington. Neither is the con- tention on the part of Her Majesty’s Government tbat all these advantages are neces- sary to the successful pursuit of the inshore or ontside fisheries attempted to be con- troverted. Bat it is alleged in the third section of the Answer that there are statutes in force, or which may be called into force, to prevent the enjoyment by American fishermen of these indispensable privileges. Here in the Case prepared and filed and presented before this tribunal on bebalf of Her Majesty it is alleged that these incidents are absolutely essential to the successful prosecution of the fishery, and that they are enjoyed under and by virtue of the acceptance of the Treaty of Wash- ington. Here in the third section of the Answer presented before this Commission, to become matter of record and history, it is alleged that there are statutes now in existence or that may be called into foree to preclude the enjoyment by the fishermen of the United States of these necessary incidental advantages. Substantially that is the only ground taken in the Answer, and I do not hesitate for a moment to say that, providing it is corroct, it is a reasonable answer. If Great Britain may, after the award of this tribunal shall have been delivered—if the Govern- ment of Great Britain or Canada may afterwards call into foree those statutes which we contend are at present suspended, and raise the ques- tion for the decision of the court of vice-admiralty here in Halifax, or elsewhere, as it has been formerly raised and settled here, and if the decision of such questions must necessarily lead to the confiseation of the vessels attempting to avail themselves of these supposed privileges, then this is certainly a matter of great concern to the United States, and a matter of great responsibility to those in whose hands her great inter- ests are for the time committed. In this view I do not wonder that this answer is so much insisted on. In this view, if these results are immi- nent there is ground for careful deliberation. If these results are inevi- table, this answer respecting the enforcement of statutes is a complete and full answer, and that far the cause is ended and the court is closed. It is admitted, I suppose, that the fishermen of the United States sail from their own shores, enter these waters, and annually, monthly, daily, practically, enjoy these advantages since the Treaty of Washington. They never coutended for a right to enjoy them previously. All the wit- hesses unite in saying that they have been shipping crews, purchasing and cutting and shipping ice, transshipping cargoes of mackerel—that they have been in the full and absolute enjoyment of every incident necessary to the successful prosecution of the fisheries. But it is now pat forw ard and urged on the part of the government and nation of these eo ale they have enjoyed these privileges without the Ball) bank Se et Rela m Violation of the laws of the land, which ie eatrlea Psat ee ase ae orced against them; that there was and is Washington ; that th Ae : Me Suey ee iets iby alee Treaty, be ‘pag Sede Matt fy Were and are exercised in the face of existing sand at the peril of the United States fishermen, and the risk of Se ae = nee A Se AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1561 loss of their vessels, property and earnings. If you will look at the treaty—the learned counsel says in effect—you will find its articles do not permit the transshipment of mackerel, or the hiring of crews, or ob- taining ice and bait; that we may land and dry fish, but we cannot transship ; that we can take fish out of the water and land them on deck, but we must stop there; and the treaty in no manner annuls the disabil- ities under which we labored, and none of the various things necessary to carry on the business of fishing is permitted ; that you have statutes which you have enforced before, and which you can and will enforce again. This, then, is an important inquiry. I quite admit that much. Is was on consideration of the importance of this question as regarded by the United States, as I understand—this is the view of counsel repre- senting Her Majesty’s Government—that it was considered quite reason- able a discusssion should be entered upon, and it was decided not to resist the argument raised by the United States, whose agent and coun- sel claim the advantage to be obtained by reducing the compensation in this manner. I understand the learned Agent and counsel, Mr. Foster, now to say that if an award should be made including any compensation for these advantages—I presume it is meant as well the enjoyment of them in the past as prospectively—Great Britain could not expect to receive pay- ment for such award—that is, that they would not be paid. There is no kind of argument in this, and for my part I am at a loss to understand why it should be offered. : If Great Britain were obliged to admit that an award contained any- thing by which it appeared on its face to be ultra vires, the United States could not be called on for payment. But I submit to the learned Agent whether he would or ought to declare in the name of the great nation he represents that if an award were made, including compensa- tion for the privileges already enjoyed, even although under misappre- hension, the United States would repudiate that. They would hardly, Ihumbly submit, in the face of the world, repudiate payment of such a sum as might be awarded for those privileges of the past because the danger of confiscation had passed away. And we are safe in be- lieving that if the United States were assured in any way that no pro- ceedings would ever be taken, but the previleges in question could be secured throughout the continuance of the treaty to the fishermen of the United States, that nation would promptly pay any sum that might be awarded. Moreover, if this tribunal had the power ; if authority had been delegated and were to be found in the treaty to set questions of this kind at rest, and in making their award of compensation if the Commissioners could secure these privileges—if not already secure—l think then, also, no objection would be taken to their being considered by the tribunal. But it is because it is contended that the enjoyment of these necessary incidents is insecure ; because the power of the tribu- nalis limited; because the matter will, it is said, be left in a state of un- certainty hereafter; because questions may arise over which the govern- ment may have little control; because the international relations of the future are unforeseen and cannot be anticipated, that the claim tocompen- Sation is resisted. This seems to me to be the condition of the question, and this I gather and have observed in the Answer, from the first, is the manner in which the subject has been regarded by the Agent represent- ing the United States. And so regarding it, an anxiety to prevent com- pensation incommensurate with the privileges understood to be settled _ and secure beyond all question seems perfectly reasonable. But I think there are objections to attacking the claim set up here on *} J, f | | 1562 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. bebalf of Her Majesty’s Government in detail. A reason stated by the learned Agent of the United States for asking for the decision of this question now is that the matter should become a record of the Commis- sion; and if the Commissioners come to the conclusion that the right to transship and obtain ice aud bait and men and supplies for the fish- ery are necessary incidents to the right to “ take fish,” and arise there- fore by necessary implication from the very terms of the treaty, aud that they can be properly considered in making up the award, it should be known and read hereafter. And I can understand if an award were to be paid out of the United States Treasury, and in that sum was included an amount for these already specified rights, and if any doubts existed as to whether they were secured to the fishermen, those doubts should be set at rest upon such payment. It will, however, hardly be con- tended that this tribunal should be asked to give the grounds. It would be utterly impossible to give such grounds on each branch of the case. Take the argument of the counsel in relation to light-houses. The rep- resentative of the United States, it appears, now thinks that the evi- dence in regard to light-houses was irrelevant—that is to say, if we had no light-houses at all, our fisheries would be just as valuable as they are now, and that if we had ten times as many as we have, no compensation should be allowed in consequence of the efficiency of that service. I don’t know how it may strike others, but it seems to me just as reason- uble—with the exception already mentioned, about which I cannot con- ceive any cause of anxiety—that a motion should be made to obtain a decision in advance, for the information of the United States, as to whether that nation was, in paying for the use of Canadian fisheries, paying in any indirect way, and to what extent, for the support of the lights to guide the United States in common with British fishermen through the ocean storms. It isa matter entirely for the honorable Comtissioners whether they are content to give their award piecemeal— whether they are to state prematurely the grounds—one ground to-day, another to-morrow—upon which their award is to be made. It seems to me unfortunate that this question should not have been raised earlier. One thing will be admitted: If this question had been submitted at the outset—if this tribunal had undertaken to hear argu- ment, and if the decision had been adverse to us, a very large amount of time would have been saved-in the mode of submitting the testimony. We should have had this advantage, that we might have fortified our case on matters where the quantity of evidence is small. The learned counsel on the other side have listened to a large mass of testimony which they how say is irrelevant. Suppose it should be so decided, the I nited States is in this position—a large portion of time allotted to them will be saved. A great deal of time may be economised which other- wise would have been occupied in meeting claims supported in our case. . ahs daeaae in a matter of strict law, after our time has been oe- SSCL to nee s stg large mass of evidence on questions now SaaS a aan Pa es - United States may now concentrate their Sete tc Pon points which are held to be before the Commission, and * close it will be contended that their evidence on these points greatly preponderates. oi = pla a aeate you more time. ged Eakin here a ell, : e have pretty well arranged our programme, toot elats ic — se GL esirable that the time should be lengthened, si It to be inferred at all that it is intimated in the slightest degree that there was any sucl ; ; : © Was any such motive governing the selection of the . ume to inake this motion, “ aa ar a capearunemsty manera AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1563. The Answer of the United States, at pages 8 and 9, 14 and 15, 18 and 19, claims on the part of the United States consideration in estimating the amount to be awarded for Canada of the advantages arising to Cana- dians on the coast from the admission of United States fishermen into our waters. In effect the Commission is asked in this document first to estimate the value of the privileges accorded to the United States by the terms of the Treaty of Washington in giving up to them the fish- eries, and then, although there is nothing whatever in the treaty to justify it, they are required to reduce that sum by deducting theretrom the value to a certain class residing on our shores of the right to trade with United States fishermen, including the supply of this very bait in question. The Commissioners will find on the pages mentioned very clear language to show how reasonably we can claim for the privileges now sought to be excluded. Mr. Foster. I don’t believe you remember just the view we take of that. We say: The benefits thus far alluded to are only indirectly and remotely within the scope and cognizance of this Commission. They are brought to its attention chiefly to refute the claim that it is an advantage to the United States to be able to enter the harbors of the provinces and traffic with the inhabitants. I say it lies out of the case on both sides, and that is what our mo- tion says. Mr. WEATHERBE. That is an admission that incidental privileges are within the scope and cognizance of the Commission. But there is other language which has been assigned to other counsel to cite. There are ample quotations from the arguments of Canadian statesmen, advocating remote and incidental privileges in Parliament, as arguments in favor of the adoption of the treaty. If the Agent and learned counsel for the United States succeed in this motion they do more than exclude from the consideration of the case compensation for the right of procuring bait and ice by purchase, and the other incidents to a successful prose- cution of the fisheries. And as the Answer stands, evidence may be of- fered on other points, unless other motions follow the present, for exclud- ing matter from the consideration of the Commission. I think it can be shown that if this matter is not within the jurisdiction of the Com- mission, and had not been so considered when the Answer was drawn up, a great modification of that Answer would have been made. Mr. Foster. It is quite capable of being very much improved if I had more time. Mr. WEATHERBE. I am, however, only turning the attention of the tribunal to the deliberate and solemn admissions and declarations of the Answer, which bind now and hereafter. Whatever may be the argument of the United States for the present moment, these must remain, and they point to the true intention to be gathered from the language of the Treaty of Washington, as understood by both of the great parties to that compact. The simple question we are now discussing is this: whether certain things are to be taken into consideration as incidental to the mere act of taking fish out of the water. WhatI understand the argument of the United States to be now is, that by the Treaty of Washington the Amer- ican fishermen have the right of taking fish out of British waters, and landing to dry their nets aud cure their fish, and nothing else. The right to land to dry their nets and cure their fish they admit are sub- jects for compensation. But what does taking fish mean? It means taking them out of the water and landing them on the deck and nothing More, it is contended. We contend that by a fair and reasonable con- 1564 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. struction of the words, the United States have obtained the privilege of carrying on the fishery. Can it be doubted that this was the intention when the words were adopted. Are we asking for any strained con- struction by the tribunal? I think not. By the Convention of 1818 the United States renounce, forever there- after, the liberty to United States fishermen of fishing in certain British waters, or ever eutering these waters, except for shelter and for wood and water. “ For no other purpose whatever” is the sweeping language ° ofthe treaty. I presume we are to have very little difference of opinion as to the intention of the clause containing these words. That clause of the Convention of 1818 was fully considered by the Joint High Commis- sion who framed the Treaty of Washington. What do those Commis- sioners say? That language has been cited. In addition to the liberty secured by that Convention, the privilege is granted of taking fish. The Treaty of Washington permits the liberty of taking fish and of landing to dry nets and cure fish. This tribunal is invited to decide that it is not competent for them to award anything in relation to the incidental and necessary requirewents to carry on the fisheries. Is it contended there there was an oversight in framing the Treaty of Washington? Is there an absence of words necessary to secure the full enjoyment of our fisheries to United States fishermen? Was that absence intentional? The learned counsel for the United States have not stated their views upon this point. Can it be possible that those who represented the United States in framing the Treaty of Washington intended the result which would follow the success of the present motion. Can it be possible both parties intended that result? If this is an over- sight, who are to suffer? The compensation is to be reduced, we are told. But if the United States Treasury is to be saved, are the United States fishermen to suffer? Or is the award to be reduced for the want of privileges and the fishermen to continue illegally to enjoy all the privi- leges! This matter bas not been fully explained. I must admit, if there has been an oversight here—if so great an error has oceurred—the tribu- ual is powerless to correct the error or to grant full compensation. But the learned Agent and counsel who support the motion did not state fully to the Commission—did not give to the Commission a full explanation this morning. The answer states the matter more fully than the application for the motion. The Commissioners are entitled to know fully and distinctly what view is taken by the United States. Nothing was said as to the statutes to be enforced against United States fisherman in case the motion should be successful. In that event it would be too late todeny the right to enforce the statute. This would be unfortu- vate for American fishermen, as it formerly was. Is the success of the motion to open old sores and awaken the very troubles the treaty was made to set at rest? There is no escape, it appears to me. I submit that our construction is the reasonable, fair, and legitimate one. The words of the treaty are sufficient to secure all the privileges and preclude the enforcement of statutes. The words are sufficient to Justify the awarding of full compensation. Our argument is that the 2 eh pap on carries With it the right to prepare to fish, and the Righthes nea to oe to American fisaermen those rights of tae ik vi acaba ; prived until secured by treaty. We submit the mat- with fu confidence to this honorable Commission, regretting that any iatimation should have been offered on the other side as to the improbability of mayment of any award, unless the judgment of Come Ag tbat avorable. I think I am vbliged to admit on our ave no alternative; that for us, On this question of reducing AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1565 the amount of compensation, the decision, even if adverse, must prevail ; and I beg to say I trust whatever it may be it will be accepted in the proper spirit. Mr. WHITEWAY. I was rather taken by surprise when I learned but just now that the main question in this proposition was this day to be discussed, and not the preliminary question as to whether the main question should be argued at the present time, or as part of the final argument. I have now only a few observations to make in addition to those that have been so strongly put by the learned connsel who have preceded me. It seems to me that the position taken by the learned counsel on the opposite side to-day differs materially, and in fact is diametrically opposed to that taken by them in their answer. In their answer they not only allege on the part of the United States that they have a right to those incidental advantages which may accrue from the concession of a right to fish; but they go further, and they allege that they have a right to claim for the incidental benefits which may flow to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty from traffic with American fisber- men, and they allege this as a specific ground for the reduction of the amount claimed on behalf of Great Britain. Now, at page 13, part iv, of the answer, they say: _ It is next proposed to consider the advantages derived by British subjects from the provisions of the Treaty of Washington. In the first place, the admission of American fishermen into British waters is no det- riment, but a positive advantage, to colonial fishermen; they catch more fish, make more money, aud are improved in all their material circumstances by the presence of foreign fishermen. The large quantities of the best bait thrown over from American vessels attract myriads of fish, so that Canadians prefer to fish side by side with them ; and when doing so make a larger catch than they otherwise could. The returns of the product of the British fisheries conclusively show that the presence of foreign fisher- men cannot possibly have done them any injury. Secondly. The incidental benefits arising from traffic with American fishermen are of vital importance to the inhabitants of the British maritime provinces. ; The incidental benefits arising from traffic, therefore, are, according to the contention of our learned friends, to be taken into consideration, and to have weight with the Commissioners in reducing those damages which they may award to the British Government. Now, all that bas been contended for on the part of Great Britain up to the present time is that the value of the incidental advantages which necessarily arise from the concession of the right to take fish within the three-mile limit, and to land for the purpose or curing, should be taken into considera- tion by the Commission. On page 9 of the answer they say: It is further important to bear in mind that the fishery claims of the Treaty of Wash- ington have already been in formal operation during four years, one-third of the whole riod of their continuance, while practically both fishing and commercial intercourse ave been carried on in conformity with the treaty ever since it was signed, May 8, 1871. Here they say that practically both fishing and commercial intercourse have been carried on in conformity with the treaty ever since 1871. Now, then, if you will turn to the same answer, page 13, they say : _The United ‘States call upon the British Agent to produce, and upon the Commis- Sioners to require at his hands, tangible evidence of the actual practical value of the privilege of fishing, by Americans, in British territorial waters, as it has existed under the treaty for four years past, as it exists to-day, and as, judging of the future by the past, it may reasonably be expected to continue during the ensuing eight years embraced in the treaty. We have met their views, and given evidence of the actual practical yalue of the privilege of fishing and its incidents of commercial inter- | Course as actually carried on in conformity with the treaty. i Now, your excellency and your honors, it appears to me very unfor- atin ah Ler 66 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. a | 1 tunate as regards our present position that this Commission did not sit immediately after the treaty was entered into. If it had sat—if the con- struction put upon the treaty was to the effect that the Commission had no jurisdiction to take into consideration the incidental advantages of which evidence has been given, then, as bas been put by my learned friend. Mr. Thomson, no traffic would have taken place from American fishing-vessels coming into our harbors for the purpose ot buying bait, for they would have been liable to be confiscated forthwith. But this treaty having existed four years, the fishermen of the United States and of Great Britain have solved practically the question of the construction of the treaty themselves. The fishermen of the United States have found it more to their convenience and speedy baiting to employ Brit- ish fishermen to take bait for them, and, in some instances, to buy it from them, believing that the right of traffic was conceded by this treaty, and thence the traftic has arisen. No such traffic would have arisen had this question been determined at the outset in accordance with the views contended for by the counsel for the United States ; but because that traflic has arisen, and the question has been solved by the people themselves, therefore they now say we are precluded from recovering any compensation for it. It has been shown here by clear, indisputable evidence that the Bank fisheries off the coasts of the Dominion and New. foundland could not be carried on to advantage by American fishermen without obtaining the bait upon our coast, which they have done. It is admitted that this is a subject for consideration, and that this is a question they have to pay for; but now, forsooth, because this Commis- sion has not sat, and four years have elapsed, and the fishermen of the two countries have practically solved the question for themselves, we are to be precluded from obtaining compensation for the advantages that would otherwise have to be paid for. Again, in the Answer of the United States, at page 18, it is stated: “The benetits alluded to (that is, the incidental advantages) are only indirectly and remotely within the scope and cognizance of this Com- mission.” Here my learned friends show that they were clearly of the opinion at the time they penned this answer that these were matters that were within the scope of the Commission, and within their jurisdic- tion. And without objection on their part, we have throughout the whole conduct of our case adduced evidence to support the position we now contend for. Mr. TREscoT. What I have to say I shall say very briefly, for my pur- pose is rather lo express my assent to what has been said than to add a: ene to what I consider the very complete argument of my colleague, Mr. roster, It 1 understand the British counsel correctly, they admit that the con struction for which we contend is a fair construction. They seem to think that a broader and more liberal interpretation would be more in — conformity with what they consider to be the spirit of this discussion, but all of them appear to admit that if we choose to stand on that lan- guage we have the right to do it, and they do not object that it should be enforced. They seem to think, however, that certain consequences would follow, of which they have apprehensions for us. That is our mat- ter. The consequences that tlow from the interpretation will be confined to us, and are matters we must look to. At present the only question is, Whether we have the right to say to your honors that you are limited i your award to a certain and specific series of items. I think, hon- estly, we have drifted very far from the common-sense view of this case. As tu the technical argument, if we are to go into it, it might be in- eT ae SS ee AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1567 sisted, first, that, under the Treaty of 1818, if a fisherman went into a colonial port and bought a load of coal for his cabin stove he violated the treaty, because it only gave him the right to go in and buy wood ; or when a fisherman bought ice, be was only buying water in another shape, and therefore that, when he had aright to buy water, he had the right to buy ice. ldo not, however, suppose that this is the kind of arguments your honors propose to consider. It appears to me that if we look at the history of this negotiation, we see with perfect dis- tinctness what the Commission is intended to do. When the High Com- mission met, and the question of the fisheries came up, what was the condition of the facts? We were annoyed and worried to death by our fishermen not being allowed to go within three miles of the Canadian shore and by their being watched by cutters. The idea of not being allowed to bay bait, fish, and ice, which we had done ever since the fisheries existed, never crossed our minds. We knew what had been the established custom for over half a century, from the earliest existence of the fisheries. We read your advertisements offering all these things for sale as an inducement to come into your ports. We had the declaration of Her Majesty’s Colonial Secretary, that whatever might be the technical right, he would not consent to colonial legisla- tion which deprived us and you cf this natural and profitable exchange, and we knew that in the extreme application of your laws, you had not attempted to confiscate or punish United States fishermen for such purchases. It never occurred to us that this was a question in discus- sion. What we wanted to do was to arrange the question as to the in- shore fisheries. That was the only question we were considering, and so far from raising any question about it, what is the instruction of the British Government to their negotiators? It was as follows: The two chief questions are: As to whether the expression “three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of Her Britanvic Majesty’s dominions” should be taken to mean a limit of three miles from the coast-line or a limit of three miles from a line drawn from headland to headland ; and whether-the proviso that “the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors for the pur- pose of shelter, and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtain- - Ing water, and for no other purpose whatever,” is intended to exclude American ves- sels from c. ming inshore to traflic, transship fish, purchase stores, hire seamen, &c. Her Majesty’s Government would be glad to learn that you were able to arrive at a conclusive understanding with the Commissioners of the United States upon the dis- pated interpretation of the Convention of 1818; but they fear that you will find it expedient that a settlement should be arrived at by some other means, in which case they will be prepared for the whole question of the relations betwen the United States and the British possessions in North America, as regards the fisheries, being referred for consideration and inquiry to an International Commission, on which two Commis- sioners, to be hereafter appointed, in consultation with the Government of the Do- iuinion, should be the British representatives. Now, what was that but an instruction not to trouble themselves with the very questions we are arguing here to-day, but to goand settle the ques- | tion on some basis which would not involve any such discussion. And |) what did we do? We said: ‘The question is between two inshore _ fisheries. We think our inshore fishery is worth something; you think your inshore fishery is worth something. We give you leave to fish in ours, and we admit fish and fish-oil free of duty, and make the matter pretty much on equality. If that is not sufficient, take three honest- | Minded gentlemen and convince them that your fisheries are worth a _ great deal more than ours, and we will pay the difference ;’ and so we _ will, without any hesitation, if such shall be the award upon a full hear- ing of all that you have to say and all that we have to say. That is the _ Whole question we have to decide. Take the fishery question as it _—_—_ ee eee eal, 1568 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. stands. If you will demonstrate and prove that when we go into the Gulf of St. Lawrence to fish, the privilege is worth a great deal more to us to be allowed to follow a school of mackerel inshore and catch them than is the privilege accorded to you to come into our inshore fisheries ; if, after comparing our fisheries with yours, this tribunal entertains the honest opinion that an amount should be paid by the United States, the award will be paid, and no more words said about it. What is the use of importing into this subject difficulties and contentions of words which do not mean anything after all. The question is, whether the Canadian inshore fisheries are worth more to us than our inshore fish- eries are to the Canadians, with the free import of fresh fish, and if, after the examination of witnesses, this tribunal holds that our inshore fisheries are worth a great deal more than the inshore fisheries of the Dominion, then we will not pay anything. But the question submitted to this tribunal is not one that requires a great deal of discussion about treaties or a very close examination of words. If we are to go into that examination, one of the first things to determine is, what sort of a treaty are we dealing with? Because if itis a commercial treaty, an exchange of commercial rights, it is one of the principles of diplomatic interpreta- tion that cannot be contradicted, that runs through every modern recip- rocity treaty, that commercial equivalents are absolute equivalents, and do not admit of money valuation by an additional money compensation. For instance, suppose England should make a treaty with France, and England should say: “* We will admit your wines free of duty if you will admit certain classes of manufactures free of duty.” The treaty then goes into operation. Suppose for some reason or other there were no French light wines drunk in England for ten years, and the French took a large quantity of English manufactured goods, at the end of ten years it might turn out that England had made several millions of dollars by that treaty, while France had made nothing. But you cannot make any calculation as to compensation; the whole point is that it is recip- rocity—the right exchange. Just so is it in regard to the question of fisheries and their values. Suppose from the right to import fish into the United States the Canadians make $500,000 a year, and from our right to import fish into the Dominion we do not make $500, what has that to do with this question? The reciprocity, the right of exchange, is the principle. And this is why it is that all reciprocity treaties are temporary treaties ; because the object of such treaties is regarding the general principle of free trade as beneficial to all people, to open the results of the industries of nations to each other. The men who made the treaty may have miscalculated the industries affected by it. It may occur that on account of a want of adaptation on the part of the people or ignorance of the markets, the Reciprocity Treaty does not turn out advantageous, and therefore such a treaty is only made for a short term of years. Butif it is a reciprocity treaty giving extended commercial facilities, yon have to put every one as an equivalent against another. If you put tbe Washington Treaty on that footing, then our right to use your inshore fisheries is balanced by your right to use our inshore fisheries, and the advantages are equal. That is the only way in which you can deal with the question if you view the treaty as one of reciprocity. But if you consider the treaty as an ex- change to a certain extent of properties, then I understand that you can apply another principle. For example, if I were to exchange with some one a farm in Prince Edward Island for a house in Halifax, and agreed | tosubmit to a board of arbitration the question of the difference in valae that board could meet and ascertain the market value of the land and | 1 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1569 house respectively and decide the question. But according to the theory of the British counsel, whenever we got before the board of arbitration Mr. Thomson would say: ‘ Now, this house is valuable as a house, and it is also valuable as a base of operations, for if you did not have the house and there was bad weather you would have to stay out in it; con- sequently that point has to be taken into consideration.” The reply would be, ‘‘ When I bought the house I bought it for these things.” So when we come to calculate the value of the fisheries, we expect that all these incidental advantages go along with the calculation. Mr. THOMSON. That is what we are contending. Mr. TRESCOT. I beg your pardon; that isjust what you do not do. You just make an elaborate calculation of the value of your fisheries as fishe- ries, then you add every conceivable incidental or consequential possible advantage, whether of the fisheries or our enterprise in the use of them, and add that estimate to the value. You contend that we shall pay for the house, and then pay you additionally for every use to which it is possible to put the house. Mr. THomson. Do youadmit that the value of the fisheries is enhanced by those advantages? Mr. TReEscoT. Ido not. Ido not believe that your alleged advan- tages are advantages at all. We can supply their places from our own resources as well and as cheaply. Now, with regard to the treaty itself there are only two points which I propose tc submit to the Commission. ' Tcontend in the first place that if the interpretation for which the British counsel contend is true, viz, that by the Treaty of 1818 we were excluded from certain rights, and by the Treaty of 1871 we were admitted to them, then we must find out from what we were excluded by the Treaty of 1818 and to what we were admitted by the Treaty of 1871. I contend that the language of the Treaty of 1818 is explicit. (Quotes from convention). Now, I hold that that limitation, that prohibitive permission to go into the harbors, was confined entirely to fishermen engaged in the inshore fishery. That treaty had no reference to any other fishery whatever. It was a treaty confined to inshore fishermen and inshore fisheries, and we agreed that we should be allowed to fish inshore at certain places, and if we would renounce the fishery within three miles at certain places we _ should enter the ports within those three-mile fisheries which we agreed ta renounce, for the purpose of getting wood, water, &c. The limitation _ and permission go together, and are confined simply to those engaged in the three-mile fishery. I contend that to day, under that treaty, the bankers are not referred to, and they have the right to enter any port of Newfoundland and buy bait and ice and transship their cargoes with- out reference to that treaty. I insist that it is a treaty referring to a Special class of people; that those people are not included who are ex- cluded from the three-mile limit, and if they are not so included they have the right to goto any port and purchase the articles they require. In other words, while the British Government might say that none of the inshore fishermen should enter the harbors except for wood and water, yet the bankers from Newfoundland had a perfect right to go into } | | port for any reason whatever, unless some commercial regulation be- tween the United States and Great Britain forbade them. With regard , to the construction that is to be placed upon the articles of the Treaty | of 1871, Mr. Thomson seems very much surprised at the construction | we have put upon it. Here is the arrangement. (Quotes from conveu- || tion of 1818 and Treaty of 1871.) _. Does that take away the prohibition? Surely if it had been intende l | to remove that prohibition it would have been stated. In addition to L 99 F if | 1570 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. iebt to fish on certain coasts and enter certain harbors only for ae Dea ace, that treaty says you shall have the right “to take fish of every kind, except shell fish, on the sea-coasts and shores and in the bays, barbors, and creeks of the Provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the colony of Prince Edward Island and of the several islands thereto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the shore, with permission to land upon the said coasts and shores and islands, and also upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish.” “ Drying their nets and curing their fish.” That is all; that is the whole additional treaty privilege, and I can see no power of construction in this Commission by which it can add to treaty stipulation the foreign words “and buy ice, bait, sup- plies, and transship.” And yet the British counsel admit that without these words our interpretation is indisputable. We had a certain right and certain limitations of that right by the Treaty of 1818, and the Treaty of 1871 says in addition we give you the further right to take, dry, and cure fish and nothing else. The reason is very obvious. It is very evident that when the treaty was drawn, for every advantage outside of that clause we were to be called on, according to the theory of the British counsel, to pay compensation. We never had been called on to pay for the privilege of buying bait and ice, and we had received no notice from the Colonial Government of any intention to make such claim, which was contrary to the whole policy of Great Britain and would not be sustained. Why should we have to pay for that privilege? We did not insert it in the treaty because we did not intend to pay for it; that is the reason it is not there. I leave any further reply to the learned counsel who will follow me. I am anxious as to your decision. I have not desired to conceal and I have not concealed the fact that the people and Government of the United States regard this claim of $15,000,000 as too extravagant for serious consideration. 1 know at the same time that they sincerely wish for a final settlement of this irritating controversy. And therefore I earnestly hope that you will be able to reach a decision which will limit within reasonable proportions a claim which, as it stands, it is simply idle to discuss, You start from a point we can never reach. A day or two ago, during the session, I happened to go into the Commission consulting-room and found on the table a copy of Isaak Walton’s Complete Angler, a very fit book for the literary recreation of such an occasion. On the page which was turned down I found a reference to some South Sea Islanders, I | believe, who bad such a gigantic inshore fishery that “they made | lumber of the fish-bones.” I am afraid that the British counsel have | been consulting this book as an authority. _ Mr. Dana. May it please your excellency and your honors, the ques- tion now before the tribunal is, whether you have jurisdiction to ascertain | and declare compensation because of American fishermen buying bait, ice, and supplies, and transshipping cargoes within British territory. | Your jurisdiction, as has been well said, finds its charter in the Treaty of Washington, W ithout rereading the words which have been read, wsque ad nauseam, I think I give truly the substance and meaning of — When I say that there having been mutual cessions relating to" ; sheries, and one side claiming that it has ceded more than it has re _ ceived in value, it is agreed that your honors shall determine pais | | thie, ¥ hether Great Britain has ceded more valuable rights to the United | States than the United States has ceded to Great Britain. |Your hon- | ors are not to determine or to inquire what rights Great Britain has | = a AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1571 permitted the United States to exercise independently of the treaty, however nearly they may be connected with the fisheries, and however important they may be to fishermen. It must be something which Great Britain has ceded by the Treaty of 1871, or you have nothing to do with it; whatever was done, at however great a loss to Great Britain, and however great a benefit to the United States, you have but to compare the two matters which have been ceded by each side in the Treaty of 1871, and find whether one is more valuable than another, and if so, how much more valuable. Therefore we are brought to this question: Does the Treaty of 1871 give to the United States the right to buy bait, ice, provisions, supplies for vessels, and to transship cargoes within British dominions? If the Treaty of Washington does give that to us, then it is an element for you to consider in making up your pecu- niary calculation. If the Treaty of Washington does not give that to us, then I congratulate this high tribunal that it may put these matters entirely out of mind, and save many. days of examination and cross- examination, and some perplexity of mind. Because your excellency and your honors will remember that if you are to fix a value upon them, that is, the value to the United States of the right to buy bait, ice, and provisions, and to transship cargoes, that will not be all you will have todo. You will have also to ascertain the value to the provinces of the corresponding right which they would have in the United States; and | you will have still further difficulty, I think, to ascertain what benefit this American commerce is to British subjects, and deduct that. The task before you would be a very undesirable one. Having ascer- tained the pecuniary value of these rights to the United States, your honors will have to ascertain the pecuniary value that British subjects derive from this common trade and barter, because we ought not to pay for the privilege of putting money into the hands of British subjects. We ought not to pay for the privilege of enfranchising a whole class of fishermen who have been held in practical serfdom by the merchants. It is an exceedingly difficult subject of computation, and one which, I think, you are persuaded already was never intended by the Govern- ments of the United States and Great Britain to be submitted to your honors for decision. I say, then, the Treaty of Washington has not given us these rights. To what does the Treaty of Washington relate? ithout the necessity of reading it to you, I can say that the language isin substance: Whereas, you have certain advantages given to you relating to the inshore fisheries, under the Treaty of 1818, in regard to catching fish, drying your nets, and curing your fish on certain shores, we will extend territorially these same privileges. And I have the honor to contend that the Treaty of Washington is simply a territorial extension of certain specific rights—the right to catch fish, dry nets, dry fish, and cure fish. The subject-matter of that part of the Treaty of Washington is the catching fish inshore, within the three-mile limit. Before the Treaty of Washington, this right of catching fish within three miles of Shore, and of landing to dry and cure fish and dry nets, was confined to certain regions. In other places we could not fish or land within the three-mile limit. The Treaty of Washington extends territorially these rights over all British America, and there the Treaty of Washington ends, so far as the fisheries are concerned. There is not one word in it of the creation of new rights. It is a territorial extension of long- a _ known specified rights. It does not say that whereas by the Treaty of 1818 you renounced the right to fish within the three-mile limit, provided, however, that you can go in to buy wood and get water, we add to those rights the right to buy j ' , ' { , | | } \ | a 1572 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ice, bait, and other supplies. If there had been the least intention by either party to extend the rights to new subjects it would certainly have been stated in the treaty. If, when the representatives of Great Britain and the United States had come together, the Joint High Commission had understood that we should not enter British American ports except those we were allowed to enter under the Treaty of 1818 for any purpose except for shelter, and to buy wood and water, and the British nation had proposed to add to these subjects so as to include the right to buy bait and ice and to transsbhip cargoes, why inevitably they would have said so; inevitably the new rights would have been specifically included in the matters on which your honors were to base your calculations. Sngland might have said to the United States (I deny the position, but England might have taken the position) that American fishermen have no right to enter our waters except under the Treaty of 1818, and then not to buy anything but wood and water, and now we are opening to them the great privilege of buying bait, ice, and supplies, and trans- shipping cargoes, which will add immensely to the value of their fisheries. The argument would have been made, which has been made here, in the form of questions put to expert witnesses: ‘‘ Is not all that essential to American fisheries?” But, on the contrary, the treaty says nothing about it. We hear of it for the first time when the counsel of the British Government are getting up their case for damages. We imme- diately protest against it as something not included in the jurisdiction of this court, and our Agent, Mr. Foster, on page 32 of the Answer, distinctly states— That the various incidental and reciprocal advantages of the treaty, such as the privileges of traffic, purchasing bait, and other supplies, are not the subject of com- © pensation, because the Treaty of Washington confers no such rights on the inhabit- ants of the United States, who now enjoy them merely by sufferance, and who can at any time be deprived of them by the enforcement of existing laws or the re-enactment of former oppressive statutes. Moreover, the treaty does not provide for any possible compensation for such privileges; and they are far more important and valuable to the subjects of Her Majesty than to the inhabitants of the United States. The passages which the British counsel have referred to as an argu- meut that the Agent of the United States bad admitted that those privi- leges came by treaty, all refer to something quite different. A passage - on page 9 of the Answer of the United States has been quoted : | ; “ While practically both fishing and commercial intercourse have been car- ried on in conformity with the treaty ever since it was signed, May 8, 1871. That 66 commercial intercourse” means the free importation on each | side of the articles of commerce, the only articles of commerce the treaty bar to, fish and fish-oil. On page 14, section 2 of the Answer, it Is stated : ; The incidental benetits arising from traffic with American fishermen are of vital im- portance to the inhabitants of the British maritime provinces. These are benefits which the British people get from us, and they are — said to be only incidental, and are only introduced as a set-off, if Great) Britain claimed to have the right to receive compensation for the privi- — lege of trading in bait, &e., with her people. May it please your honors, it is clear to our minds that the Treaty of Washington does not give us those advantages. That subject has been* elaborated by the Agent of the United States and by my learned friend — (M r. Trescot). In the first place it has been said in answer to that con- : tention, or rather it has been suggested, for it was not said with earnest- — ness as if the counsel for the Crown thought it was going to stand as an | argument, that those were treaty gifts to the United States, and though t AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1573 they could not be found in any treaty, yet they were necessarily implied in the Treaty of Washington. Take the Treaties of 1783, 1818, 1854, and 1871, and they are nowhere referred to according to any ordinary interpretation of language. The only argument I can perceive is this: You have enjoyed those rights. They do not belong to you by nature or by usage, and must therefore be treaty gifts; though we cannot find the language, yet they must have been conferred by the Treaty of 1871 and the Treaty of 1854. May it please this learned tribunal, we exer- cised all those rights and privileges before any treaty was made, except the old treaty which was abolished by the war of 1812. Almost the very last witness we had on the stand told your honors that before the Reciprocity Treaty was made we were buying bait in Newfoundland, and several witnesses from time to time have stated that it is a very ancient practice for us to bay bait and supplies and to trade with the people along the shore, not in merchandise as merchants, but to buy supplies of bait and pay the sellers in money or in trade as might be most convenient. Now, that is one of those natural trades that grow up in all countries; it is older than any treaty, it is older than civilized states or statutes. Fisheries have but one history. As soon as there are places peopled with inhabitants, fishermen go there. The whale- fishermen of the United States go to the various islands of the Pacific which are inhabited and get supplies. To be sure the whale fishery does not need bait, but the fishermen get supplies for their own support and to enable them to carry on the fishery, and they continue to do'so until those islands come to be inhabited by more civilized people. So it is with the Greenland fisheries. Then come restrictions, more or less, sometimes by treaty and sometimes by local statutes, which the foreign governments feel themselves obliged to respect; if they do not it be- comes a matter of diplomatic correspondence, and might be a cause of war. The history of this matter is that the custom for fishermen to obtain supplies and bait from countries at various stages of civilization is most ancient, most natural, most necessary, most humane, and one for which no compensation has ever been asked by any civilized nation, because it is supposed to be for mutual benefit. It is for the benefit of the fisher- men to get his supplies, but the islanders would not sell them unless they thought it was also beneficial to themselves. So statutes do not create the right, but only regulate it. So do treaties. They regulate and sometimes limit the rights, but they seldom if ever enlarge them. In looking at this subject your honors will find such has been the history of the fisheries on the northeast coast of America. The fishermen began, long before these islands were well settled, even before they had recognized governments upon them, to exercise all the privileges and rights which belong to fishermen in all parts of the world where they are not limited by statutes or treaties. It was a case altogether sui _ generis. Fishing is an innocent passage along the coast. It is an inno- cent use; and an innocent use and transit are always allowed. The French claimed and the British claimed the Newfoundland fisheries, and _ at last a treaty settled theirclaims. It did not give rights, but adjasted them. And so it was with us. While we were part of Great Britain, _| we had all the privileges of British subjects; but the British in New- | foundland had very few claims which were not contested, and some |) Were entirely in the hands of the French. When we were severed from ' _ the Crown, the question arose whether there was any reason why we ' Should not continue to fish where we had always fished. We did not ' Seck to make any claim in regard to property in the islands; we did not t ' EEE 1574 AWAED OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ask for any privilege not a fishing privilege. The question arose whether we had not still the right to fish as an innocent pursuit, even though within the limit of three miles; and the three-mile limit and what is meant was not then settled. We must, however, discuss this subject as if there had always been an exact law, from the times of Moses down, relating to the three-mile limit and what the powers were. All this has grown up within very recent times, and indeed there are very few per- sons now who know what is meant by it. It was long contended that the right of all States over the three miles was for fiscal purposes, and purposes of defense only, and as the subject has been very fully argued in a recent case in England, nothing can probably be added to the rea- sons given on each side. The matter continued in that position. We tished without reference, and thought we had the right to do it. We knew it did no harm. The fishermen are by the law of nations a peculiar class, having special privileges. Their status is different in time of war from that of a merchantman or man-of-war. Having this question of the three-mile limit to deal with, one which was long dis- puted between the United States and Great Britain, and one which was always looked upon as disputed, which had had a slow and steady growth for many years, and about which no one can dogmatize, they have en- deavored to arrange it as best they could. Your honors will find that in the very first treaty, that of 1783, it is stated: It is agreed that the people of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all the other Banks of Newfoundland ; also in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and at all other places in the sea — where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish. That was looked upon as dealing with existing rights, the exact lim- itations of which must rest solely in agreement. It was not a gift, as — the French gave Dunkirk to England, or as Mexico gave California to the United States. It was like an adjustment of disputed territory. | The only question settled in the first treaty, that of 1783, was that we should fish as before; nothing was said about the three-mile line. When we come to the Treaty of 1818 we find it stated: ‘‘ Whereas differ- ences have arisen,” c. By that treaty it is agreed that on certain parts of the coast we > shall have the right to take fish, that on certain parts we shall have the | right to dry and cure fish, and that at other parts we shall not have such rights. Then came the Treaty of 1854, which said nothing about any of those rights of which Iam speaking, but merely dealt with the question of our right to fish within three miles, where we could exercise it and where not, and our right to cure and dry fish and to dry nets. i: Article 18 of the Treaty of 1871 the question is taken up again in e same way. cf is agreed by the High Contracting Parties that in addition to the liberty secured - o United States fishermen by the convention between the United States and Great Britain signed at London on the 20th October, 1818, for taking, curing, and drying fish — oo certain coasts of the British North American colonies therein named, the inhabit- racing Haat nited States shall have, in common with the subjects of Her Britannic Ma- oa Pig ape os the term of ten years mentioned in Article 33 of this treaty, to , “staan ind, except shell-fish, on the sea coasts and shores, in the bays, har- ors, and crecks of the Provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and col- ony of Prince Edward Island and the sev i j i i Poe , i several islan 4 restricted to any distance from the ch ands thereunto adjacent, without being shores, and islands, and al and curing their fish. Then it is stated that whereas it is claimed that Great Britain there has given the | nited States more valuable fisheries than they had efore, there is something to be paid. Now, if the treaty did not give. ore, with permission to land upon the said coasts, ~ 9 Upon the Magdalens, for the purpose of drying their nets 4 EE Ee _ AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1575 us the right to do so, how came we to be buying bait? Why, we have always done it. From the time there was a man there with bait to sell, there was an American to buy it from him. We have never asked for the right to buy bait. You cannot find a diplomatic letter anywhere in which we have complained that we were prohibited from buying bait. After the Treaty of 1854 had expired, it is true, the Canadians, who felt sore about the matter, undertook to say we should not buy any bait ; that if we did, we would be punished therefor. They were immediately stopped by Great Britain, who, without saying in terms that the Amer- icans had a right to buy bait by the Treaty of 1817 or irrespective of all treaties, declared it to be against the policy of the nation to prohibit it; and they stopped this petty persecution of American fishermen. I care not what line of reasoning induced the British Government to take that course with their Canadian subjects. I do not care whether they considered that the Treaty of 1818 gave ié to us (I do not see how they ould), or whether, as is more probable, they, being large-minded men, who had studied the subject, considered it something which, not being prohibited, belonged to us, and they did not intend to prohibit it. Now, who are the men who buy the fish for bait? They are not the men who fish within the three-mile limitation. We do not buy bait here to catch mackerel. The bait we buy is for the Banks and deep-sea cod fishery. There is no pretense from any evidence that our mackerel fishermen come here to buy bait; it is only the Bank cod-fishermen who doso. I respectfully submit to this learned tribunal that it can have nothing to do with how the fishermen on the Banks see fit to employ themselves. The Treaties of 1818, 1854, and 1871 related solely to fishing within the three miles. The Treaty of 1783 recognizes the right of Ameri- can fishermen to fish on the Banks, on the high seas, a right which had always belonged to American fishermen, never ceded to them by any treaty, but which they hold by the right of common humanity. These men come into Canadian ports to buy bait. What has this tribunal to do with them ? Have not American fishermen fishing on the high seas the right to run into British ports by comity, by the universal law of nations, if they are not specially excluded on some ground which the United States admits ‘to be proper and right? Have they not the right to come in and buy bait and other necessaries? Great Britain possesses the power to put any regulation on them it pleases, to require them to enter at the cus- tom-house, to be searched to see whether they are merchants in disguise, and to levy duties upon them; but in the absence of a prohibition, there is no right to prevent those fishermen buying bait or supplies. I next come to the question of shelter, repairs, purchasing ice and other articles, and transshipping cargoes. I do not propose to admit that we have not these rights, or that we are exercising them simply because we are not punished for doing so, or that because the Treaties of 1818 or 1871 have not given them to us, we do not possess them, and that it is within the power of the provinces to exclude us from them altogether. That depends upon considerations which are not necessary for us to take in view. If your honors should decide that you have no right to recognize, among the elements of compensation, those rights of which I speak; thenif the colonies should pass a law which should pun- ish every American fisherman from the Grand Banks or inshore fisher- ies who should buy bait or ice or refit is guilty of an offense, it would then be a question for Her Majesty’s governor-general to determine whether that was not an imperial question, and, if so, to refer it to Her Majesty in council to determine. I have no fear that any such statute a 1576 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ° would be passed, because the number of persons interested in that traf- fie with American fishermen is very great, and they are voters; they bare even in Newfoundland broken their chains and become a sober and saving people since they came to have cash of their own, from their trading with Americans. f I doubt whether the Canadian Government will be encouraged, how- ever strong may be the wave of politics, to meet the people of the various constituencies and insist on this American traffic being entirely cut off. If they do it, I doubt whetber Great Britain would sanction it, and if Great Britain did allow it, then it becomes at once a question between the two governments. Is that a course fair and right, in ac- cordance with the comity of nations, in accordance with practices which are earlier than when the first Disciples threw their nets into the sea of Galilee—is not such a course an interference with a right practiced from earliest times, and without good reason for the prohibition? You may put regulations on us so that our fishermen shall not be smugglers in disguise, and so that merchants shall not come in the disguise of fisher- men; but to prohibit American fishermen from purchasing bait and supplies, not in case of necessity merely, but as part of the plan of their trade, and transshipping cargoes, would be a violation of the spirit which has governed the commercial relations between the two empires. I would therefore present a summary of the matter thus: The only matter of dispute between Great Britain and the United States in the Treaty of 1783 related to the inshore fisheries, I mean the right to catch fish more or less near the British coast, and in addition to that to cure and dry fish. The Treaty of 1783 acknowledged the general right. The Treaty of 1818 gave us certain places, which were named, where we could exercise those fishing rights, and stated certain places where we could not exercise them; but it did not undertake to deal with the commercial side of the fisheries question. The Treaty of 1854 was the same; it gave a general right to fish within these Dominions, and to land and dry them in certain places. The only question of late has been whether Great Britain has the right, without any treaty, to exclude us from three miles of the coast. That was Mr. Adams’s famous argument with Earl Bathurst. We said in the Treaty of 1818 that, as a right, we no longer claimed it. That is the meaning of the treaty—that having claimed it as a right inherent in us, either because we did not lose it at the time of the tevolution, or from the nature of fisheries, or on some other ground, we no longer claimed it asa right which cannot be taken away from us but at the point of the bayonet. But while we say we will not go within the three miles to fish witbout permission, it must not be held that vessels cannot go there for shelter and repairs and for wood and water, but may be put under such regulations as will prevent us _— a from doing anything further. It is entirely a matter for Great Britain _ to determine what regulations we should be placed under, in those re- spects, and she has seen fit tomake none. The Statute 59, George IIL, passed to carry out the Treaty of 1818, prohibited fishing or preparing to fish in certain boundaries. A decision has been rendered in one province that buying bait was “ preparing” to fish. In another province other a decision was rendered directly the Way. 4 _ That, however, is a local matter altogether. The decision rendered in New Brunswick was that the prohibition of ‘ preparing to fish” must apply only to those who intended to fish within the prohibited degree; that the buying of bait, whether it w i j ; ) . as a step in preparing to fishor — not, was not an offense unless the fishing iteelf would i an ‘ofteliags | ey American bought bait here to go off to Greenland or to the Mediter- - ranean to fish, it could not be considered an offense. Great Britain cal- | ; ] . 3 4 | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1577 not make a statute which would alter our rights under this treaty nor revive an old statute to do so. The learned judge was careful to say that he did not mean to apply his decision one step beyond the point of taking bait for the purpose of fishing within prescribed limits. Sir ALEXANDER GALT. I desire to ask the learned counsel (Mr. Dana) if I understood him to say that no seizure or confiscation of American fishing-vessels took place before 1854. I think there were confiscations, and I should like to know whether those confiscations were confined to vessels catching fish and that alone, within the three-mile limit. Mr. DANA. So far as I am concerned, I assume that there has been no condemnation for ‘“‘ buying bait.” Sir ALEXANDER GALT. I do not refer especially to the purchase of bait, but to anything except catching fish. Mr. THomson. There have been several convictions for catching bait. Mr. Foster. I never had my attention called to any conviction or attempted conviction, except for fishing inside, the case of the Nicker- son, before Sir William Young, at Halifax, in 1870, and still later the decision in New Brunswick in the case of the White Fawn. The first was the only case I have heard of in which there was a con- viction for “ preparing to fish.” Sir ALEXANDER GALT. I do not specially refer to “ preparing to fish,” because there are other offenses created by the statute. Mr. Fosrer. I have here a list of vessels seized up to 14th December, 1870, and the following are entered as their offenses: “Actively fishing; the men on board in the act of hauling in their lines.” ‘At an- chor preparing to fish, and a quantity of fresh-caught herring in the hold; taken on the spot, having been previously warned off.” “Smuggling.” ‘Fishing seven days in Gaspé Harbor, and preparing to fish at time of seizure.” “At anchor; lines set, on which were six halibut.” “ Throwing out bait, and crew casting their fishing-lines.” “Smuggling.” “Having fished in the cove, and actually found with mackerel wet » and dripping, and hooks baited with fresh bait; also fresh-fish blood and mackerel offals / ondeck.” “Smuggling.” “ Having fished at Three Islands, Grand Manan.” ‘ Prepar- ing to fish at Head Harbor, Campo Bello.” The last was the case in regard to preparing to fish, and where the learned judge discharged the vessel in opposition to the decision of Sir William Young in the case of the Nickerson. _Mr. THomsoN. In the case of the White Fawn, decided at St. John, the decision, as 1 understand it, is not in conflict with that of Sir Will- iam Young. Sir William Young condemned the Nickerson because it was fishing, or preparing to fish, within the prestribed limits. In the St. John case the libel was framed expressly for buying bait within the harbor, with the intention of fishing. It was shown that the fisherman had purchased bait, but evidence that he went in there with the inten- tion of fishing was wanting. Mr. THomson. The question is whether there has ever been a convic- tion of an American vessel for taking bait. I call your attention to the fact that the Java, Independence, Magnolia, and Hart were convicted in 1839 of being within the prescribed limits and cleaning fish on deck. In 1840 the Papineau, Alms, and Mary were seized and sold for pur- chasing bait on shore. : il TRESCOT. The judgment went by default. There was no defense made. : THURSDAY, Septemler 6. The Conference met. Argument resumed. : Mr. Dana. Mr. Foster will state the results of inquiries made respect- ing the condemnation of American vessels. _—— j 1578 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Mr. Foster. The substance of the facts, as we understand them, will be found in a dispatch from Judge Jackson to Hon. Bancroft Davis, dated March 11, 1871, which is as follows: Unitep STaTES CONSULATE AT HALtrax, Nova Scotia, March 11, 1871. Sun: I have the honor to inform you that, after examination and inquiry, I have not been able to find a single adjudicated case in this province which can be cited as le anthority, arising under the Treaty of 1818, which declares the right, either under the treaty or the statutes enacted Aah entero to confiscate American fishing-ves- s for purchasing supplies in colonial ports. “T he scuba meats in a pamphlet (page 12) published at Ottawa, under the direc- tion of the Canadian minister of marine and fisheries, entitled “A Raview of President Grant's Message,” as having been seized for a violation of the fishery laws, namely, the schooners Java, Independence, Magnolia, and Hart in 1339, and schooners Papineau and Mary in 1340, were condemned by the vice-admiralty court in default of the appear- ance of defendants upon ex-parte affidavits. as : : From the small sums for which the vessels sold, it is not improbable that they were bought in for the benefit of the owners. Although it is stated in the affidavits on the files of the court that the masters of some of the vessels had purchased bait, yet it is specially noticeable that the charge made against the schooners Java, Independence, Magnolia, and Hart by the seizing-officer, Capt. J. W. E. Darby, as the ground of such seizure, was in the following language: “The deponent saith that he believes that the sole object of the masters of the said vessels was to procure fish, and that they were, at the time of their seizure, preparing to fish.” In the case of the schooners Papineau and Mary, seized in June, 1840, for a violation of the fishery laws, the same seizing-officer set forth in his affidavit, as the grounds of | the seizure of these vessels, that the ‘‘deponent verily believed that the said vessels were frequenting the coast of this province for the purpose of fishing there and for no other purpose whatever.” The seizure and condemnation of these several vessels—four in 1839 and two in 1540—cited in the pamphlet referred to, in support of the unusual and extreme meas- ures of last summer, in relation to American fishing-vessels, afford, as will be seen from the facts here stated, no legal justification for such measures, and cannot be re- garded in any respect authoritative adjudications upon the points in controversy between the United States and Great Britain respecting the fisheries. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, M. M. JACKSON, United States Consul. Hon. J. C. Bancrorr Davis, Assistant Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Referring to the paper which was put in by the British counsel, on | page 12 of document No. 31, there is a memorandum of all the vessels seized and condemned by the vice-admiralty court of Prince Edward Island, and it is stated at the end of each case: “I cannot find from any papers in this case, at present in the registry of this court, that — this vessel was ever interfered with by government officers for trans- shipping fish or purchasing supplies.” As to the New Brunswick cases, of which there is a statement at the top of page 10, document 21, Iam _ not able to ascertain because we have not access to the papers. There were not many cases in New Brunswick; seven between 1822 and 1852. There is also at the foot of page 6, document No. 15, a record of the cases condemned at Halifax. Mr. J. 8S. D. Thompson has made a mem- orandum of each of those cases, and there is no case where a vessel | was forfeited for buying bait or other supplies, or for transshipping cargo. The statement of 59 George IIL is the same in substance with the colonial statute. By that statute vessels are libeled and forfeited in the ad miralty court for no other offense than that of being found fishing, * or having fish on board, or preparing to fish. The fourth article im- poses a penalty of £200, recoverable by action at common law, on & fisherman refusing to depart from the territorial waters when warned | by the party authorized to do so. Among the Halifax cases it will ap- | pear that some are marked as restored, and two others at least were | Hs a | | | | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1579 restored upon payment of the expenses, namely, the Shetland and Eliza. | The Washington was paid for; and in no instance, as I am informed, was there a condemnation for.anything except fishing or preparing to fish; and acts indicative of preparing to fish are always shown to be | some acts of immediate preparation, like having bait ready on board. | Then we come in 1871 to Sir William Young’s decision, where he for- feited a vessel for buying bait, holding that buying bait was a prepar- ation to fish. That was the case of the Nickerson. The vessel was seized in 1871, and forfeited the following year. About the same time a similar case was tried in New Brunswick by Judge Hazen, who held the reverse of Sir William Young’s decision. Judge Hazen held that _ the purchase of bait, unless it was proved to have been purchased to use in illegal fishing, was not a preparation to fish illegally, and that a _ vessel that came into Halifax or St. John to buy bait to fish on the _ Banks of Newfoundland, was not violating any treaty. It was always | felt by the United States that the distinguished judge, Sir William _ Young, had overlooked the fact that in the case before him the vessel _ that bought the bait did not buy it to fish for mackerel in territorial waters, but on the coast of Newfoundland. There is that one authority for holding that it was contrary to law to come in here for cod and buy bait for outside fishing, and, so far as I am aware, there are only | these two cases on the question, and opinions are equally balanced. | Mr. THomson. In the case of the White Fawn, tried by Judge | Hazen, the vessel was libeled for taking bait in our waters, with the intention of fishing there. She was not charged with the offense against the treaty of purchasing bait within three miles of the shore, but she was distinctly charged with obtaining bait with the view of fishing there, and Judge Hazen held—and I apprehend properly held, for he is an able lawyer and sound judge—that the evidence did not support the allegation. The evidence probably showed that the intention was to take the vessel and fish on the Banks of Newfoundland, where it had no doubt a right to fish, and therefore the case failed, because while the offense was complete, the allegation did not support it. Mr. FosTER asked for further explanations. Mr. THomson. What I say is this: that while this was a distinct offense under the treaty, and while the statute expressly covered that offense, and while a vessel could be libeled and condemned for buying bait on our shores, yet the framer of the libel had been pleased to frame it not simply for the offense of buying bait, which he might have done and had the vessel. condemned, but for buying bait with the intention to fish in these waters, and he failed to prove the latter allegation. Mr. Foster. Our answer to that contention would be that there is no statute. There is a ‘statute to cover the cases of vessels fishing and preparing to fish : ‘IL. And be it further enacted, That from and after the passing of this act it shall not be lawful for any person or persons, not being a natural-born subject of His Majesty, in any foreign ship, vessel, or boat, nor for any person in any sbip, vessel, or boat, other than such as shall be navigated according to the laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to fish for, or to take, dry, or cure any fish of any kind _| whatever, within three marine miles of any coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors whatever, 1 inany part of His Majesty’s Dominions in America, not included within the limits || specified and described in the first article of said convention, and hereinbefore recited ; _| and thatif any such foreign ship, vessel, or boat,or any persons on board thereof, shall || be found fishing, or to have been fishing, or preparing to fish within such distance of _| Such coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors, within such parts of His Majesty’s Dominions in || America out of the said limits as aforesaid, all such ships, vessels, and boats, together , With their cargoes, and all guns, ammunition, tackle, apparel, furniture, and stores, || shall be forfeited. : ae ; ; : a a ‘ ) 1580 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. To come within the statute the fisherman must either be fishing or preparing to fish within three miles of the coast. ; ; Mr. THomson. It is a question of construction. It is preparing to fish or fishing within these waters. The preparing to fish is a complete offense in itself, and it is by no means necessary to fish in these waters. Mr. Foster. The expression is “ within that distance.” You think the “ preparing to fish” is preparing to fish within the limits, or any- where. : Sir ALEXANDER GALT. The reason I made the inquiry was with re- gard to the argument of the learned counsel (Mr. Dana), who was hold- ing, as I understood him, that no interference had been made upon these fishing-grounds with American fishermen. It was because I was under the impression that the official correspondence would show that | vessels bad been seized and condemned that I made the inquiry. Mr. DANA. After the long time given me yesterday I feel I ought to do no more than to give a summary of the points upon which I suppose | this question will be determined. In the first place, then, this tribunal, in computing compensation, can only take into consideration the value | of what is accorded to the United States by the Treaty of 1871, and by | the eighteenth section of that treaty. Then the tribunal shall take into © consideration the value of what is accorded to Great Britain by the | nineteenth and twenty-first sections, debiting the United States with | the value of what she gains under the eighteenth section, and crediting — the United States with what she accords under the nineteenth and | twenty-first sections. The court will perceive how very close and fine | this arrangement was made. | This tribunal is not to ascertain what the United States possessed by treaty or otherwise in 1870, and charge us for what we have gained in | addition thereto, by whatever means, or to draw general inferences © from the whole treaty, what we may have got and Great Britain may | have given, but your honors are to assess the value of specific liberties and rights accorded by the eighteenth section and charge them to the United States, and assess the pecuniary value of certain specific rights and privileges accorded in the nineteenth and twenty-first sections, and credit us with them. Moreover, it must be something accorded to us in addition to what | we had under the Treaty of 1818. Under that treaty the United States — had the right to fish, and to land and dry nets, on certain portions of © the coast of Newfoundland; on the shores of the Magdalen Islands; _ on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks in certain parts of Labrador; | and to land and cure fish in any of the bays, &c., in Newfoundland and Labrador. The treaty of 1871 simply gives a territorial extension to | hose rights. It adds no new rights either in terms or by implication. No doubt this tribunal will be exceedingly careful not to assess com- — pensation for any right or privilege which is not clearly so given, and — which, after compensation has been assessed may be matter of dispute — between the two countries. ‘ i If there has been a want of clearness as to what has been conceded | to Great Britain or conceded to us, neither side can expect to obtain — ae penton lor matters left in doubt. No treaty ever made between | esi pe eee and Great Britain on the subject of the fisheries has * Treaty of aia Shien of any thing by the fishermen, except it be the — % “oe, Which says American fishermen shall have the right to purchase wood and procure water. I Suppose the reason why the clause — a inserted in that form was to show it was not intended that we should | save the right to cut wood. If your honors will examine the treaties | { 4 ‘ | a > ae | —_ SS — LS —s—“‘—O SES rans = = = AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1581 from that of 1783 to that of 1871, you will find they never had for their scope or purpose any provisions regarding trading or purchasing, but related solely to the right to fish, and to use the shores for the purpose of drying and curing. In framing the Treaty of 1871 care was taken to name the rights. It gave the right to fish. What kind of fish? Not shell-fish, nor salmon, nor river fish. Care is taken also to describe for what purpose American fishermen may land. It is to dry nets, cure and dry fish. There is no reference to purchasing anything except in the Treaty of 1818, in regard to purchasing wood, and that subject has been intentionally left out of all treaties, or it would be more accurate to say that to include such matters in a treaty was never considered as apposite. The Treaty of 1871, as I have said, grants a territorial extension of speci- fied, long-existing rights, and the only question in dispute between the United States and Great Britain has always been as to the territorial extent of the right of fishing. The question arose, can we fish on the Grand Banks? England said “No,” but she gave up that contention in 1783. Then England said that American fishermen could not fish within three miles of its coasts from a line drawn from headland to headland. Dispute arose again as to the correctness of that territorial designation, but the subject-matter was the drawing of fish from the sea. At last it became settled that we should not fish within the three miles unless with the consent of Great Britain expressed through a treaty or otherwise. Then occurred the question as to what constitutes three miles—three miles from what? Always the dispute was as to the territorial extent of a specified right, the right to fish, and all the treaties were made for that purpose. In- cidentally there was always brought in the question of places, not being private property, where the fishermen could land for the purpose of dry- ing nets and curing and drying fish. These were the subject-matters of every treaty, the occasion of every dispute, and these were all that - were settled by the Treaty of Washington. Great Britain gave to the United States an extended territoriality, up to the very banks, up to high-water mark everywhere; and the United States gave the same ex- tended territoriality to Great Britain, to fish in the United States north- ward of 39th parallel. Then there were certain extensions of territory for the curing and drying of fish. By Article 21 the United States gives to Great Britain, and she accords to us, the right of free trade, recipro- city, in fish and fish-oil. That is purely a commercial clause. It might have been made a treaty by itself. It has no connection with fishing or the curing and drying of fish. When your honors come to estimate the pecuniary valuation of the concessions on each side, we contend that the pecuniary value of that concession made by the United States to | Great Britain, which is purely fiscal, is very great. It is conceded by the British counsel, 1 believe, that those rights of which I speak were not given in the terms of the Treaty of Washing- ton, and cannot be found there. The only argument on the side of the Crown—and I think I state it fairly and with its full foree—is this: _ “You have those rights now; you did not have them before the treaty ; therefore you must have got them by the treaty. You did not have them until 1854, and you possessed them from 1854 to 1866 under the Reciprocity Treaty. You did not have them during the interval. They | Were revived in 1871, and you have had them since. Their history Shows they must have come by treaty.” Instead of the word “ have,” 1 would substitute the word “exercise,” and say we exercised those Fights. We exercised them long before that period. Evidence has ee i A ER 1582 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. been adduced before the Commission which has shown that those rights were exercised by the United States entirely irrespective of treaties, Before the Treaty of 1854, when we had nothing but the Treaty of 1818 to stand upon, which, as a treaty, certainly did not give us any of those rights, we exercised them. We exercised them also irrespective of and never by virtue of the Treaty of 1854. We exercised them in the interval between 1866 and 1871, as we are exercising them now. The court will not be able to find any connection between the treaties and the exercise of those rights. They have never been exercised the more or the less by reason of any treaties. It is not incumbent upon us to show why we are in the exercise of those rights. It is rather a speculative inquiry on the part of the British counsel as to where we got them, or whether we have them at all. Suppose I were to coneede that we had no right to buy bait or ice or supplies, or transship cargoes anywhere on these coasts, certainly that ends the argument, because we cannot be called upon to pay for something which we have not got. If the proper construction of the Treaty of 1818 is that fishermen have no right as fishermen and by the general law, irrespective of the consent — of the Crown, to buy bait, ice, and supplies, and transship cargoes in British dominions, then I coneede that, as regards American fishermen fishing within the three-mile limit, we have not those rights. Why are — we, then, in the exercise of them? In that case, by the concession of | the Crown. There is, however, no statute against fishermen buying bait, obtaining supplies, bartering or transshipping fish, if they comply | with the fiscal regulations of the government regarding all trade and commerce. If a fisherman has violated no statute or rule respeeting trade, commerce, and navigation in this realm, there is no statute which can condemn him, because he is a fisherman, for having bought bait — and supplies and transshipped cargoes. So long as there is no statute prohibiting it, our fishermen have gone on exercising that privilege, not — believing they were excluded from it by the Treaty of 1818, whether they were correct or not. It is in that view only that the facts regard- ing seizures are of any importance; but yet we may make our answer at once and say, whether we have the right to do those things or not, we do not pretend that it was given to us by the Treaty of 1871. Your | honors will not be able to find it included under Article 18 of that — treaty. But it is ever satisfactory to be able to account for all the sur- rounding circumstances of any question. It seems there was a stat- ute passed in 1819, 59 George III, generally against foreign vessels Which shall be found fishing, or be found having fished, or be found preparing to fish within the prescribed limits. The statute reaches be-— fore and after the act. It is not necessary that fishermen should be taken in the act of fishing. That would be a statute very difficult to interpret and very easy to evade, which required that fishermen should be taken in the act of fishing. So the statute says, if a foreign fisher- — man is found having fished, or in the act of fishing, or preparing for — the act of fishing within the prescribed waters, he is to be treated as_ an offender. We see no objection to that statute. The preparing to- fish is a step in the process of fishing, | _ But the true construction of that statute is of very little importance. Yet certainly it must be meant that the act prepared for must have been * illegal, for it cannot be supposed for one moment that Great Britain in- — tended to say that no forei gn vessels, French or American, should come — into the provinces and buy bait for the purpose of fishing off the Grand | Banks or the coast of Greenland. If this provinee got a reputation for. baving some bait which certain kinds of fish off Greenland swallow with | | 7 : AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1583 eagerness, and a Danish vessel should come here and buy it in the mar- ket, complying with all the regulations of the market and fiscal laws, and then set sail for Greenland, surely that vessel could not be seized and condemned. Ihave put the argument of the counsel for the Crown as strongasI could putit; they say you exercise that right now and you did not exercise it be- fore. Our answer is simply that we have always exercised it, and that we have done it irrespective of the Treaty of 1854 or of the Treaty of 1878. We have never been interfered with in exercising it. There is no case of condemnation of a vessel for exercising that right; and if there had been a good many, it would have made no difference to your honors, because the judgments would have been simply the provincial interpre- tation of the treaty given ex parte, and it is certain that no act of Great Britain has ever sanctioned the position that the United States had not this right, irrespective of treaties. Then, as has been suggested by my colleagues—and I follow the suggestion merely—the whole correspond- ence between the governor-general and the head of the colonial office, _ and between the United States Government and the British Government, _ shows that Great Britain never intended that American fishermen should be excluded from the use of those liberties or rights, whatever be our claim to them, or whether we had them as of right or not. These privi- leges are those which fishermen have always exercised, and it has only | been as population has increased and fiscal laws have become important and the inhabitants have become more apprehensive in regard to vessels hovering about the coast, that nations have enacted laws restricting persons in the exercise of those rights. The learned counsel in support of his argument cited Phillimore, I, page 224, Kent’s Commentaries, vol. 1, pages 32 to 36; and Wheaton’s Int. Law (Dana’s ed.), sections 167, 169, and 170. | I have read these passages, Mr. Dana continued, not that they dis- tinctly assert, or, indeed, that they take up the very question I am pre- senting before this tribunal, but they show the general principles upon ‘which the great writers on international law—the governments them- selves and the people—have acted with regard to fishermen and their | rights, especially of supplying their wants from time to time in the ports and harbors of all countries. These rights have been recognized as in- cidental to the nature of man and the nature of the earth he occupies. However boastful we may be of ourselves, we are such feeble creatures that we cannot subsist many hours without food, shelter, and clothing, _| and fishermen and sailors must get these where they can. Laws respect- _| lng pure commerce, that is, the right to go with a cargo to sell and turn '|itinto the great body of the property of the country, rest on other ||grounds; but the right to exercise the industry by which men live, as || fishermen do by fishing, should be extended as far as possible, and origi- nally had no limit. It passed within the category of those imperfect rights, such as innocent transit and innocent use of waters. These | i _|rights have been exercised for the reasons there assigned, which are ‘deeper as well as older than all treaties, conventions, and statutes. As the treaties stand, fishing is an innocent use of all the waters of _|the Dominion. Great Britain has never prohibited the exercise of those 'rights. She may find it expedient to do so, or the policy of the Domin- _ lon or perhaps some excited political feeling or hostility against the | United States for some wrong, real or supposed, may lead it to do so; _ but it has never been done, and that is the reason why we have always ‘been in the exercise of those rights. When the provincial government | i _— nim —0 1584 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . k to exclude us from those privileges, they were taken to ac- haart ae once, and their action was stopped by the British Government. We are now brought to the last question, and that is, did we renounce those rights, the nght to purchase bait, ice, supplies, and to transship, by clauses in the Treaty of 1818? For the purpose of this argument, I am perfectly indifferent which way your honors shall construe these clauses. The Government of the United States does not interpret them as a renunciation of these rights. I do not believe, I cannot believe, that the treaty had any such reference. But itis certain that nothing therein refers to the purchasing of cargoes of frozen herring, which has been often referred to before the Commission. That is a purely mercan- tile enterprise. A Boston vessel comes to this coast with a manifest, and equipped in every respect as a trader, though a fisherman at all other times, and after satisfying the custom-house authorities, she pur- | chases a cargo of frozen herring, and proceeds with them to the Boston market. That is a commercial enterprise; it is not anything that is re- nounced by fishermen, as such, in the exercise of his rights to fish. Suppose a merchant at Newfoundland should take a fishing vessel not employed at that time, and load her with frozen herring, and send her > to Boston, where, after she had been entered at the custom-house, and | satisfied all the fiscal regulations, her cargo would be sold. Would any | one pretend that her right to do that was derived from the treaty giving | aright to fish within three miles of the American coast, and land and | dry their nets? Certainly not. Therefore we may cut off at once all | reference to that. If your honors shall say that by the Treaty of 1818 | the United States did not renounce those rights, and did not notice them | one way or another, thatis sufficient for us. If your honors shall decide | that so far as fishing within three miles is concerned, the United States | renounced the right to purchase anything except wood, then we submit | that the right of purchasing anything else has not been granted to us | by the Treaty of 1871, and therefore we cannot be called upon to make | any compensation. We are satisfied that the United States are permitted by the British | Government to do those acts, whether it be from comity, from regard | to the necessities of fishermen, from policy, or from some other reason, I know not, and so long as we are not disturbed we are content. If we. are disturbed, the question will then arise, not before this tribunal, but | between the two nations, whether we are properly disturbed by Great. Britain; and if we should come to the conclusion on both sides, that | there being a dispute on that subject which should be properly settled, then it is to be hoped that the governments will find no difficulty in| settling it; but this tribunal will discharge its entire duty when it de- | clares that under Article 18 of the Washington Treaty no such rights _ or privileges are conceded to the United States. Mr. Tuomson. I do not propose to answer Mr. Dana’s argument at. present, but I will call the attention of the Commission to the fact that | it Was an original argument and nota reply. In view of the fact that, there are a number of witnesses waiting to be examined, and the. short time the Commission has to sit before it takes an adjournment, 1 do not propose now to offer any observations in reply to the learned | counsel, but no doubt before the case is through, previous to that time,, I will take occasion to answer the arguments. Mr. DANA said the announcement of the learned counsel seemed as if | he assumed the right to make an indefinite adjournment of the hearing, — and at some future day to reply to the arguments. | Mr. THOMSON said he did not desire to interfere with an immediate) ; 7 | i AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1585 decision, and his remarks were made simply that Mr. Dana’s argument might not be considered as having been passed on the part of the coun- el for the Cro wn sub silentio. Mr. Foster asked for an early decision on the motion. The Commission retired to deliberate, and on their return the Presi- dent read the following decision : The Commission having considered the motion submitted by the Agent of the United States at the conference held on the 1st instant, decided— That it is not within the competence of this tribunal to award compensation for commercial intercourse between the two countries, nor for the purchasing bait, ice, supplies, &c., &c., nor for the permission to transship cargoes in British waters. Sir ALEXANDER T. GALT. Mr. President, as this Commission has been unanimous on this question, I desire, with the permission of my colleagues, bat without committing them to the same line of argument which has con- vinced myself, to state the grounds upon which I feel it my duty to acqui- esce in the decision. I listened with very great pleasure to the extremely able arguments made on both sides, and I find that the effect of the mo- tion, and of the argument which has been given upon it, is to limit the power of this tribunal to certain specified points. This definition is un- doubtedly important in its consequences. It eliminates from the consid- eration of the Commission an important part of the case submitted on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government; and this is undoubtedly the case so far as this part forms a direct claim for compensation; but, at the same time, it has the further important effect that it defines and limits the rights conceded to the citizens of the United States under the Treaty of Washington. Now, I have not been insensible to the importance of ' the considerations that have been addressed to us by the counsel for the ' Crown in reference to the inconvenience that may arise from the decis- ion at which this tribunal has arrived. I can foresee that, under certain circumstances, those inconveniences may become exceedingly great, but | Leannot resist the position taken by the counsel of the United States in , stating that, if such inconveniences arise, they are matters which prop- | erly fall within the control and judgment of the two governments, and not within that of this Commission. On the other hand, I cannot fail to see that, while this is admitted, a remote and contingent inconvenience, avery important difficulty, and one of a very serious character, would | arise if from any cause this Commission were to exceed the powers which are given to the Commissioners under the Treaty of Washington. The difficulty would at once arise that any award whatever which it made, be it good or bad, be it favorable to the one party or to the other, would have been vitiated by our having acted ultra vires. Ido not find, either, that there would be any ready escape from such a position. The | treaty affords no machinery by which this question in regard to the fish- eries can be adjudicated upon if this Commission should, from any unfor- tunate cause, be allowed to lapse; therefore, with regard to the two ‘inconveniences in question, the one which strikes at the root of the whole treaty’ is that which ought to weigh with me, if I were placed in such a || position as to be obliged to weigh such inconveniences; but, as I shall | |State before I conclude, there are other and stronger considerations pres- ‘ent tomy mind. I have in common with my colleagues entered into a ‘solemn obligation to decide judicially upon all questions coming before | this tribunal, and I feel it incumbent upon me, therefore, to give every | possible weight, every due weight, to whatever may be said on either ‘Side, and I certainly have hitherto endeavored to do so, and I have done | /80in thiscase. I shall endeavor to pursue the same course, acting under 100 F SES t t the same considerations, in the future. At the same time, I confess to a great feeling of disappointment that such an important part of the question connected with the settlement of the fisheries dispute should upparently be removed, or partly removed, from the possible considera- tion and adjudication of this tribunal, and Iam bound to say that my ) conviction of the intention of the parties to the Treaty of Washington is that this was not their purpose at the time. I bave listened with very great attention to the arguments presented on bebalf of the United States, but I do not think that they have cor- rectly stated the position of the two parties at the time when the Treaty of Wasbington was entered into. The history of this case begins, as has been stated by counsel, as far back as 1783, but by common consent the Convention of 1818 is the treaty by which the fishery rights of the | | two countries have subsisted. Under the Convention of 1818 certain — i things were forbidden to the United States fishermen, and the United f States renounced the right to do anything except what they were per-— mitted to do by the words of that treaty. They renounced forever any 1586 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ; liberty of taking, drying, or curing fish, ete., “‘ provided that the American ' fishermen shall be permitted to enter the said bays or harbors for the pur- / pose of shelter, and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood and | : obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever.” By the imperial | : Act 59, George the Third, Chapter 38, and by several colonial statutes, | restrictions and definitions were imposed or were established with re- gard to offenses arising from infringements of those privileges eonferred | upon American citizens, though it has not been shown that the seizures which took place prior to 1854 were for trading or for obtaining supplies, | : or for any other benefit referred to in the motion, still it is undoubted that arising out of this legislation great irritation arose between the two. countries, and this resulted in the adoption of what is known as the— Reciprocity Treaty in 1854. That the Reciprocity Treaty was under. stood to have removed all those restrictions is unquestionably shown to. be the case, to my mind, by the action taken by Great Britain and the_ colonies when the treaty came into force. | Immediately afterward, all statutes which had operated against the American fishermen were suspended, and the greatest possible freedom | of intercourse existed during the continuation of that treaty. At the ter- | mnination of the Reciprocity Treaty, and in support of the view that it was supposed to have given those privileges, we tind the whole of these en- | actnents revived, and we also find that subsequently more stringent, statutes were passed by the Dominion of Canada in this relation. Now,. it is important in the history of this case to consider what effect was) produced by those statutes; and we find ina most important public document, that is the annual message of President Grant to Congress, | in 1570, that this legislation on the part of the colonies was made the subject of the gravest possible complaint. The President states that: _ Phe course pursned by the Canadian authorities toward the fishermen of the United) States during the last season has not been marked by a friendly feeling. By the first) article of the Convention of 1418, between Great Britain and the United States, it! was agreed that the inhabitants of the United States should have forever, in common with British subjects, the right of taking fish in certain waters therein defined. In the! Waters pot included in the limits named in the convention, within three miles of parts, of the British coast, it has been the custom for twenty weurs to give to intrnding fish- ermen of the United States a reasonable warning of their violation of the technical — rights of Great Britain. The Imperial Government is understood to have dele the whole or a share of its jurisdic.ion or control of these inshore a nave donee ~ colonial authority, known as the Dominion of Canada, and this semi-independent sat irrespousible agent has exercised its delegated powers in an unfriendly way—ves- sels have been seized without notice or warning, in violation of the custom previous! | s . —s AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1587 prevailing, and have been taken into the colonial ports, their voyages broken up, and the vessels condemned. There is reason to believe that this unfriendly and vexatious treatment was designed to bear harshly upon the hardy fishermen of the United States, with a view to political effect upon the government. That is not all. The President went further, and made a second com. plaint in this language: . The statutes of the Dominion of Canada assume.a still broader and more untenable jurisdiction over the vessels of the United States; they authorize officers or persons to ring vessels hovering within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of Canada into port, to search the cargo, to examine the master on oath touch- ing the cargo and voyage, and to inflict upon him a heavy pecuniary penalty if true answers are not given, and if such a vessel is found preparing to fish within three ma- rine miles of any of such coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors, without a license, or after the expiration of the period named in the last license granted to it, they provide that the vessel with her tackle, &c., shall be forfeited. It is not known that any condem- nations have been made under this statute. Should the authorities of Canada attempt to enforce it it will become my duty to take such steps as may be necessary to protect the rights of the citizens of the United States. . The President further goes on to say: It has been claimed by Her Majesty’s officials that the fishing-vessels of the United States have no right to enter the open ports of the British possessions in North Amer- ica, except for the purpose of shelter and repairing damages, of purchasing wood and obtaining water; that they have no right to enter at the British custom-houses, or to trade there, except for the purchase of wood or water, and that they must depart with- in twenty-four hours after notice to leave. It is not known that any seizure of a fish- ing-vessel carrying the flag of the United States has been made under this claim, These were complaints which were made in the annnal message of President Grant in 1870; and he concludes by suggesting to Congress the course that should be taken in reference to this matter, in the fol- lowing words: Anticipating that an attempt may possibly be made by the Canadian authorities in ‘the coming season to repeat their unneighborly acts towards our fishermen, I recommend you to confer upon the Executive the power to suspend by proclamation the operation of the laws authorizing the transit of goods, wares, and merchandise in bond across the territory of the United States to Canada; and further, should such an extreme meas- ure become necessary, to suspend the operation of any laws whereby the vessels of the Dominion of Canada are permitted to enter the waters of the United States. _ Itis, therefore, plainly evident that disagreements were in existence at that time with regard to the fisheries, and that the fear that they Would produce serious complications between the two countries was present in the minds of the President and Government of the United States. Well, the history of the case goes on to show that these com- plaints made by President Grant were the foundation of the negotia- ‘tions which led to the adoption of the Washington Treaty; and it is important to observe, on examining that treaty, that the means whereby President Grant proposed to Congress to insure the repeal of these so called unfriendly acts on the part of Canada, by repealing the bonded system, and by putting on other restrictions, which President Grant proposed to apply to that particular purpose, are, by the clauses of the Washington Treaty, dealt with for the term of that treaty in another way, and for other considerations; therefore, to my mind, it leaves me in this position, in endeavoring to interpret the intentions of the parties to the Washington Treaty, that it must necessarily have been supposed that, as in the case of the Reciprocity Treaty, so in the case of the Washington Treaty, the rights of traffic and of obtaining bait and supplies were conferred, being incidental to the fishing privilege. It could scarcely be otherwise, because in the case of the Reciprocity Treaty commercial advantages were the compensation which the United States offered to Great Britain for the concession of the privilege of fishing in 1588 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. her waters; while, by the Washington Treaty, compensation in money, exclusively of the free admission of fish, is to be made the measure of the difference in value; therefore I quite believe that the intention of the parties to the treaty was to direct this tribunal to consider all the points relating to the fisheries, which have been set forth in the British case. But 1 am now met by the most authoritative statement as to what were the intentions of the parties to the treaty. There can be no stronger or better evidence of what the United States proposed to acquire under the Washington Treaty than the authoritative statement which has been made by their Agent before us here, and by their counsel. We are now distinctly told that it was not the intention of the United States, in any way, by that treaty, to provide for the continuation of these in- cidental privileges, and that the United States are prepared to take the whole responsibility, and to run all the risk of the re-enactment of the vexatious statutes, to which reference has been made. 1 cannot resist the argument that has been put before me, in reference to the true, rigid, and strict interpretation of the clauses of the Treaty of Washington. I therefore cannot escape, by any known rule concern- ing the interpretation of treaties, from the conclusion that the contention offered by the Agent of the United States must be acquiesced in. There is no escape from it. The responsibility is accepted by and must rest upon those who appeal to the strict words of the treaty as their justification. I therefore, while I regret that this tribunal does not find itself in a position to give full consideration to all the points that may be brought up on behalf of the Crown, as proof of the advan- tages which the United States derive from their admission to fish in British waters, still feel myself, under the obligation which I have in curred, required to assent to the decision which has been communicated to the Agents of the two governments by the president of this tribunal. ENG CLUSING ARGUMENT OF HON. DWIGHT FOSTER ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES. GENTLEMEN OF THE ComMMISssIon: It becomes my duty to open the discussion of this voluminous mass of evidence, which has occupied your attention through so many weeks. It is a satisfaction to know that many topics, as to which numerous witnesses testified, and over Which much time bas been consumed, have been eliminated from the Investigation, so that they need not occupy the time of counsel in argu- ment, as they are sure not to give any trouble to the Commissioners in arriving at their verdict. The decision of the Commission, made on the Gth of September, by which it was held not to be competent for this tribunal to award compensation for commercial intercourse between the two countries, or for purchasing bait, ice, supplies, &c., or for permission to transship cargoes in British waters, is based upon the principle—the obvious principle, perhaps, 1 may properly say—that no award can be made by this tribunal against the United States, except for rights which they acquire under the treaty ; so that, for the period of twelve years, they belong to our citizens, and cannot be taken from them. For ad- vantages conferred by the treaty, as vested rights, you are empowered to make an award, and for nothing else. ; The question before you is whether the privileges accorded the citizens | not ON AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1589 of the United States. by the Treaty of Washington are of greater value than those accorded to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty; and if so, how much is the difference, in money? The concessions made by each government to the other in the treaty were freely and voluntarily made. If it should turn out (as I do not suppose it will) that in any respect the making of those concessions has: been injurious to the subjects of Her Majesty, you are not on that account to render an award of damages against the United States. The two governments decided that they would grant certain privileges to the citizens of one and the subjects of the other. Whether those privileges may be detrimental to the party by whom they have been conceded is no concern of ours. That was dis- posed of when the treaty was made. Our case before this tribunal is a case, not of damages, but of an adjustment of equivalents between con- cessions freely made on the one side and on the other. It follows from this consideration, gentlemen, that all that part of the testimony which has been devoted to showing that possibly under certain circumstances American fishermen, either in the exercise of their treaty rights, or in trespassing beyond their rights, may have done injury to the fishing grounds, or to the people of the provinces, is wholly aside from the sub- ject-matter submitted for your decision. The question whether throw- ing over gurry harts fishing-grounds—the question whether vessels lee- bow boats—and all matters of that sort, which at an early period of the investigation loomed up occasionally, as if they might Lave some impor- tance, may be dismissed from our minds; for, whether the claims made in that respect are well founded or not, no authority has been vested in this tribunal to make an award based upon any such grounds. That which you have been empowered to decide is the question, to what ex- tent the citizens of the United States are gainers by having, for the term of twelve years, liberty to take fish on the shores and coasts of Her Majesty’s dominions without being restricted to any distance from the land. It is the right of inshore fishing. In other words, the removal of a restriction by which our fishermen were forbidden to come within three miles of the shore for fishing purposes; and that is all. Norights to do anything upon the land are conferred upon the citizens of the United States, under this treaty, with the single exception of the right to dry nets and cure fish on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, if we did not possess that before; no right to land for the purpose of seining from the shore; no right to the “strand fishery,” as it has been called; no right to do anything except, water-borne on our vessels, to go within the limits which had been previously forbidden. - When I commenced the investigation of this question I supposed that it was probable that an important question of international law would turn out to be involved in it, relative, of course, to the so-called headland question, which has been the subject of so much discussion between the two governments for a long series of years; but the evi- - dence that has been introduced renders this question not of the slight- est importance, and inasmuch as it is a question which you are not em- powered, except incidentally, to decide, a question eminently proper to be passed upon between the governments directly, | presume you will rejoice with me in finding that it is not practically before us, and that we need not trouble ourselves concerning it. If it had appeared in this case that there was fishing carried on to any appreciable extent within the large bays, more than six miles wide at the headlands, and at a dis- tance of more than three miles from the contour of the shores of those bays, the United States would have contended that their citizens, in || common with all the rest of mankind, were entitled to fish in such great —E————— ee 1590 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. bodies of water as long as they kept themselves more than three miles from the sbore. In short, they would have contended, as it has been contended, in the brief filed in this case, that where the bays are more than six miles in width from headland to headland, they are to be treated in this respect, for fishing purposes, as parts of the open sea ; bat the evidence, as I said before, bas eliminated all that matter from the inquiry. The only bodies of water as to which any such question can arise are, in the first place, the Bay of Fundy. Now, the right of American fishermen to enter and fish in that bay was decided by arbi- tration in the ease of the schooner Washington, and Her Majesty’s Government have uniformly acquiesced in that decision. So, as to that body of water, the rights of the citizens of the United States must be regarded as res adjudicata. In addition, however, it turns out that within the body of the Bay of Fundy there has not been any fishing more than three miles from the shore for a period of many years. One of the British witnesses said that it was forty years since the mackerel fishery ceased in the Bay of Fundy. At all events, there is no evidence in this case of fishing of any description in the body of the Bay of Fundy more than three miles from the shore, and this fact, in addition to the decision in the Washington case, disposes of that. The next body of water is the Bay of Miramichi; as to which it will turn out by an inspection of the map on which the Commissioners, ap- pointed under the Reciprocity Treaty, marked out the lines reserved from free fishing, on the ground that they were mouths of rivers, that the mouth of the river Miramichi comes almost down to the headlands of the bay. You will remember that the report of the Commission on the Reciprocity Treaty is referred to in the Treaty of Washington, and that the same places excluded by their decision remain excluded now. What is left? The narrow space below the point marked out as the mouth of the river Miramichi, and within the headlands of the bay, is so small that there can be no fishing there of any consequence, and no evidence of any fishing there at all has been introduced. So far as the Bay of Miramichi goes, therefore, I cannot see that the headland question need trouble you at all. Then comes the Bay of Chaleurs, and in the Bay of Chaleurs what- ever fishing has been found to exist seeins to have been within three miles of the shores of the bay, in the body of the Bay of Chaleurs. I am not aware of any evidence of fishing, and it is very curious that this Bay of Chaleurs, about which there has been so much controversy here- tofore, can be so sunmarily dismissed from the present investigation. I suppose that a great deal of factitions importanee has been given to the Bay of Chaleurs from the custom among fishermen, and almost uni-: versal a generation ago, of which we have heard so much, to speak of the whole of the Gulf of St. Lawrence by that term. Over and over again, and particularly among the older witnesses, we have noticed that when they spoke of going to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, they spoke of it. by the term “Bay of Chaleurs,” but in the Bay of Chaleurs proper, in: the body of the bay, I cannot find any evidence of any fishing at all. I think, therefore, that the Bay of Chaleurs may be dismissed from our consideration. Phere are two or three other bodies of water as to which a possible theoretical question may be raised, but their names have not been intro- _ daced into the testimony on this occasion from first to last. The head- land question, therefore, gentlemen, I believe may be dismissed as, for the purpose of this inquiry, wholly unimportant, and although I am bot authorized to speak for wy friend, the British Agent, and to say that: j | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1591 he concurs with me, yet I shall be very much surprised if I find any different views from those that I have expressed taken on the other side. If in argument other views should be brought forward, or if it should seem to your honors, in considering the subject, that the question has an importance which it has not in my view, then I can only refer you to the brief that has been filed, and insist upon the principles which the United States have heretofore maintained on that subject. For the present, I congratulate you, as I do myself, that no grave and vexed question of international law need trouble you in coming to a conclu- sion. I think it is necessary to go somewhat, yet briefly, into the historical aspects of the fishery question, in order to see whether that which has been the subject of diplomatic controversy and of public feeling in the past is really the same thing which we have under discussion to-day. The question has been asked, and asked with some earnestness, by my friends on the other side, “ If the inshore fisheries have the little impor- tance which you say they have, why do your fishermen go to the Gulf of St. Lawrence at all?” And again it has been asked, “If the inshore fisheries are of such insignificant consequence, why is it that the fisher- men and people of the United States have always manifested such a feverish anxiety on the subject?” Those questions deserve an answer, and unless an answer can be made, you undoubtedly will feel that there must be some unseen importance in this question, or there would not have been all the trouble with reference to it heretofore. Why do the fishermen of the United States come to the Gulf of St. Lawrence at all? Why should they not come here? What men on the face of the earth have a better right to plow with their keels the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence thau the descendants of the fishermen of New England, to whose energy and bravery, a century and a quarter ago, it is chiefly owing that there is any Nova Scotia to day under the British flag? 1 am not going to dwell upon the history of the subject. It is well known that it was New England that saved to the Crown of England these maritime provinces; that to New England fishermen is due the fact that aera of Great Britain flies on the citadel, and not the flag of France, to-day. _Early in the diplomatic history of this case we find that the Treaty of Paris in 1763 excluded French fishermen three leagues from the coast belonging to Great Britain in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and fifteen leagues from the island of Cape Breton. We find that the treaty with Spain in the same year contained a relinquishment of all Spanish fishing rights in the neighborhood of Newfoundland. The Crown of Spain expressly desisted from all pretensions to the right of fishing in the neighborhood of Newfoundland. Those are the two treaties of 1763— the Treaty of Paris with France and the treaty with Spain. Obviously, at that time, Great Britain claimed for herself exclusive sovereignty over the whole Gulf of St. Lawrence and over a large part of the adja- cent seas. By the Treaty of Versailles, in 1783, substantially the same provisions of exclusion were made with reference to the French fisher- men. Now, in that broad elaim of jurisdiction over the adjacent seas, in the right asserted and maintained to have British subjects fish there ' exclusively, the fishermen of New England, as British subjects, shared. Undoubtedly, the pretensions that were yielded to by those treaties | have long since disappeared. Nobody believes now that Great Britain | has any exclusive jurisdiction over the Gulf of St. Lawrence or the ' Banks of Newfoundland, but at the time when the United States | asserted their independence and when the treaty was formed between 1592 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the United States and Great Britain, such were the claims of England, and those claims had been acquiesced in by France and by Spain. That explains the reason why it was that the elder Adams said he would rather cut off his right hand than give up the fisheries at the time the treaty was formed, in 1783, and that explains the reason why, when bis son, John Quiney Adams, was one of the Commissioners who negotiated the Treaty of Ghent, at the end of the war of 1812, he insisted so strenuously that nothing should be done to give away the rights of the citizens of the United States in these ocean fisheries. Those are the fisheries which existed in that day, and those alone. The mackerel fishery was unkpown. It was the cod-fishery and the whale-fishery that called forth the eulogy of Burke over a hundred years ago. It was the cod-fishery and the whale-fishery for which the first and second Adams so strenuously contended ; and, inasmuch as it was found impos- sible in the treaty at the end of the war of 1812 to come to any adjust- ment of the fishery question, all meution of it was omitted in the treaty. The treaty was made leaving each party to assert his claims at some future time. And so it stood; Great Britain bavipg given notice that she did not intend to renew the rights and privileges conceded to the United States in the Treaty of 1783, and the United States giving notice that they regarded the privileges of the Treaty of 1783 as of a perma- nent character, and not terminated by the war of 1812; but no conclu- sion Was arrived at between the parties. What followed? The best account of the controversy to be found is in a book called *“ The Fish- eries aud the Mississippi,” which contains John Quincey Adams’s letters ou the subject of the Treaty of Ghent and the convention of 1818. Mr. Adams in that book says that the year after peace was declared, British cruisers warned all American fishing-vessels not to approach within sixty miles from the coast of Newfoundland, and that it was in consequence of this that the negotiations were begun which led to the Convention of 1818; and the Convention of 1818, in the opinion of Mr. Adams, conceded to the United States all that they desired. He be- lieved and asserted that Great Britain had claimed, and intended to claim, exclusive jurisdiction over the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and over the Banks of Newfoundland, and he considered and stated that the Treaty of 1818, in setting at rest forever those pretensions, obtained for the United States substantially what they desired. A passage is quoted in the reply of Her Majesty’s Government to the United States Answer, from this book, in which Mr. Adams says: “The Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Gulf of Saint Lawrence and Labrador fisheries, are in nature— und in consideration both of their value and of the right to share in them one tishery. To be cut off from the enjoyment of that right would be to the people of Massachusetts similar in kind and comparable in degree with au interdict to the people of Georgia and Louisiana to cul- tivate cotton or sugar. To be cut off even from that portion of it which ec ren exclusive British jurisdiction in the strictest sense within oe : Te 2 Saint Law rence and on the coast of Labrador would have ' an interdict upon the people of Georgia or Louisiana to culti- Vate cotton or sugar in three-fourths of those respective States.” But rte eee to ila of the warning off of American vessels sixty miles vis ap ent peace ela egy then Says: . It was this incident which led to oA ied ie o ash terminated in the Convention of the 20th of that part of the fil es Gesu el eau pent anasto tie: certain parts of aren oe eee they had enjoyed i claimed - Sa ila ee es 7 usive jurisdiction of the British Provinces, and wiles of the shores. This privilege, without being of “Tt —E AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1593 much use to our fishermen, had been found very inconvenient to the Brit- ish; and in return, we have acquired an enlarged liberty, both of fishing and drying fish, within other parts of the British jurisdiction forever.” Fishing for mackerel in ten fathoms of water off the bight of Prince Edward Island was not the thing then taken into consideration. There was no mackerel fishery till many years after. This controversy was caused by a claim on the one hand and a fesistance on the other with reference to the ocean fisheries, to the cod fishery, the whale fishery, the deep-sea fishery, three leagues, fifteen leagues, sixty miles from the shore; and after the Convent:on of 1818 had been formed, if it had been construed as the British Government construe it to-day, there would have been no more controversy on the sabject. The controversy that arose after the Convention of 1818 sprang from the unwarrantable and extrav- agant pretensions, not so much of Her Majesty’s home government, as of the colonial authorities. In order to understand the importance that has been attributed to this subject, it is indispensably necessary that you should know what was claimed to be the interpretation of the Con- vention of 1818 down to a very recent day. The provincial authorities claimed, in the first place, to exclude United States vessels from navi- gating the Gut of Canso. Nobody makes that claim now. In the second place, they claimed the right to exclude them from fishing anywhere in the Bay of Fundy. That claim was insisted upon until, on arbitration, it was decided against Her Majesty’s Government. Not only was the headland doctrine asserted as to the great bays, but, under its guise, the provincial authorities claimed the right to draw a straight line from East Point to North Cape of Prince Edward Island, and make the exclu- sion three miles from that point. I have had marked on the map annexed to the British Case two or three of the principal lines of exclu- sion as they were then insisted upon, that you may kuow what it was that our people regarded as important. The claim to treat East Point and North Cape as headlands, and to exclude us a distance of three miles from a line drawn between them, is a notion that has not departed from the popular mind to the present day. The affidavits from Prince Edward Island were drawn upon the theory that that is the rule, and in two or three of them I have found it expressly stated, “ that all the mackerel were caught within the three- mile line; that is to say, within a line three miles from a straight line drawn from East Point to North Cape.” Now, those affidavits are all in answer to one set of questions, they are all upon one model, and it is quite obvious that they were all of them colored by that view of the three-mile limit, as two of them expressly say that they were. At all events, that was the claim that was made down to a very recent period. The claim also was made to exclude United States fishermen from North- umberland Strait. In the case of the Argus, seized by British cruisers, the ground of seizure was, that a line was to be drawn from Cape North to the northern line of Cow Bay in Cape Breton. It is marked there in red on the map. The evidence of that claim, which was the basis of the seizure of the Argus, is to be found in the correspondence between Mr. Everett and Lord Aberdeen on the subject. See Mr. Everett’s letter to Lord Aberdeen, quoted from in the United States brief, on page 21. They likewise claimed to draw a line from Margaree to Cape St. George. You will find that down there. Those claims were not merely made ou the quarter-deck, but they were made, some of them, in diplomatic cor- respondence, some of them in resolutions of the Nova Scotia legislature. They were made, and they were insisted upon, and understanding this, || iE think you will be prepared to understand why it was that exclusion 1594 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. from such limits was regarded as important to our fishermen. _You will remember that one of our oldest witnesses, Ezra Turner, testified that the captain of the cruiser “ told me what his orders were from Halifax, and he showed me his marks on the chart. I well recollect three marks. One was from Margaree to Cape St. George, and then a straight line from East Point to Cape St. George, and then another straight line from East Point to North Cape. The captain said, ‘If you come within three miles of these lines, fishing, or attempting to fish, I will consider you a prize.” And acommittee of the Nova Scotia legislature, as late as 1351, in their report, say: ‘‘The American citizens, under the treaty, have no right, for the purposes of the fishery, to enter any part of the Bay of St. George, lying between the headlands formed by Cape George on the one side and Port Hood Island on the other.” Such were the claims made, and how were those claims enforced ? They were enforced by the repeated seizure of our vessels, their deten- tion until the fishing season was over, and then their release. It appears by the returns that have been made in how many instances our fishing- vessels were released without a trial after they had been detained until their voyages were ruined, and, as our skippers said in their testimony, it made no difference whether the seizure was lawful or unlawful, the voyage was spoilt, and the value of the vessel almost entirely destroyed. There were repeated instances of which you have testimony of cruisers levying black-mail upon skippers, taking a portion of their fish by way of tribute from them, and letting them go on their way. Mr. THomMSON. Instead of seizing the whole? Mr. Foster. Yes; instead of seizing the whole. No doubt the poor and ignorant skippers were thankful to escape from the lion’s jaws with with so little loss as that. Let me give an instance: There is a letter from Mr. Forsyth, the United States Secretary of State, to Mr. Fox, the British minister at Washington, dated the 24th of July, 1859, in which Mr. Forsyth requests the good offices of Her Majesty’s minister at Wash- ington with the authorities at Halifax, to secure toa fisherman, too poor to contend in the admiralty court, the restoration of 10 barrels of her- rings taken from him by the officer who had seized his vessel and with- held the herring after the vessel itself was released. _ Well, what were the laws enacted to enforce these pretensions? A Nova Scotia statute of 1836, after providing for the forfeiture of any vessel found fishing, or preparing to fish, or to have been fishing within three miles of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors, and providing that if the master, or person in command, should not truly answer the questions put to him in examination by the boarding officer, he should forfeit the sum of £100, goes on to provide that if any goods shipped on the vessel were seized for any cause of forfeiture under this act, and any dispute arises whether they have been lawfully seized, the burden of proof to show the illegality of the seizure shall be on the owner or claimant of the goods, ship, or vessel, and not on the officer or person who shall seize and stop the same. The burden of proof to show that the seizure = sara te lag on the man whose schooner had been brought to by ace ae Tare arta ae was to be taken into a foreign port, and she : an alrmatively to make out that his vessel and its contents > Hot Hable to forfeiture, If he attempted any defense, he was not permitted to do so until he had given sufficient security in the sum of crit the coats He must commence no suit aati he had given one the seizing-officer a, i id one of his intention to do so, in order that salt withie Are ght make amends if he chose ; and he must bring his | three months after the cause of action accrued, and if he ee —— AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1595 failed in the suit, treble costs were to be awarded against him; while, if he succeeded in the suit, and the presiding judge certified that there was probable cause for the seizure, he was to be entitled to no costs, and the officer making the seizure was not to be liable to any action. That act, only very slightly modified, but with most of its offensive provisions still retained, was found on the statutes of Nova Scotia as late as the year 1868, and I am not aware that it has been repealed to-day. The construction put upon it in this province was, that a man who came into a British harbor to buy bait with which to catch fish in the deep sea, was guilty of *‘ preparing to fish,” and that it was an offense under the act to prepare within British territorial waters to carry on a deep-sea fishery. Such, gentlemen, was the condition of things which led the fishermen of the United States to attribute so much importance to the three-mile restriction. We know to-day that all this has passed away. We know that such pretensions are as unlikely ever to be repeated as they are sure never again to be submitted to. And why do I refer to them? Not, certainly, to revive any roots of bitterness; not, certainly, to com- plain of anything so long gone by; but because it is absolutely indis- pensable for you to understand the posture of this question historically, in order that you may be aware how different the question we are trying to-day is from the question which has had such importance heretofore. If the three-mile limit off the bend of Prince Edward Island, and down by Margaree, where our fishermen sometimes fish a week or two in the autumn (and those are the two points to which almost all the evi- dence of inshore fishing in this case relates)—if the three-mile limit had been marked out by a line of buoys in those places, and our people could have fished where they had a right to, under the law of nations and the terms of the Convention of 1818, nobody would have heard any complaint. Certainly it is most unjust, after a question has had such a history as this—after the two nations have been brought to the very verge of war with each other in consequence of disputes based upon such claims as [ have referred to—certainly, now that those claims are abandoned, it is most unjust to say to us, ‘* Because you complained of these things, therefore you must have thought the right to catch mackerel in ten or fifteen fathoms of water, within three miles of the bight of the island, was of great national importance.” We are not prepared to enter fairly into a discussion of the present question until it is per- ceived how different it is from the one to which I have been alluding. Of course our fishermen were alarmed and excited, and indignant, when the things were done to which I have referred. Of course it was true that if such claims were to be maintained they must abandon fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence altogether. And not only did they feel that there was an attempt, unjustly and unlawfully, to drive them out of a valuable fishery which had belonged to them and their forefathers ever since vessels came here at all, but there was also, with reference to it, & sense of wrong and outrage, and the fishermen of New England, like the rest of the people of New England, although long-suffering and slow to wrath, have ever been found to be a race “who ‘know their , Tights, and, knowing, dare maintain.” But when these claims are aban- doned, as they have been now, there remains simply the question, what is the value of fishing within three miles of the shore of the British ter- ritories? And this brings me to some of the immediate questions which we have to discuss. In the first place, I suppose I may as well take up the case of New- -fonndland, The case of Newfoundland, asI understand it, is almost 1596 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. entirely eliminated from this controversy by the decision | which was made on the 6th of September. The claim, as presented in Her Maj- esty’s Case, is not one of compensation for fishing within the territorial waters of Newfoundland, but it is one of enjoying the privileges of com- mercial intercourse with the people of that island. Of territorial fish- ing in Newfoundland waters, there is hardly any evidence to be found since the first day of July, 1873, when the fishery clauses of the Treaty of Washington took effect, with one exception, that I will allude to hereafter. There is certainly no cod-fishing done by our people in the territorial waters of Newfoundland; none has been proved, and there is no probability that there ever will be during the period of the treaty or afterward. The American cod fishery is every where deep sea fishing. There is alittle evideuce of two localities in which a few halibut are said to have been taken in Newfoundland waters—one near Hermitage Bay, and ove near Fortune Bay. But the same evidence that shows that it once existed shows that it had been exhausted and abandoned before the Treaty of Washington was made. Judge Bennet testified that— The balibat-fishing on the Newfoundland coast is a very limited one, so far as I am aware. It is limited to the waters between Brunet Island in Fortune Bay and Pass Island in Hermitage Bay. It is conducted close inshore, and was a very prolific fishery for a number of years. Our local fishermen pursued it with hook and line. I think about eight years ago the Americans visited that place for the purpose of fishing, and they fished it very thoroughly. They fished early in the season, in the month of April, when halibut was in great demand in New York market. They carried them there fresh in ice, and I know they have pursued that fishery from that time to within the last few years. I believe they have about exhausted it now. Another witness testified that some vears ago the halibut fishery was pursued in that vicinity, but he went on to say that— American fishermen do not now fish for halibut about Pass Island as they formerly did, because I believe that that fishery has been exhausted by the Americans. I know of no United States fishing-vessels fishing within three miles of the shore, except at and reer a Island, as already stated.—(Affidavit of Philip Hubert, p. 54, British Affi- AVIts. John Evans, p 52, British Affidavits, says: The halibut fishery, followed by the United States fishing-vessels about Pass Island, has been abandoned during late years. I have not heard of American fishing- vessels trying to catch fish on the Newfoundland inshore-fishery. There has been a little evidence that oceasionally, when our vessels go into harbors to purchase bait at night, some of the men will jig a few squid, when they are waiting to obtain bait. All the evidence shows that they go there not to fish for bait, but to bay it. It shows also that when they are there for that purpose, the crews of the vessels are so much occupied in taking on board and stow- ing away the fish bought for bait that they have no time to engage much in fishing; but one or two witnesses have spoken of a little jig- ging for squid by one or two men when unoccupied at night. As to the rest, all the fishing in the territorial waters of Newfoundland is done by the inhabitants themselves, The frozen-herring trade, which was the ground of compensation chiefly relied upon in the Newfoundland case, has been completely proved to be a commercial transaction. The concurrent testimony of , the witnesses on both sides is, that American fishermen go there with money, they do not go there provided witb the appliances for fish- ing, but with money and with goods. They go there to purchase and to trade, and when they leave Gloucester, they take out a permit to touch and trade, that they may have the privileges of trading-vessels. Perhaps it may be said that the arrangement under which this bait is AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1597 taken is substantially a fishing for it, I have heard that suggestion hinted at in the course of our discussions, but plainly, it seems to me, it cannot be sound. We pay for herring by the barrel, for squid and cap- lin by the hundred, and the inhabitants of the island will go out to sea as far as to the French Islands, there to meet American schooners, and to induce them to come to their particular localities that they may be the ones to catch the bait for them. It is true that the British Case ex- presses the apprehension that the frozen-herring trade may be lost to the inhabitants of Newfoundland in consequence of the provisions of the treaty. It is said that “it is not at all probable that, possessing the right to take the herring and caplin for themselves on all parts of the Newfoundland coast, the United States fishermen will continue to purchase bait as heretofore, and they will thus prevent the local fisher- men, especially those of Fortune Bay, from engaging in a very lucra- tive employment, which formerly occupied them during a portion of the winter season, for the supply of the United States market.” One of the British witnesses, Joseph Tierney, whose testimony is on page 371, in speaking of this matter of getting bait, says, in reply to the ques- tion, ‘‘ How do you get that bait?” ‘ Buy it from persons that go and eatch it and sell it for so much a barrel. The American fishermen are not allowed to catch their own bait at all. Of course, they may jig their own squid around the vessel.” And in reply to my question, “What would be done if they tried to catch bait?” the answer is, | **They are pretty rough customers. I don’t know what they would do.” So it appears that American fishermen not only do not catch bait, but are not allowed to catch it. They buy the bait, and that, to my mind, is the end of the question. So far as the herring trade goes, we could not, if we were disposed to, carry it on successfully under the pro- visions of the treaty, for this herring trade is substantially a seining from the shore—a strand fishing, as it is called—and we have no right anywhere conferred by this treaty to go ashore and seine herring any more than we have to establish fish-traps. I remember brother Thom- son and Professor Baird were at issue on the question whether we had a rightto dothis. Brother Thomson was clearly right and Professor Baird was mistaken. We have not acquired any right under the treaty to go ashore for any purpose anywhere on the British territories except to dry nets and cure fish. I do not think that I ought to spend more time over the case of Newfoundland than this, except to call your attention to the circumstance that, in return for these few squid jigged at night, the islanders obtain an annual remission of duties averaging upwards of $50,000 a year. We have been kindly furnished, in connection with the British affida- || vits upon page 128, Appendix A, with a statement showing the duties remitted upon exports from Newfoundland to the United States since the Treaty of Washington, and their annual average is made out to be $50,940.45. Isubmit to the Commission whether we do not pay, upon |) any view of political economy, a thousand fold for all the squid that our people jig after dark. Let it not, however, for a moment be supposed that because I took up the case of Newfoundland for convenience’ sake, as it is presented sepa- |} rately, that I regard it as adistinct part of thecase. The United States has made no treaty with the Island of Newfoundland, which has not yet hoisted the flag of the “Lone Star.” When she does, perhaps we shall be happy to enter into treaty relations with her; but we know at pres- ent only Her Majesty’s Government. We are dealing with the whole 1598 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. aggregate of concessions, from the one side to the other, and Newfound- land comes in with the rest. Leaving, then, the Island of Newfoundland, I come to the question of the value to the citizens of the United States of the concessions as to inshore fisheries in the territorial waters of the Dominion of Can- ada—that is, within three miles of the shore—for the five annual sea- sons past, and for seven years to come. In the first place, there is the right conceded to our fishermen to land iu order to cure fish and dry nets—to land on unoccupied places, where they do not interfere with private property, nor with British fishermen exercising the same rights, In one of the oldest law reports, Popham’s, an ancient sage of the law, Mr. Justice Doddridge remarks: ‘Fishermen, by the law of nations, may dry their nets on the laud of any man.” Without asserting that as a correct rule of law, I think 1 may safely assert that it has been the practice permitted under the comity of nations from the beginning of haman history, and that no nation or people, no kingdom or country, has ever excluded fishermen from landing on barren and unoccupied shores and rocks to dry their nets and cure their fish. If it was proved that the fishermen of the United States did use privileges of this kind, under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, to a greater extent than before, I hardly think that you would be able to find a current coin > of the realm sufficiently small in which to estimate compensation for such a concession. But, in point of fact, the thing is not done; there is no evidence that it is done. On the contrary, the evidence is that this practice belonged tothe primitive usages of aby-gone generation. Seven- ty, sixty, perhaps fifty years ago, when a little fishing vessel left Mas-_ sachusetts Bay, it would sail to Newfoundland, and after catching a_ few fish, the skipper would moor his craft near the shore, land in a boat, und dry the fish on the rocks; and when he had collected a fare of fish, — and filled his vessel, he would either return back home, or quite as fre quently would sail on a commercial voyage to some foreign country, | where he would dispose of the fish and take in a return cargo. Bat. nothing of that sort has happened within the memory of any living man. It is something wholly disused, of no value whatever. And it must not be said that ander this concession we acquire any right to fish from the shore, to haul nets froin the shore, or to fish from rocks. Obviously, we donot. L agree entirely with the view of my brother Thomson, as mani- fested in his conversation with Professor Baird on that subject. We come, then, to the inshore fishing. What is that? In the first place, there has been some attempt to show inshore halibut-fishing in the neighborhood of Cape Sable. It is very slight. It is contradicted | by all our witnesses. No American fisherman can be found who has_ ever known of any halibut-fishing within three miles of the shore in that Vicinity; and our fishermen all say that it is impossible that there shoald | be halibut caught in any considerable quantities in any place where the _ waters are so shallow. There is also some evidence that up in the Gulf) of St. Lawrence there was once a small local halibut fishery, but the) same evidence that speaks of its existence there speaks of its discon- — pte years ago. The last instance of a vessel going there to fish or halibut that bas been made known to us is the one that Mr. Syl- vanus Sinith testifies about, where a vessel of his strayed up into thes gulf, was captured, and was released, prior to the Treaty of Washing- — ton. As to the inshore halibut fishery, there has been no name of a ves- a akc ip iene Single instance, when a witness did give the name of : - 2, VC, Py le as & vessel that had fished for halibut in the vicinity of Cape Sable. We bave an aflidavit from the captain of that schooner, t i AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1599 Benjamin Swim, saying that he did not take any fisb within many miles of Cape Sable. He says he has been engaged in cod-fishing since April of this year, and “has landed 150,000 pounds of halibut, and caught them all, both codfish and halibut, on Western Banks. The nearest to the shore that I have caught fish of any kind this year is, at least, 40 miles.”—/( Affidavit No. 242.) So much for the inshore halibut fishery. - I will, however, before leav- ing it, refer to the statement of one British witness, Thomas R. Pattilo, who testified that occasionally halibut may be caught inshore, as a boy may catch a codfish off the rocks; but, pursued as a business, halibut are caught in the sea, in deep water. ‘How deep do you say?” “The fishery is most successfully prosecuted in about 90 fathoms of water, and, later in the season, in as much as 150 fathoms.” So much for the inshore halibut fishery; and that brings me to the inshore cod fishery, as to which I am reminded of a chapter in an old history of Ireland that was entitled ‘*On Snakes in Ireland,” and the whole chapter was “ There are no snakes in Ireland.” So there is no inshore cod fishery pursued as a business by United States vessels ‘anywhere. It is, like halibut-fishing, exclusively a deep-sea fishing. They caught a whale the other day in the harbor of Charlottetown, bat [I do not suppose our friends expect you to assess in this award against the United States any particular sum for the inshore whale fishery. There is no cod fishery or halibut fishery inshore, pursued by our vessels, any more than there is inshore whale fishery. We know and our witnesses know where our vessels go. If they go near the British shores at all they go to buy bait, and leave their money in payment for the bait. Will it be said that the cod fishery is indirectly to be paid for, because fresh bait must be used, and the cod fishery can- not profitably be pursued without fresh bait ; and because we are here. after to be deprived of the right to buy bait by laws expected to be passed, and then shall have to stop and catch it, so that by and by, when some new statutes have been enacted, and we have been cut off from commercial privileges, we may be forced to catch bait for cod-fish- ing in British territorial waters? I think it will be time enough to meet that question when it arises. Any attempt to cat us off from the com- mercial privileges that are allowed in times of peace by the comity of civ- ilized nations to all at peace with them, would of course be adjusted between the two governments in the spirit that becomes two imperial and Christian powers. I do not think that, looking forward to some unknown time when some unknown law will be passed, we need autici- pate that we are to be cut off from the privilege of buying bait, and therefore you should award compensation against us for the bait which We may at that time find occasion ourselves to catch. Bat if it is worth while to spend a single moment upon that, how thoroughly it has been disposed of by the evidence, which shows that this practice of going from the fishing grounds on the Banks into harbors to purchase bait is one attended with great loss of time, and with other incidental disad- vantages, so that the owners of the vessels much prefer to have their fishermen stay on the Banks and use salt bait, and whatever else they || ean get there. Saint Pierre and Miquelon are free ports; commercial intercourse is permitted there; bait can be bought there; and, as the British witnesses have told us, the traffic for bait between Newfound- land and the French islands is so great, and such a full supply of bait is brought to the French islands, more than there is a demand for, that itis sometimes thrown overboard in quantities that almost fill up the harbor. That was the statement of one of the witnesses. I do not 1600 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. think, therefore, that I need spend more time, either upon the cod-fish- ery, or the question of buying bait or procuring bait for cod-fishing. ; What shall I say of the United States herring fishery, alleged to exist at Grand Manan and its vicinity! Three British witnesses testify to an annual catch of one million, or one and a half million dollars’ worth by United States fishermen in that vicinity, all caught inshore. But these witnesses do not namea single vessel, or captain, or give the name of any place from which such vessels come, except to speak in general terms of the Gloucester fleet. These witnesses are McLean, McLeod, and McLaughlin. The fish alleged to be taken are chiefly herring. t shall not stop to read their evidence, or comment upon it in detail. They are contradicted by several witnesses, and by several depositions filed in the ease, which you will find in the supplemental depositions lately printed; all of whom state, what we believe to be clearly true, that the herring trade by the United States vessels in the vicinity of Grand Manan is purely a commercial transaction ; that our fishermen cannot afford the time to cateh herring; that their crews are too large and their vessels too expensive to engage in catching so poor a fish as herring; that it is better for them to buy and pay for them, and that so they uniformly do. Tbe members of the Gloucester tirms who own and send out these vessels tell you that they go without nets, without the appliances to catch herring at all, but with large sums of money; they bring back the herring, and they leave the money behind them. This question seems to me to be disposed of by the report of the Commissioner on the New Brunswick Fisheries for 1876. Mr. Venning, the inspector of fisheries for New Brunswick, quotes in his report on Charlotte County (pp. 266 and 267), from Overseer Cun- ningham, of the Inner Bay. Some attempt was made to show that Overseer Cunningham, although the official appointed for the purpose, did not know much about it ; but it will be observed that his statements, as well as those of Overseer Best (whose evidence is next quoted), are aflirmed by Mr. Venning, the inspector of fisheries for New Bruns- wick, and inserted in his report under his sanction; and I think that with the minister 0) marine and fisheries, himself from New Brunswick, at the head of the department, erroneous statements on a subject relat- ing to the fisheries of his own province were not likely to creep into oflicial documents and remain there unobjected to. I think we must assume that these official statements are truer and more reliable than the accounts that come from witnesses. Overseer Cunningham says: - The winter herring fishery, I am sorry to say, shows a decrease from the yield of last year. This, I believe, is owing to the large quantity of nets, in fact. miles of them, being set by United States fishermen all the way from Grand Manan to Lepreau, and far out in the bay, by the Wolves, sunk from 20 to 25 fathoms, which kept the fish from coming into this bay. In this view I am borne out by all the fishermen with whom I have conversed on the subject. Our fishermen who own vessels have now to ~ KO a distance of six to eight miles off shore before they can catch any. The poorer class of fishermen, who have nothing but small boats, made but a poor catch. How- ever, during the winter months, there were caught and sold in a frozen state to United States vessels 1,400 barrels, at from $4 to $5 per barrel. The price being somewhat better than last year, helped to make up the deficiency in their catch. Then he zoes on to speak of the injurious effect of throwing over gurry, which, he says, is practiced by provincial fishermen as well as * American, and says that, “as they are fishing far off shore a week at a time, this destructive practice can be followed with impunity and without detection.” And Overseer Best speaks of the falling off in line-fishing, but says that the yield of herring has exceeded that of the © previous year, disagreeing with his friend, Overseer Cunningham. He- —— AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1601 attributes the deficiency in line-fishing to the use of trawls. He goes on to say, “The catch was made chiefly in deep water this year, as far out as five to seven miles off the coast, and no line-fish have been taken within two miles, except haddock.” He says: The winter fishing was principally done in deep water. As rough weather prevailed most of the time, the fishermen found it very difficult to take care of their nets, a great many of which are lost. A large number of American vessels now frequent our coasts to engage in this fishery, and pay but little attention to our laws, which pro- hibit Sunday fishing and throwing over gurry. This I am powerless to prevent over a stretch of 20 miles of coast, on which from 60 to 100 vessels are engaged. A suita- ble vesse! is necessary for this work, and she should cruise around among the fishing- rounds and see that the laws are respected by those who are participating in the bene- ts of our fisheries. Of course, it is difficult to prove a negative; but ought not the Brit- ish Agent to be required, upon a subject of such magnitude as this, to produce some more satisfactory evidence? If a large fleet of American vessels are year by year catching herring within three miles of land, among an equal body of British fishermen, within a limited space near Grand Manan, and if they are taking froin a million to a million and a half dollars’ worth a year, is it not possible for our friends the minister of marine and fisheries and the learned counsel both from New Bruns- wick to furnish the names of just one or two vessels, or one or two cap- tains among the great number that are so engaged? A million to a million and a half dollars’ worth is the estimate that they put upon the fishery. How many herring do you suppose it takes to come to a mil- lion or a million and a half dollars? It takes more than all the herring that are imported into the United States, by the statistics. Just in that little vicinity they say that a greater amount of such fish are taken than are imported into the United States. Now, if an operation of that enormous magnitude is going on, it does seem to me that somebody ' would know something more definite about it than has appeared in this evidence. Certainly there has been earnest zeal and the most indefati- <_~—=ar | gable industry in the preparation of the British Case. Nobody doubts that. There has been every facility to procure evidence; and are we hot entitled to require at the hands of Her Majesty’s Government some- thing that is more definite and tangible than has appeared on this sub- ject? I have made all the inquiry in my power, and I cannot find out / what the vessels are, who their captains are, from what ports they come, or to what markets they return. We know very well what the Glouces- ‘ter herring-fleet is. It is a fleet that goes to buy herring; that buys it at Grand Manan ; that buysit at the Magdalen Islands; that buys it in Newfoundland. But of any fleet that fishes for herring in the territo- ‘vial waters of New Brunswick, after the utmost inquiry we can make, we remain totally ignorant. There is another view of this subject which ought, it seems to me, to ‘be decisive. Everybody admits that herring is one of the cheapest and ‘poorest of fish, and that the former duty of a dollar a barrel, and five cents a box on smoked herring, would be absolutely prohibitory in the markets of the United States. Now, how much must these New Bruns- wick fishermen gain if they have as large a fishery as we have, and we have a fishery of a million and a half dollars in that vicinity? That is their statement; the British fishery is about equal to the American ; the . ee G8 American is very near to one and a half million dollars a year in that Vicinity ; the British-caught fish go tothe United States markets almost exclusively—I think one witness did say two-thirds; everybody else has Spoken as ifthe herring-market wasin the United States almostaltogether. ‘How many barrels of herring does it take to come to a million dollars? 101 F 2 1602 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. We will let the other half million be supposed to consist of smoked her- ring in boxes. How many barrels of herring does it take? Why, it takes three or four hundred thousand. The herring sell for from two to four dollars a barrel. It takes 250,000, 300,000, or 400,000 barrels of herring, and a duty of a dollar is remitted upon each barrel, a duty which would exclude them from our market if it were reimposed. Is pot that a sufficient compensation? If you believe that our people catch herring there to any considerable extent, is not that market from which these people derive, according to their own showing, so large sums of money, an equivalent? Remember, they say we catch a million toa willion and a half dollars’ worth; they say they catch as many; they say it nearly all goes to our market; the duty saved is a dollar a barrel ; and, according to their own figures, they must be reaping a golden har- vest. Happy fisherman of New Brunswick! By the statistics they earn four or tive times as much as the fishermen of Prince Edward Island, aud the witnesses say that they earn really two or three times as much as the statistics show. They are receiving from a willion to a million and a half dollars for fish sold chiefly in the markets of the United States, and the saving in duty is several hundred thousand dollars. It is true that we cannot find imported into the United States any such quantity of herring; still that is the account that they give of it. This brings me, gentlemen, to the question of the inshore mackerel _ fishery ; that portion of the Case which seems to me, upon the evidence, to be the principal part, I might almost say the only part, requiring to be discussed. Your jurisdiction is to ascertain the value of those fish- eries for a period of twelve years from July 1, 1873, to July 1, 1885. Of those twelve years, five have already elapsed ; one fishing-year has | passed since the session of this Commission began. Inasmuch as the twelve years will terminate before the beginning of the fishing-year in the Gult of St. Lawrence for 1885, it is precisely correct to say, that five years have elapsed and seven remain. It is of no consequence how valuable these fisheries have been at periods antecedent to the treaty, nor how valuable or valueless you may think they are likely to become > after the treaty shall have expired. The twelve years’ space of time limits your jurisdiction, and five-twelfths of that time is to be judged of by the testimony as to the past. The results of the five years are be- fore you. As to the seven remaining years, the burden of proof is upon | Her Majesty’s Government to show what benefit the citizens of the United States may reasonably be expected to derive during that timefrom— these fisheries, It will be for you to estimate the future by the past as well as you may be able. This is purely a business question. Although it arises between two great governments, it is to be decided upon the same principles of eyi- deuce us if it were a claim between two men, as if it was a question tt how much each skipper that enters the Gulf of St. Lawrence to fish for — tnackerel ought to pay out of his own pocket. We are engaged in lat ondon Times has truly called a “great international law-| suit,” aud we are to be governed by the same rules of evidence that apply in all judicial tribunals, not, of course, by the technicalities of — what the I any particular system of law, but by those great general principles which prevail wherever, among civilized men, justice is administered." He who makes a claim is to prove bis claim and the amount of it. This 's not a question to be decided upon diplomatic considerations; it is@ question of proof. Money is to be paid for value received, and he who “laims the money is to show that the value has been received or will. be. If there are extravagant expectatious on the one side, that is 20 . 3 a AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1603 reason for awarding a sum of money. If there is a belief on the other side that the results of the treaty are injurious to a great industry, which nearly all civilized nations have thought it worth while to foster by bounties, that is no argument against rendering compensation. Whatever benefit the citizens of the United States are proved to derive from the inshore mackerel fisheries, within three miles of the shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, for that you are-to make an award, having regard to the offset, of which it will be my duty to speak ata later period. The inquiry divides itself into these two heads: First, What has been the value from July 1, 1873, down to the present time? and, second, What is it going to be hereafter? I invite your attention to the proof that is before you as to the value of the mackerel fishery since the treaty went into effect. And here I must deal with the question, What proportion of the mackerel is caught in territorial waters, viz, within three miles from the shore? A great mass of testimony has been adduced on both sides, and it might seem to be in irreconcilable eonflict. But let us not be dismayed at this appearance. There are certain land-marks which cannot be changed, by a careful attention to which I think we may expect to arrive at a tolerably certain conclusion. In the first place, it has been proved, has it not, by a great body of evidence, that there is, and always has been, in the Galf of St. Law- rence, a very extensive mackerel fishery clearly beyond British juris- diction, as to which no new rights are derived by the citizens of the | United States from the Treaty of Washington. It is true that the map filed in the British Case, and the original statement of that case, make no distinction between the inshore and the deep-sea mackerel fisheries. ' To look at this map, and to read the British Case, you would think that the old claims of exclusive jurisdiction throughout the gulf were still | kept up, and that all the mackerel caught in the Gulf of St. Lawrence were, as one of the witnesses expressed himself, ‘‘ British subjects.” _ But we know perfectly well that a United States vessel, passing through the Gut of Canso to catch mackerel in the gulf, will find numerous places where, for many years, the fishing has been the best, where the fish are the largest, and where the catches are the greatest, wholly away from the shore. The map attached to tke British Case tells this Story, for all through the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the gentlemen who formed that map have put down the places where mackerel are caught; and if the map itself does not indicate that seven-eighths of the mackerel fishing-grounds must be clearly far away from the shore, I am very much mistaken. At the Magdalen Islands, where we have always had the right to fish as near as we pleased to the shore, the largest and the best mackerel are taken. At Bird Rocks, near the Magdalen Islands, where there is deep water close to the rocks, and where the mackerel are undoubtedly taken close inshore (within two or three miles of the Bird Rocks you will find the water to be twenty fathoms deep), all around the Magdalen Islands, the mackerel fishing is stated by tue ‘experts who prepared this map to be good the season through. Then we have the Bank Bradley, the Bank Miscou, the Orphan Bank, the Fisherman’s Bank, and we have the fishing-ground of Pigeon Hill; all these grounds are far away from the shore, where there cannot be the | least doubt that our fishermen have always had the right to fish, aside \from any provisions of the present treaty. The most experienced and ‘successful fishermen who have testified before you say that those have —- ‘been places to which they have resorted, and that there they were most ‘Successful. | Look at the testimony of Andrew Leighton, whom we heard of from H a i a t 1604 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the other side early as one of the most successful fishermen that ever was in the gulf. He speaks of the largest season’s fishing any man ever had in the bay, 1,515 barrels. He says, “I got the mackerel the first trip at Orphan's and the Magdalens; the second trip at the Magdalens ; the third trip at Fisherman’s Bank; and I ran down to Margaree and got 215 barrels there, and went home.” All the mackerel at Margaree, he says, were caught within two miles of the shore, within the admitted — limits. Reeall the evidence of Sylvanus Smith and Joseph Rowe, ex- | perienced and successful fishermen, who tell you that they cared little | for the privilege of fishing within three miles of the land; that they did not believe that vessel-fishing could be prosecuted successfully there, because it required deeper water than is usually fourd within the dis- tance of three miles to raise a body of mackerel sufficient for the fisher- | men on a vessel to take the fish profitably; that boat-fishing is a wholly | distinct thing from vessel-fishing; that boats may anchor within three miles of the land and pick up a load in the course of a day, at one spot, where mackerel would be too few and too small for a vessel with fifteen men to fish to any advantage. Almost all the evidence in this case of fishing within three miles of the shore relates to the bend of Prince Edward Island and to the vicinity of Margaree. As to the bend of the island it appears, in the first place, that many of our fishermen regard it as a dangerous place, and shun it on that account, not daring to come as near the shore as within three miles, because in case of a gale blow- ing on shore their vessel would be likely to be wrecked. It appears, also, that even a large part of the boat-fishing there is carried on more than three miles from the shore. Undoubtedly many of the fishermen have testified to the contrary; many of the boat-fishermen from the island have testified that nearly all their fish were caught within three miles; still it does appear, by evidence that nobody can controvert, that a great part of the boat-fishing is more than three miles out. One of the witnesses trom the island, James McDonald, says, iu his deposition, that from the middle of September to the first of November not one barrel in five thousand is caught outside the limits, and he gives as a reason that the water will not permit fishing any distance from the shore because it is too rough. But it is perfectly obvious that a man who so testifies either is speaking of fishing in the very smallest kind of | boats, little dories that are not fit to go off three miles from the shore, and, therefore, knows nothing of vessel or large boat fishing, or else that he is under the same delusion that appears in the testimony of two other witnesses to which I referred in another connection. McNeill, who, on | page 42 of the British affidavits, describes the three-mile limit thus: “A | line drawn between two points, taken three miles off the North Cape and East Point of this island ;” and John A. McLeod, on page 228, who defines the three-mile limit as “a line drawn from points three miles off | the headlands.” When a witness comes here and testifies that after — September not one barrel of mackerel in five thousand is taken outside | of the three-mile limit because it is too rough to go so far out, he is either speaking of a little cockleshell of a boat that is never fit to go out tnore than one or two miles, or else he retains the old notion that the headland-line is to be measured from the two points, and that three — miles outside that line (which would be something like twenty-live or* thirty miles out from the deepest part of the bend of the island) is the territorial limit. Mr. rhomson. If you will read the other portion of his deposition, you | will see that your statement is not quite fair. : ri Foster. “ That the fish are nearly all caught close to the shore, | the best fishing-ground being about one and one-half miles from the: 1 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1605 shore. In October the boats sometimes go off more than three miles from land. Fully two-thirds of the mackerel are caught within three mniles from the shore, and all are caught within what is known as the three-mile limit; that is, within a line drawn between two points taken three miles off the North Cape and east point of this island.” (McNeill, .42.) Wewill have this evidence accurately, because I think it sheds considerable light on the subject. ‘‘That nine-tenths of our mackerel are caught within one and one-half miles from the shore, and I may say the whole of them are caught within three miles of the shore.” (McLeod, p. 228.) Somewhere the expression ‘ not one barrel in five thousand ” occurs. It is in oneof those affidavits; perhaps in the first one. I have ' read the passage, so as to do no injustice to the statement of the wit- ness. Mr. Hall testified that for a month before the day of his testimony, _ that is to say, after about the first week in September, no mackerel were eaught within five or six miles of the shore; and he applied that state- /ment to the specimen mackerel which were brought here for our inspec- tion and our taste; and Mr. Myrick, from Rustico, told the same story. Moreover, all their witnesses, in speaking of the prosperity of the fish- ing business of the island, which has been dwelt upon and dilated upon ) so much, speak of the fact that not only are the boats becoming more numerous, but they build them larger every year—longer, deeper, and | bigger boats—why? To go fartherfrom the shore. So said Mr.Charchill. leall thata pretty decisive test of the question, what proportion of the mackerel is caught within three miles of the shore. What does Professor Hind say on that subject? In the report that has been furnished us, he | Says (page 90): Mackerel-catching is a special industry, and requires sea-going vessels. The boat , equipment so common throughout British American waters is wholly unsuited to the pursuit of the mackerel, which has been so largely carried on by the United States fish- ermen. Immense schools of mackerel are frequently left unmolested in the gulf and on the coasts of Newfoundland, in consequence of the tishermen being unprovided with suitable vessels and fishing gear. It is, however, a reserve for the fature, which at no distant day will be utilized. Then he goes on to remark that the use of the telegraph is likely to become of great value in connection with these fisheries. Now, is there any explanation of these statements, except that the bulk of the mackerel are caught more than three miles off, in the body of the gulf? If it is a “special industry,” to which boats are wholly unsuited, can it possibly be true that a great proportion of the fish is caught within three miles of the shore? How can you account for these statements of their scientific witness in his elaborate report, except by the fact that he knows that the mackerel fishery is so large a part of it, a fishery more than three miles off the coast, that it can profitably be pursued only in vessels? __ There are two other things, that lie beyond the range of controversy, to —— | pwhich I wish to call your attention. In the first place, there is astatement made by the United States consul at Prince Edward Island, J. H. Sher- |'man, back in 1864, in a communication to the Secretary of State at Washington, long before any question of compensation had arisen—a jconfidential communication to his own government, by a man who had | every opportunity to observe and no motive to mislead. He was writing | With reference to the value of the inshore fisheries, and the statement so | perfectly corresponds with what I believe to be the real truth, that I desire to read it. |_ The Reciprocity Treaty seems to have been an unalloyed boon to the colony. ‘The principal benefit that was expected to accrue to the United States by its operation ' 4 i | Fi 1606 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. was from the removal of the restrictions upon our vessels engaged in the fisheries to a of three marine miles from the shore; but whatever advantage might have vated from that cause has failed to be realized. f The number of vessels engaged in the fisheries on the shores of this colony has greatly diminished since the adoption of that treaty, so that it is now less than one- half the former number. The restriction to three marine miles from the shore (which we imposed upon ourselves under a former treaty) has, I am assured, but a few, if any advantayes, as the best fish are caught outside of that distance, and the vessels are tilled in less time, from tbe fact that the men are liable to no loss of time from idling op the shore. Next take Appendix E of the British Case. Look at the report of the executive council of Prince Edward Island, made to the Ottawa Gov- erument in 1874, with reference to the preparation of this very case. They are undertaking to show how large a claim can be made in behalf of the inshore fisheries of the island, and what do they say (page 3, paragraph 8) ? From the Ist of July to the 1st of October is the mackerel season around our coasts, during which time the United States fishing-fleet pursues its work, and as it has been shown— I do not know where it has been shown— that in 1-72 over one thousand sai] of United States schooners, from 40 to 100 tons, were engaged in the mackerel fishery alone. More than the whole number of the United States vessels licensed to — pursue the mackerel and cod fisheries in that year; so that those statis- tics were large, and the gentlemen who prepared this statement were not indisposed to do full justice to their claims. They did not mean to understate the use made of the fisheries of the island nor the impor- tance of them to the United States fishermen. = This fact, together with our experience in the collection of “light-money,” now abolished, as well as from actual observation, a fair average of United States vessels fishing around our coast during the season referred to may be safely stated at three | hundred sail, and as a season’s work is usually about six hundred barrels per vessel, — we may fairly put down one-third of the catch as taken inside of the three-mile limit. Such was the extent of the claim of the Prince Edward Island Gov- — ernment with reference to the proportion of the inshore and off shore — catch of mackerel when they began to prepare this case. After this, they may pile affidavits as high as they please, they can never do away — with the effect of that statement. Those gentlemen know the truth, | The rest of this paragraph goes on to estimate that $5 a barrel is the net cost of the fish; but I will not go into that. Mr. THomson. You will adopt that whole paragraph ? Mr. Foster. Hardly. I adopt the statement that, in the judgment of the executive council of the island, the strongest claim that they could make as to the proportion of mackerel taken within three miles of tbe shore was one-third. a But we have more evidence about this inshore fishery, for I am now trying to call your attention to those matters that lie outside the range of controversy, where you cannot say that the witnesses, under the pressure of excited feeling, are making extravagant statements. Let us see what the statement was in the debates upon the adoption of the treaty. Dr. Tupper, of Halifax, in giving an account of the state of the fisheries, says: “The member for West Durham stated that if Canada‘ had continued the policy of exclusion, the American fisheries would very soon have utterly failed, and they would have been at our mercy. This moe a great mistake, Last summer he went down in a steamer from esate tag to Pictou, and fell in with a fleet of thirty American fishing- | essels, which had averaged three hundred barrels of mackerel in tht | . distance been antici] es AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1607 weeks, and had never been within ten miles of the shore.” I am inclined to concede, for the purposes of the argument, that of the mackerel caught by boats off the bend of Prince Edward Island, about one-third are taken within three miles of the shore. I believe it to bea very liberal estimate, and [ have no idea that any such proportion was ever taken by a single United States vessel fishing in that vicinity. I have already alluded to the fact that the boat-fishing and the vessel-fishing are wholly different things, and to the necessity of a vessel being able to raise a great body of mackerel. Do you remember the testimony of Captain Hurlbert, pilot of the Speedwell, certainly one of the most intelligent and candid wit- nesses that has appeared here? He stated that you could not catch the mackerel in any quantities on board vessels off the bend of the island, because the water was not deep enough within three miles. Take the chart used by Professor Hind in connection with his testimony, and see within three miles of the shore how deep the water is. Ten to fifteen fathoms is the depth as far out as three miles. You will hardly find twenty fathoms of water anywhere within the three-mile zone. Captain Hurlbert gave, with great truth, the reason for his opinion, that there was not depth of water enough there to raise a body of mackerel necessary for profitable vessel-fishing. My brother Davies felt the force of that, and cross-examined him about the Magdalen Islands. I have been look- ing at the chart of the Magdalen Islands, and I have also considered the testimony as to the fishing in that vicinity. A great deal of the fishing at the Magdalen Islands is done more than three miles from the shore. The place where the best mackerel are taken, Bird Rocks, will be found to have twenty fathoms of water within the three-mile limit. And when you come to that locality, where I honestly believe a larger proportion of mackerel are caught within three miles than anywhere else—that is, off Margaree, in the autumn—you will find by the chart that the water there is deep, and that twenty fathoms is marked for quite a distance in a great many localities within three miles of the land. I have always understood the Byron Islands and the Bird Rocks to be a part of the Magdalen Islands, and they have always been so testified to by the witnesses. When they have spoken of the Magdalen Islands, they have included fishing in those two localities as within the Magdalen Islands fisheries. In speaking of localities, they name the Bird Rock, but they speak of it as part of the Magdalen Islands. That particular question of geography may deserve more attention hereafter. I cannot now pause | to consider it. Right here let me read from an early report on this subject of fishing | inshore. Captain Fair, of Her Majesty’s ship Champion, in 1839, says that he passed through a fleet of six or seven hundred American vessels in various positions, some within the headlands of the bays and some along the shores, but none within the three-miles interdiction. While cruising in the vicinity of Prince Edward Island, he states that there was not “a single case which called for our interference or where it was necessary to recommend caution; on the contrary, the Americans say that a privilege has been granted them, and that they will not abuse it.” —(Sabine’s Report on the Fisheries, page 410.) ; There is something peculiar about this Prince Edward Island fishery and its relative proportion to the Nova Scotia fishery. As I said before, Tam inclined to believe that the greatest proportion of mackerel caught anywhere inshore is caught off Margaree late in the autumn. The United States vessels, on their homeward voyage, make harbor at Port Hood, and lie there one or two weeks; while there, they do fish within three miles of Margaree Island; not between Margaree Island and the — 1608 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. mainland, but within three miles of the island shores; and just there is found water deep enough for vessel-fishing. Look at the chart, which fully explains to my mind the inshore fishing at this point. Margaree is a part of Nova Scotia, and Professor Hind says there is an immense boat-eatch all along the outer coast of Nova Scotia, and estimates that of the Dominion mackerel catch Quebec furnishes 7 per cent. (he does not say where it comes from), Nova Scotia 80 per cent., New Brunswick 3 per eent., and Prince Edward Island 10 per cent. Considering the fact that the preponderance of the testimony 1n regard to the mack- erel fishery comes from Prince Edward Island, is it not strange that it does not furnish more than 10 per cent. of the entire catch; that is, not more than 12 or 16,000 barrels of mackerel a year? But this accords with the report of J. C. Tache, deputy minister of agriculture (pages 43 and 44), which is the most intelligible report or statistical memoranda of the Canadian fisheries that I have found. It bears date 1876, and in narrow compass, is more intelligible to me, at least, than the separate statewents which I am obliged to draw from the large volumes. Mr. Tache says that “the figures of the Fisheries’ Report are a very great deal short of the real quantities caught every year, as regards cod and herring, although coming quite close to the catch of mackerel. The reason is, that it is specially from large commercial houses, which are principally exporters of fish, that the information is gathered by the fisheries officers ; then it comes that mackerel, being principally obtained for exportation and held in bond by large dealers, is found almost adequately represented in these returns. When I called Professor Hind’s attention to these statements, and remarked to him that we had not heard much said about the places where mackerel were caught in Nova Scotia, he replied it was because there was an immense boat-catch on the coast. If there has been any evidence of United States vessels fishing for mackerel within three miles of the shores, or more than three miles from the shore of the outer coast of Nova Scotia, it has escaped my attention. There is no consid- erable evidence, I do not know but I might say no appreciable evidence of United States vessels fishing for mackerel off the coast of Nova Scotia (I am not now speaking of Margaree, but the coast of Nova Scotia). As to Cape Breton, very little evidence has been given except in reference to the waters in the neighborhood of Port Hood. \ vu will observe that this estimate of the Prince Edward Island fish- eries, ten per cent., must be nearly correct. It is larger than the returns of exportation, a little larger than Mr. Hall’s estimate, and I think if I say that from 12 to 15,000 barrels of mackerel are annually exported from Prince Edward Island, I shall do full justice to the average quantity of fish caught there. Now it does seem to me that there has been no evidence that can tend to lead you to suppose that the quantity taken by United States vessels in that neighborhood since the Treaty of — Washington, five years ago, compares at all in magnitude with the quantity taken by the island vessels themselves. Phere are some other topies connected with the mackerel catch to Which | want to call your attention. Remember, gentlemen, always, that we hold this investigation down to the period of the treaty ; and that you have no right to make any award against the United States for anything anterior to the first day of July, 1873, or subsequent to twelve years later than that. ; si Now, | wish to present some figures relative to the years that have elapsed since the fishery clauses of the Treaty of Washington took effect. I will begin with y I8v3. That year the Massachusetts inspection of . AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1609 mackerel was 185,748 barrels; the Maine inspection was 22,193 barrels; the New Hampshire inspection was 2,398 barrels. (I am quoting now ' from Appendix O.) The total amount of the Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire inspection, for the year 1873, is 210,339 barrels. That is the entire amount caught by United States vessels and boats around our shores, coasts, and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Whatever comes from our vessels appears in the inspection. During that year, we are favored with the returns from Port Mulgrave; and, allowing for a little natural spirit of exaggeration, which some might attribute to the patri- otic feelings of the collector, and others to the disposition of American fishermen to tell as good stories of their catch as they can, we find the Port Mulgrave returns to be pretty accurate. They are a few per cent. in excess of the statistics of the catches, with which I have compared them to some extent; but still are tolerably accurate and fair returns for that year. They give 254 vessels, with an average catch of 548 sea- barrels and 313 packed barrels, aggregating 88,012 sea-barrels. Taking _ off ten per cent. for loss by packing, which accords with the current of _ the testimony—the Port Mulgrave inspector estimates the loss by pack- _ ing to be 73 per cent., and he estimates L5 barrels off, but the current | of the testimony makes it ten per cent.—the aggregate was 79,211 packed | barrels. Of the 254 vessels, 131 came from Gloucester. Of these 254 | vessels, 25 were lost that year, a loss of ten per cent. of all the United | States vessels that were in the gulf. One-tenth part of all the vessels that came to the gulf that year were lost. That is the largest catch that our vessels have made since the treaty. Of that 79,211 barrels, which were caught by United States vessels in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in the year 1873, what proportion are you prepared to assume was | caught inshore? Is not a third a liberal estimate? Taking the Mag- ' @alen Islands, taking Bank Bradley, taking Orphan Bank, taking Mis- cou Bank, taking the Pigeon Hill grounds, taking the fishing off the _ bend of the island, that place where Captain Rowe said he always found _ the best and largest fish, inside of New London Head, 12 or 15 miles | out—taking all these well-known localities into consideration, I ask | whether there can be any doubt that it is a very liberal estimate, indeed, to say one-third was caught inshore? 1 do not think that all the mack- ' erel taken by the United States vessels inshore, in all parts of the Gulf | of St. Lawrence, averages an eighth or a tenth of the total catch, but I | will assume for the moment one-third, the proportion which the Execu- | tive Council of Prince Edward Island thought a fair average for the | Shores of their island. ‘That would make 26,404 barrels caught in British | territorial waters in that year, the first year of the treaty. What were these mackerel worth? Mr. Hall tells you that he buys them landed on _ Shore for $3.75 a barrel. After they have been caught, after the time _ Of the fishermen has been put into the business, he buys them for $3.75 | abarrel. If they are worth $3.75 a barrel when they are caught, what | proportion of that sum is it fair to call the right to fish for them worth? | You may set your own figures on that. Call it one-half, one-third, or | one-quarter. I should think it was somewhat extraordinary if the right _ to fish in a narrow zone three miles wide was worth any large portion | Of the value of the fish after they were caught and landed. But you |} May estimate that as you please. I will tell you how you will come out || if you charge us with having caught a third of our fish inshore that | year, and with the full value that Mr. Hall pays for them after they are caught. It is $99.015. . That was the first year of the treaty, and there were imported into i! the United States from the British Provinces 90,889 barrels, on which t i = |: 1610 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the duty of 82 a barrel would amount to $181,778. The value of the fish that our people caught is $99,000, and the British fishermen gain in the remission of duties nearly $182,000. Look at it in another way. Does anybody doubt that, barrel for bar- rel. the right to import mackerel free of duty is worth more than the rivht to fish for them? Is not the right to carry into the United States market, after they are caught, a barrel of mackerel, worth as much as the right to fish for a barrel of mackerel off the bight of the island? Estimating it so, 90,889 barrels came in duty free, and there were caught in the gult by American vessels, 79,211 barrels. That is the first year of the treaty, and by far the best year. The next year, 1874, the Massachusetts inspection was 253,380 bar- rels. Since 1873 there has been no return from Maine. There is no general inspector, and the Secretary of State informs us that the local inspectors do not make any returns. I suppose that if you call the Maine catch 22,000 barrels, the same as the year before, you will do full justice to it, for the Maine mackerel fishery, according to the testimony, has obviously declined for years. The inspection in New Hampshire was 5,519 barrels. There was imported invo the United States that year from the provinces, 89,693 barrels, on which there was saved a daty of =179,386. That year the Port Mulgrave returns show 164 vessels to lave been in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, of which 98 came from Glouces- ter; 63,0783 sea-barrels, or 56,770 packed barrels, were taken. The Gloucester vessels caught 48,813 barrels. Take these 56,770 packed barrels as the aggregate catch in the year 1874 in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, by United States vessels, and set them off against the 89,693 — barrels imported into the United States, and where do you come out? Pursuing the same estimate, that one-third may have been caught in- shore—an estimate which I insist is largely in excess of the fact—there would be 18,923 barrels caught inshore, which would be worth $70,961, at Mr. Hall’s prices; and you have $70,961 as the value, after they are caught and landed, of the mackerel we took out of British territorial waters, to set against a saving of $179,386 on American duties. That is the second vear. Now, come to 1875, That year the catch was small. The Massachu- setts Inspection was only 130,064; the New Hampshire inspection, 3,415 barrels. The provincial importation into the United States is (7,958 barrels. That fell off somewhat, but far less than the Massa- chnsetts inspection, in proportion. The duty saved is $155,076. Fifty- eight Gloucester vessels are found in the bay, as we ascertain from the Centennial book, and Mr. Hind, speaking of the mackerel fishery in 1875, and quoting his statistics from some reliable source, says, “ the number of Gloucester vessels finding employment in the mackerel fish- ery in 1875 was 180. Of these, 93 made southern trips, 117 fished off shore, and 58 visited the Bay of St. Lawrence; 618 fares were received, 1:33 from the south, 425 from off shore, and 60 from the bay.” (Hind’s Report, Pp. 55, S59.) Fifty-eight vessels from Gloucester made 60 trips. Now, where are the Port Mulgrave returns for 1875? They were made, for we have extracted that fact. We have called for them. I am sure we have called vtten and loud enough for the Port Mulgrave returns of 1875 and 18v6. Where are they? They are not produced, although the collector’s affidavit is here, as well as the returns for 1877, which wé obtained, wud of which I shall speak hereafter. The inference from the keeping back of these returns is irresistible. Our friends on the other ide knew that the concealment of these returns was conclusive evidence that they were mach worse than those of the previous year, 1874; and ‘ q a AWARD OF .THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1611 yet they preferred to sabmit to that inevitable inference rather than have the real fact appear. Rather than to have it really appear how much the 58 Gloucester vessels caught in the bay that year, they prefer to submit to the inference which must necessarily be drawn, which is this—and it is corroborated by the testimony of many of their witnesses— that that year the fishing in the bay was a total failure. I can throw a little more light on the result of the fishing in the bay that year. There were 58 vessels from Gloucester, which averaged a catch of 191 barrels, while 117 on the United States coast caught an average of 409 barrels. This comes from the statistics for the Centennial: 11,078 barrels of mackerel taken from the Gulf of St. Lawrence in 1875 is all that we know about. What more there were our friends will not tell us, because the aggregate of 11,078 barrels caught by 58 vessels, averaging 191 barrels a vessel, is so much better result than the Port Mulgrave returns would show, that they prefer to keep the returns back. I think, gentle- men, that this argument from the official evidence in your possession is one that, under the circumstances, you must expect to have drawn. That year, so far as we know, only 11,078 barrels of mackerel came out of the gulf; but double it. You will observe that more than half of the vessels have come from Gloucester every year. The previous year, there were 98 out of 164. Let us double the number of vessels that came from Gloucester. Suppose that there were as many vessels came from _ other places, and that they did as well. The result would give you 23,156 barrels. Take the actual result of the Gloucester vessels; sup- pose as many more came from other places, when we know that the previous year a majority came from Gloucester, (I want to be careful in this, for I think it is important), and about 23,000 barrels of mackerel were taken out of the Gulf of St. Lawrence in the year 1875, against an importation of 77,538 barrels into the United States from the prov- inces, on which a duty was saved of $155,076. In the year 1876, by the official statement, which was lost, 27 trips. were returned to the custom-house as being made by Gloucester vessels to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I cannot verify that; it depends merely upon memory. We have not had the Port Mulgrave returns. I give my friends leave to put them in now, if they will do so, or give us an opportunity to examine them. I invite them to put them in now if they think I am overstating the result. There were 27 Gloucester vessels (I may be in error about this; it is mere memory) came to the gulf in 1876. The Massachusetts inspection was 225,941 barrels; the New Hampshire inspection was 5,351 barrels. The United States importation was 76,538 barrels. Duty saved, $153,076. To be sure, they will say that 1875 and 1876 were poor years. They were poor years—no doubt about that—but average them with 1873 and 1874 and see if the result is in the least favorable; see if they are able to show any considerable ben- efit derived by our people from inshore fishing, or anything which com- - pares with the saving in respect to duty that they make. When we began this investigation nearly every witness that was ex- amined was asked whether the prospects for the present year were not very good ; whether it was not likely to be an admirable mackerel year . in the gulf, and they said “ Yes.” They said the gulf was full of mack- erel. Somehow or other that impression got abroad, and our vessels came down here in greater numbers than before for several years. One Witness has seen 50 or 75 vessels there. I think 76 came from Glouces- ter. There may have been 100 there in all. You will recollect that one witness said the traders in Canso telegraphed how fine the prospects _ Were, with a view probably to increase their custom; but they did ex- 1612 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. pect that the fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence was to be better than it had been fora long time. Let us see what has happened this year. We have a part of the Port Mulgrave returns; down to the 25th of September, 1877. There is another page or half a page which our friends have vot furnished us. I invite them to put thatin now. I would like it very much. But so much as we were able to extract produced the following result: 60 vessels; 8,3655 barrels; an average of 1393 sea- barrels or 125 packed barrels; and one of our affidavits says that the fish on one vessel were all bought. The John Wesley got 190 barrels, very much over the average, and the witness said he went to the gulf, could not eatech any mackerel, and thought he would buy some of the boatmen. But 125 packed barrels is the average catch, and 8,3653 is the total number of barrels. Now, multiply that by the value of the mackerel after they are landed and see what is the result. It is about $51,370. I will not stop to do that sum accurately, because it is too small; but ] will call your attention to the results of the importation this year. The importations into Boston, to October 1, from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, were 36,576 barrels; from Prince Edward Island, 14,5494 barrels; in all, 51,1253 barrels, which would amount in duty saved to #102,251, up to the 1st of October. It is not strictly evidence, and if my friends object to it, it may be stricken out; but here is the last report of the Boston Fish Bureau, that came yesterday, which gives later results. Up to November 2, there had been 77,617 barrels imported into Boston from the provinces, more than double the amount that was imported in 1576, up to the same time; so that, while there has been this great fall- ing off in the vessel fishery in the gulf—it is a total failure to-day—there has been double the catch by boats, and double the catch by the Prov- incial fishermen. They have saved $155,234 of duty as against some- thing like $30,000 worth of fish, when they are caught. It may be said that these returns will not represent the average, but we had a witness here, the skipper of the schooner Eliza Poor, Captain William A. Dickie, who testified on page 264 of the American evidence, that he had 118 sea-barrels, or 106 packed barrels. He was one of those men who hap- pened into Halifax, on his schooner, and upon cross-examination it was drawn from him by Brother Doutre, that Mr. Murray, the collector at Mulgrave, told him that he had an average or more than an average of the cateh of the United States fleet. He saw fifty United States vessels in the gulf, In the absence of more complete returns, that is the best account I am able to give of the condition of the mackerel fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence since the Treaty of Washington was enacted. I might confirm this by calling your attention to the testimony of ere from the other fishing towns in Massachusetts, Provincetown, elltivet, and other places, showing how the number of their vessels eae and that the business is being abandoned, so far as the Bie viwrence goes. Whatever is left of it is concentrated in ster, and there its amount is insignificant. Sahay ree of the amount of duties saved upon the Pro- “th aA re ae ‘ \ 1e subject of duties I propose to speak separately Rateaiinotic. 2 : ° hot W ish to leave this branch of the subject with- wae i ean r tention to what strikes me as evidence so convincing ation of the Tre: ‘es ot Was SO ones oe omaapien 22°. taa ehers ofthe eh Ae ashington, or for natural causes, the mackerel dwindling down ; i :. me i eae in the Gulf of St. Lawrence has been to the gulf since th Jat Haraly any profitable voyages have been made : @ treaty, Certainly there has been no year when the AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1613 fishing of our vessels in the gulf has not been a loss to the fishermen. Let me call your attention to the fisheries of the provinces. In 1869, Mr. Venning, in making his fishery report, after speaking of the falling off in the mackerel catch, went on to say: “This may be accounted for chiefly by stating that a large proportion of our best mackerel catchers ship on beard American vessels on shares, and take their fish to market in those vessels, and thus evade the duty; but after selling their fish, for the most part return home with the money.” The Hon. S. Campbell, of Nova Scotia, in the debate on the Reci- procity Treaty, says: Under the operation of the system that had prevailed since the repeal of the treaty of 1854, the fishermen of Nova Scotia had, to a large extent, become the fishermen of the United States. They had been forced to abandon their vessels and homes in Nova Scotia and ship to American ports, there to become engaged in aiding the commercial enterprises of that country. It was a melancholy feature to see thousands of young and hardy fishermen compelled to leave their native land to embark in the pursuits of a foreign country, and drain their own Jand of that aid and strength which their pres- ence would have secured. : Mr. James R. McLean, one of our witnesses, was asked whether the condition of things was not largely due to want of capital, and he said: It was owing to this reason: We had to pay $2 a barrel duty on the mackerel we sent to the United States, and the men would not stay in the Island vessels when they saw that the Americans were allowed to come and fish side by side with the British vessels, and catch an equal share of fish ; of course, this was the result. The fishermen consequently went on the American vessels; our best men did so, and some of the very best fishermen and smartest captains among the Americans are from Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. Captain Chivirie, the first and favorite witness called on the British side, says: Q. What class of men are the sailors and fishermen employed among the Ameri- eans ?—A. I would say that, for the last fifteen years, two-thirds of them have been foreigners. Q. What do you mean by the term “ foreigners” ?—A. That they are Nova Scotians, and that they come pretty much from all parts of the world. Their fishermen are picked pretty much out of all nations. Q. If the Americans were excluded from our fishing privileges, what do you think these men would do ?—A. They would return to their native home and carry on fishing there. Q. Have many of them come back ?—A. O, yes. We have a number of Island men who have returned. A large number have done so. A great many come home for the Winter and go back to the States in the spring; but during the past two years many of this class have come down to remain. This year I do not know of more than a dozen, out of three hundred in my neighborhood, who have gone back. They get boats and fish along the coast, because they find there is more money to be secured by this plan of operations. The fisheries being better, the general impression is that they are all making towards home to fish on their own coast. James F. White says in his affidavit, put in on the British side: The number of boats fishing here has trebled in the last three years. The reason of this increase is that other business is depressed, and fishermen from the United States, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia are coming here to settle, attracted by the good fishing, so that we are now able to get crews to man our boats, which formerly we were unable to do. Another reason is that the year 1875 was a very good year, and owing to tke successful prosecution of the fishing that year, people’s atten- tion was turned to the business, and they were incited to go into it. And another of their men, Meddie Gallant, says in his affidavit : In the last five years, the number of boats engaged in fishing in the above distances has at least doubled. At this run alone there has been a very great increase. Eight ears ago there were only eight boats belonging to this run, now there are forty-tive. The boats are twice as good in material, fishing outfit, in sailing, in equipment, in rig- ging, and in every way, as they were five years ago. There is a great deal more money Invested in fishing now than there was. Nearly every one is now going into the busi- ness about here. The boats, large and small together, take crews of about three men each. That is, besides the men employed at the stages about the fish, who are a con- » siderable number. _—, 1614 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. So then, while the mackerel- fishing of our vessels in the gulf has been diminishing, theirs has been largely increasing. What! all this, and money too! Is it not enough that two, three, or four times as much fish is taken by them as before the treaty? Is it not enough that they are prosperous, that those who have left them are returning home, and everybody is going into the business? Can they claim that they are losers by the Treaty of Washington? Is it not plain that they have, in consequence of its provisions, entered upon a career of unprecedented prosperity ? At this point Mr. Foster suspended his argument, and the Commis- sion adjourned until Tuesday, at noon. TUESDAY, November 6, 1877. The Commission met, according to adjournment, and Mr. Foster re- sumed his argument. GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMISSION: At the adjournment yesterday, I had been giving some description of the quantity of the mackerel fishing since the Treaty of Washington by American vessels in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and in the vicinity of British waters. For the years 1873 and 1874, I am content to rest upon the information derived from the Port Mulgrave statistics. With reference to the subsequent years, 1875, 1876, and 1877, there are one or two pieces of evidence to which I ought, per- haps, specifically to refer. Your attention has already been called to the fact that the Magdalen Islands aud the Banks in the body of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, of which Professor Hind says there are many not put down on the chart (‘wherever you find banks,” he says, ‘* there you expect to find mackerel”), have been the principal fishing grounds of the United States vessels for many years, The disastrous results of the great gale of 1875, in which a large number of United States vessels were lost, and in which more than twenty Gloucester vessels went ashore on the Magdalen Islands, show where, at that time, the principal part of the mackerel fleet was fishing. In 1876, the report of the Commis- sioner of Fisheries for the Dominion speaks of the number of vessels that year found at the Magdalen Islands. He says, “About one hundred foreigu vessels were engaged fishing this season around the Magdalen Islands, but out of that number I do not calculate that there were more than fifty engaged mackerel fishing, and, according to the best informa- tion received, theic catch was very moderate.” We have also the statement of one of the Prince Edward Island wit- nesses, George Mackenzie, on page 132 of the British evidence, who, after describing the gradual decrease of the American fishery by vessels, says, ‘There has not been for seven years a good vessel mackerel fishery, and for the last two years it has been growing worse and worse.” He esti- mates the number of the United States vessels seen off the island at about fifty. We have also the testimony of Dr. Fortin on the subject, who spent a number of weeks this year, during the height of the fishing season, in an expedition after affidavits, that took him all around the gulf, where he could not have failed to see whatever American vessels were fishing there, He says he “ may have seen about 25 mackereling and sailing about,” and that he heard at the Magdalen Islands there were seventy. According to the best information that I can obtain, that is hot far from correct. Joseph Tierney, of Souris, says that there were twenty or thirty at Georgetown, fifteen or twenty at Souris, and he should think when he left home there were seventy-five. Ronald Mac- AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1615 donald, of East Point, says that he has not seen more than thirty sail this year at one time together; that last year he saw as many as a dozen and perhaps fifteen or twenty sail at a time. The number has dimin- ished very much, he says, for the last five or six years, until this year. Now, gentlemen, this is the record of the five years during which United States fishermen, under the provisions of the Treaty of Wash- ington, have derived whatever advantages. they could obtain from the inshore fisheries. I have heard the suggestion made that it would have been better if this Commission had met in 1872, because there might have then been evidence introduced with reference to the whole twelve years of the Treaty of Washington; and I have even heard it said that it would have been fair to estimate the value of the privilege for the twelve years according to the appearance at that time. That is to say, that it would have been fairer to estimate by conjecture than by proof, by anticipation than by actual results. It seems to me, on the contrary, gentlemen, that the fairer way would have been either to have the value of this privilege reckoned up at the end of each fishing year, when it could be seen what had actually been done, or to have postponed the determination of the question until the experience of the whole twelve years, aS matter of evidence, could be laid before the Commission. What shall we say of the prospects of the ensuing seven years? What reason is there to believe that the business will suddenly be revolu- tionized ; that there will be a return to the extraordinary prosperity, the great number of fish, and the large catches that are said to have been drawn from the gulf twenty-five, twenty, fifteen years ago? We were told that the time for the revolution had come already when we met here, but the result proves that the present season has been one of the worst for our fishermen. What chance can you see that a state of things will ensue that will make the privilege any more valuable for the seven years to come than it has been for the five years already passed ? Have you any right to assume that it is to be better without evidence? Have you any right, when you are obliged to judge of the future by the past, to go back to a remote past, instead of taking the experience of recent years? Would it be just for you todoso? This Commission, of course, does not sit here to be generous with the money of the Gov- ernment of the United States, but simply to value in money what the Citizens of the United States have under the treaty received, and are proved to be about to receive. It is, therefore, to be a matter of proof, of just such proof as you would require if you were assessing a charge upon each fishing-vessel, either as it entered the gulf or as it returned with its mackerel. We think there have been, heretofore, quite good standards by which to estimate the values of the inshore fisheries. For four years a system of licenses was enforced. In the year 1866 the license-fee charged was only fifty cents a ton, except at Prince Edward Island, where it seems to have been sixty cents a ton. In 1867 it was raised to a dollar a ton, and $1.20 at Prince Edward Island. In 1868 it was two dollars a ton, and $2.40 at Prince Edward Island. The reason for the additional price on the island I do not know, but it is not, perhaps, of mach consequence. Onr fishermen told you that the motive that induced them to take out these licenses was twofold. In the first place, they desired to be free from danger of molestation. In the next place they did not desire, when there was an opportunity to catch fish within three miles of the shore, to be debarred from doing so; and if the license-fee had remained at the moderate price originally charged no doubt all of our vessels would have continued to pay the license as they did the first year. Three hun- t a i + lp ll it lg 1616 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, dred and fifty-four was the number of licenses the first year; but when the price was raised to a dollar a ton, half the number of vessels fonnd it expedient to keep where they had always been allowed to go; to fish remote from the shore; even to avoid doubtful localities; to keep many miles out on the banks rather than pay a sum that would amount, on the average, to £70.a trip; and when the price was raised to two dollars a tou hardly any of the vessels were willing to pay it. The reason why they would not pay it was not that they were contumacious and defiant, They were in a region where they were liable to be treated with great severity, and where they had experienced, as they thought, very hostile and aggressive treatment. They desired peace; they desired freedom They did not wish to be in a condition of anxiety. Neither the captains of the vessels on the sea, nor the owners of the vessels at home, had any desire to feel anxiety and apprehension. The simple reason why they did pay when it was fifty cents a ton and ceased to pay when it became one dollar or two dollars a ton, was that the price exceeded, in their judgment, the value of the privilege. There were not mackerel enough taken within the inshore zone to make it worth their while to give so much for it. Whatever risk they were subjected to, whatever inconvenience they were subjected to from being driven off the shore, they preferred to undergo. If a license to fish inshore was not worth a dollar a ton in 1868 and 1869, in the haleyon days of the mackerel fish- ery, can anybody suppose it really is worth as much as that now? Bat fix the price of the license fee as high as you please. Go to this ques- tion as a question of computation, on business principles, pencil in hand; estimate how much per ton it is worth, or how much per vessel it is worth, and see to what result you are brought by the figures. Nobody thinks that for some years past there have been in the Gulf of St. Law- rence three hundred vessels from the United States fishing for mackerel, The average tonnage is put by no one at over 70 tons. That is about the average of Gloucester tonnage, and the vessels that come from Gloucester are larger than those that come from other places. Three hundred vessels, at $70 a vessel, $21,000 per annum. Put whatever you please per ton, and state the account; debit the United States with that, and see what the result is when you come to consider the duties. If it is called two dollars a ton, the highest price ever charged, it will — be about $42,000 a year. | Is there apy prospect whatever that the mackerel fishery for Ameri- ean vessels in the Gulf of St. Lawrence will ever become prosperous ? In order that it should do so, there must concur three things, of no one of which is there any present probability. In the first place, there must be much poorer fishing off the coast of the United States than usual, for as things have been there for some years past, untjl the present year, the fishing for mackerel was so much more profitable than it had ever. been in the Gulf of St. Lawrence that there was no temptation for our | vessels to desert our own shores; and off the shores of the United States seining can be pursued, which never has been successfully followed in the gulf. Seining mackerel is about the only really profitable mode of taking the fish, as a business out of which money can be made to any considerable amount. The days for hook-and-line fishing have passed away, and seining is the method by which the fish must be taken if * money is to be made. . That has never yet been done, and is not likely to be done, in the gulf. The bottom is too rough; the water is too shal- low. The expedient that we were told at the beginning of the hearing had been adopted turns out to be impracticable, for shallow seines | alarm and frighten away the fish. The seines are not made shallow to - 1 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1617 accommodate themselves to the waters of the gulf. Year by year they are made longer and deeper, that a school of fish may be more success- fully enveloped by them. Then there must also be mach better fishing in the gulf than has existed for several years past. It has been going down in value every year since the treaty went into effect. It has got down to an average by the Port Mulgrave returns (I mean by the portion of the returns which we have) of 125 barrels a vesse] this year, and, according to the verbal statement of the collector of Port Mulgrave, 108 barrels is quite up to the average. If any one takes the trouble to go through the returns we have put into the case and analyze them, it will appear that 108 barrels is quite as large as the average this year. Some vessels have come out of the gulf with nothing at all, and some with hardly anything at all. In the next place, in order to induce American vessels to go for mackerel to the Gulf of St. Lawrence in any considerable numbers, mackerel must have an active market at remuner.- ative prices. There must be a different state of things in the United | States in that respect from what has existed for many years past, for, _ by all accounts, the demand has been declining and the consumption ' has been diminishing for ten years past. Without stopping to read at length the testimony on that point, there are two or three of the British witnesses who in a short compass state the truth, and to their testimony I wish to call your attention. Mr. Har- \rington, of Halifax, page 420, says, in answer to the question, ‘ There has not been as much demand for mackerel from the United States for the last five yearsas formerly?” ‘“Notsogreat.” And in reply tothe question, “There must be an abundant supply at home, [ suppose?” he says, “ I should say so, unless the people are using other articles of food.” Mr. ‘Noble, another Halifax witness, page 420, being asked the same ques- tion, says, “‘ I think for the past two years the demand for mackerel has /been quite as good as before.” Mr. Hickson, of Bathurst, is asked this question, ‘‘ Fresh fish are very rapidly taking the place of salt mack- erel in the market, and the importance of salt mackerel and other cured fish is diminishing more and more every year. Is not this the case ?” -) His answer is, “ That is my experience in my district.” “ And owing to |the extension of the railroad system and the use of ice-cars, pickled, -jsalf, and smoked fish will steadily become of less consequence ?” * Cer- ‘jtainly.”. Mr. James W. Bigelow, of Wolfville, Nova Scotia, on page |223 of the British evidence, states very emphatically the practical con- _\dition of the business. He says, ‘* The same remark applies not only to cod-fishing, but to all branches of the fishery; within the past ten years ithe consumers have been using fresh instead of salt fish. The salt-fish business on the continent is virtually at an end.” He is sorry to say that he states this from practical knowledge of this business. He then goes on to say that fish is supplied to the great markets of the United States “from Gloucester, Portland, and New York; but from Boston principally.” “ And the fish is sent where?” ‘To every point West, all over the Union; the fish is principally boxed in ice.” Then he goes on to state that if the arrangements of the Treaty of Washington should | become permanent, instead of being limited to aterm of twelve years, | With the new railroad communication with this city that bas been al- | ready opened, the result will be to make Halifax the great fish-business | penter of the continent; that the vessels will come in here with their ‘resh fish instead of of going to Gloucester or Boston or New York; hat a great business, a great city, will be built up here; and le says that, notwithstanding the treaty is liable to terminate in seveu ears, he is expecting to put his own money into the business, and es- | = 102 F ii t ee ll A a ae 1618 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. tablish himself in the fresh-fish business here. Our own witnesses—the witnesses for the United States—have givena fuller and more detailed explanation of this change that has taken place in the markets. It re- quires no explanation to satisfy any person, with the ordinary organs of taste, that one who ean get fresh fish will not eat salt mackerel. Every- body knows that. Crede experto. Our witnesses tell you that fresh fish is sent as far asthe Mississippi, and west of the Mississippi, in as great abundance as is to be found on the seaboard. It is just as easy to have fresh fish at Chicago and Saint Louis, and at any of the cities lying on the railroad lines one or two hundred miles west of the Mississippi, as it isto have fresh fish in Boston or Philadelphia. It is only a question of paying the increased price of transportation. Salt fish has to be transported there also, and it costs as much to transport the salt fish as the fresh fish. The result is, that people will not and do not eat salt fish nearly as much as formerly. Then there is agreat supply of lake herring —a kind of white-tish—from the northern lakes. The quantity is so great. that the statistics of it are almost appalling, although they come from the most authentic sources. This lake herring being sold at the same price as the inferior grades of nackerel—being sold often lower than the cheapest mackerel can be atforded—is taken in preference to it. People find it more agreeable. At the South, where once there was a large mackerel demand usually, there has grown up an immense mullet business, both fresh and cured, that has taken the place of salt mackerel there. And so it has come to pass that there is a very limited demand in a few 1 rge hotels for that kind of salt mackerel which is the best, the No. 1 fat mackerel—a demand. that would not take up, at the usual price in the market, $20 a barrel, | more than from five to ten thousand barrels all over the country, while, if you go down to the poorer grades of mackerel, few will buy them until they get as low as from $7 to $8 a barrel. lam not going over the testimony of Proctor, Pew, Sylvanus Smith, and our other witnesses. ou this subject, because what they have said must be fresh in the minds | ot allof you. It comes to this: people will not eat the mackerel unless. they can buy it at avery low price. It comes into competition, not with other kinds of fish alone, but with every description of cheap food, aud its price can never be raised above the average price of other staples in the market of equivalent food-value. _ If it is to be impossible to dispose of considerable quantities of these fish until the price is brougkt down to about $5 a barrel on the average, what inducement will there be to come, at great expense, to the Gulf of. St. Lawrence, to have such results as for years past have followed from voyages here? The truth, gentlemen, is simply this: whether it is a privilege to you not to see United States vessels here, or whether their presence here has some incidental benefit connected with it, you are going to find for years to come that they will not be here. The people Sc Adelante oe want to sell them supplies, will find them much tron navine tien ae ay ve BAEeEBS: fishermen who Suffer 9 Rit teak Kt aa au in t 1e neighborhood of the island will be ex- sar to oe Stace hereafter. Once in two or three hers Naticus i: ies a ei . a chance of a great supply here, and if giv eile casa does boat ailure on our own coast, a few of our ves-* Heet of Diited States Saueeta? Sy try the experiment. But as to a large ae hogs aka = Se ce for mackerel in the Gulf of St. He < ara i tere prospect that such will ever be the hiding Me ane tor mackerel died out in the Bay of Fan-- . iluesses many years ago mackerel were ex-. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1619 tremely abundant in the waters in the vicinity around Newfoundland. They have disappeared from all of those places, thongh, strange to say one schooner did get a trip of mackerel in a Newfoundland bay this summer, off the French coast, so that we are not obliged to pay for it in the award of this Commission; it was in waters where we had aright to fish before the Treaty of Washington. But this business, notoriously precarious, where no man cau foretell the results of a voyage, or the re- sults of a season, will pretty much pass away, so farasit is pursued by United States vessels, They will run out on our own coast; they will catch what they can and carry them to market fresh, and what cannot be sold fresh they will pickle. They will, when prospects are good, make occasional voyages here, but as for coming in great numbers, there is no probability that they will ever do it again. Our friends in Nova Scotia and upon the island are going to have the local fishery to them- selves ; I hope that it will prove profitable to them; I have no doubt it will prove reasonably profitable to them, because they, living on the coast, at home, can pursue it under greater advantages than the men of | Massachusetts can. They are very welcome to all the profits they are | to make out of it, and they are very welcome, if they are not ungener- ous in their exactions from us, to all the advantages they derive from sending the fish that they take in their boats or vessels in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to our markets, all they can make by selling | them there. . I am sure no one will grudge them. I come now to a branch of this case which it seems to me ought to decide it, whatever valuation, however extreme, may be put upon the quantity of mackerel caught by our vessels in the territorial waters of the provinces. I mean the duty question ; the value of the remission of / duties in the markets of the United States to the people of the Domin. ‘ion. We have laid the statistics before you, and we find that in 1874 there was $335,181 saved upon mackerel and herring, and $20,000 more saved upon fish-oil. There was, therefore, $355,972 saved in 1874. In 1875 there was a saving of $375,991 and some cents; in 1876, $353,242, I get these figures by adding to the results of table No. 4, which shows / the importation of fish, the results of table No. 10, which shows the fish oil. The statistics are Mr. Hill’s. In table No.5 you will find the quan- tities of mackerel and herring. The dutiable value of mackerel was two dollars a barrel; of herring, one dollar a barrel, and of smoked her- ring, five cents a box. We are met here with the statement that the consumer pays the du- ties; and our friends on the other side seem to think that there is a law of political economy as inexorable as the law of gravitation, according to which, when a man has produced a particular article which he offers for sale, and a tax is imposed on that article, he is sure to get enough _|}more out of the man to whom he sells the article to reimburse the tax. That is the theory, and we have heard it from their witnesses—*‘the con- sumer pays the duties”—as if they had been trained in it as an adage of political economy. But, gentlemen, I should not be afraid to discuss that question as applivable to mackerel and herring and the cured fish '}that come from the Dominion of Canada into the United States betore '|any school of political economists that ever existed in the world. [ do {not care with what principles you start, principles of free trade or prin- oe of protection, it seems to me that it can be proved to demonstra- tion that this is a case where the duties fall upon those who catch the ‘fish in the Dominion, and not upon the people of the United States who | bayand eat them. The very treaty under which you are acting requires \\you to have regard to the value of the free market, ordains that in mak- — << - e - ae: | 1620 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ing up your award you shall take it into account. And are you, upon any theories of political economy, to disregard what the treaty Says you shall have regard to? Why, nobody ever heard the proposition ad- vaneed, until we came here to try this case, that free access to the mar- kets of the United States was anything but a most enormous advantage to the people of these provinces. Ned Let us look at the history of the negotiations between the two gov- ernments on the subject. As early as 1845 (some years before the nego- tiations with reference to the Reciprocity Treaty), when the Earl of Aberdeen announced to Mr. Everett, as a matter of great liberality, that our fishermen were no longer to be driven out of the Bay of Fundy, he went on to say that, in communicating the liberal intentions of Her Majesty’s Government, he desired to call Mr. Everett’s attention to the fact that the produce of the labor of the British colonial fishermen was at the present moment excluded, by prohibitory duties on the part of the United States, from the markets of that country; and he submitted that the moment when the British Government made a liberal conces- sion to the United States might well be deemed favorable for a kindred concession on the part of the United States to the British trade, by a reduction of the duties which operated so prejudicially to the interests of British colonial fishermen. That was the view of the home govern- ment ‘ong before any reciprocity treaty had been agitated, thirty-two years ago. The letter of Lord Aberdeen bears date March 10, 1845. In 1850, a communication took place between Mr. Everett, then See- retary of State, through the British minister at Washington, in which Lord Elgin made the offer to which I referred in my Case, which I then understood to be an unequivocal offer to exchange free fish for free fish- ing, Without regard to other trade relations. I found that, so far as that particular letter went, I was in error, and corrected the error. Sub- sequently, | found that Mr. Everett himself, two years later, had the same impression, for in a letter that he wrote, as Secretary of State, to the President, in 1853, before the Reciprocity Treaty, he says: It has been perceived with satisfaction that the Government of Her Britannic Maj- esty is prepared to enter into an arrangement for the admission of the fishing-vessels of the United States to a full participation in the public fisheries on the coasts and shores of the provinces (with the exception, perhaps, at present, of Newfoundland), and in the right of drying and curing tish on shore, on condition of the admission duty free into the markets of the United States of the products of the colonial fisheries 5 similar privileges, on the like condition, to be reciprocally enjoyed by British subjects on the coasts and shores of the United States. Such an arrangement, the Secretary has reason to believe, would be acceptable to the fishing interests of the United States. (Thirty-secoud Cougress, second session, Senate Ex. Doe. 34.) _ The latter part of that letter contains a reference to general reciproc- ity, and shows the anxiety of the British authorities to have more exten- sive reciprocal arrangements made. Mr. KELLOGG. What is the date of Lord Elgin’s letter ? Mi. Fosrer. The letter of Lord Elgin is dated June 24,1851. The letter which I just read from Mr. Everett to the President was in 1853. So that it seems that Mr. Everett then understood, as I did, that the offer Was a specific one, and that the Government of Great Britain was at that time disposed to exchange the right of inshore fishing for the admission of fish into the United States duty free. It is not particularly * lmportant, at a date so remote, how the fact really was. I refer to it only to show the great importance attached at that early day—an im- portance which has continued to be attached from that time to the preseut—by the home government as well as the colonial government, to free access to the markets of the United States. ; 4 “ | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1621 Coming down to the date of the Reciprocity Treaty, we find in every direction, whatever public document we refer to of any of the provinces, the same story told: That during the Reciprocity Treaty, they built up a great fish business, unknown to them before; that at the end of the Reciprocity Treaty, a duty of two dollars a barrel on mackerel, and one dollar a barrel on herring, excluded them from the markets of the United States and crushed out that branch of industry. At the risk of making myself tedious, | must read you some passages on that subject. Here is what Mr. Peter Mitchell, the former minister of marine and ) fisheries, says, in 1869, in his “Return of all licenses granted to Ameri- can fishermen,” printed by order of Parliament, at Ottawa: These excessive duties bear with peculiar hardship on our fishing industry, and par- | ticularly that of Nova Scotia and Prinee Edward Island—the fishermen and dealers in ' those provinces being forced into competition, in United States markets, under serious disadvantages, side by side with the American free catch taken out of our own waters. Yes, “‘ taken out of their own waters.” Iam not afraid of the words. | If the consumer pays the duties, it would not make any difference out of what waters the fish were taken, which brought on competition, would it? Iam discussing now the proposition that there is a law of political economy, of universal application, and particularly applicable to the mackerel which go from the provinces to Boston, by which whatever tax is imposed in the United States is forthwith added to the price and has to be paid by the man who eats the mackerel in the States, and it makes | no difference where the competition arises from. Mr. Mitchell’s state- ment, therefore, is absolutely to the purpose. He continues: At the same time, other producers are subject to equally heavy charges on the agri- cultural, mineral, and other natural products of the United Provinces. The direct extent to which such prohibitory duties affect the fishery interests of these provinces may be stated in a few words. During the year 1566, for example, the ' several provinces have paid in gold, as custom duty on provincial-caught fish exported to the United States, about $220,000. This amount was paid by the provinces in 1866, the year after the Reciprocity Treaty ended. Then, in a note, he says: More forcibly to illustrate the unequal operation of the present system, suffice it to | instance the following cases: A British vessel of 71 tons, built and equipped last sea- | son at St. John, N. B., costing $4,800, expressly for the mackerel fishery in the Gulf of | St. Lawrence and Bay of Chaleurs, took 600 barrels of fisn, which sold in Halifax and | Boston for $6,000. After paying expenses (including $9.86 in gold for customs) a profit | of $1,200 accrued to the owners. An American vessel from Newburyport, Mass., of 46 tons burden, took a license at Port Mulgrave, N.S8., paying $46. The whole cost of vessel and voyage was $3,200 or $2,400, Halifax currency. She fished 910 barrels of ao which sold in Boston for $13,000, about $9,110 in gold, leaviug a profit of 4 . _After speaking of the question of raising the license fee to higher fig- ures, Mr. Mitchell continues (p. 6) : It is recommended that the rate be $2 per ton, the mackerel fishery being that in which Americans chiefly engage, and as mackerel is’ the principal fish marketed in the United States by Canadians, on which the tax is $2 per barrel, this rate amounts to a charge of but 20 cents per barrel, still leaving them an advantage of $1.80 on each bar- rel, besides the drawback allowed on salt. Did Mr. Peter Mitchell think that the $2 a barrel duty was got back by the fishermen of the provinces? During the session of the Joint High Commission at Washington, when the American Commissioners made an offer to purchase the inshore fisheries in perpetuity, which was not coupled with any offer of free admission to our markets, the British Commissioners replied that the offer was, as they thought, wholly inadequate, and that no arrangement would be acceptable of which the admission into the United States, free of duty, of fish, the production ne be ae re 1622 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, of the British fisheries, did not form a part.” And after the Treaty of Washington had been ratified, Karl Kimberly wrote to Lord Lisgar: “It cannot be denied that it is most important to the colonial fishermen to obtain free access tothe American markets for their fish and fish-oil.” You can explain the language of these statements only upon the theory that they knew and understood that the duty was necessarily a tax npon the fish production of the provinces. How idle to have made observations of the kind that I have been reading except upon that plain hypothesis! pat : ; In the debates on the ratification of the treaty it was said by Sir Jolin A. Macdonald that— The only market for the Canadian No. 1 mackerel in the world is the United States. That is our only market, and we are practically excluded from it by the present duty. The conse- quence of that duty is that our fishermen are at the mercy of the American fishermen. They are made the hewers of wood and drawers of water for the Americans. They are obliged to sell their fish at the Americans’ own price. The American fishermen purchase their fish at a nominal value and control the American market. The great profits of the trade are handed over to the American fishermen or the American merchants engaged in the trade, and they profit to the loss of our own industry and our own people. And here let me call your attention to a striking fact, that from the beginning to the end of these negotiations the people of the maritime provinces, who own the inshore fisheries, have been the people who bave been most anxious on any terms to have the duties removed in the United States markets. It was said in this debate by some one (I do not remember the name of the speaker) that “it is harsh and cruel for the people of Ontario, for the sake of forcing a general reciprocity treaty, to injure the fishing interests of the provinces by preventing them from getting a free market in the United States.” : A gentleman from Halitax—Mr. Power—who is said to have devoted his whole life to the business, and to understand all about it, tells the story in a more practical way: In the spring of each year some forty or fifty vessels resorted to the Magdalen Islands for herring, and he had known the number to be greater. These vessels carried an average of 900 barrels each; so that the quantity taken was generally in the neigh- borhood of 50,000 barrels. During the existence of the Reciprocity Treaty no United States vessels went after these fish. All the vessels engaged in that fishery belonged to some ove of the provinces now forming this Dominion. Since the abrogation of the treaty and the imposition of the duty of $1 per barrel by the United States the case had become entirely changed. Vessels still went there, but they were nearly all American. Now, under this treaty, we would get that important branch of trade back again. You will remember that I said yesterday, gentlemen, that herring—a_ fish so poor and SO cheap that American vessels cannot afford to en- kage in the fishery, it is far more advantageous for them to purchase than to catch—would be, by a duty of $1 a barrel, entirely excluded — from the markets of the United States, and it seems that such was the. result in (he interval between the termination of the Reciprocity Treaty and the ratification of the Treaty of Washington. See how Mr. Power deals with this question of whether the consumer pays the duty: Eek had heard it said that the consumer paid the duty. Now, whilst this might be the case — ri some articles, it was not 80 with the article of our fish. In our case, in this business, our ra tye fished side by side with their American rivals, both carrying the proceeds of their cate Se the same market, where our men had to contend against the free fish of the ‘Ameri-* enn fe ry eras Let him illustrate this: An American and a provincial vessel took 500 barrels of mac roel ¢ fespig ; both vessels were confined to the same market, where they sold at the same 1.0007 ne had to pay a duty of $1,000, while the other had not to do 80. Who, then, paid the f thi Most certainly not the purchaser or consumer, but the poor, hard worked fishermen pile “ raat ae ad this $1,000 was deducted from his account of sales. Those who cov-. ore ee bps hy oe the consumer paid the duty ought to be able to show that if the, J © taken off in the United States the selling price there would be reduced by. ae L i AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1623 the amount of the duty. There was nothing in the nature or existing circumstances of the trade to cause any person who understands to believe that this would be the case; and, therefore, it would be seen that at present our fishermen labored under disadvan- tages which made it almost impossible for them to compete with their rivals in the United States, and that the removal of the duty, as proposed by this treaty, would be a great boon, and enable them to do a good business where they now were but struggling or doing a losing trade. And the next speaker, after depicting in glowing terms just the con- dition of prosperity that the island of Prince Edward is enjoying now, as a result sure to follow from the ratification of the treaty, goes on to say that no men can compete with the provincial fishermen on equal terms, because their fishing is at their own door, and asserts that only an equal participation in the markets of the United States is necessary to give them the monopoly of the whole business. Another speaker tells the story of the fleet of Nova Scotia fishing-ves- sels built up under the Reciprocity Treaty, which were forced to aban- don the fishing business when the Reciprocity Treaty ended and a duty was put upon fish. Somewhere [ have seen it stated that vessels were left unfinished on the stocks when the Reciprocity Treaty terminated, because, being in process of constraction, to engage in the fishing busi- ness, their owners did not know what else to do with them. Are we to be told that these men were all mistaken—that the consumer paid the duty all along—that no benefit was realized to the provincial fisher- men from it? Why, even the Reply to the British Case concedes that when the duty existed some portion of it was paid by the provincial fisher- men. It is to be remembered, too, gentlemen, that in considering this question of what is gained by free markets, you are not merely to take into account what iu fact has been gained by the change, but the peo- ple of these provinces have acquired, for a term of twelve years, a vested right to bring all descriptions of fish, fresh or salt, and fish-oil, inte our markets. Before the expiration of that time the existing duties might have been increased in amount; duties might have been put upon fresh fish; there was nothing to prevent this, and there was every reason to anticipate that if a harsh and hostile course had been pursued towards American fishermen, with reference to the inshore fisheries, there would have been duties, more extensive and higher than ever before, put upon every description of fish or fish-product that could possibly go to the United States. They gained, therefore, our markets for a fixed term of years, as a matter of vested right. How much their industry has been developed by it, their own witnesses tell us. Now, gentlemen, if you could consider this as a purely practical busi- hess question between man and man, laying aside all other considera- tions—a question to be decided, pencil in hand, by figures—does any- body in the world doubt which is the greatest gainer by this bargain, the people of this Dominion having the free markets of the United States, or a few Gloucester fishermen catching mackerel within three miles of the shore, in the bend of the island, or for a week or two of Margaree? Those are the two things. But I am not afraid, gentlemen, to discuss this question upon ab- Stract grounds of political economy. I said there was no school of polit- ical economy according to which there was any sach rule as that the consumer paid the duties. I must trouble you with a few extracts trom books on that subject, wearisome as such reading is. Here is what An- drew Hamilton said, one of the disciples of Adam Smith, as long ago as 1791: Tf all merchants traded with the same rate of duty they experience the same gen- eee vontegcs and disadvantages; but if the rate of a tax was unequal, the inequal- ity unavoidably operated as a discouragement to those whom the higher tax atfected 1624 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . merchant was charged two shillings for the same species and quantity of goods sen id arathee was charged only one shilling, it was evident that he who paid the highest duty must either lose the market, or smuggle, or sell his goods at. an inferior profit. In other words, the difference in the rate of the tax would fall on the merchant liable to the highest duty and in cases of competition would always drive him out of the market. (p. 187.) Then he goes on to say, on a subsequent page: We may suppose a tax to be laid on in a department where, in the progress of wealth, protits were about to be lowered. If this tax was just equal to the reduction of the rate of profit that was about to take place, then common rivalship would induce the dealers to pay the tax and yet sell their goods as heretofore. (p. 217.) He says further, on page 242: Let us suppose a brewer to have one thousand barrels of strong ale upon hand. That a tax of one shilling per barrel is laid upon the ale, and that he may raise the price just so much to his customers, because they will readily pay the tax rather thau want the ale. In this case, the brewer would be directly relieved from the tax. But if, on the other hand, he found after advancing the tax he could not raise the price of his ale above what it was formerly, and yet was under a necessity of disposing of it, though this may drive him from the market or unite brewers to stint the supply, so as to bring up the price, on some future occasion, yet in the mean time the trader would suffer; nor would he immediately derive, by any of his ordinary transactions, an ef- fectual relief from the loss be had thus sustained by paying the tax. When, there- fore, a trader advances a tax upon a great quantity of goods, he can receive no effect- ual relief from such a tax, but in a rise of the price of the article, adequate to the tax which he has advanced. * * * It follows that all speculations whose object is to show on what fixed fund or class taxes must fall are vain and unsatisfactory, and will be generally disproved (as they almost always have been) by experience. (p. 257.) A dealer who can evade such a tax will soon possess a monopoly if the tax is paid by his competitors. It will be to him a kind of bounty for carrying on his business, and this must drive his competitors either to evade the tax also or to relinquish the employment. (p. 288.) Iam almost disposed to hand to the reporters the extracts, rather than trouble you to read them; and yet I feel it my duty to press this subject, because, if I am right in it, it is decisive. Sir ALEX, GALT. I think you had better read them. Mr. Foster. Mill says, and he is the apostle of free trade, in volume 2 of his “ Political Economy,” page 113: If the north bank of the Thames possessed an advantage over the south bank in the production of shoes, no shoes would be produced on the south side; the shoemakers would remove themselves and their capitals to the north bank, or would have estab- I shed themselves there originally, for, being competitors in the same market with those on the north side, they could not compensate themselves for their disadvantage at the expense of the consumer ; the amount of it would fall entirely on their profits, and they would not loog content themselves with a smaller profit, when by simply cress- ing a river they could increase it. Apply that statement to the evidence in this case, and remember how, " hen the Reciprocity Treaty ended, the fishermen of Nova Scotia aud Prince Edward Island took refuge on board United States vessels, for the purpose, as one of the official documents that I read from yes- terday says, of evading the duty. It might be a curious question, if it Were impottant enough to dwell upon it, whether, in assessing against the United States the value of the privilege of fishing inshore, you were or were hot to take into account the fact, that half of the people who fish ou shares in United States vessels are subjects of Her Majesty, and having disposed of their half of tl is i i ; ats Peed of the fish, having paid half of the fish « 1 privilege of using the vessel and its equipment, they sell the other half ot the fish, and bring the proceeds home; and whether it is. a just claim against the United States if British subjects go in United States vessels SOREN ae agi ae essels, tO require the United States to pay money because they Rite AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 1625 Mill says in another passage, in volume 2, page 397 : We may suppose two islan's, which, being alike in extent, in natural fertility, and ‘industrial advancement, have up to a certain time been equal in population and capi- tal, and have had equal rentals, and the same price of corn. Let us imagine a tithe imposed in one of these islands, but not in the other. There will be immediately a difference in the price of corn, and therefore, probably, in profits. I am almost through with this tediousness, but there is a good Scotch book on political economy, by John McDonald, of Edinburgh, published in 1871—and we have always had sound political economy from Scot- land—from which I must read a few lines: In the third place [McDonald says, on page 351], it may be possible to impose eustom duties which will permanently be paid, either wholly or partly, not by the consumers but by the importers or producers. Assume that we draw our stock of sugar from a country engaged in the growth of sugar, and capable of selling it with profit to us some shillings cheaper than any other country can, the former will of course sell the sugars to us at a price slightly below what would attract other competi‘ors. Impose a duty of some shillings a cwt., without altogether destroying the peculiar advantages of the trade, while we will pay no dearer for our sugar, the importers will pay the tax at the expense of their profits. If we add to these considerations the difficulty of as- certaining the actual incidence of many such taxes, distrust of sharp contrasts between direct and iudirect taxes will be inspired. Customs duties sometimes fall on the importer, not on the consumer. And if this were a common occurrence, it might seriously impair the doctrine that protective duties are the taxing of the home consumer for the sake of the home producer. But this in- cidence is confined to the following rare circumstances: If the sole market open to the importer of the staple goods of one country is the country imposing the duties. Secondly, if the other market open to him wasso distant or otherwise disadvantageous that it would be preferable to pay the tax; or, thirdly, if the only available place for procuring commodities of vital moment to the importing country, was the country im- posing the duty. Wherever the profits are such as to admit of a diminution without 335) below the usual rate, it may be possible for a country to tax the foreigner p. 393). I was interested some years ago in an article that I found translated from the Revue de Deux Mondes of the 15th of October, 1869, on ‘ Pro- tection and Free Trade,” by a gentleman of the name of Lonis Alby. I do not know who he is, but on pages 40 and 41, of the pamphlet, he not only states the doctrine, but he illustrates it: The free-traders believe—and this is the foundation of their doctrine—that when the import duty on an article of foreign merchandise is reduced, this reduction of taxes will at once cause an equal diminution in the price of the merchandise in the market and an equal saving to the purchaser. In theory this consequence is just, in | practice it never takes place. If the reduction is considerable, a part, and that far the smallest, profits the consumer; the larger portion is divided between the foreign pro- ducer and the severai intermediaries. If the reduction is small, these last entirely absorb 1t, and the real consumer, he who makes the article undergo its last transform- ation, is in no wise benefited. The real consumer of wheat is neither the miller nor the baker, but he who eats the bread. The real consumer of wool is neither the draper nor the tailor, but he who wears and uses the clothes. This discrepancy between the variations of custom-honse duties and the selling prices cannot be denied, and since the commercial treaty the experiment has been tried. Al) prohibitions have been removed and al] duties reduced ; but what article is there the price of which has been sensibly lowered for consumption? When economists de- _ manded the free importation of foreign cattle, they hoped to see the price of meat lowered, and for the same reason the agriculturists resisted with all their strength. As soon as the duties were removed, the graziers from the northern and eastern de- partments hastened to the market on the other side of the frontier; but the sellers were on their et and held firm, and, competition assisting them, prices rose instead of falling. All the advantage of the reduction of duty was for foreign raisers of cat- tle, and meat is dearer than ever. The same result followed in reference to the wools of Algiers ; and on this point I can give the opinion of the head of one of the oldest houses in Marseilles, an enewy, moreover, to protection, like all the merchants of sea- port towns: ‘“‘ When the duties on Algerian wools were removed,” he said to me, “we 4 ba that this would cause wool to sell cheaper in France, but the contrary happened. te was more eagerness for purchasing in Africa; there was more competition, and the difference in the duties was eiiedive in paying more for the wool to make sure of 1626 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. getting it. It is not, then, the French manufacturer who has profited by the removal of duties ; it is the drab alone.” Thus the interest of the consumer, about which so much noise is made, far from being the principal element in the question, only plays a secondary part, since the reduction in the tariff only profits him in a small measure. Now. we are in a condition to understand precisely the meaning of what one of our witnesses said, Mr. Pew, that the price of mackerel to the man who bought one mackerel at a time and ate it had not changed for ten years; that it was a very small purchase; that the grocer who sold it to him would pot lessen the price if mackerel went down, and would not raise the price if mackerel went up; that it kept to him uni- form: so that, after all, the question has been a question where the greater or less profit accrued to parties who handled the mackerel. If ever there was a case where it was impossible to transfer a duty once paid by a man who catches fish and brings 1t to market so that its incidence would fall on the consumer, it is the one we are dealing with. Why so? You cannot raise the price of mackerel very much, because its consumption stops when you get above $8 or $10, at the highest, a barrel. People will not eat it in larger quantities unless they are in- duced to do it because it is the cheapest procurable food. That is one reason why the duty cannot be put on to the price. There is another reason why it cannot be added to the price—a perfectly conclusive one ; and that is that not more than one fourth or a less part of the supply (it has been assumed in the question as one-fourth) is imported and sub- ject to the duty. Ido not care what fraction it is, whether one-third, one-fourth, or one-fifth, not more than a small fraction of the mackerel that is in the markets of the United States at any time comes from the provinces; and in order to get the price up toa point that will reim- burse the provincial fisherman who has paid a duty you must raise the price of all the mackerel in the market, must you not? That is per- fectly plain. If there are between three and four hundred thousand barrels of mackerel in the United States, and thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty, or a hundred thousand of them are taxed $2 a bar- rel, do you think itis going to be possible to raise, by the tax on the provincial catch, the price ot the whole production in the market? If that could be done it might come out of the consumer, and then it would be a benefit to our fishermen and an injury in the end to our consumers. But it cannot be done. The price cannot be raised. The fraction is not large enough to produce any perceptible influences upon it. So the result has always been, and they kuow that it was so before and must be so again, that such a duty cuts down their profits to the quick. It cuts them down so that the business must be abandoned, and take away the United States market, as you would take it away if a higher tariff was lnposed, and the fishing business of the provinces would gradually die out of existence, It is not a case—let me repeat it, because there has been so much apparent sincerity in the belief that that tax would come out of the consumer—it is not the case of a tax put upon the whole of the commodity, or the greater part of the commodity, but it is a tax sitet upon the swaller part of the commodity in the only market to s eth eieod Ps aple confined ; and you might just as well say, if qaieciigs pon sate rT s; evieds and one in Boston, which were just ex- could put a tax of ‘we ie fi ee both to be sold in Boston, that you eUeHNiH ise ete ee The only instance ea Sethe then raise the price. . production of an arti ‘t pe ' Baa finer Rane ae NLA? hed ac on where the de é + icle Tesu ts in raising the price of the whole, is — emand is acuve, where the supply is inadequate, and where | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1627 there is no equivalent that can be introduced in the place of the taxed article. It might just as well be said that a wood lot ten miles trom town is worth as much as a wood lot five miles from town. Wood will sell for a certain price, and the man who is the farthest off, and who has the greatest expense in hauling the wood to market, is the man who gets the least profit. It was estimated in the debates on the Treaty of Washington that the tax on mackerel at that time amounted to fifty per cent. It was truly stated to bea probibitory duty. You will remember that Mr. Hall has also given you a practical view of this subject. Mr. Hall, Mr. My- rick, and Mr. Churchill located on Prince Edward Island. To be sure it is their misfortune not yet to be naturalized British subjects. Detract whatever you choose from the weight of their evidence because they are Americans, but give to it as much asits intrinsic candor and reasonable- luess require at your hands. Whatdo these gentlemen tell you of their ractical condition? Mr. Hall says that when the duties were put on, at first, the people on the island were helped by a good catch, a good quality, and by a short catch in the United States, and by the condition of the currency, but when they began to feel the full effect of the impo- sition of the duties they were ruined. His partner confirms the same story. Mr. Churchill, the other man, whose business it is to hire by the mouth the fishermen of the island, and pay them wages, says he could not afford to hire the men if a duty was put up on the fish. Do you sup- pose he could? The fish landed on the shore of Prince Edward Island are worth $3.75 a barrel; that is what they are sold for there. The fish- ermen earn for catching them from $15 to $25 a month. Puta tax of $2 oe $3.75 worth of mackerel and can there be any doubt of the result ’ If this subject interests you, or if it seems to you to have a bearing upon the result, I invite your careful attention to the testimony of Hall, Myrick, and Churchill. Do they not know what the result of putting a tariff upon their mackerel would be? Do not the people of Prince Edward Island know? If they have been stimulated to a transient, delusive belief that they may in some way get the control of the markets of the United States for the eighty or ninety thousand barrels which, at the utmost, is produced in the provinces and put the price up as high as ever they please, do you think that that delusion will be dissipated, and that their eyes will be most painfully opened, if it ever comes to pass that a duty shall be reimposed ? It may be said that this question of duties is a question of commercial intercourse, and that it is for the benefit of all mankind that there should be free commercial intercourse, no matter whether one side gains and the other side loses or not; no matter where the preponderance of ad- Vantage is, we believe in untrammeled commercial intercourse among the whole human family. I am not at all disposed to quarrel with that doctrine. But that is not the case we are trying here. We are trying @ case under a treaty where there has been au exchange of free fish against free fishery, and you are to say on which side the preponderance of benefits lies. We have no right, then, to indulge theories as to uni- versal freedom of trade, because we are bound by a charter under which We are acting. You are to have regard to this question, so the treaty Says. Everybody has had regard to it since it first began to be agitated in both countries. Statesmen, public writers, business men—they have all considered it of the utmost consequence, and certainly this Commis- sion, enjoined in the treaty to have regard to it, are not going to disre- ‘gard it and leave it out of consideration. —EeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEe 1628 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Now, am I not right in saying that the whole value of whatever fish we catch in the territorial waters of these provinces, when landed on the shores of the provinces, or landed on the decks of our vessels, is of far less pecuniary magnitnde than the direct pecuniary gain resulting from free importation into our markets? And that isa gain that is con- stantly increasing. Twice as large a quantity has gone from Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to Boston this year as went last year up to the same date, and, making a moderate allowance for the vicissi- tudes of the business, and for one year being alittle worse than another, there has been a continued development of the fishing business and fish- ing interests of these provinces; and what hasit sprungfrom? Do not these gentlemen understand the sources of their own prosperity ? Do they not know when they speak of the business having developed that itis the market that has developed the business? They cannot eat their mackerel; they have too good taste to desire to eat them, appar- ently, after they are salted. The only place where they are able to dis- pose of them isin the United States. There is no evidence that the price of the fish has been lowered to the consumer by the circumstance that any more comes from the provinces than did formerly, when the duty was imposed upon it. The price to the actual consumer has remained the same. If it could be shown that there has been a trifling reduction to the consumer, is that of any consequence compared with this direct aud overwhelming advantage which the provincials gain? Why, it is not only in this fish business that the control of the United States mar- kets bears with such tremendous power upon the productions of the Dominion. In 1850, when the subject of reciprocity was being dis- cussed, Mr. Crampton, then British minister at Washington, requested Hon. William Hamilton Merritt, a Canadian of distinction, to prepare # memorandam on the subject, which I have here before me. He is speaking of the effect of duties in the United States on Canadian pro- ducts generally. He says: The imports from Canada since 1847 have in no instance affected the market in New York. The consumer does not obtain a reduction of prices; the duty is paid by the xtower, as shown by the comparative prices on each side of the boundary, which have averaged in proportion to the amount of duty exacted. The Canadians, in their fishing industry, as I have said over and over again, have very great natural advantages over the fishermen of the United States in the cheapness with which they can build their vessels and hire their crews, and the cheapness of all the necessaries of life. his increased cheapuess is virtually a bounty upon the Canadian fish- eries. It gives them the effect of a bounty as compared with United States fishermen. While there was a duty upon imported fish in the United States it counteracted that indirect bounty. Now that the duty has been taken away, this immense development of the fishing interests of the provinces, of which they are so proud, and of which they have sald so much, bas taken place, and out of this salt-mackerel business it seems to me that they are quite sure eventually to drive the American fishermen. Everybody Is going into the business, in Prince Edward Island, as their witnesses say. Out of three hundred fishermen from can USA A I ar be in our vessels, and who have returned, hardly monopoly of this ier h the United States. They are going to have a =o ail rae ae 1 of the fishing industry. It has been of great eet ireciien i continue hereafter to be of greater value to them; ee Ae caer no vicissitudes In the business are likely to ‘take BURReShiecre Ss lere Is a certain quantity of mackerel which they e able to cateh near home which they can afford to sell in the mar- se He AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1629 kets of the United States at low prices, and from which they cannot fail to derive a very great and permanent advantage. Gentlemen of the Commission, I have tried to make a business speech on a business question, and I shall spare my own voice and your patience any peroration. I hope I have established to your satisfaction that the exchange of the right to the inshore fisheries for the free markets of the United States leaves the preponderance of benefits and advantages largely on the side of the Canadians. Such certainly is the belief of the Government and people of the United States. A declaration to that effect, that is,a declaration that no money award ought to be made, in our opinion 1s required by the evidence, and by every consideration of justice. If this be so, the consequences are immaterial to us, but [ cannot re- frain from saying that, though such a result might cause a little tran- sient disappointment to a few individuals, it would, in my judgment, tend more than anything else to establish the permanent relations be- tween the United States and the Dominion of Canada on a footing of justice and peace, friendship and commercial prosperity. We are neigh- bors in geographical position, we are sprung from the same common origin, we speak the same language, have inherited the same literature, toa large extent have common traditions and history; we live ander very similar laws and free institutions; we are two great, free, energetic, prosperous countries, which cannot help respecting each other, and though the surface may be occasionally for a short time ruffled toa trifling degree, yet in the depths of the hearts of the people of each country they entertain for each other a sincere and profound good will. Vs CLOSING ARGUMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. TRESCOT, ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES. Mr. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMISSION: I am very glad that in this controversy there is one point upon which we are all agreed, and that is, the importance of settling it, of having a source of constant irritation dried up forever, or, better still, if it be possible, of having it converted into a spring of mutual and perpetual benefit. Whatever, therefore, may be the direct practical result of this investi- - gation, we shall have achieved no small or inconsiderable thing, if we have learned at its close to appreciate each other’s rights and interests fairly, justly, and kindly. The best way to secure that end is to speak on both sides with entire candor, to state our respective views as clearly and as strongly as we can, and then to leave it to the impartial judgment of the Commission _ to balance our calculations, compare our pretensions, and estimate at their true value the claims which we have submitted, only asking them to remember that they do not sit here as arbitrators to compromise rival interests, but as the appraisers of certain values, as the judges of the correctness of certain facts and figures. I conceive it to be the duty of every one participating in this inves- tigation to do all he can to aid the Commission iu reaching an agree- ment, and that you will arrive at some sound and satisfactory conclu- sion, I sincerely hope; for, during the whole of our examination, | confess Ihave never looked up at the picture of His Majesty George III, which hangs behind the president’s chair, without feeling that it is not credit- 1630 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. able that two great and kindred nations should, to-day, be still angrily, discussing a question which he thought he had finally settled with Franklin and Adams, with Jay and Laurens, an hundred years ago, when he recognized the independence of the United States, with all its -Ohseqguenlces. ee ci bave been told, and with truth, by the representatives of both contestants, that the Treaty of 1871 is the charter of your authority. To ascertain, therefore, the extent of the powers which have been given and theeharacter of the duties which have been imposed, we must go tothe Treaty of Washington. But we cannot go to that treaty alone. The Treaty of 187lis but one phase of the fishery-negotiations. It was a inarked change from the condition of things in 1866 ; that was a change from the condition of things in 1854; that again was a large departure from the Convention of 1818, and that convention was in itself a very great change from the Treaty of 1783. It is simply impossible to understand the meaning of the Treaty of 1871 correctly without reference to the history of those negotiations, und the positions which have been taken, and which have been aban- © doned or maintained by the respective governments. And the British case, as filed, distinctly recognizes this necessity, not only iu the elaborate history of those negotiations with which it prefaces its argument, but in the central assumption of its formal contention, viz, that the Treaty of 1818 is part and parcel of the Treaty of 1871. These negotiations, fortunately, lie within a compact and manageable compass, and it is possible, I think, briefly and clearly to develop their history and sequence. The Treaty of 1783, the Convention of 1818, the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, and the Treaty of Washington of 1871, are landmarks in our navi- gation over these rather troubled waters. If I may borrow a tigure trom our subject, I will endeavor, in my argument, to keep well within the three-mile limit, not to run between headland and headland, unless I am driven by extraordinary stress of weather, and even then [ shall’ not enter and delay in every port that lines the coast for shelter, food, or fuel, unless the persuasive rhetoric of my friend from Prince Edward Island should detain me in the magnificent harbors of Malpeque and Cascumpeque, or my friend from Newfoundland should toll me with “fresh squid” into the happy and prosperous regions of Fortune Bay. But betore | go into the discussion of these treaties, I wish to ask your consideration to some observations on the general meaning and proper interpretation of the Treaty of 1871, in order that they may be out of the way of the main argument. And first I will ask you to carry with you throughout the discussion a fact so obvious that I would not have referred to it at all had not the whole argument of the British Case entirely ignored it. That fact is simply that this Convention, and the treaty upon which it is founded, are transactions between the United States on the one side and Great Britain on the other. Let me ask your attention to the twenty-second article of the Treaty of 1871: Inasmoch as it is asserted by the Government of Her Britannic Majesty that the priv-. ileges accorded to the citizens of the United States under Article XVIII of this treaty are of greater value than those accorded by Articles XIX and XXI of this treaty to the subjects of He r Britannic Majesty, and this assertion is not admitted by the Government of the United States, it is further agreed that Commissioners shall be appointed to determine, having regard to the privileges accorded by the United States to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, as stated in Articles XIX and XXI of this treaty, the amount of compensation,” &c., &c. Now, who are the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty? Are they only the inhabitants of the Dominion of Canada? The fishermen of the . AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1631 maritime provinces? The boatmen. of the bend of Prince Edward Island? The herring and squid catchers of Newfoundland? We have been told in prose and poetry that the dominion of Her Britannic Maj- esty is one on which the sun never sets, and it is to the subjects of this dominion, in its widest extent, that we have given the privileges granted by the United States in this treaty. And I ask if, in equalizing this privilege, the value of the privilege is one of the elements of your caleu- lation, is not the extent to which those privileges are opened an equal subject of valuation ? 1 know what my friends will say. They will say, of course, ‘It is ob- vious that it is neither possible nor probable that any of the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty will use these privileges except the inhabitants of the Dominion. Well, I do not know that my friends have the right to assume any such ground, after the brilliant exhibition of their closing testimony. Do you not recollect what the confidential scientific adviser of the gentlemen on the other side told you, that the time was coming, had come, when the fishing industry of the world would be a common fishery to the whole world; when a skipper would go out of harbor with an orographic chart of the coast in one hand, and a thermometer in the other, to measure the variations of zone-temperature; when he would, day by day, learn the condition of the controversy between the Labrador Arctic current and the Gulf stream; when, by asystem of telegraph and signal stations, there would be a new meaning given to the Scripture, * Deep calleth unto deep”; that Labrador would speak to Newfound- land, and Newfoundland to Nova Scotia, and Nova Scotia to Cape Cod ; and that wherever the fishes were, there would the fishermen of the world be gathered together! I cannot accept that prophecy in all its fullness. I know it bas been said very often that fish diet is a wondertul stimulant to the mental powers. I think since we have been discussing this case, we have found that mackerel, especially, has a most wonderful effect upon the arithmetical faculties of the intellect ; that it stimulates the imagination until it sets all the powers of calculation at defiance ; and I am satisfied that the princely fortune that was supposed to have been made by the boy in the Arabian fable out of his basket of eggs, which were unfortunately destroyed before he realized it, is nothing com- -) pared with the profits that my friend from Prince Edward Island, through cross examination, can develop from an ordinary catch of four hundred barrels of mackerel. I presume that my friends will not allow me to assume, even upon their own testimony, that this millennial fishery will be in perfect working order until the Treaty of 1871 has expired, and they will therefore insist that it is neither possible nor probable that any of the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, except the inhabitants of the Dominion, can ever use these privileges. Suppose I grant that, | what then? I find in the British Case a very elaborate statement of a | very sound principle, page 34: It is possible, and even probable, that the United States fishermen may avail them- selves.of the privilege of fishing in Newfoundland inshore waters to a much larger ex- tent than they do at present ; but even if they should do so, it would not relieve them from the obligation of making the just payment for a right which they have acquired, subject to the condition of making that payment. The case may not be-inaptly illus- | | | trated by the somewhat analogous one of a tenancy of shooting or fishing privileges ; } it is not because the tenant fails to exercise the rights which he has acquired by virtue ; | 22" of his lease that the proprietor should be debarred from the recovery of his reut. I think it will take more than the very large ability and ingenuity of the British counsel to show any difference between the two cases. If the American fisherman is bound to pay for the inshore fisheries of New- foundland, which he does not use, on the principle of tenancy, why | | \ L | i 1632 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. should not the British subject pay for the inshore United States fisher- ies which he does not use ? eae Mr. ‘Inomson. [ understand you admit the principle. : Mr. Trescor. I am using it asa reply to this argument. Iam going to show you that my argument is based on yours ; and I contend, there- fore, on the very principle that you state. ; “ [tis not because the tenant fails to exercise the rights which he has acquired by virtue of his lease that the proprietor should be debarred from the recovery of his rent.” On this principle, we claim that all the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty are tenants, under the treaty, and must pay for the privilege whether they use it or not; and you are bound to take that into consideration in establishing the value of the privileges exchanged. ca ; Further, if this is a treaty between Great Britain and the United States. it cannot be converted into a treaty between the United States and Canada. This Commission cannot alter it or supplement it. Cer- tain specified provisions in the treaty it can execute, but it cannot amend its errors or correct its faults. If in that treaty the British Government has compromised or endangered the interests of the colonies, much as it is to be regretted, you have no power to undo tke work ; it is a mat- ter with which the Commission has nothing to do. Upon the negotiation of the Treaty of 1871, the most correct and in- fluential | epresentative of public opinion in England, the London Times, used the following language : We watched with some uneasiness the repeated splutters of bad feeling between the fishermen of New England and the people of the maritime provinces, because we could never be certain that an ugly accident might not some day force us, much against our will, to become the champions of a quarrel we could only half approve. It is very easy, therefore, to understand with what motives our ministers suggested a Commis- sion, aud with what readiness they yielded to the hint that it.should be allowed to settle all subjects of difference between the two countries. Lord Derby has repeat- edly blamed their eagerness, and the American Government could not but be sensible of the advantage they obtained when the Commissioners arrived at Washington, - bound to come to some settlement on the points in dispute. It is true that one of the Commisstoners was the prime minister of Canada; but against this circumstance must be set the facts that the other four approached their work from an English point of view, that the Commissioners, as a body, were instructed from day to day, and, we may almost say, from hour to hour, by the English Cabinet, and their work was done with an eye to the approval of the English people. It was inevitable that the result of their labors should not satisfy the inhabitants of the Dominion. We are far from saying that the Commissioners did not do their best for Canadian interests, as they understood them; but it was not in human natare for them or their instructions to be to Canada what they are to Eugland; and, as the treaty was conceived for the pur- pose of removing the present and contingent liabilities of England, it was agreed upon as soon as it was believed that these liabilities were settled. If this is so, then surely this Commission was not appointed to cor- rect * be inevitable” results of the treaty which created it. Phe colonial authorities recognized this view. When that treaty was formed, Earl Kimberley, writing to the colonial governor, made this statement, iu a paragraph which is not too long to read, for I do not mean to trouble you with a great many quotations. It is a state- ment of the secretary of state tor the colonies to the Governor-General, dated * Downing street, 17th June, 1871,” and published at Ottawa: The Canadian Government itself took the initiative in suggesting that a joint British and American commission should be appointed, with a view to settle the disputes which had arisen as to the luterpretation of the Treaty of 1813. But it was certain that, however desirable it might be, in default of any complete settlement, to appoint sneha commission, the canses of the difliculty lay deeper than any question of inter- pretation, and the mere discussion of such points as the correct definition of bays could not lead to @ really friendly agreement with the United States. It was necessary, . thereiore, to endeavor to find au equivalent which the United States might be willing . —————=———— ge FE AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1633 to give in return for the fishing privileges, and which Great Britain, having regard both to the imperial and colonial interest, could properly accept. Her Majesty’s Government are well awarethat the arrangement which would have been most agreeable to Canada was the conclusion of a treaty similar to the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, and a proposal to this effect was pressed upon the United States Commissioners, as you will find in the 36th protocol of the conferences. This proposal was, however, declined, the United States Commissioners stating that they could hold out no hope that the Congress of the United States would give its consent to such a tariff amendment as was proposed, or to any extended plan of reciprocal free admission of the products of the two countries. The United States Commissioners did, indeed, propose that coal, salt, and fish should be reciprocally admitted free, and lumber after the 1st of July, 1874; but it is evident that, looked at as a tariff arrangement, this was a most inade- quate offer, as will be seen at once when it is compared with the long list of articles admitted free under the Reciprocity Treaty. Moreover, it is obvious, from the frank avowal of the United States Commissioners, that they only made this offer because one branch of Congress had recently more than once expressed itself in favor of the abo- lition of duties on coal and salt, and because Congress had partially removed the duty from lumber, and the tendency of legislation in the United States was toward the re- duction of taxation and of duties, so that to have ceded the fishery rights in return for these concessions, would have been to exchange them for commercial arrangements which, there is every reason to believe, may before long be made without any such cession, to the mutual advantage of both the Dominion and the United States; and Her Majesty’s Government are bound to add that while, in deference to obtain a re- newal in principle of the Reciprocity Treaty, they are convinced the establishment of free trade between the Dominion and the United States is not likely to be promoted by making admission to the fisheries dependent upon the conclusion of such a treaty ; and that the repeal by Congress of duties upon Canadian produce, on the ground that a protective tariff is injurious to the countries which imposes it, would place the com- mercial relations of the two countries on a far more secure and lasting basis than the stipulations of a convention framed upon a system of reciprocity. Looking, therefore, to all the circumstances, Her Majesty’s Government found it their duty to deal sepa- rately with the fisheries, and to endeavor to find some other equivalent ; and the recip- rocal concession of free fishery, with free import of fish and fish-vil, together with the shee of such a sum of money as may fairly represent the excess of value of the olonial over the American concession, seems to them to be an equitable solution of the difficulty. ' Itis perfectly true that the right of fishing on the United States coasts, conceded under Article XIX, is far less valuable than the right of fishing in colonial waters, con- ceeded under Article XVIII to the United States; but, on the other hand, it cannot be denied that it is most important to the colonial fishermen to obtain free access to the American market for their fish and for fish-oil ; and the balance of advantage on the side of the United States will be duly redressed by the Arbitrators under Article XXII. In some respects a direct money-payment is perhaps a more distinct recognition of the rights of the colonies than a tariff concession, and there does not seem to be any differ- ence in principle between the admission of American fishermen for a term of years, in censideration of the payment of a sum of money in gross, and their admission under the system of licenses, calculated at so many dollars per ton, which was adopted by the colonial government for several years after the termination of the Reciprocity Treaty. In the latter case, it must be observed, the use of the fisheries was granted without any tariff concessions whatever on the part of the United States, even as to the importation of fish. anada could not reasonably expect that this country should, for an indefinite period, incur the constant risk of serious misunderstanding with the United States, imperiling, are, the peace of the whole Empire, in order to endeavor to force the American vernment to change its commercial policy ; and Her Majesty’s Government are con- fident that when the treaty is considered as a whole the Canadian people will see that their interests have been carefully borne in mind, and that the advantages which they will derive from its provisions are commensurate with the concessions which they are €alled upon tomake. There cannot be a question as to the great importance to Canada of the right to convey goods in bond through the United States, which has been secured to her by Article XXIX; and the free navigation of Lake Michigan, under Article XXVIII, and the power of transshipping goods, under Article XXX, are valuable privi- which must not be overlooked in forming an estimate of the advantages which Canada will obtain. Her Majesty’s Government have no doubt that the Canadian Government will readily secure to the citizens of the United States, in accordance with Article XX VII, the use of the Canadian canals, as by the liberal policy of the Dominion these canals are already opened to them on equal terms with British subjects ; and they would urge upon the Dominion Parliament and the legislature of New Branswick that it will be most advisable to make arrangement as to duty on lumber floated down the St. John River, upon which the execution of Article XXX, as to the transshipment f goods, is made contingent. 103 F 1634 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. That is the view he took of that treaty. What was the view that the Canadian Government took of it? On page 47 of this same pamphlet will be found the reply of a committee of the Privy Council to that let- ter of the Earl of Kimberley, in which will be found this statement: When the Canadian Government took the initiative of suggesting the appointment of a joint British and American Commission, they never contemplated the surrender of their territorial rights, and they had no reason to suppose that Her Majesty 8 Gov- ernment entertained the sentiments expressed by the Earl of Kimberley in his recent despatch. Had sach sentiments been expressed to the delegate appointed by the Cana- dian Government to confer with his lordship a few months before the appointment of the Commission, it would at least have been in their power to have remonstrated against the cession of the inshore fisheries, and it would moreover have prevented any member of the Canadian Government from acting as a member of the Joint High Com- mission, unless on the clear understanding that no such cession should be embodied in the treaty without their consent. The expediency of the cession of a common right to the inshore fisheries has been defended, on the ground that such a sacrifice on the part of Canada should be made in the interests of peace. The committee of the Privy Council, as they have already observed, would have been prepared to recommend any necessary concession for so desirable an object, but they must remind the Earl of Kimberley that the original proposition of Sir Edward Thornton, as appears by his letter of 26th Jan- uary, Was that a friendly and complete understanding should be come to between the two governments, as to the extent of the rights which belong to the citizens of the United States and Her Majesty’s subjects respectively, with reference to the fisheries on the coasts of Her Majesty’s possessions in North America. Then there is a continuation of the argument. Mr. THOMSON. Won’t you read it ? Mr. TreEscor. I will read it if you wish. Mr. THomson. I would like to hear it, if it is not too much trouble to you. Mr. Trescot. I will read it with great pleasure, although it does not bear upon the point I desire to present. In his reply dated 30th January last, Mr. Secretary Fish informs Sir Edward Thorn- ton that the President instructs him to say that “ he shares with her Majesty’s Govern- ment the appreciation of the importance of a friendly and complete understanding between the two governments with reference to the subjects specially suggested for the consideration of the proposed Joint High Commission.” In accordance with the explicit understanding, thus arrived at between the two governments, Earl Granville issued instructions to Her Majesty’s High Commission, which, in the opinion of the Committee of the Privy Council, covered the whole ground of controversy. The United States had never pretended to claim a right on the part of their citizens to fish within three marine miles of the coasts and bays, according to their limited definition of the latter term, and although the right to enjoy the use of the inshore fisheries might fairly have been made the subject of negotiation, with the view of ascertaining whether any proper equivalents could be found for such a concession, the United States was precluded by the original correspondence from insisting on it as a condition of the treaty. The abandonment of the exclusive right to the inshore fisheries without adequate compensation—mark that—the abandonment of the exclusive right to the inshore fisheries without adequate compensation was not therefore necessary in order to come to a satisfactory understanding on the points really at issue. The Committee of the Privy Council forbear from entering into a controversial discussion as to the ex- pediency of trying to influence the United States to adopt a more liberal commercial - policy. They must, however, disclaim most emphatically the i:»putation of desiring to imperil the peace of the whole empire in order to force the American Government to change its commercial policy. They have for a considerable time back ceased to urge the United States to alter their commercial policy ; but they are of opinion that when Canada is asked to surrender her inshore fisheries to foreigners, she is fairly entitled to name the proper equivalent. I need not xo any further. You can read it if you wish. Then, of course, Lord Kimberley replied to that communication. The reply it is not worth while to read. The Privy Council then replied to his strict- ures upon their opinion, and their communication is the point to which I wish to come, In ei Yeh-thies of the hegotiations the United States Commissioners had offered as an | equival nt for the rights of fishery to admit Canadian coal and salt, free of duty, and , os Y : AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1635 lumber, after the 1st of July, 1874. This was deemed, both by the Imperial and Cana- dian Governments, an inadequate offer, and a counter proposition was made by the British Commissioners that lumber should be admitted free immediately, and that in consideration of the continued exclusion of cereals, live-stock, and other articles ad- mitted under the treaty of 1854, a sum of money should be paid to Canada. The United States Commissioners not oe refused the counter proposition, but withdrew their former offer, substituting one which the committee of council infer from the Earl of Kimberley’s dispatch, was, in the opinion of Her Majesty’s Government, more fay- orable to Canada than that which had been rejected as inadequate. Wide, however, as are the differences of opinion on this continent regarding the treaty, there is but one opinion on the point under consideration. It is clear that the United States pre- ferred paying a sum of money to the concession of commercial advantages to Canada, and the committee of council feel assured that there is not a single member of the Canadian Parliament who would not have much preferred the rejected proposition to that which was finally adopted. The committee of council cannot, with the Earl of Kimberley’s dispatch before them, continue to affirm that Her Majesty’s Government are of opinion that the cession of the fishery rights was made for an inadequate consideration, but they regret that they are themselves of a different opinion. While still adhering to their expressed opinions as to the fishery articles of the Treaty of Washington, they are yet most anxious to meet the views of Her Majesty’s Government, and to be placed in a position to propose the necessary legislative meas- ures, and they will therefore proceed to make a suggestion which they earnestly hope may receive a favorable response. The adoption of the principle of money payment in satisfaction of the expenses incurred by the Fenian raids would not only be of no assistance with reference to the treaty, but might lead to some complications. It is not improbable tbat differences of opinion would arise in the discussion of the details of those claims between the two governments which might lead to mutual dissatisfaction. Again, such a solution of the cee would necessitate a discussion in the Imperial Parliament, in the coarse of which opinious might be expressed by members which might irritate the people of Cavada, and might moreover encourage the Fenian leaders in the United States, who have not ceased their agitation. There is, in the opinion of the committee of council,a mode by which their hands might be so materially strengthened that they would be enabled not only to abandon all claims on account of the Fenian raids, but likewise to propose, with a fair prospect of success, the measures necessary to give effect to those clauses in the Treaty of Wash- ington which require the concurrence of the Dominion Parliament. That mode is by ‘an imperial guarantee to a portion of the loan which it will be necessary for Canada to raise in order to procure the construction of certain important pubiic works which will be highly beneficial to the United Kingdom as well as to Canada. Now, I ask if, in the face of that official demand for a guarantee of that loan in compensation for the sacrifice of the fisheries, which demand Was recognized as just, and granted by the British Government, it is possible to claim that those interests were not sacrifices which were compensated, or whether any construction is just, which, isolating the articles of this treaty, and converting it into a separate negotiation, determines that there were certain Imperial advantages gained by the British Government in return for the sacrifice of those fisheries, and then claims that that compensation should be made part avd parcel of the consideration in a case like this? 1 beg you to understand distinetly that 1 do not contend that this Commission is not bound to equalize the two exchanges which have been committed to them. That is their duty. But I mean to say that, in making that equalization, they are bound to consider nothing but the specific value of the articles exchanged, and that the question whether or not equalization is compensation for any Sacrifices made by the treaty is one with which they have nothing to do; the question which is submitted to them is the value, and nothing else, of the two exchanges. It is not the duty, nor is it within the power of this Commission, as the British counsel seem to suppose, to make the treaty of 1871 an equal treaty, but simply to equalize a specific exchange of values under a special provision of that treaty. It is precisely, as far as you are concerned, as if, instead of the exchange of fishing privileges, that treaty had proposed an exchange of territory. For instauce, if that 1636 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. treaty had proposed the exchange of Maine and Manitoba, and the United States had maintained that the value of Maine was much larger than Manitoba, and referred it to you to equalize the exchange. It is very manifest that to New England, for instance, it might not only be dis- advantageous, but very dangerous; but the only question for you to con- sider would be the relative value of the two pieces of territory. So here, I do not care what the consequences may be. It may be that when you have equalized these privileges so as to make the exchange of privileges precisely even, that then the consequences of the exchange of fisheries might be the destruction of all the fisheries of Prince Ed- ward Island, the entire destruction of the fishing industry of the mari- time provinces. But that is a matter with which you have nothing to do. This is a consequence of the treaty, and not a consequence of the difference in value between the two articles of exchange which you are called upon to appraise. The same principle would lead to this result also, that with the con- sequential profit or loss of the fisheries you have nothing todo. You have a right to measure the value of the fisheries as they are, and what they are, but you have no right to put into that estimate a calculation of the enterprise, industry, skill, and capital which the American puts into the fishery ; that is, brains and money and experience, which is en- tirely foreign to the fishery, as a fishery. It is free to be employed any- where else, and you have no right to calculate that. The fish in the water have a certain value, but the skill and capital and enterprise which are required to take them out does not belong to the fishery, as fishery ; and it is not a matter that you have any right to take into cal- culation. Take, for example, the extraordinary principle that is stated in the British Case, on page 34: A participation by fishermen of the United States in the freedom of these waters must, notwithstanding their wonderfully reproductive capacity, tell materially on the local catch, and, while affording to the United States fishermen a profitable employment, must seriously interfere with local success. _Is that a principle of calculation which you can only apply to a case like this? Was there ever a case of such absolute forgetfulness of that homely old proverb, over which every one of us has painfully stumbled in his walk through life, that “youcannot eat your cakeand have it too”? Why, take that favorite and apt illustration of the British Case, a ten- ancy for shooting. If I exchanged a grouse moor in Scotland for a pheasant preserve in England, and my friend, Her British Majesty’s Agent, was arbitrator to equalize their values, what would he think of ae claim that the grouse moor was the more valuable, because I used a breech-loader, carried two keepers with extra guns, shot over dogs cost- ng 100 guineas apiece, and bagged a hundred brace, where the other sportsman stuck to the old muzzle-loader, carried no keeper, shot over an untrained pointer, and only bagged twenty-five brace, or to the still more extraordinary complaint, that the freedom of the moor, notwith- standing its wonderful reproductive capacity, must tell materially on the local shooting, and while affording the lessee profitable and pleasant employ ment, “must seriously interfere” with the pot-shooting of the pita i! weit rere oul y? And this is just precisely the argument that fishery, but ise ander ‘ ice Un Ger ake not to decide the value of the * ine dake. undertake to put into arbitration here what we do with akakarck nit That is, we are to pay, not only for the privilege of going pay raslapairee rae ies the bend of Prince Edward Island, but we are to : y Collar of capital and industry we employ, aud for the men | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1637 employed, and the result of that combination is the money to which they are entitled. So also with the consequential damages, with regard to the destrue- tion of fish, trawling, seining, and all those things with which you have nothing to do. I think I can reply to the whole of that by a very pithy sentence, uttered by one of your citizens, who was very famous, the late Joseph Howe, in a speech made in my country in regard to the fisheries here. He said, “ As for the destruction of the fisheries, when one thought that the roes of thirty cod supply all the waste of the American, British, and colonial fisheries, it was not worth while to dis- cuss that question”; and I do not think it is, either. Because all those arguments apply to the treaty. They are very good reasons why the exchange never should have been made at all, why American fishermen never should have been admitted at all, why the treaty should never have been made; but they are arguments which cannot be employed in ~ consideration of the question submitted to you—the value of the shery. And now, with regard to this question of consequences, there is but one other illustration to which I will refer, and I will be done. I find, at the close of the British testimony, an elaborate exhibit of 166 lights, fog-whistles, and humane establishments used by United States fisher- men on the coast of the Dominion, estimated to have cost in erection, from the Sambro light-house, built in 1758, to the present day, $832,138, and for annual maintenance, $268,197. I scarcely know whether to éon- sider this serious; but there it is, and there it has been placed, either as the foundation for a claim, or to produce an effect. Now, if this Dominion has no commerce, if no ships bear precious freight upon the dangerous water of the gulf, or hazard valuable cargoes in the straits which connect it with the ocean, if no traffic traverses the imperial river which connects the Atlantic with the great lakes, if this fabulous fishery, of which we have heard so much, is carried on only in boats so small that they dare not venture out of sight of land, and the fisher- men need no other guiding and protecting light than the light stream- ing from their own cabin-windows on shore; if, in short, this Dominion, as it is proudly called, owes nothing to the protection of its commerce and the safety of its seamen, if these humane establishments are not the free institutions of a wise and provident government, but charitable institutions, to be supported by the subscriptions of those who use them, then the Government of the Dominion can collect its $200,000 by levying light-dues upon every vessel which seeks shelter in its harbors or brings wealth into its ports. But, if, in the present age of civiliza- tion, when a common humanity is binding the nations of the world together every day by mutual interests, mutual cares, and privileges equally shared, the Dominion repeals her light-dues, in obedience to the common feeling of the whole world, with what justice can that govern- ment ask you, by a forced construction of this treaty, to reimpose this duty, in its most exorbitant proportions and its most odious form, upon us, and upon us alone ? But that is not, perhaps, the question I should ask yeu. I should ask, and I do ask, where do you find, in Article 18 of the treaty, among the advantages which the Treaty of 1871 gives us, and authorizes you to value, any such “advantage” as the use of light-houses and fog- whistles? And if you decided, and properly decided, that you could hot take into consideration the advantages of commercial intercourse, purchasing bait and supplies, and the privilege of transshipping, be- cause they were not given by the treaty, identified as they were with 1638 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. use of the fishery, how can you be asked even to take this prepos- aaa claim into consideration t If the principle laid down by the British Case (p. 13) is true, “ It is submitted, that in order to estimate the advantages thereby derived, respectively, by subjects of the United States and of Great Britain, the following basis is the only one which it is possible to adopt, under the terms of the first portion of Article 18 of the Treaty of Washington of 1871, viz, that the value of the privi- leges granted to each country, respectively, by Articles 18, 19, and 21, of that Treaty, which were not enjoyed under the 1st Article of the Convention of the 20th October, 1818, is that which the Commission is constituted to determine”; if this principle of interpretation be true, how can such a demand be made until it is shown that, under the 1st Article of the Convention of 1818, the privilege of using the light-houses and fog- whistles, that is, the privilege of seeing a light or hearing a sound, was not enjoyed? Illiberal, unjust, and narrow as was the policy of that Convention, it has not yet been charged with so grievous an offense against humanity. It might stop our fishing, but it did not assume to stop our sight and hearing at the three-mile limit. And in leaving this question of ‘‘ consequences,” I may say, in justifi- cation of the length with which I have dwelt on it, that this ‘ conse- quential "—I might almost say “ inconsequential ”—reasoning pervades the whole British Case, and infects the whole cross-examination of counsel on the other side. The effort has been studiously made to create an atmosphere in with the uncertain and doubtful advantages of the treaty would loom out so largely as to deceive the inexperienced eye as to the exorbitant value that was sought to be attached to them. I have but one other consideration to suggest before I come to the history of this question, and it is this: If you will examine the treaties, you will find that everywhere it is the ‘“‘ United States fishermen,” the ‘inhabitants of the United States,” the citizens of the United States who are prohibited from taking part in the fishery within the three- mile limit. Now, I say—remember, I am not talking about local legis: lation on the other side at all, I am talking about treaties—I say, there is nothing in any treaty which would forbid a Nova Scotian or a Prince Edward Island citizen from going to Gloucester, hiring an American vessel with an American register and coming within the three- mile limit and fishing—nothing at all. If such a vessel be manned by a crew half citizens of the United States and half Nova Scotians, who are fishing on shares, recollect, and who take the profits of their own catches, where is the difference? The United States citizen may vio- late the law, but are the citizens of Nova Scotia doing so? They are are not the “inhabitants” or “ fishermen of the United States” excluded from fishing within the three-mile limit. Take the analogy suggested by the British Case. Suppose, for instance, there was a law forbidding shooting in the Dominion altogether by any one not a citizen, might bot a citizen of the United States lend a gun to a citizen of the Domin- ion who wanted to shoot game and pay him for the game that he shot? It comes to this, that when Nova Scotia fishermen fish in an American vessel within the three-mile limit, alvays supposing that they engage in the business on shares, they are simply using an instrument lawfully under the t reaty, that the American part of the crew are using unlaw- fally—that is all. I do not press this legal view, because it is one which, one of these days, will have to be taken up and decided ; I simply say that that is common-sense opinion, that if, out of 5,000 fishermen, 2,500 are British subjects, and fishing in American vessels, taking their own catches, making their own profits, in that case you cannot in equity 4 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1639 and justice consider that as part of the privilege given to the fishermen or inhabitants of the United States. I am glad I am furnishing my friends something to think of, even if it amuses them. Mr. THomson. You are. Mr. TREscorT. I thought I was. The three points which I make, are these : 1. That in valuing the exchange of privilege, the extent to which the privilege is offered is a fair subject of calculation, and that a privilege opened to “all British subjects” is a larger and more valuable privilege than one restricted to only the British subjects resident in the Dominion. 2. That in valuing the exchange of privilege, only the direct value can be estimated, and the consequences to either party cannot be taken into account. 3. That so far as British subjects participate in the inshore fishery in United States vessels upon shares, their fishery is in no sense the fishing or fishermen of inhabitants of the United States. With regard to the history of these treaties, there are two subjects in that connection which I do not propose to discuss at all. One is the headland question. I consider that the statement made by my distin- guished colleague who preceded me has really taken that question out of this discussion. I do not understand that there is any claim made here that any portion of this award is to be assessed for the privilege of coming within the headlands. As to the exceedingly interesting and very able brief, submitted for the other side, I am not disposed to quar- rel with it. At any rate, I shall not undertake to go into any argument upon it. It refers entirely to the question of territorial right, and the question of extent of jurisdiction—questions with which the United States has nothing todo. They have never been raised by our govern- ment, and probably never will be, because our claim to fish within the three-mile limit is no more au interference with territorial and jurisdic- tional rights of Great Britain than a right of way through a park would be an interference with the ownership of the property, or a right to cut timber in a forest would be an interference with the fee-simple in the soil. per. THOMSON. Do you mean to say there would be no interference there? *Mr. Foster. Certainly not. It would be simply aservitude. You do not mean to say that my right to go through your farm interferes with the fee-simple of the property ? Mr. THomson. It does not take away the fee-simple, but it interferes with my enjoyment of the property. Mr. Trescor. That is another question, because compensation may be found and given. I simply say that it does not interfere with the terri- torial or jurisdiction right. That is the view I take of it, at any rate, and I think I can sustain it, if it ever becomes necessary. Then, with regard to the character of the Convention of 1818. I wish to put on record here my profound conviction that, by every rule of diplo- matic interpretation and by every established precedent, the Convention of 1818 was abrogated by the Treaty of 1854, and that when that treaty was ended, in 1866, the United States and Great Britain were relegated to the Treaty of 1783 as the regulator of their rights. That proposition I will maintain whenever the proper time arrives. But certainly I am not at liberty to take that ground here at all, and for this reason: that | by the action of the two governments and by the formal incorporation, 80 to speak, of the Treaty of 1818 in the Treaty of 1871, that treaty is made the practical rule of decision in this case; consequently, we have noth- 1640 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. j do with that, except to say this: that the Treaty of 1818 depends for ve validity and its existence upon the headland question; that the two stand or fall together; because the Convention of 1818 was a relin- quishment of certain rights upon certain conditions, and if those condi- tiovs are not understood in the same sense by the parties to the contract, the contract ends or is to be submitted to arbitration. If, then, the treaty of 1871 should end, with nothing else to supply its place, it would be ab- solutely necessary either that the headland question should be settled or the Convention of 1818 should be considered as annulled. I cannot enter into the history of the treaties as fully as I could wish.* The subject is not only one of great historical interest, but in certain contingencies would be of direct consequence. It cannot, however, be treated briefly, or without traveling too far from the immediate question at issue. I will, therefore, only summarize those conclusions which are relevant to the present investigation. And I refer to them in this connection because, underlying the whole British Case, just like the consequential argument to which I have already referred, there runs the assumption that in all these transac- tions the policy of the United States has been one of encroachment and invasion, while the conduct of Great Britain has been that of generous. concession. Never was there an assumption more entirely the reverse of historical truth. The Treaty of 1783 ascertains and defines what were the original rela- tions of the parties to this controversy. I need not read its provisions, but I do not think I will be contradicted when I say that they were sim- ply the recognition of absolute and equal rights. The separation of the Colonies rendered necessary not only their recognition, but the definite and precise adjustment of their territories and possessions ; and among the latter was recognized and described, not as a grant or concession, but as an existing right, the use of the fisheries, not only as they had been used, but as they ever should be used by British subjects. Reserv- ing the territorial and jurisdictional rights on the adjacent shores to the owners of the land, the fisheries, the right to use the waters for the pur- pose of fishing, was made a joint possession. At that time the only parties in interest were the citizens of the United States and the British owners of a few fishing settlements along the coasts. The parties who are now the real complainants were not then even In existence. Speak of encroachments! Encroachments upon whom? Why, in those days, where was Newfoundland, who comes here to-day as an independent sovereignty and invests her distinguished representative with a measure of ambassadorial authority? Not even a colony—a fishing settlement, owned by a British corporation, gov- erned without law by any naval officer who happened to be on the coast with a marline spike in one hand and the articles of war in the other; no Englishman allowed to make a home on the island, and the number of women permitted to reside there limited, so as to prevent the growth _*The British Case, reterring to the Treaty of 1733, says: “The rights conceded to the United States fishermen under this treaty were by no meansso great as those which, as British subjects, they had enjoyed previous to the war of Independence; for they were not allowed to land to dry and cure their fish in any part of Newfoundland, and only in those parts of Nova Scotia, the Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, where no British settle- ment bad been or might be formed, expressly excluding Cape Breton, Prince Edward Is- land, and other places.” There is no express exclusion of Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island in the treaty. Both were acquired by the Treaty of 1763, and were formally annexed to Nova Scotia. It was not until 1770 that Prince Edward Island had a sepa- rate government as an experiment, and a very poor experiment it tnrned out to be.. To the American nego tiator: 783. Nov cs Pueten Pra, \tors of 1783, Nova Scotia included both Cape Breton and a AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1641 of a native population. Where was Prince Edward Island, which speaks to-day through a premier and assembly? Why, in the early years of the Revolution, an American skipper, not then having the fear of the three-mile limit before his eyes, entered that famous bend, of which we have heard so much, fishing for men instead of mackerel, and he caught the governor and the executive council—a catch which, I am sure, my friend on the other side will admit to be all “‘ number ones”—and ecar- ried them to General Washington, who, not knowing what use to put them to, treated them as our witnesses have told us the fishermen treat young cod, threw them back into the water, and told them to swim home again. Why, the very names with which we have become so familiar in the last months—Tignish and Paspebiac, Margaree and Chetticamp, Sciminac and Scatterie—had not then risen from the obscurity of a vulgar geography, to shine in the annals of international discussion. There was then no venerable Nestor of Dominion politics, to whose experienced sagacity the interests of an empire might be safely in- trusted; there were no learned and dignified queen’s counsel to be drawn up in imposing contrast to the humble advocates who address you from this side of the table. There was no minister of marine, with one hundred and sixty-five fog-whistles at his command, ready to blow a blast of triumph all along the coast upon the receipt of this award. There were no rights to invade, and the maritime provinces and the Dominion came into existence subject to the conditions of national life which that treaty created. When they did come into these waters they found us there. Our rights and the character of our rights, under the Treaty of 1783, were never questioned or disputed for over a quarter of a century, not until the war of 1812, and then the question was made only as an effort of diplomatic finesse. The Treaty of 1783 had given to British subjects the right of navigation on the Mississippi River, under the belief that the boundary line between the two countries touched the sources of that river. By 1814 it was discovered that this was not so, and as the right to use the territory of the United States to reach the river had not been given, the right to use the river was not available. Then was invented the theory that the war of 1812 abrogated the Treaty of 1783, and by it the British Government were enabled to propose to renew the fishery articles, if we would remodel and make effective the article as to the Mississippi. Wedenied the theory. I will not, of course, trouble you with any detailed account of the negotiations. The correspondence between Mr. Adams and Lord Bathurst and the negotiations of the Treaty of Ghent are matters of familiar history. The question thus raised was left unsettled, both governments main- | taining their positions until the Convention of 1818. Two things are evident from that convention. First, that our right, as we maintained it, to the inshore fisheries was recognized, because Great Britain ac- cepted from us the relinquishment of a portion of it, and by accepting what we gave recognized our right to give. Second, that we relin- quished this right because our fishing was at that time entirely a deep- sea fishing, and because the settlement of the coasts of the maritime prov- inces and the development of local colonial fisheries, anticipated in the Treaty of 1783, were now being realized. That convention was a friendly and liberal concession on the part of the United States, and when we | are required to-day to pay for the restoration of the former condition, | We are simply made to pay for our own liberality. For what are the Treaties of 1854, and 1871 but a restoration of the conditions of the Treaty 1642 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. of 1783, accompanied by that freer commercial intercourse which the in- terests and the intelligence of both countries demand. I had proposed to trace the negotiations from 1818 to 1854 and thence to the protocol and Treaty of 1871. But these latter were somewhat fully discussed in the argument upon the motion formerly made on be- half of the United States, and my colleague has fully explained to you how and by what agencies the restrictions of the Convention of 1818 became so odious to our people. I need not do more than refer you to the instructions of the British Government to the negotiators of the Treaty of Washington, and recog- nise, as I do most gladly, the wisdom and liberality of their spirit, and I now turn to the practical question which that treaty submits to your decision. I come now to the questions which that Treaty of 1871 raises, and they are simply these: What is the difference in value gained by us and the advantages gained by you; that is to say, what is the difference in value between the right to fish within the three-mile limit, on one side, and the right to fish on the United States shores, on the other, coupled with the right to send fish and fish-oil to the United States market free of duty. With regard to the fisheries. The fisheries with which the Treaty of 1871 is concerned are the cod, the herring, the mackerel, the hake, the haddock, and halibut fisheries, within the three-mile limit. Four the pur- poses of this argument there will be, I think, a general agreement that we can dismiss the hake, haddock, and halibut fisheries. It is admitted, also, that the cod fishery is essentially a deep-sea fishery, and does not, therefore, come within the scope of your examination, especially as the question of bait and supplies, which alone connected it with this discus- sion, bas been eliminated by your former decision. We have left, then, only the herring fishery and the mackerel fishery. As to the herring fishery, I shall say but very few words. The herring fishery on the shores of the Magdalen Islands we claim of right—a few scattering catches elsewhere are not appreciable enough to talk about; and we have, therefore, only the herring fisheries of Newfoundland an | Grand Manan. The former is essentially a frozen-herring business, ' and I do not believe there exists a question that this business, both at Newfoundland and Grand Manan, is entirely a mercantile business, & commercial transaction, a buying and selling, not a fishing. The testi- mony on this subject is complete, and is confirmed by Mr. Babson, the collector of the port of Gloucester, who has told you that the Glouces- ter fleet, the largest factors in this business, take out licenses to touch and trade, when they go for frozen herrings, thus establishiug the char- acter of their mercantile voyage. The only open question, then, as to the herring fishery, is the fishery .— for smoked and pickled herring at Grand Manan, and in the Bay of Fundy, from Latite to Lepreaux, and whether that is conducted by United States fishermen within the three-mile limit; a question, it Seeins to ne, very much narrowed when you come to consider that from Eastport, in Maine, to Campobello is only a mile and a half, and from Eastport to Grand Manan is only six or seven miles. Mr. THOMSON, Twelve or fourteen miles. Mr. TREscor, Not according to the statement of the witnesses. Bat call it ten miles; still it leaves a very small margin to make an estimate upon. I will not dwell upon that. “The open question is whether there is fishing at Grand Manan that is participated in by American fisher- AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1643 men within the three-mile limit, and what advantages they derive from it, and what element that will make in the calculation of the award. The testimony lies in a very small compass. There are three or four witnesses on either side. You saw and heard them; and I am very willing to leave that whole Grand Manan business to. you without one word of comment upon the testimony, except to ask you one simple question, as plain, practical, business men. Were you compelled to- morrow to invest money in the herring fishery of Grand Manan and the adjoining mainland and islands, to whom would you go for information, upon whose judgment would you rely; upon Mr. McLean, who esti- mates the value of that Lilliputian fishery at $3,000,000 annually, one- half of which is the unlawful plunder of United States fishermen—a fish- ery which, according to his estimate, would require, instead of the few un- known vessels which cannot be named, a fleet which could not sail from any port without being registered, and making it more than one-third of all the fisheries of the United States, of all the fisheries of the Do- -mminion, and everywhere recognized; or would you go to Mr. McLaugh- lin, the keeper of one of those 165 light-houses, for which we are to pay, and fish-warden, who says it is his duty to make inquiries of every fish- erman of his catch, but who adds that every fisherman of whom he in- quired deliberately lied to him, in order to evade the school-tax, and who then proceeds to fill out the returns from his inner consciousness of ‘ what the returns ought to be, and makes that return double his own official return to the minister of marine? Would you not go to the very men whom we have placed on the stand; men who, and whose ' fathers have, for sixty years been engaged in purchasing all these fish, farnishing supplies to all these fishermen, directing and controlling the whole business, and whose fortunes have been made and preserved by their precise and complete knowledge of the value and condition of this very fishery. And now as to the mackerel fishery. There are two singular facts / connected with it. The first is, that valuable as it is represented to be, lying, as it is claimed to do, within an almost closed sea, the mackerel ‘fishery of the gulf has been until within a few years the industry of Strangers. It has not attracted native capital, it has not stimulated na- tive enterprise, it has not developed native ports and harbors, while you claim and complain that it has built up Gloucester into established wealth and prosperity, and supplies, to a large degree, a great food- market of the United States. I find the following remarks in a report | of Commander Cochran to Vice-Admiral Seymour in 1851: The curious circumstance that about one thousand sail of American schooners find it very remunerative to pursue the herring and mackerel fisheries on the shores of our northern provinces, while the inhabitants scarcely take any, does indeed appear strange, aud apparently is to be accounted for by the fact that the colonists are want- a in capital and energy. The Jersey merchants, who may be said to possess the whole labor market, do not turn their attention to these branches. The business of the Jersey houses is generally, I believe, with one exception, carried on by agents; these persons receive instructions from their employers to devote their whole time and energy to the eatching and curing of cod. Such constant attention to one subject ap- pears at least to engender a perfect apathy respecting other branches of their trade. They are all aware, I believe fully aware, of the advantages to be derived from catch- ,ing the herring and mackerel, when these come in shoals within a few yards of their doors, but still nothing is done. Commercial relations of long standing, never having engaged in the trade before, possible want of the knowledge of the markets, and the alleged want of skill among the fishermen of the method of catching and curing of these fish, together with the twenty per cent. duty on English fish in America, may tend to induce the Jersey not to enter into these branches. Added to all these reasons the capital of the apes is, I am informed, in most instances small. It will probably be difficult to ‘find about the Bay of Chaleurs and Gaspé any fishermen not engaged by some one of | 1644 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. erous Jersey houses, and it may be said that a new branch of industry would snes satactals with the cod-fishery, but so lucrative a trade as the herring and mack- erel one would prove would enable higher wages to be given than are done for cod. In fact, I believe that very small, if any, wages are given at all, the money due to the fisherman for his summer labor being absorbed in food and clothing for himself and fam- ily, repairs of boats and fishing-gear, almost always deeply in debt in the spring, or at any rate sufticiently so to insure his labor for the ensuing summer, and so more per- sons would be induced to resort here the summer season.—(Confidential Official Cor- respondence, pp. 4 and 5.) This is precisely the testimony of the Gaspé witnesses who were put upon the stand. The great Jersey houses, which do represent the capi- tal, enterprise, experience, and skill of the country, do not touch the mackerel fisheries. As they did a quarter of a century ago, so they do to-day ; they abandon, neglect utterly what has been called the Califor- nia of the coast, and make and maintain their fortunes by giving up mackerel-fishing, and confining their attention exclusively to cod-fishing. The other fact which strikes me is this: that whatever development there has been—and it has been chiefly, if not entirely, on Prince Edward Island—has come since 1854, and has grown larger and richer under the Reciprocity Treaty. In 1852, the legislative council and as- sembly of Prince Edward Island, in colonial parliament assembled, de- clared that “the citizens of the United States have an advantage over the subjects of Your Majesty on this island which prevents all sucess- ful competition, as our own fish caught on our own shores by strangers are carried into their ports by themselves, while we are excluded by high protective tarift.”—(Confidential Official Correspondence, page 5.) From 1854, two years only after this declaration, there was a large and prosperous development of the Prince Edward shore fishery. This point has been insisted on and reiterated over and over again by the British witnesses. And yet we are asked now to pay $15,000,000 for the twelve years’ use of the very privileges given by that treaty un- der which this prosperity was developed ; for, as far as the fishing arti- cles and the fisheries are concerned, the provisions and privileges of the Treaty of 1871 are almost identical with the treaty of 1854, the treaty under which this fishery which now demands $15,000,000 compensation, was, I may almost say, created. | Passing by these topics, however, let me ask you to consider the dif- ference in the character of the testimony upon which the two cases rest. I do not mean to institute any comparison between the veracity of the witnesses, or to imply that one has more than another deviated from the truth. But I can best illustrate what I do mean by asking the same question I did as to the herring-fishing. If you wished to invest in mackerel, would you trust the rambling | stories of the most honest of skippers or the most industrious of boat- fishers against the experience and the books of men like Proctor, Syl- vanus Smith, Hall, Myrick, and Pew? Would you feel safe in buying when they refused to buy?) Would you be disposed to hold when you saw them selling? And here lies the whole difference between us. Ours | is the estimate of the capitalist; theirs the estimate of the laborer. Let ine take another illustration. Suppose that, instead of estimating the relative value o! these fisheries, you were called on to estimate the rela- tive value of the cotton crops of Georgia and Mississippi. Would its enter your minds to go into remote corners of these great States and gather together 83 small farmers, planting on poor lands, without arti- ficial manure, Without capital to hire labor, and draw your inference of procpenon from their experience, although every word of it were trae? ould you go to a few great planters and judge of the returns of cotton- | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1645 planting from the results of lavish expenditure? No. You would go to Savannah and Mobile, to Charleston and New York, to the offices of the factors, to the counting-houses of the great buyers, to the receipts of the railroads, to the freight-lists of the steamers. I may safely say that there is no great industry, the costs and profits of which can be ascertained by such partial individual inquiry. I am willing to admit perfect honesty of intention on the part of the individuals; but they never can understand how small a portion of a great result is the product of their local contribution ; and just as a small farmer in all sincerity measures the crop of grain or cotton that feeds and clothes the world from the experience of his few acres; so the boat-fishermen of Prince | Edward measures the mackerel-catch of the gulf by the contents of his boat, and imagines the few sail he sees in the offing of his harbor to be a huge fleet that is stealing his treasure. I mean no disrespect to very excellent people, but as I have heard their testimony, I would not but recall the humble address of the legislative council and house of assem- bly of Nova Scotia ‘to the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty,” in March, } 1838, in which the fishermen of Prince Edward and the Magdalen Islands ,are tersely described as “a well-intentioned, but secluded and unin- formed, portion of Your Majesty’s subjects.” Let me call your attention to another important point of difference between their testimony and ours. Theirs is the affirmative in this contention. They must prove their allegation. What is their allega- tion? They allege that the catch of mackerel by American fishermen within the three-mile limit is of more pecuniary value to us than the right to fish in the same limits in United States waters, with the addi- tional right to send in fish and fish-oil free, is to them. We say, prove it. Now, there can be but two ways of furnishing such proof. Either the British counsel must produce the evidence of a positive catch of value sufficient to sustain the allegation, or they must prove such a habit of successful fishing by Americans within the limits as justifies their in- ‘ference of a proportion of such value. They have not attempted to do the first. Nowhere in their evidence have they shown so many barrels of mackerel positively caught within the three-mile limit, and said, ‘‘ There is the number, and here is the value for which we are entitled to be paid.” If all the mackerel that have been sworn to by every witness as caught within the limit—not what he has heard has been caught, or thinks has been caught, but knows from his personal knowledge—be added together, it would not make $100,000. Their value would be utterly inappreciable compared ) with the amount claimed. They have adopted the other course, and by it they must stand or fall. They have put on the stand (leaving out Newfoundland) about fifty wit- nesses, who swore that they in United States ships caught mackerel within the limits; and they claim that this fact proves “the habit” of fishing within the limits. In reply, we put on an equal number of wit- nesses, who prove that they caught habitually good fares in the bay, without fishing within the three-mile limit. ‘‘ Granted,” they say, ‘ but this only proves that your fifty witnesses did not fish within the three- mile limit.” That is true; but is it not equally true that their testi- |}mony only proves that their witnesses, and those alone, fished within | the limits, and leaves the question simply, whether they caught enough || to justify an award? To go a step further, you must prove “ the habit” |) of United States fishermen. But how can you prove a habit with equal || testimony for and against it? It is exactly like what all lawyers and }| business men know as proving “ commercial usage.” In the absence of t : 1646 AWARD OF THF FISHERY COMMISSION. statute law, if you wanted to prove “ commercial usage” at Amsterdam or New York, as to what days of grace were allowed on commercial paper, what would you do? Examine the merchants of these cities as to “the habit” of commercial people. Now, if fifty merchants swore that one day was allowed, and another fifty swore three days were allowed, you might not know whether it was one or three, but you would know that you had not proved any “habit.” Just so, if fifty fishermen of a fishing-fleet swore that it was “ the habit ” of the fleet to fish in- shore, and fifty swore that it was “ the habit” never to fish inshore, you might not know which to believe ; but supposing, what in this case will not be disputed, that the witnesses were of equal veracity, you would certainly know that you had not proved “ the habit.” You will see, therefore, that the burden of proof is on our friends. They must prove their catch equal in value to the award they claim. If they cannot do that, and undertake to prove “ habit,” then they must do—what they have not done—prove it by an overwhelming majority of witnesses. With equal testimony, their proof fails. And now, with such testimony, let us take up the mackerel fishery. Before you can fix the relative value of American or British interest in this industry, you must ascertain what it is. Before you can say how it is to be divided, you must know what you are to divide. Fortunately, we are agreed that there is but one market for all mackerel, whether caught on the United States shores or in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and that is the United States. No statement has gone beyond the estimate of a supply from all the fisheries of more than 400,000 barrels. In fact, that is considerably above the average supply. Then no statement has gone beyond an average of $10 per barrel as the price. That makes $4,000,000. Next, I think I am safe in saying that the consent of the most: competent witnesses has fixed 400 barrels as the limit below which a vessel must not fall in order to make a saving trip. If that beso, the supply of 400,000 barrels represents one thousand profitable trips. That is not catches making large amounts of money, but catches that did not lose. What, then, is the average value of a profitable trip? Take the estimates of Mr. Sylvanus Smith, Mr. Proctor, and Mr. Pew, and see what profits you can make out of even such atrip. Iam taking a large result from these calculations when I take Mr. Smith’s estimate of $220, where the owner rans the vessel, and that will give you from the 400,000 barrels a resultant profit of $220,000. And in this calcula- tion I have not attempted to separate the gulf catch from the United States shore catch, or to determine what portion of the gulf catch was made within the three-mile limit. Take the largest estimate that has been made by anybody; call the gulf catch a third of the whole; say $75,000, to avoid the fractions; and then consider half of that caught within three miles, and you have $36,000 annually, or $432,000 in twelve years, for the privilege of making which you ask over one million annu- ally, or $15,000,000 for the twelve years. But even with this result, this is an exaggerated, a very exaggerated estimate of the value of the mack- erel fishery, because it assumes the highest catch ever known as the average. Now, there are two facts upon which all the testimony agrees: 1. The variable character of the mackerel fishery. 2. The steady dimi- nution of the supply from the gulf as compared with the supply from the United States shores. If these be taken into calculation, what margin 1s left for an award, especially when it is remembered that this award is for twelve years, and, in the opinion of those most experienced, the variation in the mackerel catch passes from its minimum to its maxi- mum every seven years; giving, therefore, in this period but one maxi- i AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1647 mum year in return for the payment. Upon these two facts we can rest. Ido not care to go through the testimony that you have had before you. I did make one or two tabular statements, but I do not think it worth while to trouble you with them. The general results you can get at as well as I did. You know the general run of the testimony. You know whether I am saying what is fairly and reasonably accurate. Our contention is that we have proved these points conclusively, and taking them as the basis, there is no margin whatever left for an award on account of profits accruing to the United States from the privilege of inshore fishing. But there is another fact not stated in any of the evidence, but which is clearly proven by the whole of it; and it is this: The mackerel mar- ket is a speculative market; its profit represents simply a commercial venture, and not the profit to the fisherman. In other words, a barrel of mackerel salted, packed, and sold, produces a result in which the profit of the fisherman makes but a small part. Take the statement of Mr. Hall, that he purchases regularly from the fishermen of Prince Edward Island their mackerel at $3.75 per barrel. Now, whatever Mr. Hall sells that barrel of mackerel for above and beyond $3.75 represents capital, labor, skill, with which the fishery, as a fishery, hasnoconcern. Between the fish in the water and the fish in the market there is as much differ- ence as there is between a pound of cotton in the field and a pound of cotton manufactured; and you would have as much right to estimate the value of a cotton plantation by the value of the cloth and yarn into which its production has been manufactured, as you have to value the fisheries by the value of the manufactured fish which are sold. Suppose that Mr. Hall, or a combination of Mr. Hall’s, should purchase the whole mackerel catch at $3.75, and then hold for such arise in price as they might force. This speculation might make Mr. Hall a millionaire or a bankrupt, but would any man in his senses consider the result, be it profit or loss, as representing the value of the mackerel fishery ? So little, indeed, does the value of fish enter into the market value of the mackerel, that you have this statement from Mr. Pew, the largest and longest established fish-merchant on this continent: ‘No. 1 bay mackerel! in the fall were bought by us at $22.50, and piled away over winter, and I think the next May and June they sold down as low as $4, $5, and $6 a barrel—the same fish; and I think that shore mackerel, which had sold as high as $24, were then sold for about the same price.” Would the mackerel market of that year have afforded you any fair criterion by which to appraise the mackerel fishery of that year? What interest had the mackerel fishermen in this speculative variation of the market price? And you have the further and uncontradicted testi- mony of more than one competent witness that when the mackerel catch of 1870 was, with one exception, the largest ever known, prices were maintained at a higher point than in years of very small catch. Upon this state of facts, proven by such competent witnesses as Proc- tor, Sylvanus Smith, Myrick, Hall, and Pew, I submit that in estimat- ing-the value of the fishery you can only take the value of the raw material—that is, the fish as taken by the fisherman and by him sold to the merchant; and even then the price he receives represents, besides the value of the raw material, his time, his labor, his living, and his skill. For throughout this argument you must not forget that the British Government gives us nothing. For the freedom from duty, and the right to fish in United States waters, it gives us the privilege only _ ef using our own capital, enterprise, and industry within certain limits. It cannot secure us, and does not offer to secure us, a single fish. It 1648 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. cannot control the waters or the inhabitants thereof. It cannot guaran- tee that in the twelve years of the treaty the catch in the gulf will be even tolerable, and, indeed, for the five years that have already run it has been pure loss. And yet the British Case demands that we should pay not only for the little we do catch, but for all that, under other cir- cumstances, we might catch; and not only that, but that we should pay for all the fish that the British fishermen do not catch! We contend, then, that we have proved that the mackerel fishery of the gulf is so variable that it offers no certainty of profit; that the use of the gulf fishery bas diminished steadily ; that in the gulf there is no evidence of any habitual fishing within the three-mile limit; that an equal number of experienced and competent fishermen prove that they do not fish at all inside the limits, and that the development of the United States coast fishery has offered, and is offering, a more profit- able field for the industry and capital of United States fishermen, while the supply of fish from the lakes and the transport of fresh fish far into the interior is superseding the use of salted mackerel as an article of food; and therefore there is no ground in any advantage offered by the Treaty of 1871 upon which to rest a money award. We now go further and maintain that if in this condition of the mack- erel fishery you can find any basis for such award, then the advantages offered to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty by the United States in the same treaty are a complete offset. These advantages consist, first, in the right to share the shore fish- eries of the United States. It will not do to assert, as the British Case does, that ‘their modes of fishing for menhaden and other bait are furthermore such as to exclude strangers from participating in them ~ without exceeding the terms of the treaty; and even without this diffi- culty it must be apparent that such extensive native enterprises would ver competition and suffice to insure the virtual exclusion of foreigners.” (Page 29.) These, as they stand, are mere assertions, unsupported by any proof. The treaty provision is the highest law of the land, and no local legisla- tion can prevent the exercise of the privileges it confers. The compe- tition of native enterprise is just what the United States fishermen meet in British waters; and that the native enterprise is more extensive on™ the United States shores, only proves that there is an industry which better rewards the enterprise. It is like all treaty privileges—one, the use of which depends upon those who take it, and if, when given and taken in exchange, the parties taken do not choose to use it, this refusal cannot deprive it of its value. _ 4. The second advantage given to Her Britannic Majesty’s subjects is the right to export into the United States fish and fish-oil free of duty. The estimate which we have submitted as to the value of this privilege is that it is worth about $350,000 annually. his has not been denied, but I am concerned with the principle, not — the amount. To this offset the British counsel object, upon the ground that the duty taken off the British producer reduces the price to the © American consumer, and is therefore a benefit to the latter to the same extent, for, if imposed, the consumer would have to pay. Into the polit- lco-economical argument I shall not enter. You have heard enough, — of it in the cross-examinations, where counsel and witnesses gave you their opinions; and our view of the case has been placed before you with great clearness and force by the learned counsel who preceded me. Upon that question, I have but two remarks to make, and I do not think either can be controverted: | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1649 1. If it be assumed, as a general principle, that the consumer pays the duty, it is equally true that he does not pay the whole of it. For to assume any such position would be to strike out all possibility of profit. Take an illustration: A merchant imports 1,000 yards of broadcloth, which, adding all costs and duties, he can sell at a profit at $6 a yard. Now adda duty of $2a yard. Hecannot sell his customer at $8 a yard; he must divide the rise in price, and, while he adds the duty, he must diminis the profit. Except in case of articles of luxury, such as rare books, jewels, costly wines, scientific instruments, works of art, the in- crease of duty cannot, and never has been, imposed entirely upon the consumer. 4. If this be true, then you must ascertain what is the proportion of increase in price of mackerel consequent upon the duty which is paid by the consumer, before you can say what he, the consumer, gains by the removal. There has been no attempt to do this on the part of coun- sel. Our most experienced witnesses testify that the additional duty of $2 would raise the price of mackerel about fifty cents a barrel, which would leave $1.50 to be paid by the producer. I do not undertake to say whether this is right or wrong, for I am discussing the principle, not the amount. The question is an insoluble one. You have been told by competent. witnesses, and after a fortnight’s preparation for rebuttal they have not been contradicted, that the mackerel market is a specu- lative one; that in one year the speculative price has varied from $22 to $4, while for ten years the price to the daily consumer has scarcely varied at all; that the price depends much upon the catch; and yet that in the year of the largest catch the price has not gone down; and that being food for poor people, there is a price which when reached, with duty or without duty, the consumption is immediately reduced; and, added to all this, that the competition of fresh fish is fast driving it out of use. With all these conditions to be ascertained first, who can ever say what proportion of duty is paid by the producer and what by the consumer, or if any is paid by the latter? ; I do not believe it is possible to do it, but if it were possible to do it _ you cannot make it an offset. If you undertake to make an offset of it | let us know what it is. We state our account. We take this statement and we say, ‘In the year 1874 the duty remitted was $355,972.” Now, what are you going to set off against that?—an opinion, a theory, a be- lief, a speculation to weigh it down with? If you are going to set off dollars against that, tell us how many dollars in 1874 you are going to set off against that. How are you going to find out? How can you | ever tellus? But if the gentlemen’s theory is right, they have not con- verted it into a practical theory that you’can apply. If they will under- take to tell us, “In 1874 and 1875 we will show you a reduction of price in mackerel to a certain number of consumers to the amount of $200,000 or $250,000,” strike the balance. But you cannot strike the balance with an opinion. Before they can make this claim they must submit that statement to us. But I do not intend to dwell upon that, for this reason. The principle that I hold ought to be applied to the solution of this question is this: that it is one with which, under the treaty, you have | nothing on earth to do. If our friends on the other side could show, dol- lar for dollar, that every dollar of the $355,000 remitted by the renewal | of the duty was $355,000 to the benefit of the American consumers, you | could not reckon it. _ Now, let us look at the treaty : | __ ARTICLE XXII. Inasmuch as it is asserted by the Government of Her Britannic Majesty . that the privileges accorded to the citizens of the United States, under Article XVIII of | 104 F i= ia ee 1650 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. this treaty, are of greater value than those accorded by Articles XIX and XXI of this treaty to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, and this assertion is not admitted by the Government of the United States, it is further agreed that Commissioners shall be appointed to determine, having regard to the privileges accorded by the United States to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, as stated in Articles XPMandex Xt of this treaty, the amount of any compensation which, in their opinion, ought to be paid by the Government of the United States to the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, in return for the privileges accorded to the citizens of the United States under Article X VIII. Now, under this treaty there stands before you to-day a balance, on one arm of which hangs the 18th Article of the Treaty of 1871, and on the other the 19th and 21st Articles. You cannot add to either scale one scruple, one pennyweight, which the treaty has not put there. You cannot transfer weights from one to the other. You can only look at the index and see whether the register shows that one is heavier than the other, and how much heavier. What are the advantages conferred by the 18th Article of the Treaty of 1871 on the citizens of the United States ? It is agreed by the High Contracting Party, that in addition to the liberty secured to the United States fishermen by the Convention between Great Britain and the United States, signed at London on the 20th day of October, 1218, of taking, curing, and dry- ing fish on certain coasts of the British North American Colonies therein defined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty, for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of this treaty, to take fish of every kind, except shell-fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbors, and creeks of the Provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Colony of Prince Edward Island and of the several islands there- unto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the shore, with permis- sion to land upon the said coasts and shores and islands, and also upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish. That is the only advantage which is given to us by the 18th Article of the treaty, and it is the only advantage so given to us, the value of which you have any right to estimate. Iam perfectly willing to admit a set-off of this kind, which is provided for apparently. It is agreed in Article XXI that for the term of years mentioned in Article XX XIII of this treaty, fish-oil and fish of all kinds (except fish of the inland lakes and of the rivers falling into them, and except fish preserved in oil), being the produce of the fisheries of the United States or of the Dominion of Canada or of Prince Edward Island, shall be admitted into each country, respectively, free of duty. Now, if against the $350,000 of duty remitted upon fish and fish-oil im- ported from the Dominion into the United States, you can set off any duty on fish and fish-oil imported from the United States into Canada, you will have the right to do it; but that is the extreme limit to which, under the words of that treaty, you have a right to go. It is nothing whatever to you whether the’advantage to us is great or small of the remission of that duty. It is a positive advantage to the citizens of the Dominion; it is given to them as an advantage, and in return for it they have given usa right to do one thing and nothing else, and under that treaty you have no right to value any other advantage against us. I have now stated, as concisely as I have been able, the scope of our | argument—the principles which we think ought to be applied to the © solution of this question. As to the facts, you will judge them by the Impression the witnesses have made upon yourselves, and not by any representations of the impressions they have made upon us. And we fully and gratefully recognize that you have followed the testimony with patient and intelligent attention. It seems to me (and this I would say rather to our friends on the other side than to you) that at the end of this long investigation, the — true character of the case is not difficult to see. Fora century the re- 4 t AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1651 lations of the two countries on this question have been steadily improv- ing. We have passed from the jealous and restrictive policy of the Convention of 1818 to the free and liberal system of the Treaty of 1854, and, with good sense and good temper, it is impossible that we should ever go backward. The old feuds and bitternesses that sprang from the Revolution have long since died out between the two great nations, and in fact, for Great Britain, the original party in these negotiations, has been substituted a nation of neighbors and kinsmen, a nation working with us in the wise and prosperous government of this vast continent, which is our joint possession ; a nation, I may add, without presump- tion or offense, whose existence and whose growth is one of the direct consequences of our own creation, and whose future prosperity is bound up with our own. In the Treaty of 1871 we have reached a settlement which it depends upon your decision to make the foundation of a firm and lasting union. Putting aside for the moment the technical plead- ings and testimony, what is the complaint and claim of the Dominion ? Tt is that where they have made of ‘the fishery a common property, opened what they consider a valuable industry to the free use of both - eountries, they are not met in the same spirit, and other industries, to them of equal or greater value, are not opened by us with the same | friendly liberality. I can find no answer to this complaint, no reply to this demand, but that furnished by the British Case, your own claim to receive a money compensation in the place of what you think we ought to have given. If a money compensation is recompense—if these un- equal advantages, as you call them, can be equalized by a money pay- ment, carefully, closely, but adequately estimated—then we have bought the right to the inshore fisheries, and we can do what we will with our own. Then we owe no obligation to liberality of sentiment or commu- nity of interest; then we are bound to no moderation in the use of our privilege, and if purse-seining and trawling and gurry-poison and eager competition destrey your fishing, as you say they will, we have paid the damages beforehand; and when at the end of twelve years we count the cost, and find that we have paid exorbitantly for that which was profitless, do you think we will be ready to renew the trade, and where and how will we recover the loss? ; No. I believe that this treaty as it stands executed to-day, interpreted in’the broad and liberal spirit in which it was conceived, is, whether you regard the interests of the maritime provinces or the wider interests of the whole Dominion, a greater advantage in the present and a larger promise in the future than any money-award which may belittle the large liberality of its provisions. As it stands it means certain progress. The thorough investigation which these interests have now for the first time received, a few years, a few wonths of kindly feeling and common | interest will supply all its deficiencies and correct all its imperfections. And, therefore, do I most sincerely hope that your decision will leave it so, free to do its own good work, and then we who have striven to- gether, not, I am glad to say, either unkindly or ungenerously, to reach some just conclusion, will find in the future which that treaty contains the wisest solution, and we shall live to see all possible differences which | [ened have disturbed the natural relations of the two countries, not re- motely but in the to-morrow of living history, not metaphorically but | literally, “‘in the deep bosom of the ocean buried.” 1652 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. hae CLOSING ARGUMENT OF HON, RICHARD H. DANA, Jr., ON BEHALF OF THE = UNITED STATES. FRIDAY, November 9, 1877. May it please Your Excellency and Your Honors : Certainly, in the discharge of our respective duties on this high occasion, we are met under most favorable auspices. Our tribunal is one of our own selection. The two parties to the question, Great Brit- ain and the United States of America, have each chosen its represent- ative upon the Board; and, as to the President and Umpire of the Tri- bunal, while the treaty obliged us, by reason of the lapse of time, to refer the appointment to the representative of a foreign power at Lon- don, yet it is well known that the appointment was made in conformity with the expressed wish of those governments, who found, as the head of this court, one with character so elevated and accomplishments so rare that they had no difficulty in agreeing upon him themselves. We have been fortunate, gentlemen of the Commission, that no mis- fortune, no serious accident, in the long period of three months that so many gentlemen have been together, has fallen upon us. The shadow of death has not crossed our path, nor that of any of ours at a distance, nor even has sickness visited us in any perilous manner. We have been sustained all the while by the extreme hospitality and kindness of the people of this city, who have done everything to make our stay here — as agreeable as possible, and to breathe away any feeling we might have had at the beginning that there might be any antagonism which | would be felt beyond the legitimate contests of the profession. The kindest feeling and harmony prevail among us all. Your legislature of this province has set apart for our use this beautiful hall, and while my > friend and associate, Mr. Trescot, saw, in the presence of the portrait of His Majesty, which looks down upon us from the walls, an encourage- ment for the settlement of the matter confided to us, because that king supposed it settled more than a hundred years ago, I confess that the presence of that image has been to me throughout interesting and al- most painful. It was the year that he ascended to the throne that the French were finally driven from North America and that it all became British America, from the southern coast of Georgia up to the North Pole, and all these islands and peninsulas which form the Gulf of St Lawrence passed under his scepter. And what a spectacle for him to look down upon now, after a hundred years! A quiet assembly of gen- tlemen, without any parade or ostentation, without an armed soldier at the gate or door, settling the vexed question of the fisheries which, in oerace times and under other auspices, would have been cause enough or War. And settling them between whom? Between his old thirteen colonies, now become a republic of forty millions of people, bounded by seas and zoues, and his own empire, its scepter still held in his own line, by the daughter of his own son, more extended, and counting an immensely larger population than when he left it, showing us not only the magni- tade, and increase, and greatness of the republic, but the stability, the, security and the dignity of the British Crown. Yes, gentlemen of the Commission, when he ascended the throne, and before that, when his grandfather, whose portrait also adorns these walls, sat upon the throne of England, this whole region was a field of contest between France and Great Britain. It was not then British North America. Which should AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1653 hold them, with these islands and peninsulas and these fisheries, adja- cent to and about them, depended upon the issue of war, and wars one after another; but Great Britain, holding certain possessions here, claimed them, and made large claims, according to the spirit of that day, covering the Banks of Newfoundland, and the other banks, and the whole deep-sea fishery out of sight of land, and also up to the very shores and within hailing distance of them, without any regard to a geographical limit of three miles, which is a very modern invention. That contest was waged, and the rights in these islands and these fish- eries settled by the united arms of Great Britain and of New England, and largely, most largely, of Massachusetts. Why, Louisburg, on Cape Breton, held by the French, was supposed to be the most import- ant and commanding station, and to have more influence than any other upon the destinies of this part of the country. And, Mr. President, it was a force of between three and four thousand Massachusetts men, under Pepperell, and a few hundred from the colonies, with two hundred and ten vessels, that sailed to Louisburg, invested and took it for the | British Crown, in trust for the British Crown and her colonies. Gridley, who laid out the fortifications at Bunker Hill, and Prescott, who defended them, were in the expedition against Louisburg. And wherever there / was war between France and England for the possession of this conti- nent, or any part of it, or these islands and these fisheries, the militia and volunteers of Massachusetts fought side by side with the regulars of Great Britain. They fought under Wolfe at Quebec, under Amherst and Lord Howe at Ticonderoga; and, even at the confluence of the Alleghany and Monongahela, Washington commanded under Braddock. ' We followed the British arms wherever they followed the French arms, | The soldiers of Massachusetts, following them to the sickly sugar islands /of the West Indies, lay side by side on cots in the same fever-hospitals }and were buried in the same graves. And if any of you shall visit the old country again, and your footsteps may lead you to Westminster Hall, you will find there a monument to Lord Howe, the brother of Admiral Howe, who fell at Ticonderoga, erected to his memory by the Province of Massachusetts; and there let it stand, an emblem of the fraternity and unity of the olden times and a proof that it was together, by our joint arms and our joint enterprise, blood and treasure, that all these provinces, and all the rights apper- taining and connected therewith, were secured to the Crown and the colonies. Yes, gentlemen of the Commission, every one of the charters of Massachusetts gave her a right to fish in these northwestern waters, and they, you will observe, were irrespective of her geographical posi- tion. None of them watered her shores, but they were the result of the common toil, treasure and blood of the colonies and of the Crown, and they were always conceded to the colonies by the Crown. The last Massachusetts charter granted by the Crown is in these words—it assures to Massachusetts “‘ the right to use and enjoy the trade of fish- ing on the coast of New England, and all the seas thereto adjoining, or arms of said seas, where they huve been wont to fish.” The test was the habit of the people; “where they had,” in the good old Saxon English, “been wont to fish.” It did not depend on geographical lines. ‘They had no idea then of limiting the colonies to three miles, and giving them a general right on the seas, but whatever right Great Britain had here she secured to the colonies to the last. I may as well present here, gentlemen of the Commission, as at any other time, my view respecting this subject of the right of deep-sea fish- ery. The right to fish in the sea is in its nature not real, as the common |e bo 1654 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. law has it, nor immovable, as named by the civil law, but personal. It is a liberty. It is a franchise or a faculty. It is not property pertain- ing to or connected with the land. It is incorporeal ; it is aboriginal. The right of fishing, dropping line or net into the sea, to draw from it the means of sustenance, is as old as the human race, and the limits that have been set about it have been set about it in recent and modern times, and wherever the fisherman is excluded, a reason for excluding him should always be given. I speak of the deep-sea fishermen, following the free-swimming fish through the sea, not of the crustaceous animals or any of those that connect themselves with the soil under the sea or adjacent to the sea, nor do I speak of any fishing which requires posses- sion of the land or any touching or troubling the bottom of the sea; I speak of the deep-sea fishermen who sail over the high seas pursuing the free-swimming fish of the high seas. Against them, it is a question not of admission, but of exclusion. These fish are not property. Nobody owns them. They come we know not whence, and go we know not whither. The men of science have been before us, and fishermen have been before us, and they do not agree about it. Professor Baird, in a very striking passage, gave it as his opinion that these fish retire in the winter to deep sea or to the deep mud beneath the sea, and become unseen and unknown, and in the spring they invade this great continent as an army, the left wing foremost, touching the Southern States first and last the northern parts of the British colonies. Others think they go to the South and come back in lines and invade this country; but, at all events, they are more like those birds of prey and game which retire to the South in the winter, and appear again and darken the sky as they go to the North. They are no man’s property; they belong, by right of nature, to those who take them, and every man may take them who can. It isa totally distinct question whether, in taking them, he is trespassing upon private property, the land or park of any other individual holder. ‘The final cause,” as the philosophers say, of the existence of the sea-fish is, that they shall be caught by man and made an object of food by man. It is an innocent use of the high seas, that use which I have described. More than that, it is a meritorious use. The fisherman who drops his line into the sea creates a value for the use of mankind, and, therefore, his work is meritorious. It is, in the words of Burke, “wealth drawn from the sea,” but it was not wealth until it was drawn from the sea. Now, these fishermen should not be excluded except from necessity, some kind of necessity, and I am willing to put at stake whatever little reputation I may have as a person acquainted with the jurisprudence of nations (and the less reputation, the more important to me) to maintain this proposition, that the deep-sea fisherman, pursuing the free-swim- ming tish of the ocean with his net, or his leaded line, not touching shores or troubling the bottom of the sea, is no trespasser, though he approach Within three miles of a coast, by any established, recognized — law of all nations. It may possibly cross the minds of some of this tri- bunal, that perhaps that is not of very great importance to us here, but from the reflection | have been able to give to this case (and I have had time enough, surely) it seems to me that it is. I wish it to be fully un- derstood, what is the nature of that exclusive right for the withdrawing of which we are asked to make a money compensation? What is its, oon. its history, and its object? The treaty between Great Britain fia Bata of 1899, wine provides for aright of exclusive fishery by pale ae on the British side of the channel, and by the French on the n eof the channel, and measures the bays by a ten-mile line, is entirely a matter of contract between the two nations. The treaty be_ EE = i ; ; | " . J bs AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1655 gins by saying, not that each nation acknowledges in the other the right of exclusive fishery within three miles of the coast ; nothing of the kind. It begins by saying, “It is agreed between the two nations that Great Britain shall have exclusive fishery within three miles of the British coast, and that the French shall have exclusive fishery within three miles of the French coast,” and then it is further agreed that the bays shall be measured by a ten-mile line. All arbitrary alike, all rest- ing ou agreement alike, without one word which indicates that the law of nations any more gives an exclusive right to these fisheries by the British for three miles, than it does to measure the bays by ten miles. In the time of Queen Elizabeth this matter seemed to be pretty well understood in England. Her Majesty sent a commission, if I recollect right, an embassay, to Denmark, on the subject of adjusting the rela- tions between the two countries, and among the instructions given the ambassadors were these : And you shall further declare that the lawe of nations alloweth of fishing in the sea everywhere; as also of using ports and coasts of princes in amitie for traffique and avoidinge danger of tempests; so that if our men be barred thereof, it should be b some contract. We acknowledge none of that nature; but rather, of conformity with the lawe of nations in these respects, as declaring the same for the removing of all clayme and doubt; so that it is manifest, by denying of this fishing, and much more, for spoyling our subjects for this respect, we have been injured against the lawe of nations, expresslie declared by contract as in the aforesaid treaties, and the King’s own letters of ’85. And for the asking of licence (your honors will be pleased to observe that the Dan- ish statute required the Enylish to pay licenses for fishing in certain parts of said sea close to the shore), if our predecessors yelded thereunto, it was more than by lawe of nations was due; yelded, perhaps, upon some special consideration, yet, growing out of use, it remained due by the lawe of nations, what was otherwise due before all - eontract; wherefore, by omitting licence, it cannot be concluded, in any case, that the right of fishing, due by the lawe of nations, faileth; but rather, that the omitting to require licence might be contrarie to the contract, yf any such had been in force. Sometime, in speech, Denmark claymeth propertie in that sea, as lying between Nor- way and Island—both sides in the dominions of oure loving brother the King, suppos- ing thereby that for the propertie of a whole sea, it is sufficient to have the banks on both sides; asin rivers. Whereunto you may answere, that though propertie of sea, in some small distance from the coast, maie yeild some oversight and jurisdiction, yet use not princes to forbid passage or fishing, as is well seen in our seas of England. Though possession of the land close to the sea, says this remarkable letter of instructions, ‘‘ may yield some oversight and jurisdiction, yet use not princes to forbid passage or fishing, as is seen by our law of England.” There is much more to the same effect. So that whatever claim of jurisdiction over the sea a neighboring nation might make, whatever claim to property in the soil under the sea she might make, it was not the usage of princes to forbid passage, innocent passage, or the fishing and catching of the free-swimming fish, wherever they might | be upon the high seas. I wish, particularly, to impress upon your honors that all the North British colonies were in possession and enjoyment of the liberty of fish- Se I ing over all the Northwestern Atlantic, its gulfs, and bays. There is no word indicating the existence of either of these two things, a three- mile Jine of exclusion or attaching a right of fishing to the geographical position of the colony. No, gentlemen, the Massachusetts fisherman who dropped his leaded line by the side of the steep coast of Labrador, or within hail of the shore of the Magdalen Islands, did it by precisely the same right that he fished in Massachusetts Bay, off Cape Cod, or Cape Ann. Nobody knew any difference in the foundation, or the test of the rights, in those days. It was a common heritage, not dependent ‘upon political geography. As I have said, it was conquered by the common toil, blood, and treasure, and held as a common right and pos- oe 1656 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMM.SSION. session. ‘Be it so,” your honors may say, ‘‘but could not Great Brit- ain take it from her colonies?” Well, the greatest philosopher who gave his life to statesmanship, Edmund Burke, said: “That is a ques- tion which can better be discussed in the schools, where alone it can be discussed with safety.” He compared it with the question of the right to shear wolves. He was not disposed, perhaps, to deny the right in the abstract, but as a servant of the Crown he could not advise the Crown to try that kind of experiment. I recollect that when, before our civil war, an ardent and enthusiastic admirer of slavery said on the floor of Congress that capital ought to own labor, and that we had made a great mistake in New England that the capitalist did not own the men who worked in the factories and the men who followed the sea, Mr. Quincey replied by an anecdote respecting the bounty which the State of Maine gave for every wolf’s head. A man was asked why he did not raise a flock of wolves for the bounty; he said it would turn out, he was afraid, to be a hard flock to tend. And the wisest men in Great Britain—and I can say this in the presence of gentlemen who are almost all British subjects now, without fear of giving offense—the wisest men of Great Britain thought it was an attempt which had better not be made. But the act of March, 1775, urged by the obstinacy of George III and his adherence to worn-out traditions, was passed. After a con- flict with the colonies on the subject of the stamp-act and the tea-tax, that fatal act was passed, aimed at home rule, self-government, and the trade of the New England people—or rather, 1 should say, in the first instance, of Massachusetts, because it was Massachusetts over which the contest was waged during the early part of our struggle—and attempting to undo all we had been doing for one hundred and fifty years; to revolutionize our entire political system, and instead of leav- ing us what we had enjoyed for that time, home rule, to substitute a government at St. James or St. Stephen’s. Among other things, they provided that we should be deprived of our right iu the fisheries. ‘The statute acknowledged the existence of it, but Massachusetts was to be deprived of her right by the act of Parliament. Then came the debate, fiercer than ever, “Can Parliament take from us this right?” Well, it rested upon the assumption that all the grants the charters vested in us were held at the discretion of Parliament, and if Parliament could take away our fisheries, she could take away our landmarks, she could take Boston and Salem, which had been granted to us under the same charter that the fisheries had been granted; and when that act was passed, Burke, and Fox, and Sheridan, and Barré, and others, our friends in the British Parliament, called it a simple provocation to rebellion. Burke said, “it is a great penal bill which passed sentence on the trade and sustenance of America.” New Eng- land refused obedience; the other colonies assisted her, and we always treated it as void. Then came the war, and what was the effect of that on our title? Why, may it please you, gentlemen, I do not deny that war has an effect, but not the kind of effect which has been contended for by the British Government and by counsel. I agree that war puts at hazard, hot only every right of a nation, but the existence of the nation. There are boundary lines before war, and they are good against neutrals, avd good between one another, unless something else happens; but the boundary lines and everything they have are put at stake by the war. If one party entirely conquers the other, it has a right to decide upon the future existence of the other nation and all its rights; and when our ancestors pledged their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” to maintain all their rights, including this right against the demands of _ AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1657 Parliament, I agree that they put this right, as they put their lives, at hazard; but, fortunately for us, the war did not turn out a conquest of any of our rights. At the close of the war, the Treaty of 1783 was made. Now, at the time when the Treaty of 1783 was made, Great Britain did not claim to have conquered America, or to have taken from us by military force any of our rights, and the consequence was that in framing the Treaty of 1783, while they altered, by common consent, some of the division lines, none by right of conquest, they declared that the people of the United States shall ‘ continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take fish of every kind on the British Banks, and all other Banks of Newfoundland; also in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and all other places in the sea where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish.” What could be stronger than that? It was an acknowledgment of a continued right possessed long before. And if any question of its construction arose, it appealed to what they had been heretofore accustomed to do; ‘“ where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish.” How was it construed by British statesmen? Is there any doubt about it? I take it my brethren of the colonial bar will consider Lord Loughborough good authority. He said these words in the House of Lords respecting the fishery clause of the treaty: “ The fisheries were not conceded, but recognized as a right inherent in the Americans, which, though no longer British subjects, they are to continue to enjoy unmolested.” The same thing, substantially, was said by Lord North, who had been, we are told now by his biographers, the unwilling, but certainly the subservient, instrument in the hands of his king for trying to deprive us of this as well as our other rights. We then did continue to enjoy them, as we had from 1620 down. We had as much right to them as the British Crown, because it was our bow and our spear that helped to conquer them. Then came the war of 1812, and we had enjoyed the fisheries freely, without geographical limit, down to that time. The war of 1812 certainly did not result in the conquest of America, either mari- time or upon the land. It was fought out in a manly way between two strong people, without any very decided result; but after the war, in 1814, about the time we were making the treaty of peace at Ghent, that memorable correspondence took place between John Quincy Adams and _-Earl Bathurst, in which Earl Bathurst took this extraordinary position, that a war terminates all treaties. He took that position without lim- itation. Mr. Adams said, “Then it puts an end to our independence.” ** No,” was Earl Bathurst’s answer ; ‘¢ your independence does not rest upon the treaty. The treaty acknowledged your independence as a fact, and that fact continues. No treaty now can take it from you ; no treaty is needed to secure it to you; butso far as it was a treaty—I mean, so far as any right rested upon it as a treaty gift, or treaty stipulation, the war put an end to the treaty.”. Mr. Adams’s answer was twofold ; first, he denied the position. He took the ground, which all statesmen and jurists take to-day, that a war does not, ipso facto, terminate a treaty. It depends upon the results of the war; it depends upon the nature of the treaty; it depends-upon its language and terms. Each case is suz generis. Whether any war—I mean the entering into war, the fact that the two nations are at war—terminates a treaty, depends upon these questions. The treaty is put at hazard, like all other things. The termination of the war may terminate all treaties by a new treaty, or by conquest; but the fact that there is war, which is the only proposi- tion, does not terminate any treaty, necessarily. Then Mr. Adams fur- ther says: ‘“ Our right does not rest upon the treaty. The treaty of 1783 1658 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. did not give us this right. We always had it. We continued to enjoy these rights without geographical limitation, and if was conceded that we did so by the Treaty of 1783, and we no more depend upon a treaty gitt of 1783 for the right to these fisheries than we depend upon it for the enjoyment of our right to our independence.” Of course, the gentle- men of the Commission are familiar with that correspondence, and I will go no further with it. The whole subject is followed up with a great deal of ability in that remarkable book which has been lying upon the table; I mean John Quincy Adams’s book on “ The Fisheries and the Mississippi,” in connection with the Treaty of Ghent, and his reply to Mr. Jonathan Russell. Well, the parties could not agree, and it went on in that way until 1818, and then came a compromise, and nothing but a compromise. The introduction to the Treaty of 1818 says: ‘* Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the United States and in- habitants thereof to take, dry, and cure fish in certain coasts, harbors, creeks, and bays of His Majesty’s dominions in America, it is agreed between the High Contracting Parties”—it is all based upon “ differ- ences.” Now, the position of the two parties was this: the people of the United States said, ‘‘ We own these fisheries just as much to-day as we did the day that we declared war.” Great Britain did not declare war, nor did she make a conquest. The declaration of war was from Washington, from the Congress of the United States, and it ended by a treaty which said nothing about fisheries, leaving us where we were. The ground taken by the United States was that the fisheries, irre- spective of the three-mile limit, or anything else, belonged to us still. Great Britain said, “ No; you lost them”; not by war, because Earl Bathurst is careful to say that the war did not deprive us of the fish- eries, but the war ended the treaty, and the fisheries were appended solely to the treaty, and when the treaty was removed, away went the fisheries. Now, it is a singular thing in examining this treaty to find that there is nothing said about our right to take fish on the Banks, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and in the deep sea. The treaty of 1783 referred to that among other things, and it is well known that Great Britain claimed more than a jurisdiction over the fisheries. It claimed general jurisdiction and authority over the high seas, to which it appended no particular limit, and the claim admitted no limit. You were told by my learned associate, Judge Foster, a few days ago, that they arrested one of our vessels at a distance of sixty miles from the shore, claiming that we were within the King’s chambers. Nothing is said in that treaty upon the subject. It is an implied concession that all those rights belong to the United States, with which England would not undertake after that ever to interfere. And then we stood in this position: that we had used the fisheries, though we did not border upon the seas, from 1620 to 1818, in one and the same manner, under one and the same right, and if the general dominion of the seas was shifted, it was still subject to the American right and liberty to fish. I shall say nothing in this discussion about the right to land on shores for the purpose of drying nets and curing fish. That was a very antique idea. It has quite passed out now, fortunately, for your provinces are becoming well settled, and no right ever existed to land and dry fish where a private right is interfered with. There is no evidence to show that we ever practiced that right or cared anything about it. It was put in the treaty to follow the language of the old treaties, for what- ever it might be worth. Your honors will also observe that until 1830 the mackerel fisheries AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1659 were unknown. There was no fishery but the cod fishery. The cod fisheries were all the parties had in mind in making the Treaty of 1818, and to this day, as you have observed from some of the witnesses, “ Fishing,” by the common speech of Gloucester, fishing means, ex vi termini, cod-fishing is one thing and “ mackereling” is another. In Mr. Adams’s pamphlet, on the 23d page, he speaks of it as a “ fishery,” or in other words, cod fishery, and in 1818 the question was of the right of England to exclude. Now for the first time the doctrine respecting the three-mile line had begun to show itself in international law. Great Britain availed herself of it contrary to the instructions given by Queen Elizabeth—a very wise princess, certainly surrounded by very wise counselors ; availed herself of it to set up a claim to exclude the deep- sea fishermen, though they did not touch the land or disturb the bottom of the sea for a distance of three miles out. We denied that there was any such right by international law, certainly none by treaty, and cer- tainly none could be set up against us, who own the right to fish. But England was a powerful nation. She fought us in 1812 and 1814 with one hand—I acknowledge it, though it may be against the pride of American citizens—while she was fighting all Europe with the other, but she was now at peace. Both nations felt strong; both nations were taking breath after a hard conflict, and it was determined that there ‘should be an adjustment, and there was an adjustment, and it was this: Great Britain tacitly waived all claim to exclude us from the high seas and from the King’s chambers, except harbors and bays. She expressly waived all right to exclude us from the coasts of Labrador from Mount Joly, northward and eastward indefinitely through those tumbling mountains of ice, where we had always pursued our gigantic game. She expressly withheld all claim to exclude us from the Magdalen Isl- ands and from the southern, western, and northern shores of Newfound- land; and as to all the rest of the Bay of St. Lawrence and the coasts of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, we agreed to her right to exclude us. So that it stood thus: that, under that treaty, and only under that treaty, we admitted that Great Britain might exclude us for a distance of three miles from fishing in all the rest of her possessions in British North America, except those where it was expressly stipulated she should not attempt to doit. So she had a right to exclude us from the ‘three-mile line from the shores of Cape Breton, Prince Edward Isl- and, Nova Scotia, a portion of Newfoundland, and New Brunswick, and what has now become the Province of Quebec, while she could not exclude us from the coast of Labrador, the Magdalen Islands, and the rest of Newfoundland. There was the compromise. We got all that was then thought useful, with the right of fishing, with the right to dry nets and cure fish wherever private property was not involved. The Treaty of 1818 lasted until 1854—thirty-six years. So we went on under that compromise, with a portion of our ancient rights secured and _ another portion suspended, and nothing more. Great changes took place in that time. The mackerel fishery rose into importance. You honors have had before you the interesting spectacle of an old man who thinks that he was the first man who went trom Mas- sachusetts into this gulf and fished for mackerel, in 1827, or thereabouts. He probably was. But mackerel fishing did not become a trade or busi- hess until considerably after 1830, and the catch of mackerel became important to us as well as to the colonies. ; _ But there were great difficulties attending the exercise of this claim of exclusion—very great difficulties. There always have been, there always must be, and I prayst here always shall be such, until there be 1660 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. free fishing as well as free trade in fish. We had upon the stand Cap- tain Hardinge, of Her Majesty’s Navy, now or formerly, who had taken an active part in superintending these fisheries, and driving off the Americans. He was asked whether the maintenance of this marine police was not expensive. He said that it was expensive in the extreme, that it cost £100,000—I believe that was the sum named. He did not know the amount, but his language was quite strong as to the expen: siveness of excluding the Americans from these grounds, of maintain- ing these cruisers. But it also brought about difficulties between Great Britainand her provinees. The provincial authori ties, on the 12th of April, 1866, after this time (but they acted throughout with the same purpose and the same spirit) undertook to say that every bay should be a Brit- ish private bay which was not more than ten miles in width; following no pretence of international law, but the special treaty between Great Britain and France; and afterward they gave out licenses for a nominal sum, as they said, for the purpose of obtaining a recognition of their right. They did not care, they said then, how much the Americans fished within the three miles, but they wished them to pay a “nominal sum for a license,” as a recognition of the right. Well, the “nominal sum” was 50 cents a ton; but by and by the colonial parliament thought that nothing would be a “nominal sum” unless it was $1 a ton, and at last they considered that the best possible “nominal sum” was $2. But Her Majesty’s Government took a very different view of that sub- ject, and wherever there has been an attempt to exclude American fish- ermen from the three-mile line, there has been a burden of expense on Great Britain, a conflict between the Colonial Department at London and the Provincial authorities here, Great Britain always taking the side of moderation, and the Provincial Parliaments the side of extreme claim and extreme persecution. Then there was a difficulty in settling the three-mile line. What is three miles? It cannot be measured out, as upon the land. It is not staked out or buoyed out. It depends upon the eye-sight and judgment of interested men, acting under every pos- sible disadvantage. A few of the earlier witnesses called by my learned friends for the Crown undertook to say that there was no difficulty in ascertaining the three-mile line, but I happened to know better, and we called other witnesses, and at last uobody pretended that there was not great difficulty. Why, for a person upon a vessel at sea to determine the distance from shore, everything depends upon the height of the land he is looking at. If it is very high, it will seem very much nearer than if it is low and sandy. The state of the atmosphere affects it ex- tremely. .A mountain-side on the shore may appear so near in the fore- noon that you feel that you can almost touch it with your finger’s ends, while in the afternoon it is remote and shadowy, too far altogether for an expedition with an ordinary day’s walk to reach it. Now, every hon- est mariner knows that is so, and knows there is great difficulty in de- termining whether a vessel is or is not within three miles of the shore, when she is fishing. But there is, further, another difficulty. ‘‘ Three miles from the shore ”—what shore?) When the shore is a straight or curved line, it is not difficult to measure it; but the moment you come to bays, gulfs, and harbors, then what is the shore? The headland question then arose, and the Provincial officials told us—the Provinces by their acts, and the proper officers by their proclamations, and the officers of their cutters, steam or sail—told our fishermen upon their quarter-decks—that “ the shore” meant a line drawn from headland to headland, and they undertook to draw a line from the North Cape to the East Cape of Prince Edward Island and to say that ‘the shore” on fw SETS We eas es ES AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1661 meant three miles from that line; and then they fenced off the Straits of Northumberland; they drew another line from St. George’s to the Island of Cape Breton; they drew their headland lines wherever fancy or interest led them. And not only is it true that they drew them at pleasure, but they made a most extreme use of that. We did not suffer so much from the regular navy, but the Provincial officers, wearing for the first time in their lives shoulder-straps and put in command of a vessel, “ dressed in a little brief authority, played such fantastic tricks before high heaven” as might at any moment, but that it was averted by good fortune, have plunged the two countries into war. Why, that conflict between Pattillo and Bigelow amused us at the time, but I think your honors were struck with the fact that, as Pattillo escaped, was pur- sued, and the shots fired by his pursuers passed through his sail and tore away part of his mast and entered the hull, if they had shed a drop of American blood, it might “the multitudinous seas incarnadine” in war. Why, people do not go to war solely for interest, but for honor, and every one felt relieved, drew a freer breath, when he learned that no such fatal result followed. None of us would like to take the risk of having an American vessel within the three miles or without the three miles, but supposed to be within it, or actually within it for an innocent purpose, attacked by a British cutter, or attacked because she was within certain headlands, and blood shed in the encounter. Now, Great Britain felt that, and felt it more than the Provinces did, because she had not the same deep interest to blind her to the importance of the sub- ject. The results of the seizures were very bad. In the case of the White Fawn, tried before the judge at New Brunswick, he says, “ This fact has not been accounted for, that so long a time has elapsed from the time of ihe seizure until the case was brought into court”; so that, al- though he discharged the ship as innocent, the crew were dispersed, the voyage was broken up, and no answer was made to that pertinent inquiry of his honor. It was a very common thing to hold vessels seized until it became immaterial to the owners, almost, whether they were finally released or finally convicted. My learned friend, Judge Foster, laid before your honors a Nova Scotia statute of 1836 (I confess I have not read it; I looked for it, but was not able to find it), in which he said there was a provision that if, in case of capture, an American seaman, fisherman, or master did not make true answers, he forfeited £100; that the onus, the burden of proof, to show that the vessel was not subject to capture was upon the owner, not upon the captor; that before the owner could contest the question with the man who seized his vessel, he must file a bond of £60 for costs ; he could bring no suit against his _ eaptor until one month’s notice, giving the captor an opportunity, as it is said, to obtain evidence, but, as a practical lawyer, I should add, giving him also an opportunity to escape and to conceal his property ; finding treble costs in case the American was convicted ; and also pro- viding that the simple judicial signature, declaring that there was proba- ble cause for the seizure, prevented any action or suit whatever. Now, these were strong penal measures, unknown to anything but criminal law, and even stronger than the laws of war; -because if in high war a vessel is seized and released, the owner of the vessel may sue the commander of the ship, though he bears the colors of Great Britain or of the United States ; he may sue him in the courts of his own country Without giving him any previous notice, without giving any previous _ bond, and no certificate of probable cause from the court will prevent the trying of the suit. I know it is true that if the court which tries 1662 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the suit decides that there was probable cause, the captain of the cruiser is not to be condemned, but the owner has a right to arrest and try him before a competent court. But all these rights were brushed away by the legislature of Nova Scotia—always supposing that Judge Foster was right in his statement of the character of that law. Nor is that all, by any means. There was a further difficulty. No one could know what would become of us when we got into court. There was a conflict of legal decisions. One vessel might go free, when under the same circumstances another vessel might be condemned. The Treaty of 1818 did not allow us to go within three miles of certain shores, except for the purposes of shelter and getting wood or supplies, and pro- hibited fishing within three miles. An act of the 59th of George II was the act intended to execute that treaty. That act provided that “if any such foreign vessel is found fishing, or preparing to fish, or to have been fishing, in British waters, within three miles of the coast, such vessel, her tackle, &c., and cargo, shall be forfeited.” That was the language of the statute of George III and of the Dominion statutes. Is it not plain enough—it seems to me, it has seemed so to all Amer- icans, I think—that that statute was aimed, as the treaty was, against fishing within three miles? But in one court the learned judge who presides over it—a man of learning and ability, recognized in America aud in the provinces, therefore giving his decision the greater weight— decided, first, that the buying of bait was a preparing to fish. We had supposed that the statute meant “for fishing within three miles, you will be condemned,” and in order that it should not be. required that a man should be caught in the very act of drawing up fish (which would be almost impossible), it was extended by saying, “or caught, having — fished or preparing to fish ”—such acts as heaving his vessel to, prepar- ing his lines, throwing them out, and the like. The learned court de- cided, first, that buying bait, and buying it on shore, was “ preparing to fish,” within the meaning of the statute. If an American skipper went into a shop, leaned over the counter, and bargained with a man who had bait to sell on shore, he was “ preparing to fish,” and, as he certainly was within three miles of the shore, his preparation was made within three miles; and it was apparently utterly immaterial whether he intended to violate the provision of the treaty by fishing within three miles of the shore, so long as he was preparing, within three miles, to fish anywhere in the deep sea, on the Banks of Newfoundland, or in American waters. Then came the decision of another learned judge in New Brunswick (they were both in 1871), who said that buying bait was not the “preparing to fish” at which the statute was aimed; and, fur- ther, that it was essential to prove that the fishing intended was to be within three miles of the shore. There was a conflict of decisions, and we did not know where we stood. Another effect of this restriction was. that it brought down upon the — Dominion tishermen the statute of the United States, laying a duty of two dollars a barrel upon every barrel of mackerel, and one dollar a barrel upon every barrel of herring. ‘That statute was—and I shall pres- ently have the honor to cite the evidence upon that point, that [ may not be supposed to rely upon assertion—that statute was, in substance, prohibitory. The result was, that it killed all the vessel fishing of these provinces. They had no longer seamen who went to sea in ships. A shore fishery sprung up for the use of the people themselves, and was gradually somewhat extended—I mean a boat fishery around the shores. But, as [ shall cite authorities to show, as [hope that your bonors already believe, the first effect was to draw away from these provinces the en- | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1663 terprising and skilled fishermen who had fished in their vessels and sent their catches to the American market. It drew them away to the American vessels, where they were able, as members of American crews, to take their fish into market free of duty. There was, at the same time, a desire growing on both sides for reci- procity of trade, and it became apparent that there could be no peace between these countries until this attempt at exclusion by imaginary lines, always to be matters of dispute, was given up—until we came back to our ancient rights and position. It was more expensive to Great Britain than tous. It made more disturbance in the relations be- tween Great Britain and her provinces than it did between Great Br tain and ourselves; butit putevery man’slifein peril; it put the results of every man’s labor in peril; aud for what? For the imaginary right to exclude a deep-sea fisherman from dropping his hook or his net into the water for the free-swimming fish, that have no habitat, that are the property of nobody, but which are created to be caught by fishermen. So at last it was determined to provide a treaty by which all this matter should be set aside, and we should fall back upon own early condition. Now, your honors will allow me a word, and I bope you will not think it out of place—it is an interesting subject; I do not think it is quite out of place, and I will not be long upon it—on the nature of this right which England claimed in 1818, to exclude us from the three miles, by virtue of some supposed principle of international law. I have stated my opinion upon it; but your honors will be pleased to observe, that on that, as upon the subject of headlands, on an essential part of it, with- out which it can never be put in execution, there is no fixed international law. I have taken pains to study the subject; have examined it care- fully since I came here, and I think I have examined most of the author- ities. I do not find one who pledges himself to the three-mile line. It is always ‘three miles,” or “the cannon-shot.” Now, “ the cannon- shot ” is the more scientific, though not the more practical, mode of de- termining the question, because it was the length of the arm of the nation bordering upon the sea, and she could exercise her rights so far as the length of her arm could be extended. That was the cannon-shot, and that, at that time, was about three miles. It is now many more tiles. We soon began to find out that it would not do to rest it upon the cannon-shot. It is best to have something certain. But interna- tional writers have arrived at no further stage than this, to say that it is “ three miles, or the cannon-shot.” When they are called upon to de- termine what are the rights of bordering nations, they say, ‘ to the ex- tent of three miles, or the cannon shot.” But upon the question, “* How is the three-mile line to be determined ?” we find everything utterly afloat and undecided. My purpose in making these remarks is, in part, to show your honors what a precarious position a state holds which under- takes to set up this right of exclusion and to put it in execution. The international law makes no attempt to define what is ‘* coast.” We know well enough what a straight coast is, and what a curved coast is; but the moment they come to bays, harbors, gulfs, and seas, they are utterly afloat—as much as the sea-weed that is swimming up and down their channels. They make no attempt to define it, either by distance or by political or natural geography. They say at once, “It is difficult, where there are seas and bays.” Names will not help us. The Bay of Bengal is not national property; it is not the King’s chamber ; nor is the Bay of Biscay, nor the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, nor the Gulf of Mexico. Names will not help us. An inlet of the sea may be called a “ bay,” and it may be two miles wide at its entrance; or it may be called a “ bay,” 1664 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. and it may take a month’s passage in an old-fashioned sailing vessel to sail from one headland to the other. What is to be done about it? If there is to be a three-mile line from the coast, the natural result is, that that three-mile line should follow the bays. The result then would be that a bay more than six miles wide was an international bay; one six miles wide, or less, was a territorial bay. That is the natural result. Well, nations do not seem to have been contented with this. France has madea treaty with England saying that anything less than ten miles wide shall be a territorial bay. The difficulties on that subject are inherent, and, to my mind, they are insuperable. England claimed to exclude us from fishing in the Bay of Fundy, and it was left to referees, of whom Mr. Joshua Bates was umpire, and they decided that the Bay of Fundy was not a territo- rial bay of Great Britain, but a part of the high seas. This decision was put partly upon its width; but the real ground was, that one of the assumed headlands belonged to the United States, and it was neces- sary to pass the headland in order to get to one of the towns of the United States. For these special reasons, the Bay of Fundy, whatever its width, was held to be a public and international bay. Then look at Bristol Channel. That question came up in the case of Queen v. Cunningham. A crime was committed by Cunningham in the Bristol Channel, more than three miles from the shore of Glamorgan- shire, on the north side, and more than three miles from Devonshire and Somersetshire, on the south side. Cunningham was indicted for a crime committed in Glamorganshire. The place where the vessel lay was high up in the channel, somewhere about 90 miles from its mouth, and yet not as far up as the river Severn. The question was, whether that was a part of the realm of Great Britain, so that a man could be indicted for a crime committed there. Now, there is a great deal of wisdom in the decision made in that case. The court say, substantially, _ that each case is a case sui generis. It depends upon its own circum- stances. Englishmen and Welshmen had always inhabited both banks of the Bristol Channel. Though more than ten miles in width at its entrance, it still flowed up into the heart of Great Britain; houses, farms, towns, factories, churches, court-houses, jails—everything on its banks; and it seemed a preposterous idea, and I admit it, that in time of war two foreign ships could sail up that Bristol Channel and fight out their battle to their own content, on the ground that they did not go within three miles of the shore. I think it would have been prepos- terous to say that a foreign vessel could have sailed up the center of that channel, and defied the fleets and armies of Great Britain, and all her custom-house cutters, on the ground that she was flying the Amer- ican or the French flag, and the deck was a part of the soil under that flag. Well, it was a question of political geography, not of natural — geography. It was a question of its own circumstances. It was de- cided to be a part of the realm of Great Britain. I do not know that anybody can object to the decision. The Franconia case, which attracted so much attention a short time ago, did not raise this question, but it is of some importance for us to remember. There there was no question of headlands. It was astraight line of coast, and the vessel was within three miles of the shore. But * what was the ship doing? She was beating her way down the English Channel against the sea and wind, and she made her stretches toward the English shore, coming as near as safety permitted, and then to the French shore. She was in innocent use of both shores. She was not a trespasser because she tacked within three miles of the British shore. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION: 1665 It was a necessity, so long as that channel was open tocommerce. The question which arose was this: A crime having been committed on board of that ship while she was within three miles of the British coast, was it committed within the body of the county? Was it committed within the realm, so that an English sheriff could arrest the man, an | English grand jury indict him, an English jury convict him, under English law, be being a foreigner on board a foreign vessel, bound from one foreign port to another, while perhaps the law of his own country was entirely different? Well, it was extraordinary to see how the common-law lawyers were put to their wits’ end to make any- thing out of that statement. The thorough-bred common-law lawyers were the men who did not understand it; it was others, who sat upon the bench, who understood it better; and at last, by a majority of one, it was most happily decided that the man had not commit- ted an offense within a British county, and he was released. That ease turned not on a question of natural geography, nor on a ques- tion of political geography. It raised the issue: What is the nature of the authority that a neighboring nation can exercise within the three- mile limit ? I am naturally led to the question: ‘Does fishing go with the three- mile line?” I have the honor to say to this tribunal that there is no decision to that effect, though I admit that there is a great deal of loose language in that direction. I do not raise any question respecting those fish that adhere to the soil or to the ground under the sea. But on what does that three-mile jurisdiction rest, and what is the nature of it? I suppose we can go no further than this, that it rests upon the necessities of the bordering nation; the necessity of preserving its own peace and safety and of executing its own laws. I do not think that there is any other test. Then the question may arise, and does, whether, in the absence of any attempt by statute or treaty to prohibit a foreign vessel from following with the line or the seine and net the free swim- ming fish within that belt, that act makes a man a trespasser by any , established law of nations? I am confident it does not. That, may it | please the tribunal, is the nature of this three-mile exclusion, for the / relinquishment of which Great Britain asks us to make pecuniary com- | pensation. It is one of some importance to her, a cause of constant treuble, and, as I shall show you—as has been shown you already by my predecessors—of very little pecuniary value to England in sharing it With us, or to us in obtaining it, but a very dangerous instrument for two nations to play with. T would say one word here about the decision in the privy council in 1877 respecting the-territorial rights in Conception Bay. I have read it over, and though I have very great respect for the common-law law- -yer Mr. Blackburn, who was called upon to pronounce upon a question entirely novel to-him, I believe that if your honors think it at all worth while to look over this opinion, in which be undertakes to say that Con- ‘ception Bay is an interior bay of Newfoundland, and not public waters, although it is some fifteen or more miles wide, you will find that he makes this statement, which is conclusive, that an act of Parliament is binding upon him, whether the act of Parliament be in conformity with j international law or not. But it is not binding upon you, nor is the de- cision. But there is nothing in the act of Parliament which speaks /upon that subject. It is the act 59 George III, intended to carry out the ‘Treaty of 1818, and for punishing persons who are fishing withiu | the bays; and he infers from that, by one single jump, without any au- | | thority whatever of judicial decision or legislative language, that it 105 F fe \ - 1666 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. must have meant to include such bays as the bay in question. (Direct United States Cable Company vs. Anglo-American Telegraph Company, English Law Reports, Appeal Cases, part 2, p. 394.) This state of things brought us to the Treaty of 1854, commonly called the Reciprocity Treaty. The great feature of that treaty, the only one we care about now, is, that it put us back into our original condition. It acknowledged our general right. It made no attempt to exclude us from fishing auywhere within the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and it allowed no geographical limits. And from 1854 to 1866 we continued to enjoy and use the free fishery, as we had enjoyed and used it from 1820 down to that hour. But the Treaty of 1854 was terminated, as its provisions permitted, by notice from the United States. And why? Great Britain had obtained from us a general free trade. Large parts of the United States thought that free trade pressed hardly upon them. I have no doubt it was a sel- fish consideration. I think almost every witness who appeared upon the stand at last had the truthfulness to admit that when he sustained either duties or exclusion it was upon the selfish motive of pecuniary benefits to himself, his section, his State, or his country; and if that were the greatest offense that nations or individual politicians commit- ted, I think we might well feel ourselves safe. We had received, in re- turn for this advantage, a concession from Great Britain of our general right to fish, as we always had fished, without geographical exclusion. My learned friend Judge Foster read to you (which I had not seen _ before, and which was very striking) the confidential report of Consul Sherman, of Prince Edward Island, in 1864. I dare say my learned friend the counsel from that island knows him. Now, that is a report of great value, because it was written while the treaty was in existence, and before notice had been given by our government of the intention to— repeal it. It was his confidential advice to his own country as to whether our interests, as he had observed them, were promoted by it; and he said, if the Reciprocity Treaty was considered as a boon to the United States, by securing to us the right to inshore fishing, it had conspica- ously failed, and our hopes had not been realized. I think these are his very words. He spoke with the greatest strength to his country, writ- ing from Prince Edward Island, which claims to furnish the most im- portant inshore fishery of any, and declared that, so far as the United States was concerned, the benefit that came from that was illusory, and it was not worth while for us any longer to pay anything for it. And that, as your honors have seen, and as I shall have the pleasure to pre- sent still farther by and by, was borne out by the general state of feel- ing in America. The result was that in 1866 the Reciprocity Treaty was repealed. That repeal revived, as my countrymen admitted, the Treaty of 1818, and it revived, of course, the duties on the British importation of mackerel and herring. We were remitted to the antiquated and most undesira- ble position of exclusion; but we remained in that position only five years, from 1566 until 1871, until a new treaty could be made, and @ little while longer, until it could be put into operation. What was the result of returning to the old system of exclusion ? Why, at once the cutters and the ships of war that were watching these coasts spreads their sails; they stole out of the harbors where they had been hidden; they banked their fires; they lay in wait for the American vessels, and they pursued them from headland to headland, and from bay to bay; sometimes a British officer on the quarter-deck, and then we were com- paratively safe, but sometimes a new-fledged provincial, a temporary. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1667 officer, and then we were anything but safe. And they seized us and took us, not into court, but they tovk us into harbor, and they stripped us, and the crew left the vessel, and the cargo was landed, and.at tbeir will and pleasure the case at last might come into court. Then, if we were dismissed, we had no costs, if there was probable cause; we could not sue if we had not given a month’s notice, and we were helpless. Not only did it revive the expensive and annoying and irritating and dangerous system of revenue-cutters, and secret police, marine police, up and down the coast, telegraphing and writing to one another, and burdening the provinces with the expense of their most respectable and necessary maintenance, but it revived, also, the collisions between the provinces and the Crown; and when the provincial governments un- dertook to lay down a ten-mile line, aud say to the cutters, ‘Seize any American vessel found within three miles of a line drawn from head- Jand to headland, ten miles apart.” such alarm did it cause in Great Britain, that the Secretary of State did not write, but telegraphed in- stantly to the provinces that no such thing could be permitted, and that they could carry it no farther than the three mileline. Then attempts were made to sell licenses. Great Britain said, “ Do not annoy these Ameri- cans; we are doing a very disagreeable thing; we are trying to exclade them from an uncertain three-mile line; we would rather give up all the fish in the ocean than have anything to do with it; but you insist upon it; we have done nothing with that fishery from the beginning,” which, | aecording to the view we took of it on our side of the line, was pretty true; and they said, ‘Do not annoy these Americans; give them a license, just for a nominal fee.” So they charged a nominal fee, as [ have said, of fifty cents a ton, which was afterward raised—they know why, we do not—toa dollar. We paid the fifty-cent fee and some Americans paid the dollar fee; and why? They have told you why. Not because they thought the right to fish within three miles was worth that sum, but it was worth that sum to escape the dangers and annoy- ances which beset them, whether they were innocent or guilty under the law. Then, at last, the provinces, as if determined that there should be no peace on that subject until we were driven out of the fisheries, raised it to an impossible sum, two dollars a ton, and we would not pay it. What led them to raise it? What motive could there have been? They lost by it. Our vessels did not pay it. Why, this was the result—I do not say it was the motive—that it left our fishermen unprotected, and brought out their cutters and cruisers, and that whole tribe of harpies that line the coast, like so many wreckmen, ready to seize upon any vessel and take it into port and divide the plunder. It left usa prey to them and unprotected. It also revived the duties, for we, of course, re- stored the duty of two dollars a barrel on the mackerel and one dollar a barrel on the lierring. It caused their best fishermen to return into the employment of the United States, and their boat-fishing fell off. | | That has been stated to your honors before, but it cannot be too con- | Stantly borne in mind. We restored the duties, and that broke up the | vessel-fishing of the provinces ; it deprived them of their best men ; it | Caused trouble between the old country and the provinces; it put us all ' on the trembling edge of possible interuational conflict. But we went || On as well as we could in that state of things, until Great Britain, de- | sirous of relieving herself from that burden, and the United States de- | Siting to be released from those perils, and having also another great _ question unsettled, that is, the consequences of the captures by the Ala- | bama, the two countries met together with High Commissioners at Wash- I ia b 1668 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ington, in 1871, and then made a great treaty of peace. I call it a “treaty of peace” because it was a treaty which precluded war; not restored peace after war, but prevented war, upon terms most honorable to both parties; and as one portion of that treaty—one that, though not the most important by any means, nor filling SO large a place in the public eve as did the congress at Geneva, yet filling a very important place in history, and its consequences to the people of both countries, was the determination of this vexed and perpetual question of the rights of fishing in the bays of the Northwestern Atlantic; and by that treaty we went back again to the old condition in which we had been from 1620 down, with the exception of the period between 1818 and 1854 and the period between 1866 and 1871. That restored both sides to the only condition iv which there can be peace and security; peace of mind at least, freedom from apprehension, between the two goverments. And when those terms were made, which were terns of peace, of good- will to men, of security for the future, and of permanent basis always, and we agreed to free trade mutually in fish and fish-oil, and free rights of fishing, as theret ofore almost always held, Great Britain said, “ Very well; but there should be paid to us a money-compensation.” The United States asked none; perbapsit did not think itself entitled toany. Great Britain said, “This is all very well; but there should be a compensation in money, because we are informed by the provinces”—I do not believe that Great Britain cared anything about it herself— ‘that it is of more pecuniary value to the Americans to have their right of fishing extended over that region from which they have been excluded than it is to us to have secured to us free right to sell all over the United States the catch- ings of Her Majesty’s subjects, free from any duty that the Americans might possibly put upon us.” “ Very well,” said the United States, “ if that is your view of it, if you really think you ought to have a money- compensation, we will agree to submit it to a tribunal.” And to this tribunal it is submitted: First, under Article XVIII of the Treaty of 1871, what is the money-value of what the United States obtains under that article?) Next, what is the money-value of what Great Britain ob- tains under Articles XXI and XIX? Second, is what the United States obtains under Article XVIII of more pecuniary value than what Great Britain oltains under her two articles? Because I put out of sight our right to send to this market and the right of the people of the provinces to fish off our coasts, as I do not think either of them to be of much consequence. “If you shall be of opinion,” says the treaty, “that there is no difference of value—and of course that means no substantial difference in value—then your deliberations are at an end; but if you shall think there is a substantial difference in value, then your deliberations must go further, to show what the two values are, which is the greater, and what is the difference.” I hope, if your honors are not already persuaded, that you will be be- fore the close of the argument on the part of the United States, and may vot be driven from that persuasion by anything that may occur on the other side, that the United States were quite honest when they made the Statement in 1871 that in askivg for the abandonment of the restrictive system in regard to the fisheries, they did not do it so much from the commercial or intrinsic value of the fishing within the three-. — mile line, as for the purpose of reinoving a cause of irritation; and I hope that the members of this tribunal have already felt that Great Britain, iW aintaining that exclusive system, was doing injustice to herself, causing herself expense, loss, and peril ; that she was causing irritation and danger to the United States; that it was maintained from a mis- ; ne. ee: °° AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1669 taken notion, though a natural one, among the provinces themselves, and to please the people of the Dominion and of Newfoundland, and that the great value of the removal of the restriction is, that it restores peace, amity, and good-will; that it extends the fishing so that no further question shall arise in courts or out of courts, on quarter-decks or else- where, whatever may be the pecuniary value of the mere right of fishing by itself; and that it would be far better if the Treaty of Washington had ended with the signing of the stipulations, except so far as the Geneva award was concerned, and that this question had not been made a matter of pecuniary arbitration; that either a sum of money had been accepted at the time for a perpetual right, as was offered, or that some arrangement by which there should be the mutual right of free trade in timber, in coal, and in fish, or something permanent in its character, should have been arranged between the two countries. But that isa by-gone; we are to meet the question as it comes now directly before us. I think my learned friend, Judge Foster, said all that need be said, and all that can be said of much value, in taking the position that we are not here to be cast in damages; we are to pay no damages, nor are we to pay for incidental commercial privileges, nor are they to pay for avy; but it is a matter of remark, certainly, that when this cause came up, we were met by a most extraordinary array of claims on the oppo- site side, sounding in damages altogether, or sounding in purchase of commercial privileges which were not given to us by Article X VIII of the treaty. Why, if there was a British subject in Prince Edward Island who remembered that his wite and family had been frightened by some noisy, possibly drunken, American fisherman, he was brought here and testified to it, and he thought that he was to obtain damages. Undoubtedly that was his opinion. Ifa fisherman in his boat thought that a Yankee schooner “ lee bowed” him, as they call it, he was brought here to testify to it, and that was to be a cause of damage and to be paid for, and ultimately, I suppose, to reach the pockets of those who in their boats had been ‘lee-bowed,” for that would seem to be poetic justice. Then we had the advantage of being able to buy our bait here, which we had always done, about which no treaty had ever said a word, and they had the great advantage, too, of selling us their bait. They went out fishing for themselves, they bronght in the bait, they sold it to us, and when our vessels came down after bait or for frozen herring, they boarded the vessels in their eagerness to be able to sell them; and - 80 great was their need of doing something in that season of the year when those mighty merchants of Newfoundland and those mighty mid- - dle-men of Newfoundland, planters, had nothing for them to do, that | they made a bargain to furnish us frozen herring and our fishing bait at so much a barrel, went out and got it for us, and brought it on board. Those were privileges for which the Americans were also to pay some- thing. I have no doubt that those ideas gained great currency among the people of these provinces. They supposed it to be so, and hence a great deal of the interest which they took in the subject; hence the millions that they talked about. It is impossible to tell what limitation could have been put by this tribunal upon the demand, if you had opened that subject, and made up an award on the right to buy bait, on the tight to buy frozen herring, on the right to buy supplies, on the right to trade, not considering that these are mutual rights, for the benefit of both parties, and as to which it is almost impossible to determine which ) party gains the most. Then a great deal of anxiety was created through the provinces, undoubtedly, by the cry that we were ruining their fish- éries by the kind of seines that we were using—purse-seines ; we were 1670 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. destroying the fish, and the ocean would be uninhabitable by fish; would be a desert of water. We were told that we were poisoning their fish by throwing gurry overboard, and for all that there were to be dam- ages. Now, these inflammatory harangues, made by politicians, or pub- lished in the Dominion newspapers, or circulated by those persons who went about through the Dominion obtaining affidavits of witnesses, pro- duced their effect, and the effect was a multitude of witnesses who swore to those things, who evidently came here to swear to them, and took more interest in them, and were better informed upon them, than upon any of the important questions which were to be determined. When we came to evidence to be relied upon, the evidence of men who keep books, whose interest it was to keep books, and who kept the best pos- sible books, men who had statistics to make up upon authority and responsibility, men whose capital and interest and everything were invested in the trade, then we brought forward witnesses to whom all persons looking for light upon this question would be likely to resort. And I have no doubt that as fast as it became known through the line of these provinces that no damages would be given for “ lee-bowing,” for poisoning fish, for purse-nets (which it appears we could not use), nor for the right to buy bait, and that it was to come down to the simple question cf, on the one hand, participating with them in the fisheries of this region to the full extent, instead of to a limited extent, and they be relieved from all duties on their fish and fish-oil on the other, witb the consequent stimulation of their boat-fishing, and vessel building and fishing, they all began to look at it in a totally different aspect. Iam not able to produce it at this moment, but 1 will produce before the argu- ment closes a memorial addressed to the Provinee of Nova Scotia, re- questing them to bring things back to the old condition—that the fish- ing shall be left in commou—without any idea that free trade was to be set off against it. Such was the state of things and the condition of feeling in the prov- inces. I need not press upon your honors that we are right in that position, for, as to all except the question of damages, your honors have already by a unanimous vote passed in our favor, and of course it requires no argument to show that, as we are to make compensation for the value of what we obtain under the Article XVIII of the Treaty of 1871 in addition to what we had under the Treaty of 1818, provided the British side of the account does not balance it, that is all that we have to consider; and I dismiss all those elements which have undoubtedly been the prevailing means of securing witnesses and of stimulating witnesses throughout these provinces, up to the present time. After the sound sense and humor of my learned friend, Mr. Trescot, on the subject of the light-houses, I suppose 1 should be inexeusable if { touched upon them again. I see that the counsel on the other side already feel the humor of the thing, and I suppose they rather regret — that the subject was ever opened, because it shows to what straits they were driven to make up a case against the United States, to balance the overpowering advantage to them derived from the freedom of trade. Why, they come together, the wise men, and they say among them- selves, “ Free trade is a boon to us in our mackerel and in our herring} it is stimulating our fisheries; it is reealling our sons from afar, and employing them at home in our own industries; it is building up boat- fishing ; it is extending the size of our boats, and building up vessel- fishing; the profits on our trade are now all that we have a right to make, with no discount whatever. How can we meet that case of ad- vantage? What can we say they ought to pay us, that shall be any- or ———— bs 4 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1671 thing like a set-off for what we ourselves have received? The right to fish within three miles? Why, the Americans had the whole Gulf of St. Lawrence and all its bays; they had all its banks and all its eddies ; they had Labrador and the Magdalen Islands; they had the north, west, and south parts of Newfoundland; they had everything except the three-mile line of the island, as it is called, and the western shore of Nova Scotia. And what did they get? Not the value of the fish; not what the fish sold for in the American market; not the profit which the American dealer made on his fish. That is the result of his capital, industry, and labor. What did the American get? The value of the fish as it lies writhing on the deck? No; for that is the result of the capital that sends the ship and fits it out, of the industry and the skill of the fishermen. What did they get? They got only the liberty of trying to catch the fish, which were eluding them with all their skill in the water of the ocean; the right to follow them occasionally, if they desire to do so, in their big vessels within the limits of three miles. But it will not do to go to such a tribunal as this with such a case as that. The free-swimming fish ion the seas, going we do not know how far off, and showing themselves here to-day and there to-morrow, school- ing up on the face of the sea, and then going out of sight in the mud, having no habitat, and being nobody’s property—the right to try to catch them nearer the shore than heretofore, that is not capable of being assessed so as to be of much pecuniary value; we must have something | élse.” So they started the theory of adding to this compensation that ought tv be made for right to buy the bait; for a right to refit; for a right to get supplies; for a right to trade; to unload cargoes of fish at Canso and send them to the United States, and for all the damage that fishermen might do anywhere by their mode of fishing; for the injury done by throwing overboard the gurry, and for collisions between boats and vessels that might occur in the waters of the island bend; and, adding those all together, they might make aclaim that what they lost in damages, and what they gave to us in facilities of trade, added to Article XVIII might make up something to set off against what they knew they were receiving in dollars and cents from us by the remission of duties. They felt that we had on our side a certainty; they had on their side altogether an uncertainty, and a mere speculation ; tliat we remitted from our Treasury and put back into their pockets exactly two dollars a barrel on every barrel of mackerel sent into port, and one dollar on every barrel of herring, that was to be computed aud estimated, so that the British fisherman, when he landed his fish on the wharf in Boston, landed it on the same terms that the American landed | his while heretofore he landed it handicapped by two dollars a barrel, which he must first pay. Our charge is substantial; ours can be put into the columns of an account; ours is certain. Theirs is speculative and uncertain, and unless it was backed up with some certainties of damages and of trade, they felt that it fell beneath them. _ It will be my duty hereafter to press upon your honors a little further the consideration of the utterly uncertain estimate that can be put upon the mere franchise or liberty of attempting to catch the free-swimming fish within certain limits of the ocean. Now, tirst, with your bonors’ leave, I will take up the consideration of the money value of the removal of this geographical restriction, for that is what it is. The ancient free- dom is restored ; the recent and occasional restrictions as to three miles is removed, and the colonists say that that has been of pecuniary value tous. Whether it is a loss to them or not, is utterly immaterial, in this consideration. They cannot ask you to give them damages for any loss 1672 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION.. to them. It is only the value tous. It is like a person buying an arti- ele ina shop, and an arbitrator appointed to determine what is the value of that article to the purchaser. Itis quite immaterial how great a mis- take the man may have made in selling it to him, or what damage the want of it may have brought upon his family or himself. If I have bought an umbrella across the counter, and I leave it to an arbitrator to deter- mine the value of the umbrella to me, it is totally immaterial whether the man has sold the only one he had, and _ his family have suffered for the want of it. That is a homely illustration, but it is a perfectly true one. ‘The question is, what is the value to the citizens of the United States, in money, of the removal of this geographic restriction? Not what damage this may have been to the colonists, by reason of the treaty which Her Majesty’s Government saw fit to make with us. What, then, is the money-value of the removal of the restriction ? On the subject of Newfoundland, which I desire to treat with great re- spect, because of the size of the island and its numerous bays, and be- cause of my respect and affection for the gentleman who represents the semi-sovereignty before this tribunal, there is an article in the Revue des Deux Mondes of November, 1874, on the value of Newfoundland and its fisheries to France, of extreme interest, from which I would like to quote largely. It seems to me to be exhaustive. It gives the whole history and present condition of these fisheries, and among other things, it shows that in attempting to grant us a right there, Great Britain made us overlap very much the rights of the French; and that if we should undertake to carry into effect some of the rights given us by the Treaty of 1871, we might have§the republic, or monarchy, or empire, or whatever it may be, on the other side of the water, to settle the question with as well as this tribunal. I suppose this tribunal is satisfied that we do not cateh cod within three miles of Newfoundland ; that we do pot catch even our bait there, but that we buy it. Finding that we had proved a complete case, that we bought our bait there, the very keen argument was made by the counsel on the other side, that though we bought our bait, we must be held to have caught it. ‘ Qui facit per alium, facit per se,” says the counsel; and so, if you buy a thing of a man and he sends a boy out to get it, the boy is your messenger, not his; and you have not bought it of him, but of the person to whom he sends for it. This is a homely illustration, but it is perfectly plain. When a fisherman comes and says, “I will sell my fish at so much a pound,” and has not got them, but goes off and catches them, and I pay him that price, I buy the fish of him, do I not? What is it but a mere illusion, a mere deception, a mere fallacy to say, that because I knew that he had not the fish on hand at the time and is going off to get it, though I agree to buy it of him at a fixed rate, and Iam not going to pay him for his services, but for the fish when delivered, that I am fish- ing through him and not buying of him? It is very hard to argue a per- fectly clear case, and one that has but one side to it. Nothing but stress of law, or stress of facts, or stress of politics, could possibly have caused so much intelligence to be perverted upon this subject into an attempt to show that we were the catchers of the Newfoundland bait. I will now take up for a moment the question of the cod fisheries, and I know that, whatever I may have been thus far, Ishall be somewhat « tedious here in the course which I am about to pursue; but I do not wish it to be said on the other side, and my instructions are not to leave it to be said, that we have asserted and stopped at assertions, however certain we may be that our assertions are well-founded, and even that they have the approbation of the court. I shall endeavor to refer to: ee AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1673 the evidence, without reading much of it, on the principal points which Ihave so far assumed, and would be quite authorized in assuming. In the first place, as to the cod fishery, it is a deep-sea fishery not a fishery within three miles. I do not mean to say that a stray cod may not be caught occasionally within that limit; but as a business, it is a deep-sea business. With your honors’ permission I will read some of the evidence on that point. Nathaniel E. Atwood, of Provincetown, page 47 of the American evi- dence, says: Q. Is the codfishery, as pursued by the Americans, exclusively a deep-sea fishery ?— A. Well, we call it a deep-sea fishery; this is the case—the Labrador coast excepted, where it is prosecuted close inshore—in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, on the Grand Banks and on all the Banks between that place and Cape Cod, and away out to seain other parts. It is true that some codfish come inshore, but they do not do so to such an extent as to enable the catching of them to be made a business of. Wilford J. Fisher, of Eastport, page 316, says: * Q. How about the pollock ?—A. The pollock is caught more off shore than in. Q. Then the codfish ?—A. The codfish is caught almost exclusively off shore, except, as I te)l you, in the early spring or late in the fall there is a school of small codfish that strikes within the limits, and the people there catch them more or less. _ Prof. Baird, on page 455, of the American evidence, says: Q. Take them as a whole then, they are a deep-sea fish; I don’t mean the deep sea as distinguished from the Banks?—A. An outside fish? Well, they are to a very con- siderable extent. The largest catches are taken off shore, and what are taken inshpre are in specially-favored localities, perhaps on the coast of Labrador, and possibly off Newfoundland. They bear a small proportion generally to what is taken outside, where the conveniences of attack and approach are greater. Bangs A. Lewis, of Provincetown, page 96, American evidence, says, on cross-examination, in answer to Mr. Davies: Q. And codfish, we all know, are taken chiefly outside of the limits ; it is a deep-sea fishery as a rule ?—-A. Yes. E. W. French, of Eastport, page 403, is asked : Q. What is the fishery at Grand Manan and the Bay of Fundy generally 7—A. Cod- fish, pollock, hake, haddock, and herring. Q. Are any of those fisheries entirely off-shore fisheries ?—A. Codfish is an off-shore fishery. Hake are taken off shore. “Capt. Robert H. Hulbert, of Gloucester, p. 296, testifies : Q. And your codfish have not been taken within how far from land?—A. From 15 to 25 miles of Seal Island, and in that vicinity. _John Nicholson, Louisburg, C. B., p. 207 of the British evidence, Says: -Q. Well, cod are often caught inshore; but would you not say cod was a deep-sea fishery 7—A. Yes. Q. And halibut is the same ?—A. Yes. These are only passages selected from a large mass of testimony, but they were selected because the persons who testified in that way were either called by the British side, or they were persons of so much experience that they are fair specimens of our view of the subject. Now, cod-fishery is the great trade and staple of the United States, and is growing more and more so. Thesmall fish that were once thrown Overboard are now kept. The oil is used a great deal, codfish-oil, and there are manufacturing establishments in Maine, Connecticut, and Massachusetts which, we have been told by the witnesses, work up @ great deal of this material that used to be thrown overboard; they draw oil from it, and the rest is used for fertilizing the land, and that isa 1674 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. gradually increasing business. One of the witnesses, I recollect, from Gloucester, told us how greatly the trade in codfish had improved, so that now, instead of sending it out as whole fish, it is cut in strips and rolled together, and put into cans, and sold in small or large quantities to suit purchasers, aud in that very easy manner sent all over the United States. Charles N. Pew, of the firm of John Pew & Sons, on page 496 of the American Evidence, testified that the total value of fish production in seven years from 1870 to 1876, inclusive, was: Bay mackerel .scc22 coc ccsisc oss wae wse wn ccseinh au~ ehuwescasipageses case $77, 995 22 Shoreminckerely 2 ooc.esc sete crsa eae eo niccans ome ina ceteeiccive severe mic ace 271, 333 54 EG Chi Gece eau eet ten ee eee en ne uenee ee sas ai ook 2... 702,873 10 1, 052, 201 86 These figures give what our vessels caught. They do not give what we purchased outside of what the vessels caught. The cod fishery 1s also one as to which there is no fear of diminution, certainly none of its extermination. Professor Baird told us, on p. 456 of the American Evidence, that a single cod produces from three to seven million eggs, each one capable of forming another living animal in the place of its mother. He said that owing to the winds and storms to which they were exposed, and by their being devoured by other fish which sought for them, the best information was that about a hundred thousand of these eggs prosper so as to turn into living fish, capable of taking care of themselves, the undefended and unrestricted navigators of the ocean. Althongh that is not a large percentage of the amount of ova, yet an annual increase of a hundred thousand for every one shows that there is no danger of the diminution, certainly none of the extermination, of that class of fish. It is enormous in quantity, some- thing which the whole world combining to exterminate could hardly make any impression upon; and when the argument is made here that we ought to pay more for the right to fish because we are in danger of exterminating what codfish we have—if that argument is made—it amounts to nothing. Butif the further argument is made, that we have no cod fishery to depend upon, then we have the statistics, and we have information from witnesses from all parts, that the cod fishery shows no sigus of diminution, and that it is as large and extensive and as prosperous as ever. Gloucester has gone more into the business than it ever has before, and I do not recollect that there is any evidence, of the least value, showing that that fishery is likely to fall off materially as a commercial product in our hands. There is a single Britisb concar- reuce out of several others, I think, in this statement, which I will read. George Komeril, agent of Robin & Co., one of the British witnesses, page 306, says : - Q. Is there much difference in the results of the cod fishery year after year ?—A. “0; Just as mach fish are now caught as ever was the case. se eck this statement, you refer to an experience of 21 years?—A. Yes. > {Hat Is your evidence on this point ?—A. That the cod fishery is not precarious. Q. You have always an average catch ?—A. It is always about the same. Q. This fishery can always be depended upon ?—A. Yes. Q. Do those who engage in this fishery as a rule make a living ?—A. A thriving fish- erman will always make a yood living about our coast. Q. But what will a fair average man do?—A. He can always make a good living. I read that, because it is the testimony of an intelligent British wit- ness, who represents one of those great Jersey firms that deal in codfish on the west coast of the gulf. The bait of the codfish need not be caught within the three-mile line. . a ie AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1675 That, I think, we have pretty well established. I referred just now to their argument, that we caught whatever we bought, but that I cer- tainly may pass by. We may buy it when we wish it, but we need not have it. Your honors recollect the testimony of our wituesses from Provincetown, as well as those from Gloucester, who said that they believed it was more for the interest of all concerned that, the cod fishery should be carried on with bait kept.in ice as long as it can be, and salted bait—with fish, and bait, and liver, and everything else that can be carried out and kept there, and what birds and fish can be caught on the Banks, and the vessels stick to their business. The testimony was uniform ; there was not one who failed to join in the expression of opinion, that that course was far better for the mercantile purposes of our community than that our fishermen should run inshore and buy the bait. Butif they did go inshore and buy the bait, it would be a ques- tion entirely beyond your honors’ consideration. We have a right to buy it where we please, even here, and we certainly need not catch it. Among the curious grounds set forth to swell up the English claim against us, to make it meet, if possible, the obvious money claim we had against Great Britain, if it was seen fit to enforce it—we now put it in only as a set-ofi—appears in the testimony that our fishing vessels going into Newfoundland employed the men there to fish, and that it had a very deleterious moral effect upon the habits of the Newfound- land fishermen; that they had been, up to the time the Americans , appeared there to buy their bait, an industrious people, in a certajn sense ; they had fished a certain part of the year under contracts, which it seems they could not get rid of, with a class of owners who held them in a kind of blissful bondage; but that when the Americans appeared, they led them to break these contracts, sometimes tempted them to fall off from their agreements, and put money into their pockets ; they paid them for work; they gave them labor at a time when they ought to have been lying idle, when it was better for them to lie idle! O, it steadied them, improved them, raised their moral tone to be idle, and tended to preserve those desirable relations that existed between them and the merchants of St. John! I bave it before me. p of the Pharsalia, at whieh you were looking just now.—A. Q. You see there is an item headed “ d: ‘4 th Peleg n headed “damaged fish, at one cent a pound.” You see Q. Will you find in the trip-book, which ¥) 1 the ' you presented here, another case of a Grand Bank fishing-vessel fishing with fresh bait, where there has been any damaged fish for these three years, 1574, 1575, and 1876?—A. The schooner Kuight Templar. (Reads - items of outfit, among others an item showing she was on a salt-bait trip.) Q. Then there is damaged fish on a salt-bait trip ?—A. Yes. Q. Now find another case on a fresh-bait trip. (Witness refers-to book.) AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1711 Q. I don’t think you will find any. You see, fish may be damaged on board a salt- bait vessel fishing on the Banks as well as on a fresh-bait trip ?—A. I see it. . Now you find there are damaged fish as well with salt-bait fishing as with fresh.— A. I do find it. . Q. And it is upon that one case of damaged fish with fresh bait that you arrive at this conclusion ?7—A. I could not account for it in any other way. Q. But it is this one case that you draw the conclusion from ?—A. Yes. Q. And you would lead the Commission to believe, then, that fish was liable to be damaged because of vessels going in for fresh bait, because of this one vessel on this one cruise ?—A. No, I don’t now. I have seen that other case. Q. You withdraw what you said before ?—A. I withdraw as far as that is concerned. The gallant major has at last collapsed. Mr. Atwood is also a great authority upon this point. He evidently belongs to the old school, being seventy years of age. He had not fished on the Banks for five and twenty years, his last voyage was November, 1851, and was really incapable of expressing an opinion from experi- ence, having never used fresh bait. He endeavored to lead you gentle- men to believe that it was the opinion of all vessel-owners and agents of vessels in Provincetown that the going in for fresh bait was of no advantage, and that they purposed discontinuing it. He said that ‘he had interviewed the agent of every vessel in Provincetown, but upon cross-examination it really appears that out of twenty-three or twenty- four agents of vessels he had held communication with four only, Cook, Waugh, Paine, and Joseph (p. 58, ibid.), and it would seem that Mr. At- wood had certain theories, and that he tried to enforce his opinion upon others as to this question of fresh bait. But what say practical wit- nesses, who have been called on the part of the United States and ex- amined by my learned friends upon this subject. Edward Stapleton has been using fresh bait, obtained on the coast of Newfoundland, for the last three years, and carrying on the Bank fishery, and says at page 12: “If a vessel alongside of you has fresh bait, you are not going to eatch your share of fish with salt bait.” And at page 18: Q. You consider salt bait superior to fresh bait, I believe ?—A. O, no; I think fresh bait is the best. Q. You do admit, then, that fresh bait is the best ?—A. O, certainly, when other vessels on the Bank have it. Q. When codfish see fresh bait they prefer it to salt bait ?—A. Yes. _ _Q. Cons quently you admit that it is of some advantage to you to be able to go to “the coast of Newfoundland and get fresh bait ?—A. O, yes, certainly it is. Mr. Francis M. Freeman also says, at page 80: Q. Is salt bait just as good as fresh ?—A. Fresh bait is the best. Q. Is it not more generally used ?—A. When you can get it. Q. If you can it is much better than salt ?—A. Yes. : cena SAE Q. Practically, the salt bait cannot compete with the fresh bait?—A. No; it is not as good as fresh. : Q. Don’t the vessels that run over here from the United States and get bait from Nova Scotia use fresh bait altogether ?—A. Yes; the Cape Ann vessels do. -Q. Don’t they from Gloucester as well?—A. The Gloucester vessels use fresh bait altogether. Q. Then you consider salt bait preferable ?—A. No; I never said so. _ Q. The fresh bait you consider preferable ?—A. Certainly. ae Bea: But surely you don’t mean to say that fresh bait is better than salt bait !—A. es. Q. Do you mean to say that yeu can catch more fish with fresh bait ?—A, Always. Q. You can catch them faster ?—A. Yes. Q. You are certain of it?—A. Yes. Mr. Lewis, at page 90, says, in answer to the query: Q. It has been stated before us that trawls require fresh bait. Has that been your _ experience ?—A. It is better to have fresh bait. tt cd Q. Witnesses have told us that with trawls the bait lies on the bottom, and i 4 is - not fresh the fish will not take it ?—-A. They will not take it as well as fresh page ut * take it if they cannot get anything else, and if they cannot get fresh bait. 1712 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Mr. Orne, at page 131, United States Evidence, makes the following statement: cap ea -. . You left Gloucester with salt bait ?—A. No; I took enough fresh herring to bait aeuaele once; this was in 1870. If I remember right I went to the Brand Bank for halibut. I did not get a trip until after I had gone in for fresh bait. Having thus referred to the opinions of some of the witnesses called by the United States themselves, and there are others who testify to the « same eftect, I will now call your attention to the evidence of those called on bebalf of Her Britannic Majesty’s Government. Mr. John Stapleton, page 229, British Evidence, stated that “ there is only acertain season on the Grand Bank that the squid is there. When it is there they get it there, but when they cannot they come inshore and get it. They either buy herring or mackerel, or they catch squid. Whatever they can get by catching or buying they put in ice and then go back.” And in answer to the query, ‘‘ Why cannot they prosecute the Bank fishery without this?” he answered, “ Well, the fish won't bite without something.” Q. Cannot they bring these from their own country ?—A. Yes, that is all very true. It may be that the first trip, when they went from home they had bait. But that will last for only one one or two baitings. And if they cannot get bait on the Bank then they have to haul up anchor and get it inshore. Q. Well, is it necessary for them, then, to buy bait from you ?—A. Well, the salt bait will not catch the fish while there is other bait there. Q. For trawling it is absolutely necessary to have fresh fish ?—A. Yes, if it was not necessary they would not come. Mr. William McDonald, at page 311, ibid., says: Fresh bait is absolutely necessary to take codfish. Bank fishing could not be success- fully carried on without it ; American captains say they have to get fresh bait or they can catch no fish. Q. How did you catch the cod ?—A. We caught them with trawls. Q. What kind of bait did you use 7—A. Fresh bait—herring. Q. Cannot you catch cod equally well with salt bait 7—A. No. Q. How do you know ?—A. I have tried it. Q. Tell us the result of your experience ?—A. I have been on the Banks with nothing but porgies for bait—we generally took a few barrels with us to start upon—and run out our trawls, having the salt bait, and there appeared to be not one fish roun., for we could not feel a bite or get a fish. I have then ran to land, got herring, and gone out to the same ground as near as possible, and put out the trawls and had an abund- ance of fish, where previously with a salt bait we got not a fish. Even if you bait your hook with a piece of salt porgie, and put asmall piece of fresh herring on the point of the hook, you will have a fish on it. Q. Your evidence amounts to this, that fresh bait is absolutely necessary to catch codfish 7—A. Most undoubtedly. Q. And without fresh bait Bank cod fishing cannot be successfully carried on ?—A. I am quite sure of it. ~ ear quite sure of it?—A. I am quite certain of it from practical experience. save tried it. Q. For how many years !—A. Four or five years. It is some time ago, but I believe from what American captains say, that it is worse now. They have to get fresh bait or they cannot catch any fish, they say. Q. If the American vessels were not allowed to enter Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Cape Breton for fresh bait, they could not carry on the cod fishery ?—A. No; it would be impossible. Any man with common sense knows that. They might carry it on to a certain extent, but not successfally. Q. Have you ever conversed with American captains? Do you know whether that is their opinion !—A. Yes. _ Q. They have so expressed themselves to you ?—A. Yes; a number of times. There is not a year goes by bat I talk with tifty of them. _ Q. That is the general opinion of those acquainted with the fisheries ?—A. Yes; it is the general opinion. ; Q. Did you ever bear a man hold a diffe any man who held a different opinion. Q. If witnesses came here and told a di — saaakacw hice tou cold. a different story, what would you say ?—A. I rent opinion ?—A. I don’t think I ever knew oo ; AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. hilo Mr. William Ross, collector of customs in this city, says, at p. 349: I think for the successful prosecution of the cod fishery fresh bait is absolutely neces- ary : I should think a vessel using fresh bait would catch at least double the quantity of fish. 3 And not to weary the Commission, I will merely add that numerous other witnesses have spoken to the same effect. Now, as to the comparative cost of salt and fresh bait, I cannot do better than instance the case of the Pharsalia, as Major Low has selected her as the most expensive trip, with fresh bait, made by any of Steele's vessels during three years—1874, 1875, 1876. His evidence, at paze,394, United States Evidence, is as follows: Q. Well, now, what induced yon to make the selection of this trip as an illustration of the cost of a vessel using fresh bait and going to the Grand Banks ?—A. Because it Ait so many ports which she entered, and the different rates charged for ice aud alt. Q. Is it not the most expensive trip that is in that book 7—A. I think not. Q. Turn up the other that is more expensive. See if you can find a more « xpensive ee than that. What years does that book cover?—A. 1874, 1875, and a portion of Q. Now, is not this the most expensive trip made by any vessel using fresh bait during these years ?—(After referring to the book) It may be. From what examination I bave made, I think it may be. Q. As far as you have gone, you find it to be the most expensive trip ?—A. Yes. The Pharsalia’s trip, therefore, appears to have been the most costly one he could find, as regards fresh bait. At page 360 of the United States Evidence it will be seen that the whole cost of fresh bait, for one voyage, according to Major Low’s ac- count of the Pharsalia, is $251.97, including ice, port charges, commis- sion to agents, &c. This is certainly much above the average. Now, then, let us see the cost of supplying a Grand Bank cod-fishing vessel With salt bait. At page 362, United States Evidence, the same witness, quoting from Mr. Steele’s books, puts the price of slivers at $8 per bar- rel, and of salt clams at $11 per barrel. Francis Freeman at page 80, who has had several vessels upon the Grand Bank fishing, says (at page 82) that the average quantity of salt bait taken by a vessel of from 65 to 80 tons would be 50 barrels. Joshua Payne, another United States witness, who also fitted ont vessels for the Grand Bank, says that one of his vessels took 40, another 60, and another 75 barrels. _ Assuming this average given by United States witnesses themselves to be correct, and accepting the valuation given by Major Low, and the fact stated by him in his account of the Madame Roland, that one-half was slivers and one-half clams, we get the following result: For a trip with 50 barrels of salt bait: BS BG ioe tN ee Ae he nts st oe aca sinas Sine Feees mene $200 00 PAG Bk nes ia cee cehce ee ticeece teas abe s ane mee ae’ 275 00 —— $475 00 arora trip. with 40 barrels of salt bait ...- 2. .2..-- ..-- oc sccccs cece cnc cone 330 00 sor a trip with 60 barrels of salt bait .... ......---- 22-00 cnn cone cnn cee cee - 570 00 mror a trip with 75 barrels of salt bait ..-... ---- ---2 cece cece cone coce cece cece 739 00 These, then, according to the statements made by United States wit- nesses themselves, are the costs incurred by vessels for their supply of - salted bait, as against $251.97, as shown before, for fresh bait. I have, then, clearly established, out of the mouths of their own wit- nesses, that fresh bait is superior to salt, and costs far less money. But ' itis quite unnecessary for me to argue as to the comparative value of fresh and salt bait. We have in evidence, from the American wit- “nesses, the plain, simple fact, that the obtaining of bait from the coast of Newfoundland was adopted as a practice about four years ago; that 108 F 1714 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. it has increased annually, until in the present year nearly all the Amer- ican vessels have gone to the coast for that purpose. The practice has become all but universal, and business men are not likely to do that which is inimical to their interests; what further evidence or proof can be required on this question ? I will now proceed to consider the position taken by my learned friend, Mr. Foster, when he asserts that the United States fishermen do not proceed to the coast of Newfoundland to fish for bait, but to buy it. I entirely join issue with my learned friend on this point. Apart from the bait actually caught by them, the arrangement under which the Amer- icans obtain the bait, which they allege that they buy, is to all intents and purposes, and in law, a taking or fishing for it themselves within the words of the treaty. It has been asserted that nearly one-half of the crews of American vessels fishing upon the Banks consist of men from the provinces and from Newfoundland ; if, then, a master of a vessel so manned proceeded to Fortune Bay with his herring-seine on board, or hiring a herring-seine there, then and there with his crew caught the bait he required, would it be contended that, because British fishermen were engaged in the hauling of that bait, that therefore it was not taken by the American masters? Surely such a position would be absurd. Now, in reality what is the difference between this mode of proceeding and that practiced by the Americans for procuring bait? Let us see what is done according to the evidence. In some cases (and these are are few) the American proceeds to St. Pierre, and there meeting a New- foundland fisherman, owner of a herring-seine, and who possesses a thorough knowledge of the localities where the herring are to be taken, he agrees with him for a certain sum for his services, and it may be for one or two men besides, and for the use of his seine, to proceed to the fishing ground and there to secure the necessary quantity of bait re- quired by the banker. Or in other and the large majority of cases the American vessel proceeds to the residence of such fisherman on the coast of Newfoundland and there makes a similar arrangement. Having arrived at the herring ground, the owner of the seine, with his one or two men and the assistance of some of the American crew, haul and put on board the American vessel all the bait that he requires, and some- times receives his payment according to the number of barrels required for baiting a vessel, and sometimes in a lump sum. Again in other cases where squid is required and caplin, he goes to a harbor, states that he requires so much bait, and then and there enters into a contract with a man to go and catch it for him, for which he is paid according to the quantity caught. It would be a subtle distinction to draw be- tween the man thus hired in Newfoundland outside the crew of the ves- sel to catch bait and the British subject who was hired in Gloucester to proceed to Newfoundland and do the very same work. How very differ- ent this contract is from a contract of sale and purchase. If the herring or other bait had been previously caught, barreled, and in his store ready to be sold to the first purchaser who would give him his price, then it would be a simple commercial transaction, but here the article required is a fish freely swimming in the sea. The American desires to capture it, and whether he captures it through the instrumentality of a British subject or other person and reduces it into his own possession for his own use it is immaterial, and never could there be a more suitable application of the maxim of law, qui facit per alium facit per se, than in the instance now before you. But this not the only way in which bait is taken by the Americans on the Newfoundland coast, They have of late taken seines on board their own vessels, proceeded to Fortune Bay, | | | | ; | | | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1715 ‘and there not only have they taken bait for their own purposes, but they have taken it and proceeded to St. Pierre, have sold it to the French fishermen, thereby directly competing with the Newfoundlanders in a trade formerly entirely their own, and doubtless as it is a lucrative bus- iness the Americans will more and more practice it. They also catch ‘bait-fishes to a large extent. I would now call your attention to the evidence which sustains the position I have thus assumed. Mr. Killigrew, at p. 153 of the British Evidence, in answer to the | question— I Q. How do they obtain caplin and squid? . Do they take this bait themselves or | purchase it from the people ?—A. It is in this way—they generally hire a man who | owns a seine, and the crew of the American vessel goes with him. This man receives ' so much for the use of his seine and for his services. _ Q. This has reference to caplin?—A. Yes. QQ. How do they obtain squid ?—A. They purchase it if they can; otherwise they ' catch it themselves. sf Mr. Bennett, at p. 140 of the British Evidence : Q. I want to understand whether in those localities American fishermen have been ' constantly coming in during the summer for bait?—A. Yes; every day during the | season. Q. The bait was sometimes purchased from the people and sometimes caught by ' themselves ?--A. I think they always combined the two together. When taking the herring themselves with seines, their crew would haul in the herring with the assist- ance of the seining-master, and when jigging for squid the crew jig what they can and the skipper buys what he can. When seeking caplin they assist in the same way ; . some vessels bring their own seines for the purpose of taking caplin. Q. What are the habits of squid ?—A. Squid are never taken around Newfoundland except near the shore, on ledges, generally in a harbor or entrance to.a harbor. Mr. John F. Taylor, p. 296 of the British Evidence : At Newfoundland Americans sometimes fish for bait inshore. _ Mr. Patrick Leary, p. 66 British Affidavits : ‘I supplied him (James Dunphy) with bait. In 1870 and 18751 gave him forty bar- _ Yelsof caplineach year. He found the crew, and I found the seine and gear. He paid Ine eight dollars each year for my services. John McInnis, a witness called on behalf of the United States, pp. 192 and 195, says: _ Q. How many barrels of bait do you take each time ?—A. Sometimes fifty barrels, and sometimes forty. Some vessels take sixty barrels. ; _ Q. Do you pay so much a barrel, or employ a man and pay him so much in the Jomp?—A. We will employ a man that has a seine, and he will go catchiag herring °° much; it may be $30, $40, or $50 for all we want. If we want 40 barrels, we _ will give, say $40; if they are scarce, perhaps more. He will take a seine, and perhaps De two or three days looking after them. - Q. You say, “I will give you $30 or $40 (as the case may be) to go and catch me so age barrels ?”—A. Yes; that isthe way it is done, and then sometimes we give $10 r ice. Q. Do you give any assistance in catching them ?—A. Sometimes we do. _Q. You were asked as to the mode of getting bait, whether you pad those men that went for herring. Do you pay them wages, or pay them after the fish are taught ?—A. We employ them before they go. _ Q. But you don’t pay them wages ?—A. Yes, we have to pay them. If he goes and _ loses two or three days we have to pay him. , : Q. You don’t pay them whether they catch or not ?—A. Yes; sometimes if I employ &man to go and catch them, if he loses three or four days sometimes I pay him. __ Philip Pine, planter, residing at Burin Bay, Newfoundland, says, p- 61, British Affidavits: Lam acquainted with the fisheries of Newfoundland by following the same and sup- plying therefor since I was seventeen years of age. - ? : : ee _ [have observed a great: number of United States fishing vessels in this neig os hood, there being as many as forty sail here at one time. These vessels came here for bait and for ice. 1716 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION Richard McGrath, sub-collector H. M. customs, residing at Oderin, Newfoundland, p. 64, ibid.: I have seen United States vessels in this neighborhood. In 1874 four or five of these vessels called in at the back of Oderin Island, having procured ice in Burin, and twelve miles from here hauled caplin for bait. Robert Morey, supplying merchant and planter, residing at Caplin Bay, Newfoundland, p. 67, ibid.: I have become acquainted with the fisheries of Newfoundland from being connected therewith since L was a boy. I have during the last two years seen a number of United States fishing-vessels in this neighborhood. Last season I can safely say I saw upwards of a hundred of such vessels either in this harbor or passing close by ; there were five or six of these vessels in this harbor last year; they came for bait—for caplin during the “ caplin school,” and squids afterward. This bait they hauled themselves in part, and jigged squids. I saw six dories belonging to one of their vessels on the “‘ jigging round ” busily employed jigging for squids. They also purchase bait from our people, eing always in a hurry to get their bait as quickly as possible to proceed again to the Banks. Caplin they regularly hand for themselves when caplin is abundant, which it always is until the season advances. Each vessel takes abont eighty barrels fresh caplin, which they preserve in ice purchased from our people. The bait hauled and jigged by these United States fishermen was taken in the harbor close to shore. Peter Winser, planter, residing at Aquaforte, Newfoundland, p. 68 ibid. : I have been connected with the fisheries of Newfoundland by either prosecuting the same or supplying therefor since I was fourteen years of age. | I have seen United States fishing-vessels in this harbor the past season as well as the: year previous, getting bait; they jigged squids themselves in part, and what they were short of catching they purchased from our fishermen. Caplin they hauled themselves, using a seine belonging to a person residing in this harbor, which was worked by American fishermen, except one young man, the son of the seine owner. Four of these vessels have been in this harbor at one time catching bait; as many as fifteen have been at one time in Cape Broyle; I saw ten there one day whose crews were all en- gaged catching squids. In this immediate vicinity there were last summer not fewer than seventy of these United States vessels in our harbors during the caplin school ; and I am well informed that between St. John’s and Trepassy not fewer than two hun- dred have frequented the harbors for the supply of fresh bait, which they procured partly by catching for themselves and partly by purchasing. I am led to believe that it is the intention of the United States vessels to come in upon our shores and into our harbors to catch bait to convey to their schooners on the Banks, so that they may prosecute the cod fishery uninterruptedly. The supply of bait by each United States vessel per trip is about as follows: forty barrels caplin during the caplin school, and, as I was told by one of the captains, fifty barrels squids. United States vessels make two and three trips for bait. I might multiply these instances ad infinitum, but I will only further call your especial attention to the affidavits read at the end of the re- buttal testimony, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government (No. 1 to 8, Appendix Q), which amply prove the state of affairs above referred to, and that United States vessels have this year been engaged in Fortune Bay trawling bait with very large seines, and supplying the French. I would add with reference to the evidence of Mr. Joseph Tierney, quoted by Mr. Foster in his speech, that immediately after the answer with which Mr. Foster concludes his extract, the following question and answer occurs in cross-examination : Q. You employ them and they go and catch so much bait for you?—A. Yes, that is the custom; that is, out of Gloucester. We have it also in evidence from witnesses of the United States, that when vessels proceed to prosecute the cod fishery in the Galf of Saint Lawrence, they take herring nets with them, and by that means, them- selves, catch the bait they require. Thisisa practice which has existed for a number of years, and it must not be forgotten that the right to obtain bait on the coast of Newfoundland is an entirely new privilege; and is it to be supposed for a moment that the same mode of operation AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1717 which they have adopted with regard to the cod fishery in the gulf will not be that which the bankers will practice on the coast of Newfound- land? I cannot conceive it possible that my learned friend, Mr. Foster, will seriously contend, under the circumstances set forth in the above quoted evidence, that the Americans obtaining in this manner that which is indispensable for their efficient prosecution of the cod fishery, should, by a subtlety of reasoning which I contend is utterly unsustain- able, be permitted to enjoy that which is of such infinite advantage to them, without yielding any equivalent whatsoever. Would this be in accordance with the simplest principles of right, equity, or justice? But apart from the aspect of the case to which I have just alluded, ‘there is another feature to which I must draw your most serious atten- tion. Prior to your decision of the 6th September, it was assumed alike ‘by the Newfoundlanders and Americans that the right of traftic, trans- shipment, &c., was conceded by the Treaty of Washington to American fishing vessels. But as by that decision it has been ruled that this has not been conceded, and that according to the construction of that de- cision by the learned agent for the United States, there has been granted “no right to do anything except water-borne on our vessels, to go within ithe limits which had been previously forbidden,” I mast ask you to assume that hereafter there will be no breach of the treaty in this sense by American citizens. What would be the effect of this according to ithe strict letter of the bond? American fishermen must have the fresh ‘bait, as I have shown, and the only way in which they will be able to obtain it will be by catching it for themselves. I must then claim from ‘you an assessment of the value of this privilege on the basis that during ithe ensuing years of the operation of the Washington Treaty, United ‘States citizens will be under the necessity of catching for themselves ithe bait which they have not the legal right to buy. Surely my learned friends do not ask this Commission to assume that American citizens ‘will hereafter surreptitiously avail themselves of privileges which do not lof right belong to them, and that on this account the compensation now fairly and justly claimed on behalf of Newfoundland should be in any ‘way reduced by reason thereof. And now, one word with regard to the winter herring fishery in For- tune Bay. It appears that from 40 to 50 United States vessels pro- ceed there between the months of November and February, taking from ‘thence cargoes of frozen herring of from 500 or 800 or 1,000 barrels. ‘On this point, I would refer you to the affidavits by Mr. Hickman, Mr. Giovanninni, Mr. Hubert, and others, pages 53, 57, and 59 of British Affidavits. According to the evidence these herrings have hitherto gen- erally been obtained by purchase. The trade is evidently increasing, a8 it seems that during the present year one vessel loaded 6,500 barrels. iMr. Pattillo, a United States witness, appreciated the right to catch 80 highly that he risked the confiscation of his vessel rather than aban- don his determination to catch a cargo for himself. It is hardly possi- ‘ble, then, to conceive that the Americans will continue to buy, possess- ‘Ing, as they now do, the right to catch. I desire next to pass on and consider the question as to the Americans ‘exercising the privilege which has been conferred upon them of pros- eeuting those prolific cod-fisheries which I have shown to exist in the ‘inshore waters of Newfoundland, where they have now the liberty to The number of United States vessels engaged in the cod fishery on the Grand Bank and frequenting the coast of Newfoundland for bait, ac cording to the evidence, would appear to be from 400 to 500 at the pres- & 1718 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ent time. Mr. Fraser, at p. 173, British Evidence, estimates the num- ber at 500. The demands of a population of over forty millions necessa- rilv call for an extensive area for the fishing industry of the United States, and wherever they can pursue their labors with success, there will the United States fishermen be found. And the inshore fisheries of Newfoundland, containing an area of upwards of 11,000 square miles, is a valuable acquistion to their present fields of operation. The French enjoy a similar liberty on the northeast and west coasts of the island to that which the United States now have upon the east and south coasts. The latter are more productive fishing-grounds, and are in closer proximity to the Grand Bankfand other Banks. By the evidence before you it appears, and the fact is, that the French can and do carry on an extensive fishing business on the coasts where they have a right to fish. They send their vessels, of from 200 to 300 tons, from France, which an- chor and lay up in the harbors, fishing in their boats in the neighborhood, close inshore, during the summer, and returning to France with their car- goes in the fall of the year. Again, other smaller French vessels pur- sue the cod-fishing all around the west coast; and as to the value set upon these fisheries by the Frencb, some approximate idea may be ar- rived at from the jealousy with which their right has been guarded by their government throughout the long and frequent negotiations which have from time to time taken p!ace between France and Great Britain upon the subject. It is true that heretofore the cod and halibut fishery has not been prosecuted by United States fishermen to any considerable extent on most parts of the coast of Newfoundland, but still there is evi- dence of their having fished successfully on the southern coast. Will- iam N. Mulloy, of Gloucester, master mariner, states in his affidavit (p. 51, British Affidavits I know of two United States vessels that fished for codfish inside the keys, Saint Mary’s, that is on the inshore ground. I fished there myself. Philip Snook swears (p. 57, British Affidavits): United States fishing vessels have fished on the inshore fishing grounds, but I cannot give particulars further than that I have seen them so fishing off Danzig Cove, near south point of Fortune Bay. George Sims (p. 133, British Affidavits) says: I have seen United States fishing vessels and crews catching codfish on the New- air epg inshore fishing grounds, but cannot state the number, having made no records. George Bisbop, of Burin (p. 131, British Affidavits) also states : _ American vessels have fished for codfish on our grounds off Cape St. Mary’s. Amer- ‘can masters partially refit their vessels occasionally at this port, but have not here transshipped their cargoes. William Collins (p. 62, British Affidavits) says: . American fishermen do sometimes fish on the “inshore fishing-ground ” of Cape St. Mary’s. 1 have seen as many as three of these vessels fishing there. Perec George Hickman, residing at Grand Bank, Newfoundland (p- 58), Says: I have seen our shore surrounded by American fishermen fishing for halibut and cod- a but cannot say that all these vessels were inside three miles of a line from head- and to headland; I have frequently seen United States vessels fishing between Pass = ea and Brunette Island ; in some instances these vessels have been fishing up the aes the skiffs. I cannot speak of the quantity or value of their catches, but I o know that they destroyed the halibut fishery about Pass Island, and largely dam- aged the cod fishery of Fortune Bay ; one of their captains told me “it was no use for our fishermen to go fishing after United States fishermen.” George Rose, of Little Bay, Fortune Bay (p. 54), says: United States fishing vessels have fished abo t Ps ] d catches there. Captain Jacobs, of schooner : GOL te ice bee ctiet oe , is said to have been offered nine AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1719 thoasand dollars for his load taken about Pass Island. American fishing vessels fish- ing off and about Pass Island fished for halibut and codfish, but chiefly for halibut. My estimate of the value of their catch is at least equal to ten thousand dollars per annum, and such fishery was conducted exclusively within three miles of our shores. There is no reason for supposing that the United States will not ex- ercise the privilege which they have, to an equal or even greater degree than the French use theirs. The prospects for lucrative results are more promising to the United States than to France. The fishing grounds are better and more convenient. During the years 1871~72~73, when the United States first had the privileges granted by the Washington Treaty, there was but an occasional United States vessel which went to Newfoundland for bait. From 1873 to 1876 the number increased every year; and in 1877, the present season, it is stated in evidence that an immense number—one witness, | believe, says nearly all the Grand Bank vessels have supplied themselves there with fresh bait—and some have been employed in catching herring and conveying them to St. Pierre and Miquelon, for the purpose of sale to the French. They then enter into direct competition with our people. This, probably, is only a prelude to that competition in the Brazilian, West Indian, and European mar- kets which we shall have to contend against. The Americans have, by virtue of the right to land and cure their fish, the same advantages which we possess for supplying those markets which now are the outlet of our products. This business, by Americans, is evidently a growing one, and as they acquire more and more intimate knowledge of the coast, its harbors, and fishing grounds, and their extent and productive- ness; as they find out, which they will do, that they can obtain their fish close upon the coast, with all the conveniences which our inshore fishery affords, including the ready facilities for obtaining bait close at hand, with excellent harbors available for the security of their property, is it possible to conceive that there are not those who will prefer this investment of their capital rather than incur the risk of life and prop- erty and those expensive equipments which are incident to vessels en- gaged on the Bank fishery ? Mr. Foster, in an early portion of his speech, undertakes to show “ why the fishermen and people of the United States have always manifested _ such a feverish anxiety” to gain access to the inshore fisheries. His explanation is that, at the time the various treaties which contain pro- visions respecting the fisheries were concluded, the mackerel fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, as an industry, was unknown, and that their efforts were directed to maintain their claim to the deep-sea fisheries. Asa matter of fact, the mackerel fishing by United States vessels in Canadian waters sprung up at a period subsequent to the Convention of 1818. With the circumstances under which this branch of the fishing business was commenced I am unacquainted; but, doubtless, a more intimate knowledge of the value of the inshore fisheries, acquired by constant resort, under the privileges accorded by the convention, to the coasts of British North America, coupled with the requisite knowledge of the localities, harbors, and fishing grounds, led those fishermen who had previously confined their operations to the cod, halibut, and hake _ fisheries, to enter upon the new and, as it has subsequently proved, lucrative pursuit of the mackerel. This development of the American Mackerel fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence affords a fair illustration of that which will take place with regard to the Newfoundland inshore tish- eries. Unquestionably the proceedings of this Commission, and the tes- timony which has been taken of the most successful and enterprising fishermen, will be studied by those engaged in the fishing business. New Wien : 1720 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ideas will be suggested to them, and wherever there appears to bea profitable field for the investment of capital, it will find its way in that directior, and to those places which may hitherto have been unknown or unappreciated by them. I have only now to deal with the privileges conferred upon Newfound- land by the United States, and their value. As to the value of the United States fishing to us, that question has been summarily disposed of by learned friend Mr. Dana, as of not much account. It has not been deemed worthy of consideration by any of the learned counsel on the opposite side, nor has it been attempted to set it forth as of any worth tous. Therefore, it is unnecessary that I should further comment upon it, beyond calling your attention to the mass of unanimous testimony that Newfoundland vessels never have or can make profitable use of it. The question of free-market in the United States for fish and fish-oil I may also dispose of in a short space. It will be fully dealt with by my learned friend Mr. Thomson. I will merely draw attention to cer- tain facts in evidence in order that his arguments hereafter may be more easily applied to the Newfoundland branch of this case. The principal markets for Newfoundland cured codfish are the Brazils, West Indies, and Europe. The American market is very limited. By a return filed in this case (Appendix I), headed “Return showing the value of fish and products of fish imported from the United States of America, and exported to the United States an:i other countries from the colony of Newfoundland during each year from 1851 to 1876 inclu- sive,” it appears that during these 26 years, which, of course, include 12 years under the Reciprocity ‘Treaty, the average annual export from Newfoundland to the United States amounted to $323,728 as against $6,043,961, exports to other countries. It appears also that the United States market is decreasing, for the average annual export to that coun- - try for the 7 years between the Reciprocity Treaty and the Washington Treaty was $548,281 as against $6,876,080 to other countries, whilst the average annual export for the three. years under the Treaty of Wash- ington, viz, 1574, 1875, 1876, was $222,112 to the United States as against $7,792,859 to other countries, and further that there has been a steady falling off in the exports to the United States from $285,250 in 1574 to $155,447 in 1876. To what cause this is attributable it is diffi- cult to say, but it may be to some extent accounted for by the increased facilities which the United States now possess and use under the Treaty of Washington, and by means of which they are enabled to supply their own wants in codfish. On the other hand it has been proved that a very considerable market for small codfish has been opened up in New- foundland to United States banking vessels; that fish which was here- tofore thrown overboard as unsuitable for the American market is now carried to Newfoundland and sold at remunerative prices. Captain Mulloy, a master of a United States banker, Mr. Charles Barnet, and others state as follows: The former, at page 51, British Affidavits, says: The quantity of small codfish caught by each banker during the season will be fully two hundred and itty quintals upon an average of every two loads of codfish caught npon the Banks, he number of United States vessels prosecuting the cod-fishery on cred pe off Newfoundland each season from the port of Gloucester is about three dred; there are vessels fitted ont from other ports in the United States besides Gloucester, but not to so large an extent. The average catch per vessel on the Banks will be two thousand tive hundred qui : : : . 2d quintals codti 4 twelve thousand dollars to the Nae! Seed bart tea hl at Balas ala a Prior to 1874, United States bankers threw twenty-eight inches as caught; ports, and there sold, slig nifty quintals of such fish away all fish less than 22 inches split, or now the small fish is brought into Newfoundland htly salted, toadvantage. I, last year, sold one hundred and at nine shillings and sixpence per quintal. The privilege of AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1721 selling oil in Newfoundland ports is of importance—also as providing necessary funds for the purchase of bait, and for refitting. And the latter, at page 81: Deponent bought small codfish and cod-oil from United States fishermen last year in payment of bait, ice, and cost of refitting their vessels; in some instances, deponent purchased small codfish, for which he paid in cash. The total quantity of small cod- fish purchased by deponent last year from United States fishermen was upwards of three hundred quintals, for which he paid prices ranging from eight shillings to eleven shillings per quintal of 112 lbs., green fish. Deponent also porchesed a considerable quantity of cod-oil from United States fishermen, particulars of which he has not at band. Also, Richard Cashin, page 69, British Affidavits : United States fishermen have sold small codtish and cod-oil in this neighborhood. I have purchased codfish and cod-oil from them. The prices paid have been eight and nine shillings per cwt. for green codfish, and two shillings and sixpence per gallon for eod-oil. Eighty quintals fish and two and one-half tons oil is what I purchased. And Richard Paul, page 63, British Affidavits: American fishermen have sold fish and oil in this neighborhood. I only know of their selling thirty-seven quintals at 7s. per quintal, and seventy gallons of oil at half a dollar. I understand from their statements the past season, that hereafter they in- tend to sell to our people all the codfish they catch under 22 inches in length. Phillip Hubert, sub-collector customs, Harbor Briton, Fortune Bay, page 54: American fishermen have sold small codfish in this bay; some vessels sold one hun- dred quintals, the price ranging from 7 to.10s. per cwt., green. In addition to which there are numerous affidavits in- support of the saine fact as regards the general sale of small codfish. Previously to the Washington Treaty there had been a duty of $1.30 per quintal on fish imported into Newfoundland, which, of course, is now removed, as far as concerns the United States. The utilization of this small fish is unquestionably an important item of gain to them. If there is a benefit to Newfoundland in a free market with the United States it has been reduced to its very minimum by the United States Government taking the tins in which salmon is put up, and by the re- fusal to admit seal-oil, an article of extensive export from Newfoundland, _ as a fish-oil, although in their own commercial language it is placed un- der that category. This, however, I presume, is a matter over which you have no jurisdiction ; neither have you over the question of $128,155 duties paid iu the United States on fish and fish products imported from _ Newfoundland between 1871-1874 (referred to on page 173 British * Evidence), when the United States were allowed to enjoy the benetits of thé Washington Treaty on the distinct understanding that the enjoy- ment should be reciprocal, but which understanding was subsequently repudiated by the United States, and the above-ientioned amount of _ duties levied during those years remains unrefunded to the present day. There is a ground of defense relied upon by my learned friends oppo- site, as to which I wish to offer one or two remarks. They contend, as - Lunderstand them, that the fishermen of Newfoundland are benefited by Americans coming to the coast and trading with the people; that that trading breaks down a system of business which they allege to exist between the merchant and the fisherman, by which the latter Is _ held in bondage to the former; and as a proof of the existence ot such _ asystem, they put in evidence a memorial from the people of Placentia, dated August 19, 1800, praying for the establishment of certain fishery regulations which then existed in St. John’s. The memorial will be _ found at (p. 167, British Evidence.) I will not detain you by reading it. - ion* 1722 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. It is a singular mode of proving a present condition of affairs in 1877, to produce what may or may not be a statement of facts in 1800. I should not have considered the point worthy of notice, had not my learned friends brought it forward on more than one occasion, in terms which I conceive to be unwarranted. I will therefore only remark, that these assertions are amply disproved by the statements of Judge Ben- nett, Mr. Fraser, and Mr. Kelligrew, who have sufficiently proved the business operations of the country. But when I hear, on the one hand, my learned friend, Mr. Dana, loud in his assertions and professions as to all the good which Americans have done, and all that they are going to do, visiting our coast with money in their hands, and with the best of intentions; and I see, on the other hand, what they have really done, and what they are attempting to do—to take our fisheries without an equivalent—I am forcibly reminded of that line in the old Latin poet, ‘*Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes !” But I have up to the present treated this subject from a commercial standpoint only. This is presenting it in its narrowest and most con- tracted aspect. I claim from this commission a consideration of the priv- ileges conceded by Article 18 of the Treaty of Washington, from a broad and national point of view. The United States, with its enor- mous population, ever increasing, demands extended resources from whence to draw those supplies of fish-food which she needs. She re- quires to build up and maintain her position as a great maritime and naval power—the largest and most extended field for the training of her seafaring people. The fisheries have ever been the nurseries for seamen. The extension of the fishing limits of the United States affords an in- vestment for additional capital, and occupation for an energetic and en- terprising people. The acquisition she has made under the Treaty of Washington adds to her national greatness. She has expanded beyond her former limits; her ships now float freely and unrestricted over the whole North Atlantic coastal waters. These considerations cannot fail to have weight with you. I ask whether, having now secured the priv- ileges which she thus enjoys, would she yield them up for naught; or would she not rather brave every contingency for their preservation ? If you believe such to be the case, it affords some additional basis upon which you may calculate what she should now pay for the sterling ad- vantages she has acquired. I have thus endeavored to state concisely the ground on which Her Majesty’s Government sustains the claim preferred on behalf of New- foundland. The particulars of that claim, amounting to $2,880,000, are set forth in the case of Her Majesty’s Government. I have proved to you the enormous value of those fisheries, heretofore the exclusive prop- erty of 160,000 people, which fisheries are now thrown open to a great and enterprising nation. I have proved that from 25 to 33 per cent. of the $6,000,000 annually produced is profit. (See evidence of Mr. Fraser, Mr. Killigrew, and Judge Bennett, British Evidence, and Mr. Munn, British Affidavits, p. 48.) You have the clear proof that from 400 to 500 United States vessels take from the Newfoundland coast that bait which is absolutely necessary, in order to a successful prosecution of the cod fishery on the banks. Every United States witness produced and examined upon this point has told you of the importance attached to the cod fishery, and the profitable results accruing from its prosecution. It is for you, sirs, to Say what is a fair equivalent for the United States to pay for the privilege of fishing in common with us in these profitable waters, and obtaining from our shores that bait which is indispensable to enable them to carry on and develop that Bank fishery which a master AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1723 of one of their own vessels refers to as “ being capable of unlinited ex. pansion and development.” I have shown you how the citizens of the United States have used these fisheries in the past, how they are using them in the present, and the fair and legitimate conclusion that they will draw from them in the future all that capital and energy can bring forth. The ‘Case filed by Her Majesty’s Government,” the ‘Answer of the United States,” and the “Reply,” with the evidence, is before you. By that evidence your award will be governed. I ask neither for liberality nor generosity, but I ask for a fair equivalent for the privileges conceded. I have only to add that, when I have seen around me during this inquiry the array of eminent counsel and attachés, as well on the part of the United States as of Canada, when I have felt that no one amongst them had but a general knowledge of that most ancient colony which I have the privi- lege of representing at this Commission, and that I alone am inti- mately acquainted with her resources, and that a fair and true represen- tation of her interests and claim depended solely upon my exertions, [ must confess that I have felt a grave responsibility resting upon me; but I cannot sever my connection with this Commission without ac- knowledging how much that burden has been lightened by the courtesy which you have extended, and by the anxious solicitude which you have evinced to obtain all the information necessary to enable you to arrive at a just and equitable award. I have implicit confidence that you will conscientiously discharge the important duty devolving upon you, and I heartily join in the hope that your labors will result in uarmonizing any present discordant feelings which may exist among ttose more im- mediately concerned, and the establishment of a lasting peace and good will. Mr. DANA. Will your honors allow me one word, in order to set right a matter of fact, to which my learned friend referred, on a matter relat- ing not to testimony or law but to the counsel of the United States. | understood him to say it was generally admitted, by the counsel of the United States here, that Great Britain has a claim for something to be paid, and that the only question was as to the amount. Was I correct in understanding you so? Mr. WHITEWAY. Yes. Mr. Dana. Then I wish to correct that as a matter of fact. Mr. WHITEWAY. It seems to be generally admitted, I say. The lan- guage used by yourself and brother counsel led me to that conclusion. Mr. Dana. The counsel for the United States, Mr. Foster, Mr. Tres- cot, and myself, all supposed we had said—certaiuly that was our opinion, and what we intended to say—that we believed that what Great Britain or the. provinces received by a guarantee on the part of the United States that no duty shall be laid on fish or fish-oil coming from the provinces into the United States for the period in question, exceeded in value what we received by a guarantee from Great Britain that we might fish within the limits in these British waters; that is all I wish to set right. There is nothing in the argument of the learned counsel which gives us the least right to claim areply. I think that he has confined himself strictly and honorably witkin the limits of the pleat ings. 1724 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. VEER. FINAL ARGUMENT OF MR. DOUTRE ON BEHALF OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY. FRIDAY, November 16, 1877. The Conference met. ' Mr. DoutRE addressed the Commission as follows: With the permission of your excellency and your honors, I will lay before this tribunal, in support of Her Majesty’s claim, some observa- tions, which I will make as brief as the nature of the case admits; and in order that these remarks may be intelligible, without reference to many voluminous documents, I solicit your indulgence while going once more over grounds familiar to the Commission. As soon as the war, resulting in the independence of the confederated colonies, came to an end, the United States sought for a recognition of their new existence from Great Britain, and the Treaty of Paris of 1783 was agreed to. Asan incident to the main object of that treaty, Art. 3 states: “The people of the United States shall continue to enjoy un- molested the right to take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all other banks of Newfoundland ; also in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and at all other places in the sea, where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish; and also the inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use (but not to dry or cure the same on that island), and also on the coast, bays, and creeks of all other of His Britannic Majesty’s dominions in America; and the American fishermen shall have the liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled; but So soon as the same, or either of them, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such settlement without a previous agreement for that purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground.” We have heard from counsel representing the United States very ex- traordinary assumptions, both historical and political, concerning the circumstances under which tbis treaty was adopted. At the distance of nearly a century, fancy can suggest much to literary or romantic speak- ers—especially when it concerns a subject on which they are not called upon to give any evidence—on which they can build an interesting rec- ord of their own opinions, before this Commission. We had to deal With a very complex matter of business—one which probably has never engaged the research of a judicial tribunal—and we thought this. was enough for the efforts of humble men of business, such as we claim to be. Our friends on the American side treated us with a poetical account of the capture of the Golden Fleece at Louisburg, by Massachusetts heroes, in order to show how their statesmen of a previous generation had misconceived the nature of their primitive, conquered, and indis- putable right to our fisheries, without indemnity in any shape. British historians, statesmen, or orators would probably have little weight with our friends in their estimate of treaty negotiations. With the hope of obtaining a hearing from our opponents, let us speak through the mouth of American diplomatists or statesmen. It will strike every oue that in the concessions contained in our Treaty of 1783 Great Britain did not extend to American fishermen all the rights belonging to her own subjects in these fisheries—a fact sufficient (2 ee ee AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1725 in itself to preserve to Great Britain her sovereignty in that part of her dominions. When the war of 1812 was brought to an end, the United States had not lived long enough as an independent nation to create that pleiad of eminent jurists, publicists, and secretaries of state who have since brought them up to the standard of the oldest constituted states of Eu- rope. The characteristic‘elation of the nation who had but recently conquered their national existence marked the conduct of the United States Government during the negotiations of the Treaty of Ghent in 1814. They persistently refused to recognize a rule of international law which no one would now dispute, and which was, however, fully ad- mitted by some of the United States representatives at Ghent, that war abrogates all treaties between belligerents. Henry Clay, one of those representatives at Ghent, answered in the following manner the proposition of the British plenipotentiaries, who desired to include the fisheries in that treaty, as appears in the Dupli- cate Letters—The Fisheries and the Mississippi. By J.Q.Adams. P. 14. in fine: ‘In answer to the declaration made by the British plenipotentiaries respecting the fisheries, the undersigned (United States representatives) referring to what passed in the conference of the 9th of August, can only state that they are not authorized to bring into discussion any of the rights or liberties which the United States have heretofore enjoyed in relation thereto. From their nature and from the peculiar character of the Treaty of 1783, by which they were recognized, no further stipula- tion has been deemed necessary by the Government of the United States to entitle them to the full enjoyment of all of them.” In order to fully understand the views entertained by the British and American plenipotentiaries, a few extracts from the correspondence be- tween American diplomatists, published from 1814 to 1822, and con- tained in the book of Mr. Adams, will show the course adopted at Ghent by himself and his colleagues. (Extract from Protocol of Conference held 1st December, 1814, at Ghent, p. 45:) The American plenipotentiaries also proposed the following amendment to Article 8, viz : “The inhabitants of the United States shall continue to enjoy the liberty ty take, dry, and cure fish, in places within the exclusive jurisdiction of Great Britain, as secured by the former treaty of peace; and the navigation of the river Mississippi, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, shall remain free and open to the subjects of Great Brit- ain, in the manner secured by the said treaty.” The following is the answer made by the British plenipotentiaries (extract from Protocol of Conference, 10th December, 1814, Ghent, p. AT): His Britannic Majesty agrees to enter into negotiation with the United States of America respecting the terms, conditions, and regulations under which the inhabitants of the said United States shall have the liberty of taking fish on certain parts of the coast of New- foundland, and other His Britannic Majesty’s dominions in North America, and of dry- ing and curing fish in the unsettled bays, harbors and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalena Islands, and Labrador, as stipulated in the latter part of the 3d Article ot the Treaty of 1753, in consideration of a fair equivalent, to be agreed upon between His Majesty and the said United States, and granted by the said United States for such liberty aforesaid. The American plenipotentiaries replied as follows (extract from American note after conference, of 12th December, 1814, p, 49 :) For the purpose of meeting what they believed to be the wishes of the British Government, they proposed the insertion of an article which should recognize the right of Great Britain to the navigation of that river, and that of tbe United States to a liberty in certain fisheries, which the British Government considered as abrogated by the war. To such an artic e which they viewed as merely declaratory, the undersigned had no objection, aud have apes to accede. They do not, however, want any new article on either of those subjects; they - have offered to be silent with regard to both. 1726 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. The British note of the 22d of December contained the following declaration (extract from British note of 22d December, p. 50) : [So far as regards the substitution proposed by the undersigned, for the last clause of the Sth Article, as it was offered solely with the hope of attaining the object of: the amendment tendered by the American plenipotentiaries at the conference of the Ist instant, no difficulty will be made in withdrawing it. The undersigned, referring to the declaration made by them at the conference of the 5th of August, that the privileges of fishing within the limits of the British sovereignty, and of using the British territories for purposes connected with the fisheries. were what Great Britain did not intend to grant without equivalent, are not desirous of introducing any article upon the subject. } And the Americans thus replied (extract from the American note, 25th December, 1814, pp. 54, 55): At the first conference on the Sth of August, the British plenipotentiaries had notified to us, that the British Government did not intend, henceforth, to allow to the people of the United States, without an equivalent, the liberty to fish, dry and cure fish, within the ex- clusive British jurisdiction, stipulated in their favor, by the latter part of the third article of the Treaty of peace of 1783. And, in their note of the 19th of August, the British plenipo- tentiaries had demanded a new stipulation to secure to British subjects the right of navigat- ing the Mississippi; a demand hich’ culess warranted by another article of that same Treaty of 1783, we could not perceive that Great Britain had any colorable pretense for making. Our instructions had forbidden us to suffer our right to the fisheries to be brought into discussion, and had not authorized us to make any distinction in the several provisions of the third article of the Treaty of 1783, or between that article and any other of the same treaty. We had no equivalent to offer for a new recognition of our right to any part of the fishenes,and we had no power to grant any equivalent which might be asked for it by the British Government. We contended that the whole Treaty of 1783 must be con- sidered as one entire and permanent compact, not liable, like ordinary treaties, to be abro- gated by a subsequent war between the parties to it; as an instrument recognizing the rights and liberties enjoyed by the people of the United States as an independent nation, and containing the terms and conditions on which the two parts of one empire had mutually agreed thenceforth to constitute two distinct and separate nations. In consenting, by that treaty, that a part of the North American continent should remain subject to the British jurisdiction, the people of the United States had reserved to themselves the liberty, which they had ever before enjoyed, of fishing upon that part of the coasts, and of drying and cur- ing fish upon the shores; and this reservation had been agreed to by the other contracting party. We saw not why this liberty, then no new grant, but a mere recognition of a prior right, always enjoyed, should be forfeited by a war, any more than any other of the rights of our national independence, or why we should need a new stipulation for its enjoyment more than we needed a new article to declare that the King of Great Britain treated with us as free, sovereign, and independent States. We stated this principle in general terms, to the British plenipotentiaries, in the note which we sent to them with our project of the treaty ; and we alleged it as the ground upon which no new stipulation was deemed by our government necessary to secure to the people of the United States all the rights and liberties stipulated in their tavor by the Treaty of 1783. No reply to that part of our note was given by the British lenipotentiaries; but, in returning our project of a treaty, they added a clause to one of the articles, stipulating a right for British subjects to navigate the Mississippi. With- out adverting to the ground of prior and immemorial usage, if the principle were just that the Treaty of 1783, trom its peculiar character, remained in force in all its parts, notwith- standing the war, no new stipulation was necessary to secure to the subjects of Great Britain the right to navigate the Mississippi, as far as that right was secured by the Treaty of 1783 ; - on the other hand, no stipulation was necessary to secure to the people of the United States the liberty to fish, and to dry and cure fish, within the exclusive jurisdiction of Great Britain. If they asked the navigation of the Mississippi as a new claim, they could not expect we should grant it without an equivalent; if they asked it because it had been ranted in 1783, they must recognize the claim of the people of the United States to the iberty to fish and to dry and cure fish in question. To place both points beyond all future controversy, a majority of us determined to offer to admit an article confirming both rights ; or, we offered at the same time to be silent in the treaty upon both, and to leave out alto- pene the pace defining the boundary from the Lake of the Woods westward. They rad es aban oa last proposal, but not until they had proposed an article stipulating for a Missless e } oT a an equiy alent to be given by Great Britain for the navigation of the bactadtetion’ Thin eee States for the liberty as to the fisheries within the British Hillate siege ate TE . Was unnecessary, with respect to its professed object, since both Vv iments had itin their power, Without it, to negotiate upon these subjects if they pleased. hy Pot ete me Bane is adoption would have secured the boundary of the 49th degree alee e Hi a" of t ; Lake of the Woods, because it would have been a formal abandonment, part, of our claim to the liberty as to the fisheries recognized by the Tieaty of 17838. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION Lice Mr. Gallatin wrote to the Secretary of State on the 25th of December, the day following the signature of the treaty, as follows (extract from letter of Mr. Gallatin to Secretary of State, 25th December, 1814, p. 58): On the subject of the fisheries within the jurisdiction of Great Britain, we have certainly done all that could be done. If, according to the construction of the Treaty of 1783, which we assumed, the right was not abrogated by the war, it remains entire, since we most ex- plicitly refused to renounce it, either directly or indirectly. In that case it is only an unset- tled subject of differences between the two countries. If the right must be considered as abrogated by the war, we cannot regain it without an equivalent. We had none to give but the recognition of their right to navigate the Mississippi, and we offered it. On this last supposition, this right is also lost to them; and in a general point of view, we have certainly lost nothing. Mr. Russell, who gave rise to all this correspondence, wrote from Paris on the 11th of February, 1815, in the following terms to the Sec- retary of State (extract from letter to Mr. Russell of the Secretary of State, 11th February, 1815, p. 66): T could not believe that the independence of the United States was derived from the Treaty of 1783; that the recognition of that independence by Great Britain gave to this treaty any peculiar character, or that such character, supposing it existed, would necessarily render this treaty absolutely inseparable in its provisions, and make it one entire and indi- visible whole, equally imperishable in all its parts, by any chance which might occur in the relations between the contracting parties. The independence of the United States rests upon those fundamental principles set forth and acted on by the American Congress, in the Declaration of July, 1776, and not on any British grant in the Treaty of 1783, and its era is dated accordingly. The Treaty of 1783 was merely a treaty of peace, and therefore subject to the same rules of construction as other compacts of this nature. The recognition of the independence of the United States could not well have given it a peculiar character, and excepted it from the operation of these rules. Such a recognition, expressed or implied, is-always indispensable on the part of every nation with whom we form a treaty whatsoever. (Idem, p. 69:) It is from this view of the subject that I have been constrained to believe that there was nothing inthe Treaty of 1733 which could not essentially distinguish it from ordinary trea- * ties, or rescue it on account of any peculiarity of character from the jura belli, or from the operation of those events on which the continuance or termination of such treaties depends. I know not, indeed, any treaty nor any article of a treaty, whatever may have been the subject to which it related, of the terms in which it was expressed, that has survived a war between the parties, without being specially renewed, by reference or recital in the succeed- ing treaty of peace. I cannot, indeed, conceive the possiblity of such a treaty, or of such an article ; for, however clear and strong the stipulations for perpetuity might be, these stipulations themselves would follow the fate of ordinary unexecuted engagements, and re- quire, after a war, the declared assent of the parties for their revival. (Idem, p. 75 :) I have in this view of the subject been led to conclude that the treaty of 1723, in relation to the fishing liberty, is abrogated by the war, and that this liberty is totally destitute of support from prescription, and, consequently, that we are left without any title to it whatso- ever. (Idem, p. 77 :) ; Considering, therefore, the fishing liberty to be entirely at an end, without a new stipulation - for its revival and believing that we are entirely free to discuss the terms and conditions of such a stipulation, I did not object to the article propose 1 by us because any article on the subject was unnecessary or contrary to our instructions, but I objected specially to that article be- ‘cause, by conceding in it to Great Britain the free navigation of the Mississippi, we not only directly violated our instructions, but we offered, in my estimation, @ price much above its value and which could not justly be given. (Idem, p. 87 :) I have always been willing to make any sacrifce for the fishing privilege which its nature or comparative importance could justify, but I conscientiously believe that the free sa rh tion of the Mississippi and the access to it, which we expressly offered. were sbi wa tly too much mischief to be offered directly, under our construction of the treaty, or, In separ A as they were in fact offered, as a new eqtivalent for the liberty of taking and drying fs within British jurisdiction. 1728 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Mr. Russel was supported by Henry Clay in these views. Our learned friend, Mr. Dana, mentioned the circumstances under which England was carrying on the negotiations at Ghent. She was engaged in a continental war with the most illustrious warrior of mod- ern times, and the Americans were more or less exacting according to her embarrassments. We have this described at p. 233 of Mr. J. Q. Adams’s Correspondence, as follows : Snbsequently, however, the overthrow of Napoleon having left us to contend single-handed with the undivided power of Great Britain, our government thought proper to change the terms offered to the British Government, and accordingly sent additional instructions to Ghent, directing our commissioners to make a peace if practicable, upon the simple condi- tion that each party should be placed in the same situation in which the war found them. At the commencement of the war, the British had a right, by treaty, not only to navigate the Mississippi, but to trade with all our Western Indians. Of course our commissioners were instructed to consent to the continuance of this right, if no better terms could be pro- cured. Under these instructions a proposition relative to the Mississippi and the fisheries, similar to that which had been rejected, was again presented, adopted, and sent to the Brit- ish commissioners. But it did not restore the right to navigate the Mississippi in as full a manner as the British Government desired, and on that account, we presume, was rejected. The following dates will explain the meaning of the paragraph refer- ring to Napoleon. The mission toGhent had met before the disasters to French arms, which resulted in the abdication of Napoleon on the 4th of April, 1814. Napoleon was conveyed to Elba in May following. With the slow communications of the time, the Americans learned only ‘in June of the victories of England, which seem to have given a certain tone of firmness to her negotiations at Ghent. The treaty was signed on the 24th December, 1814. On the 1st March, 1815, Napoleon es- caped from Elba and landed at Frejus. Americans regretted having precipitated their negotiations, and not being in a position to avail themselves of the renewal of war on the Continent to insist on better ee many expressed their grief in unmeasured tones; but it was too ate. Each of the contracting parties persisting in their views, the subject of the fisheries was excluded from the Treaty of Ghent; but the United States soon learned that England was right, and they had to resort to the ultima ratio of another war to enforce their opinions, not ouly against Great Britain, but also against the universal sense of other nations. We read in the same book, page 240, that in the summer of 1815, British armed cruisers warned off all American fishing-vessels on the coast of Nova Scotia to a distance of sixty miles from the shores, and thereby, says our writer, the British Government proved significantly what they had meant by their side of the argument. On this, the Americans so- licited and obtained the Convention of 1818. The first article of that treaty explains the circumstances under which it was come to: : Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the United States tor the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, and cure fish on certain coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, it is agreed, between the High Contract- ing Parties, that the inhabitants of the said United States shall have, forever, in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on that rt of the southern coast of Newfoundland, which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Jalands, on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland, from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands, on the shore of Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks, from Mount Joly, on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through the Straits of Belle Isles, and hence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without prejudice how- ever toany of the exclusive rights of the Hudson Bay Company; and that the American fishermen shall also have liberty, forever, to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of the southern coast of Newfoundland, here above described, and of the coast of Labrador; but so soon as the same or any portion thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled without previous agreement for such purpose with the inhabitants. proprietors, or possessors of the ground. And the United States hereby renounce forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or i AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1729 claimed by the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of His Britannic Majesty’s dominions in America not included within the above mentioned limits. Provided, however, that the Ameri- can fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors, for the purpose of shelter and of reparing damages therein, of purchasing wood and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as shall be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, orin any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them. The difference between this convention and the Treaty of 1783 con- sists in the exclusion of the Americans from the shore and bay fisheries which they enjoyed under the Treaty of 1783. This was more than sufti- cient to mark the abandonment by the Americans of the position as- sumed at Ghent, that war had notabrogated their fishing liberties under that treaty. It is, in fact, owing to that important difference that I have at this moment the honor of addressing myself to this distinguished tri- bunal. Six years after the adoption of this convention, in 1824, differences grew out of the three-miles limit, though it does not appear to have arisen from the headland question, or fishing in bays. : Mr. Brent (as quoted at p. 8 of the United States Brief) speaks of American citizens who have been interrupted ‘“‘ during the present season in their accustomed and lawful employment of taking and curing fish in the Bay of Fundy and upon the Grand Banks, by the British armed brig Dotterel, &c. Mr. Addington answers (p. 8 and 9 of United States Brief), that the complainants are not entitled to reparation for the loss they have sus- tained, having rendered themselves obnoxious, having been taken, some ftagrante delicto, and others under such circumstances that they could have no other intention than that of pursuing their avocations as fisher- men within the lines laid down by treaty as forming boundaries within ~ which pursuit was interdicted to them. The United States Brief, which is now confessed to have been in- spired by a misapprehension of the facts, states (p. 9) that the claim to exclude the American fishermen from the great bays, such as Fundy and Chaleurs, and also from a distance of three miles, determined by a line drawn from headland to headland across their mouths, was not at- _ tempted to be enforced until the years 1838 and 1839, when several of the American fishing-vessels were seized by the British cruisers for fish- ing in the large bays. _ This admission, coupled with the complaint of 1824, makes it evident that indisputable portions of the convention had been violated since _ American vessels had been seized in Two-Islands Harbor, Grand Manan. This was, even with the present American interpretation of the Conven- tion of 1818, as to headlands, an evident trespass on prohibited grounds; a and the rescue of the vessels seized by the fishermen of Eastport, and other similar instances should not be mentioned otherwise than as acts of piracy, which a powerful nation may disregard for peace sake, but will resent when treasured injury explodes on other occasions. It has been the policy of certain American statesmen to lay the blame of most of their fisheries difficulties on the shoulders of colonists, in order to obtain their easy settlement at the bands of a distant, and (quoad lucrum) disinterested, imperial and supreme power. From a * . natural connection between causes and effects our maritime provinces, most in proximity to the United States, had to bear the brunt of a tri- angular duel, the chief part of which fell to Nova Scotia, who showed _ herself equal to the occasion. It can be shown that what was styled as almost barbarian legislation on the part of the Nova Scotia Parliament, 109 F - ; 1730 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION.. exists at this very hour in the legislation of the United States. And it is not a reproach that I am casting here against the United States. They bave done like other nations who made effectual provisions against the violators of their customs, trade, or navigation laws, and they could not do less or otherwise than the legislature of Nova Scotia. The customs statute of the Dominion, 31 V.,c¢. 6 (1867), contains similar provisions to those of the fishing act of the same session, ch. G1, ss. 10, 12, 15, and lays upon the owner and claimant of goods seized by customs officers the burden of proving the illegality of the seizure ; it obliges the claimant of any vessel, goods, or thing seized, in pursu- ance of any law relating to the customs, or to trade or navigation, to give security to answer for costs. Other parts provide for all the things contained in the Nova Scotia statute, so much animadverted upon, as being contrary to common-law principles, but which are applicable to British subjects as well as to foreigners. The imperial act, 3 & 4 Will., 4, c. 59, ss. 67, 69, 70, 71, consolidated former acts, dating as far back as when the thirteen revolted colonies were a part of the empire, contains similar provisions as our Dominion acts concerning customs and fish- eries, and as the Nova Scotia statute of 1836. I had intended to cite some words of the American law on the subject, but the volume is not at hand. I supplement the omission by 1 Gallison, p. 191; 2 Gallison, p. 505; 3 Greenleaf, sec. 404, and note 2, p. 360 ; 5 Wheaton, sec. 407, p. 461, and sec. 411, p. 463. ; Mr. DANA. Mr. Doutre, do you not consider that to the same effect as if the judge says that the government must make out a prima facie case ? Mr. DourRe. I have only read a small portion of the decision; but the seizure constitutes a prima facie case. Mr. Dana. O, no. Mr. Dourre. Seizure was made for open violation of the law, and it is for the claimant to show that he did not violate the law. Mr. DANA. The decision is that the government must make out a prima facie case. Mr. DouTRE. It is impossible for me to satisfy your mind on that point; the report is very long, and if you read it you will be convinced that I am right. Mr. DANA. It says the government are obliged by statute to prove a prima facie case. Mr. DourRE. These cases are all of a similar character. I admit that the ordinary rules of evidence are here reversed. The reason is that the maintenance of the ordinary rules concerning evidence would work great mischief if applied to such matters as these. Mr. FosrEr. This is a judgment based on suspicion, in the opinion of the court, and not on the opinion of the boarding officer. Mr. DourRE. The boarding officer makes the seizure, and reports tha} he has made it, and unless the defendant comes and shows that the seizure has been illegally made, the court ratifies the seizure, and con- demns the goods or ships seized. Mr. DANA. Are you speaking of war now ? Mr. DoutTRE. No; of profound peace, _ Mr. DANA. This was in time of war, and in the very case you cite it is said that the acts must be established by the government which has to make out a prima facie case. Mr. Dourre. I will take the law of the United States on this point as establishing my view. I will now give the reasons why such legisla- tion has been adopted in England, in the United States, and in Canada, 7 > AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1731 in an extract taken from a judgment rendered by the distinguished chief justice of Nova Scotia, Sir William Young, in December, 1870, In re schooner Minnie, court of vice-admiralty: It must be recollected that custom-house laws are framed to defeat the infinitely varied, unscrupulous, and ingenious devices to defraud the revenue of the country. In no other system is the party accused obliged to prove his innocence—the weight of proof is on him, re- versing one of the first principles of criminallaw. Why have the legislatures of Great Britain, of the United States, and of the Dominion alike, sanctioned this departure from the more humane, and, as it would seem at the first blush, the more reasonable rule? From a ne- cessity, demonstrated by experience—the necessity of protecting the fair trader and counter- working and punishing the smuggler. Mr. DANA. That is a British decision which you have read ? Mr. DouTRE. Yes; a British colonial one. The provisions of the Nova Scotia statute were intended to apply to a class of cases belonging to something similar to customs regulations, and are inseparable from them, and if ever our American friends desire to enforce on their coasts the three-mile limit, which their answer and brief recognize as resting on the unwritten law of nations, they will have to extend to this matter their customs law above cited, as did the legislature of Nova Scotia. The learned Agent of the United States went very far from any dis- puted point to gain sympathy, by a reference to what, in the United States answer to the case, is called an inhospitable statute. He says: A Nova Scotia statute of 1836, after providing for the forfeiture of the vessel found fishing, or preparing to fish, or to have been fishing within three miles of the coast, bays, creeks, or harbors, and providing that the master, or person in command, should not truly answer the questions put to him in such examination by the boarding officer, he should forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds, goes on to provide that if any goods shipped on the vessel were seized for any cause cf forfeiture under this act, and any dispute arises whether they have been lawfully seized, the proof touching the illegality of the seizure shall be on the owner or claimant of the goods, ship, or vessel, but not on the officer or person who shall seize and stop the same. These are the very expressions which the learned Agent for the United States employed when he animadverted on that statute. He also states that he is not aware whether a statute similar to this one, which existed in Nova Scotia in 1868, has been repealed. In 1867, however, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the two Canadas were confederated to- gether, and the matters relating to the fisheries and customs were then transferred to the Dominion of Canada, which has ever since exercised the sole power of legislation over those subjects. The best answer that can be given to Mr. Foster and his colleagues on this point may be quoted from high authority. The Agent for the United States, about the period of his arrival here to attend to his duties before this Commis- sion, published in the “ American Law Review,” a journal which speaks with quasi-judicial authority in Massachusetts, an article on the Fran- conia, having a prominent bearing on this case now before the Commis- sion. I only mention this fact in order to show the high character of the Review. This journal, alarmed at the views proclaimed by Presi- dent Grant, published a very able article on the subject, the writer being an eminent and able lawyer; and this article deals with the ques- tion of preparing to fish, as well as with the question of trade, both of which have been discussed by my learned friend, the Agent for the United States. In dealing with the claim of the right on the part of American fishermen to lie at anchor, clean and pack fish, and purchase bait, pre- pare to fish and transship cargoes, the writer says— ae Mr. DANA. Will you have the kinduess to state by whom these views are set forth ? _ Mr. DourreE. I am not quite sure of the name. 1732 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION... Mr. Dana. It is not Mr. Foster. Mr. DouTRE. No. Mr. DANA. You do not know the author ? Mr. DouTtRE. I think I do. Mr. Foster. Unless that is Professor Pomeroy’s argument, it is some- thing I have never before heard of. Mr. DouTRE. It is his argument, I am informed. Mr. Dana. I wish also to say that this Review has no quasi-judicial authority. It is private property, and edited by private persons. Mr. DoutRE. I thus consider all publications of this nature. All these acts are plainly unlawful, and would be good grounds for the confiscation of the offending vessel, or the infliction of pecuniary penalties. The treaty stipulates that ‘‘Amer- ican fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays and harbors for the purpose of shelter, of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever.” Even assuming, as has sometimes been urged, that the words ‘‘for no other purpose whatever” refer exclusively to matters connected with the business and rocess of fishing, the prohibition still covers all the acts enumerated. To use the bays and arbors as places of convenience in which to clean and pack fish, to procure bait, to prepare to fish, or to land cargoes of fish, would be an invasion of the exclusive fishing nghts within the territorial waters secured to British subjects and denied to American citizens. ‘‘ Pre- aring to fish,” if permitted, would render it almost impossible to prevent actual fishing. When, from considerations of policy, statutes are made to declare some final result illegal, the legislature uniformly forbids the preliminary steps which are directly connected with that result, lead up to it, and facilitate its accomplishment. Thus, if Congress should ab- _solutely prohibit the landing of certain goods in our ports, the United States Government would doubtless listen with amazement to a complaint from foreign importers that ‘‘ preparing to land’ was also prohibited. All customs and revenue regulations are framed upon this theory. The provision of the Imperial and Canadian statutes making it a penal offense for American vessels ‘‘ to prepare to fish” while lying in territorial waters, seems, therefore, to be a ‘‘restriction necessary to prevent ’’ their taking fish therein, and for that reason to be lawful and proper. The claim of right to sell goods and buy supplies, the traffic in which the Nova Scotia act was intended to prevent, is thus commented on: This need claim has not yet been made the subject of diplomatic correspondence be- tween the two governments, but amongst the documents laid before Congress at its present session is a consular letter, from which we quote: ‘It (the Treaty of 1818) made no reference to and did not attempt to regulate the deep-sea fisheries, which were open to all the world. * * * It is obvious that the words ‘for no other purpose whatever’ must be construed to apply solely to such purposes as are in con- travention to the treaty, namely, to purposes connected with the taking, drying, or curing fish within three marine miles of certain coasts, and not in any manner to supplies intended for the ocean fisheries, with which the treaty had no connection.” All this is clearly a mistake, and if the claims of American fishermen, partially sanctioned by the I nited States Executive, rest upon no better foundation, they must be abandoned. In fact, the stipulation of the treaty in which the clause occurs has reference alone to ves- sels employed in deep-sea fishing. It did not require any grant to enable our citizens to engage in their occupation outside the territorial limits, that is, upon the open sea; but they were forbidden to take, dry, or cure fish in the bays and harbors. They were per- mitted, however, to come into those inshore waters for shelter, repairs, wood, and water, and for no other purpose whatever.’’ To what American vessels is this privilege given ? Plainly to those that fish in the open sea. To say that the clause ‘‘for no other purpose whatever applies only to acts connected with taking, drying, or curing fish withii the three-miles’ limit, which acts are in terms expressly prohibited, is simply absurd. It would be much more reasonable to say that, applying the maxim noscitur a sociis, the words ‘‘ for no other purpose whatever ” are to be construed as having reference solely to matters con- nected with regular fishing voyages, necessary, convenient, or customary in the business of fishing, and are not to be extended to other acts of an entirely different and purely commercial nature. President Grant declares that so far as the Canadian claim is founded upon an alleged construction of the Convention of 1818, it cannot be acquiesced in by the United States. He states that during the conference which preceded the signing of this treaty, the British com- missiobers proposed & clause expressly prohibiting American fishermen from carrying on any trade with British subjects and from having on board goods except such as might be necessary for the prosecution of their voyages. He adds: a This proposition, which is identical with the construction now put upon the language of © convention, was emphatically rejected by the American commissioners, and thereupon AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1733 was abandoned by the British plenipotentiaries, and Article I, as it stands in the convention was substituted.” The President has been misinformed. The proposition alluded to had no connection with the privilege given in the latter part of Article I, to enter bays and harbors for sbelter and other similar purposes; but referred expressly and exclusively to the grant contained in the former part of the article of a des to take, dry, and cure fish on the coasts and in the bays of Labrador and Newfoundland. This is apparent from a reference to the negotiations themselves. On September 17, 1818, the American commissioners submitted their first projet of atreaty. The proposed article relating to the fisheries was nearly the same as the one finally adopted, including a renunciation of the liberty to fish within three miles of other coasts and bays. The proviso was as follows: ‘Provided, however, That American fishermen shall be permitted to enter such bays and harbors for the purpose only of obtaining shelter, wood, water, and bait.” The British counter project granted a liberty to take, dry, and cure fish on the coasts of New- foundland and Labrador within much narrower limits than those demanded by the Amer- ican plenipotentiaries. It admitted the fishing-vessels of the United States into other bays and harbors ‘‘for the purpose of shelter, of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and obtaining water, and for no other purpose.” It also contained the following m a “It is further understood that the liberty of taking, drying and curing fish granted in the preceding part of this article shall not be construed to extend the privilege of carrying on trade with any of His Britannic Majesty’s subjects residing within the limits hereinbefore as- signed to the use of fishermen of the United States. And inorder the more effectually to gnard against smuggling, it shall not be lawful for the vessels of the United States engaged in the said fishery to have on board any goods, wares, and merchandise, except such as may be necessary for the prosecution of the fishery.” Messrs. Gallatin and Rush replied, insisting upon a privilege to take, dry, and cure fish on the coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador within the limits first demanded by them, and added, as the last sentence of their letter: ‘‘ The clauses making vessels liable to confiscation in case any articles not wanted for carrying on the fishery should be found on board, would expose the fishermen to endless vexations.” On the 13th October, the British commissioners proposed Article I. as it now stands, which was accepted at once. There was no discussion of an alleged right of American fishermen to engage in trade, and no further allusion on the subject. Indeed, throughout all these conferences the American commissioners were laboring to obtain as extensive a district of territory as possible on Newfoundland, Labra- dor, and the Magdalen Islands for inshore fishing, and paid little attention to the pirieae then apparentiy of small value, but now important—of using other bays and harbors for _ shelter and kindred purposes. The British Agents, on the other hand, endeavored to confine the former grant within narrow bounds and to load it with restrictions. The rejected clause, concerning trade and carrying goods, was one of these restrictions, and in its very terms referred alone to the vessels taking, drying, and curing fish on the portion of the Newfound- land and Labrador coasts made free to our citizens. It should be noticed that the proviso finally adopted omitted the right originally demanded by the Americans of entering other bays and harbors for bait, and is identical with the one at first submitted by the British pleni- potentiaries, strengthened by the addition of the word ‘‘ whatever” after the clause “‘ for no _ other purpose.” ie is evident, therefore that the British Government is not estopped from opposing the claim now set up by American fishermen, and sustained by the President, and anything that occurred during the negotiations preliminary to the treaty. 5 : e must fall back, then, upon the accepted doctrines of international law. Every nation has the undoubted right to prescribe such regulations of commerce carried on its waters _and with its citizens as it deems expedient, even to the extent of excluding entirely some or all foreign vessels and merchandise. Such measures may be harsh, and under some cir- cumstances a violation of inter-state comity, but they are not illegal. At all events, it does not become a government to complain which now maintains a tariff probibitory as to many articles, and which at one time passed a general embargo and non-intercgurse act There seem to be special reasons why the Dominion authorities may inhibit general commerce by Americans engaged in fishing. Their vessels clear for no particular port ; they are accus- tomed to enter one bay or harbor after another as their needs demand ; they might thus carry on a coasting-trade; they would certainly have every opportunity for successful smuggling. Indeed, this would legitimately belong to the local customs and revenue sys- tem, and not to the fisheries. [We are thus forced to the conclusion that American fishermen have no right to enter the bays and harbors in question and sell goods or purchase supplies other than wood and water. It is not necessary to add a word to the able and impartial language - quoted, except to suggest that if the author had been now writing, he - might have found a more forcible example of inhospitable legislation _ than the “general embargo and non-intercourse act,” namely, the at- _ tempt to evade the plighted promise of the nation to remove the taxa- e “« 1734 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION.. tion from fish by taxing the cans—useless for any other purpose—in which the fish are sent to market. While restoring to the legislation of Nova Scotia its true character, this article shows also which of the two decisions rendered, one by Mr. Justice Hazen, the other by the distinguished and learned chief justice Sir William Young, must be held to be the correct one on preparing to fish. The latter’s judgment receives from this impartial source an au- ‘thority which it did not require to carry conviction to all unprejudiced minds. . The necessity for the Nova Scotia statute of 1836, so much complained of, became apparent within a pretty short period. In 1838, as mentioned in the United States Brief, p. 9, several Ameri- can vessels were seized by British cruisers for fishing in large bays. Between the dates of the Nova Scotia statute and these seizures the American Secretary of State had issued circulars enjoining American fishermen to observe the limits of the treaty, but without saying what these limits were. Why did he abstain from giving his countrymen the text of the Convention of 1818, Article 1st? They could have read in it that the United States had renounced forever the liberty of taking, drying, or curing fish within three marine miles of any coast, bay, creek, or harbor, and that they could not be admitted to enter such bays or har- bors, except for shelter, or repairing damages, or obtaining wood and water, and for no other purpose whatever. Every fisherman would have understood such clear language. Statesmen only could imagine that ‘‘bays” meant large bays, more than 6 miles wide at their entrance. It was the privilege of eminent politicians, but not of the fishermen, to handle that extraordinary logic which involves the contention: 1st. That for the purpose of fishing, the territorial waters of every country along the sea-coast extend 3 miles from low-water mark. 2d. That “ in the case of bays and gulfs, such only are territorial waters as do not. exceed 6 miles in width at the mouth upon a straight line measured from headland to headland. 3d. That “all larger bodies of water con- nected with the open sea form a part of it.” These words are taken from the Answer to British Case, pp. 2, 3). The framers of the Convention of 1818 must have meant those large bays, when they excluded Ameri- can fishermen from entering into any bay, &c. The most that the fisher- man could have said, after reading the text, would be that it must have been an oversight, and he would never have thought of taking the law in his own hand and disregarding a solemn contract entered into by his government. But, with his common sense, he would have said: The convention could not mean the small bays, since I am told by American lawyers that it did not require a treaty to protect the small bays against our interference. (See the Answer to the Case, at page 2.) The word bay could hot mean anything but those large bays, which, in the absence of treaty stipulations, might by some be considered as forming part of the open sea. And, acting on this plain interpretation of the most clear terms, the fisherman would have abstained from entering into any bay except for the purposes mentioned in the convention. Old fishermen would, in addition, have taught the younger ones that there was a para- mount reason why the American framers of the Convention of 1818 eould have no desire to open the large bays to their fishermen, for the reason that up to 1827 or 1828, that is until ten years after the conven- tion, mackerel had not been found in large quantities in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. _ If, then, the circulars of the Secretary of the Treasury to American fishermen failed to put the latter on their guard, when the Nova Scotia. Pog ’ Ams fe , AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1735 legislature showed such firm determination to enforce the rights of her fishermen and coerce the American to obedience to law and treaties, the responsibility of any possible conflict fell upon the American and not upon the British authorities. Our friend, Mr. Dana, expressed, with vehemence of language which impressed us all, the serious consequences which would have followed if a drop of American blood had been spilt in these conflicts. We have too good an opinion of our American cousins to think that they would have been much moved if one of their countrymen had been killed while in the act of violating the law in British territory. The United States have laws as well as other nations against trespass, piracy, and robbery, and it is not in the habit of nations to wage war in the pro- tection of those of their countrymen who commit any of these crimes in a foreign land. The age of filibustering has gone by and no elo- quence can restore it to the standard of a virtue. However, a state of things which is caleulated to create temptations such as were offered to American fishermen in Canadian waters should beat all times most carefully avoided, and it was the desire of both British and American statesmen to remove such dangerous and inflammable causes of conflict which brought us to the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. By that treaty British waters in North America were thrown open to United States citizens, and United States waters north of the 36th de- gree of north latitude were thrown open to British fishermen, excepting the salmon and shad fisheries, which were reserved on both sides. Certain articles of produce of the British colonies and of the United States were admitted to each country, respectively, free of duty. That treaty suspended the operation of the Convention of 1818, as long as it was in existence. On the 17th of March, 1865, the United States Government gave notice that at the expiration of twelve months from that day the Reciprocity Treaty was to terminate. And it did then terminate, and the Convention of 1818 revived from the 17th of March, 1866. However, American fishermen were admitted, without interruption, to fish in British American waters on payment of a license, which was col- lected at the Gut of Canso, a very narrow and the nearest entrance to portions of these waters. Some American vessels took licenses the first year, but many did not. The license fee having been raised afterwards few vessels took a license, and finally almost all vessels fished without taking any. Every one will understand the impossibility of enforcing that system. All American vessels having the right to fish in British American waters under the Convention of 1818, those who wanted or professed to limit themselves to fishing outside of the 3-mile limit, had the right to enter on the northern side of Cape Breton without taking a license. As long as that license was purely nominal, manly took it in or- der to go everywhere without fear of cruisers or molestation. When our license fee was doubled and afterwards trebled, the number of those who took it gradually dwindled to nothing. The old troubles and irrita- tions were renewed, and many fishermen have explained before the Commission how embarrassing it was in many instances to know from the deck of a vessel how far from the shore that vessel stood. Three miles have to be measured with the eye, not from the visible shore, but from low-water mark. There are coasts which are left dry for several miles by the receding tide. When the tide is up, landmarks may be familiar to the inhabitants of the shore or frequent visitors of its waters but for the fisherman who comes there for the first or second time, or perhaps for the tenth time, but after intervals of years, it may be a diffi- 1736 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. cult task to determine where he can fish with safety. And what can be more tempting, I should say tantalizing, than to follow a school of mackerel which promises a full fare in one day and a speedy return home, with the mirage of a family to embrace and of profits to pocket? Should men be exposed to such temptations when commercial inter- course and money as an ultima ratio present so many modes of removy- ing restrictions? Is there any one of these varied modes of settlement which is worth the life of a man ? Great Britain and the United States owed it to their noble common ancestry and to their close relationship not to listen to the evil advice of passion, and to show to the world a new battle-field, where cool judg- ment and good-will are the most successful arms. With the termination of the Reciprocity Treaty reappeared the cruis- ers and cutters among the fishermen, and irritation seemed to have acquired vigor and intensity during the suspension. Other international differences had grown up, from the beginning of the civil war, and had accumulated during the whole of that war, to such an extent that a spark might start a serious conflict. Fortunately cool heads were pre- dominant in the two governments; the Joint High Commission was ap- pointed, and the Washington Treaty reduced to a money question what, in former times, would have cost the lives of thousands of men, and would have, besides, entailed on both sides an expenditure of money ten times more considerable than the compensatory indemnities resulting from that treaty. Ten articles of that treaty concern the fisheries, from the 18th to the 25th, both inclusive, and the 32d and 33d. In addi- tion to the liberties granted to them by the Convention of 1818, Ameri- cans are admitted, by Article 18, to fish everywhere, in common with British subjects, without being restricted to any distance from the coast, with permission to land for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish, provided they do not interfere with the rights of private prop- erty. On the other hand British subjects are admitted, by Article 19, to the same liberties on the eastern sea coasts and shores of the United States, north of the 39th parallel of north latitude. Article 21 declares that as long as the treaty shall subsist, fish-oil and fish of all kinds (except fish of the inland lakes and of the rivers falling into them, and except fish preserved in oil), being the produce of the fisheries of the United States or of the Dominion of Canada, shall be ad- mitted into each country, respectively, free of duty. By article 22 it is agreed that Commissioners shall be appointed to de- termine, having regard to the privileges accorded by the United States to the subjects of Her Majesty, the amount of any compensation which ought to be paid in return for the privileges accorded to the citizens of the United States under Article 18; and that any sum of money which the Commissioners may so award shall be paid, in a gross sum, within twelve months after the award given. A rticle 33 stipulates that the fisheries articles shall remain in force for the period of ten years from the date at which they may come into op- eration, by the passing of the requisite laws, on both sides, and, further, until the expiration of two years after notice given by either of the par- ties of its wish to terminate the same. The treaty came into operation on the 1st July, 1873. Great Britain claims from the United States a sum of $14,880,000 for the concession of the privileges granted to the citizens of the United States for the period of twelve years. On the part of the United States it is contended that the liberty of 8 oe AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1737 fishing in their waters and the admission of Canadian fish and fish-oil duty-free in the markets of the United States, is equivalent to what Great Britain obtains by the treaty. The questions now to be inquired into are: 1st. Is the British claim proved, and to what extent? 2d. Have the United States rebutted the evidence adduced on behalf of Her Majesty, and have they proved a set-off to any and what extent ? Wherever Americans have expressed a disinterested opinion about the gulf and other Canadian fisheries, they have never underrated their value, as they have in this case, where they are called upon to pay for using them. At a time when no diplomatist had conceived the idea of laying the claim of the United States to these fisheries, on the heroic accomplish- ments of our army and navy from the old British colony of Massachu- setts, as we have heard from the eloquent and distinguished United States counsel, before this Commission—at a time when, emerging from war, fit occasions offered themselves for reminding Great Britain of what she owed to the bravery of Massachusetts boys, who had planted ber flag in the place of the French colors over this Dominion— in these times the right of fishing in those waters had accrued to the - American people from no other origin than a concession by treaty, and -no other basis than the wti possidetis. When another commission is appointed by England and France to settle the differences which exist between them in reference to the Newfoundland fisheries, I doubt much if the political oratory of our American friends could not, with a little change of tableaux and scenery, be turned to some account—-such as the French reminding the English people of the miseries endured by Jacques Cartier during the winter he spent at Sable Island on his way to Newfoundland, Louisburg, and Quebec to bring European civilization among the aboriginal tribes. Although it is hard to vouch for anything in such matters of fancy, I doubt much whether France will recall the heroic deeds of her Cartiers and Champlains to make herself a title to these fisheries. She will not make such light work of her treaties as our friends have done. In the line of historical titles adopted by our learned friends, the Scandinavians would wipe out even the claim of Columbus, for three or four centuries before the discoveries of the great Genoese navigator, some of their fishermen had visited profitably the Banks of Newfound- land. My learned friends should be as much alarmed at the conse- quences of their fiction, as Mr. Seward was when, dealing with the head- land question in the Senate, page 9 of the British brief, he pointed out that the construction put upon the word bay, by those who confined them to bodies of water six miles wide at their mouth, would surrender all the great bays of the United States. : While listening with pleasure to the narration of the great achieve- ‘ments of the Massachusetts boys, we could not understand why they shed their blood for those poor and unproductive fisheries. We looked a little at history, we searched for a confirmation of the pretensions of our friends, and we found a very different account, in the writings of their great statesmen, both as to the basis of their claim and as to the value of the fisheries. John Quincy Adams, who represented with others, as has already been mentioned, the United States, at the Treaty of Ghent, In 1814, collected information. He applied to Mr. James Lloyd, and this gentle- man, writing from Boston, on the 8th of March, 1510, communicated to 1738 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. | him what will be found from page 211 to page 218 of his “ Duplicate Letters.” A few citations will not be out of place here: The shores, the creeks, the inlets of the Bay of Fundy, the Bay of Chaleurs, and the Guif of St. Lawrence, the Straits of Belleisle, and the Coast of Labrador, appear to have been designed by the God of nature as the great ovarium of fish—the inexhaustible re- pository of this species of food, not only for the supply of the American, but of the Euro- pean continent. At the proper season to catch them in endless abundance, little more of effort is needed than to bait the hook and pull the line, and occasionally even this is not ne- cessary. In clear weather, near the shores, myriads are visible, and the strand is at times almost literally paved with them. The provincials had become highly alarmed at the expansion of this fishery and trade ; jealous of its progress and clamorous at its endurance; they, therefore, of late years, have repeatedly memorialized the government in England, respecting the fisheries carried on by the Americans, while the whole body of Scottish adventurers, whose trade both in imports and exports, and control over the inhabitants, it curtailed, have turned out in full cry and joined the chorus of the colonial governments in a crusade against the encroachments of the jnfidels, the disbelievers in the divine authority of kings, or the rights of the provinces, and have pursued their objects so assiduously that, at their own expense, as I am informed from a respectable source, in the year 1807 or ’8, they stationed a watchman in some favorable posi- tion near the Straits of Canso to count the number of American vessels which passed those straits on this employment, who returned nine hundred and thirty-eight as the number actually ascer- tained by UIM to have passed, and doubtless many others, during the night or in stormy or thick weather, escaped his observation ; and some of these aggressors have distinctly looked forward with gratification to a state of war as a desirable occurrence, which would, by its existence, annul existing treaty stipulations, so injurious, as they contend, to their interests and those of the nation. The coast and Labrador fisheries are prosecuted in vessels from 40 to 120 tons burden, carrying a number or men, according to their respective sizes, in about the same proportion as the vessels on the Bank fishery. They commence their voyages in May, and get on the fishing-ground about the first of June, before which time bait cannot be obtained. This bait is furnished by a small species of fish called caplin, which strike inshore at that time, and are followed by immense shoals of codfish which feed upon them. Each vessel selects her own fishing-ground, along the coast of the Bay of Chaleurs, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Straits of Belleisle, the coast of Labrador, even as far as Cumberland Island, and the entrance of Hudson’s Bay, thus improving a fishing-groun] reaching in extent from the 45th to the 68th degree of north tations. In choosing their situation, the fishermen generally seek some sheltered and safe harbor er cove, where they anchor in about siz or seven fathoms water, unbend their sails, stow them below, and literally making themselves at home, dismantle and convert their vessels into habitations at least as durable as those of the ancient Scythians. They then cast a net over the stern of the vessel, in which a sufficient number of caplin are soon caught to supply them with bait from day to day. Each vessel is furnished with four or five light boats, according to their size and number of men, each boat requiring two men. They leave the vessel early in the morning, and seek the best or sufficiently good spot for fishing, which is frequently found within a few rods of their vessels, and very rarely more than one or two miles distant from them, where they haul the fish as fast as they can pull their lines, and sometimes, it is said, the fish have been so abundant as to be gaffed or scooped into the boats without even a hook or line; and the fishermen also say that the codfish have been known to pursue the caplin in such quantities and with such voracity as to run in large numbers quite out of water onto the shores. The boats return to the vessels about nine o’clock in the morning, at breakfast, put their fish on board, salt and split them: and after having fished several days, by which time the salt has been sufficiently struck in the fish first caught, they carry them on shore and spread and dry them on the rocks or temporary flakes. I'his routine is followed every day, with the addition of attending to such as have been spread, and carrying on board and stowing away those that have become snfficiently cured, until the vessel is filled with dried fish, fit for an immediate market, which is generally the case by the middle or last of August, and with which she then proceeds immediately to a a returns to the United States; and this fish thus caught and cured is esteemed ve best that is brought to market, and for several years previous to that of 1308 was com- pated to furnish three-fourth parts of all the dried fish exported from the United States. _ The following statements, to be found on page 219 of the work, were furnished to Mr. Adams by a person whom he qualifies as a very re- spectable merchant, who dates his letter Boston, May 20, 1815: My calculation is, that there were employed in the Bank, Labrador and Bay fisheries, the years above mentioned, 1,232 vessels yearly, viz, 584 to the Banks, and 648 to the bay and Labrador. I think the 554 bankers may be put down 36,540 tons, navigated by 4,627 men and boys (each vessel carrying one boy); they take and cure, annually, 510,700 quintals of pr AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1739 fish; they ave about three fares a year, consume, annually, 81,170 hogsheads salt ; the average cost of these vessels is about $2,000 each; the average price of these fish at foreign markets is $6 per quintal; these vessels also make from their fish, annually, 17,520 barrels of oil, which commands about $10 per barrel ; their equipments cost about $900 annually, exclusive of salt. , . The 648 vessels that fish at the Labrador and bay, I put down 48,600 tons, navigated by 5,832 men and boys; they take and cure, annually, 643,000 quintals of fish; they go but one fare a year; consume, annually, 97,200 hogsheads of salt. The average cost of these vessels is about $1,600 ; the cost of their equipments, provisions, &e., is $1,050. Those de- scriptions of vessels are not so valuable as the Bankers, more particularly those that go from the district of Maine, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, as they are mostly sloops of no very eee value. Most of these vessels cure a part of their fish where they catch them, on the ch, rocks, &c., and the rest after they return home. Several cargoes of dry fish are ship- $e yearly from the Labrador direct for Europe. The usual markets for those fish are in the editerranean, say Alicant, Leghorn, Naples, Marseilles, &c., as those markets prefer small fish, and the greatest part of the fish caught up the bay and Labrador are very small. The "atk. price of these fish at the market they are disposed of is $5. These vessels also make from their fish about 20,000 barrels of oil, which always meets a ready sale and at handsome prices, say from $8 to $12 per barrel ; the most of it is consumed in the United States. 1,232 vessels employed in the Bank, bay, and Labrador fisheries, meas- CUT a os One SEE OC CEI OEE Nae OEE OUR In BAS ROC IO OOU TONS arr 85,140 tons. Number of men they are navigated by..........-. 22-2. e- eee eee eee 10,459 Number of hogsheads salt they consume ......---..-----.----------- 178,370 bhds. Quantity. of fish'they take and cures. <2 .6c.i05. 6.23 tcat ccs Sees ecies'e acs 1,158,700 quintals. Barrelsiot oilsthey make <<.) .s-sclescoosjenss es Baad senescent mses 37,520 barrels. There are also a description of vessels called jiggers or small schooners, of about 30 to 45 tons, that fish in the South Channel, on the Shoals and Cape Sables, their number 300 ; they carry about 4 or 5 hands, say 1,200 men, and take about 75,000 quintals of fish, annually ; consume 12,000 hogsheads of salt, and make about 4,000 barrels of oil; their fish is gen- erally sold for the Wst Indies and home consumption. ; There are another description of fishing vessels commonly called Chebacco Boats or Pink Sterns ; their number 600; they are from 10 to 23 tons, and carry two men and one boy each, say, 1,800 hands; they consume 15,000 bhds. of salt, and take and cure 120,000 quin- tals of fish, annually. These fish also are wholly used for home and West India market, except the very first they take early in the spring, which are very nice indeed, and are sent to the Bilbao market in Bpain, where they always bring a great price; they make 9,000 bar- rels of oil; these vessels measure about 10,300 tons. , There are also about 200 schooners employed in the mackerel fishery, measuring 5,000 ae they carry 1,600 men and boys, they take 50,000 barrels, annually, and consume 6,000 8s. salt. ~ The alewive, shad, salmon, and herring fishery is also immense, and consumes a great quantity of salt. Whole number of fishing-vessels of all descriptions...-....------+----- 2, 332. MR OARUTIND ada a ecida cover ace vas oiccgoentelesacasa va caeeuees 115, 940 tons. Number of men navigated by........-.- Peli a cal eabisdicaslee Ss siete ae 1%, 059 Balt CGY OMSHMEN: oc asker oa c5 sn adeisdwecvsanwsa scetea konsnsaers 65, 370 bhds. Quantity of fish they take and cure........---. ------+-----+-+----- 1, 353, 700 quintals. Number of barrels of. Oilsieesiee tae ala ceca sciecintisielenins2'senleesees 50, 520 barrels. Number of barrels of mackerel. .......----- ---222 -e2cee econ ee recess 50, 000 barrels. ‘There are many gentlemen who assert, and roundly, too, that one year there were at the Labrador and bay, over 1,700 sail beside the bankers; but I feel very contident they are much mistaken, it is impossible it can be correct. Then Mr. Adams gives the authority of his approbation, at page 233, _ to the following statements from “ Colquhoun’s Treatise on the Wealth, Power, and Resources of the British Empire,” second edit., 1819. The value of these fisheries, in table No. 8, page 36, is estimated at £7,550,000 sterling. ‘‘New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, from being both watered by the Bay of Fundy, enjoy advantages over Canada, which more than compensate a greater sterility of soil. hese are to be traced to the valuable and extensive fisheries in the Bay of Fundy, which, in point of abundance and variety of the finest fish, exceed all calculation, and may be considered as a mine of gold—a treasure which cannot be estimated too high, since with little labor, com- paratively speaking, enough could be obtained to feed all Europe.” (pp. 312-313.) ne - Since the trade with the United States has been so greatly obstructed, the Fecoree oe fisheries in the British colonies, thus encouraged by the removal of all competition, bas — ton augmented ; and nothing but a more extended population is required to carry this valuable branch of trade almost to any given extent. 1740 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION... ‘It will be seen by reference to the notes in the table annexed to this chapter, that the in habitants of the United States derive incalculable advantages, and employ a vast number of men and vessels in the fisheries in the river St. Lawrence, and on the coast of Nova Scotia, which exclusively belong to Great Britain. This dense population of the Northern States, and their local situation in the vicinity of the most prolific fishing stations, have enabled them to acquire vast wealth by the indulgence of this country.” (p. 313 ) ; “Tt ought ever to be kept in view, that (with the exception of the small islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon restored to France by the Treaty of Paris, in May, 1840) the whole of the most valuable fisheries of North America exclusively belong at thts present time to the British Crown, which gives to this country a monopoly in all the markets in Europe and the West Indies, or a right to a certain valuable eat eal from all foreign nations to whom the British Government may concede the privilege of carrying on a fishery in these seas.”’ (p. 314.) “ Private fisheries are a source of great profit to the individuals, in this and other countries, who have acquired a right to such fisheries. Why, therefore, should not the United King- dom derive a similar advantage from the fisheries it possesses within the range of its extensive territories in North America (perhaps the richest and most prolific in the world), by declar- ing every ship and vessel liable to confiscation which should presume to fish in those seas without previously paying a tonnage duty, and receiving a license limited to a certain period when fish may be caught, with the privilege of curing such fish in the British Territories? All nations to have an equal claim to such licenses, limited to certain stations, but to permit none to supply the British West Indies, except His Majesty’s subjects, whether resident in the colonies or in the parent state.” (p. 315.) St. John’s or Prince Edward's Island. ‘‘ FISHERIES.—This island is of the highest importance to the United Kingdom. Whether the possession of it be considered in relation to the Americans, or as an acquisition of a great maritime power, it is worthy of the most particular attention of government. Mr. Stewart has justly remarked, in his account of that island (page 296), that the fishery carried on, from the American States, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence for some years past is very extensive, and is known to be one of the greatest resources of the wealth of the Eastern States, from which about 2,000 schooners, of from 70 to 100 tons, are annually sent into the gulf. Of these about 1,400 make their fish in the Straits of Belleisle and on the Labrador shore, from whence what is intended for the European market is shipped off without being sent to their own ports. About six hundred American schooners jake their fares on the north side ot the island, and often make two trips in a season, returning with full cargoes to their own eles where the fish are dried. The number of men employed in this fishery is estimated at tween fifteen and Balerd thousand, and the profits on it are known to be very great. To see such a source of wealth and naval power on our coasts, and in our very harbors, aban- doned to the Americans is much to be regretted, and would be distressing were it not that the means of reoccupying the whole, with such advantages as must soon preclude all com- eee is afforded in the cultivation and settlement of Prince Edward’s Island.” pp. 318, It must be remembered that these statements were for the last 10 years of the last, and the first 10 years of the present century. We are not informed where the 50,000 barrels of mackerel were then caught, but we have the opinion of Senator Tuck, cited at pages9 and 10 of British Brief, who says: _ Perhaps I should be thought to charge the Commissioners of 1818 with overlooking our interests. They did so in the important renunciation which I have quoted, but they are obnoxious to no complaint for so doing. In 1818 we took no mackerel on the coast of British possessions, and there was no reason to anticipate that we should ever have occasion to do so. Mackerel were then found as abundant on the coast of New England as anywhere in the world, and it was not until years after that this beautiful fish, in a great degree, left our waters. The mackerel fishery on the provincial coast has principally grown up since 1828, and no vessel was ever licensed for that business in the United States until 1838. The Commissioners in 1515 had no other business but to protect the codfish, and this they did in a manner generally satisfactory to those most interested. : From the assertions of seemingly well informed Gloucester officials, accepted as such by the American counsel, the state of things described by these Boston gentlemen in 1815 would have undergone a complete change, not progressively and in accordance with the laws of nature ; bat, on the contrary, the species and quantity of fish caught in our waters, and the number of vessels aud men engaged in that business, AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1741 have gradually become more and more insignificant. The magnates of cod and mackerel from Gloucester and other ports, who had draped themselves in lofty statistics for the Centennial, have come here to ex- plain once more that all is not/gold that glitters. They took off their Centennial costume, as people do after a fancy ball; they humbled them- selves to the last degree of mortification, contending that the gulf fish- eries had reduced them to beggary, they having lost, some $325, others only $128 on every trip they had made there during scores of years in succession. People who do not know those hardy and courageous fish- ermen of Gloucester would hardly believe that some of them have gone through 170 trips consecutively without ever flinching in their Spartan stoicism, under an average loss of $225 each trip! Who should wonder if, in their disgust of such an ungrateful acknowledgment, mackerel should have gone to distant zones where they could be better appreci- ated ! # Cool philosophers thought they were bound to reduce to nine the wonders of the world. They were mistaken. Here is that wonderful town of Gloucester, State of Massachusetts, in the United States of _ America, which has been built, and has grown up rich and prosperous, by accumulating losses and ruins upon former losses and ruins. The painful history of its disasters should be inscribed as the tenth wonder. Fishing, no doubt, like all other industries, has its fluctuations of suc- cess and partial failure; but as it rests upon an inexhaustible supply to be found somewhere, it never can be said to be an absolute failure. It was only within a few years that experimental science was applied to fish. Science is diffident, as shown by Professor Baird; in fact, science teaches uncertainty and unbelief, because the more a man learns, the more he finds himself ignorant; the more he labors to know if what he thought to be one thing is not another thing. The witnesses from - Gloucester are foremost in that school of philosophers who doubt of ‘their own existence. Their town is already a myth; their families would have soon been the same; and, alas! themselves, if they had been too long before this Commission, would have to kick each other to know whether they were myths or living beings. I will have a more fitting occasion for reviewing the evidence brought on behalf of the United States generally. For the moment the contrast was rather tempting—between what Americans of our days thought of our fisheries, and what their ancestors thought almost a century ago. I proceed now to show that the British claim has been proved. Mr. DANA. That was as tothe cod fishery. Mr. DoutRE. I think they have made very little difference. Mr. DANA. Cod-fishing is prosperous now. Z Mr. DoutRE. It must not be forgotten, as one of our learned friends expressed himself in reference to other matters, they have now a point ‘to carry. When Mr. Adams was collecting his information he had no _ point to carry, but simply to give a plain statement of facts. Those rich fisheries, which were spoken of in such glowing terms in 1815 have, itis _ asserted, declined to nothing, because we ask for their value. I never heard the matter more plainly and squarely laid down than it was yes- terday, by my learned friend, Mr. Whiteway, when he said, ‘“* Now, that ~~ you possess these fisheries, how much would you ask for their surrender hd _ If we were to turn the tables, in this manner, we would see the Glou- cester gentlemen coming here and describing the fisheries in Centennial colors. 7 Mr. DANA. Our testimony was all to the effect that the cod fishery Is still profitable in Gloucester. 1742 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION... Mr. DoutRE. I think at this hour we must understand the bearing of the testimony, or we will never do so. The fisheries in Maine have been completely destroyed, and no longer exist. I will read from the testimony on that point in a few moments. The number of American vessels frequenting the British-American waters could not be estimated with any degree of precision. Witnesses could only speak of what they had seen, and but very few of them could, within a short time, go over all the fishing-grounds and make an esti- mate, even if they had gone round with that object in view. They had to trust to what they had heard from other parties, who about the same time had been in other portions of these waters, and by combining the knowledge acquired from others with their own they were able to give a statement of the number of vessels frequenting those waters. Captain Fortin (p. 328 of British Evidence) states that in the Province of Quebec only, the extent of the coast on which the fisheries of Canada are conducted is about 1,000 miles; and Professor Hind (p. vii of his valuable paper) estimates the area of coastal waters conceded to the United States by the treaty to be about 11,900 square miles. Ameri- cans have been in the habit of fishing all around the Bay of Fundy and on the southeast coast of Nova Scotia, without counting the gulf; but the bulk of the American fleet entered the gulf, principally by the Gut of Canso, and also by going round Cape Breton, or by the Strait of Belle Isle, coming from Newfoundland. We have a mass of evidence that they were on all points at the same time and in large numbers. Babson, 20th American affidavit, estimates the American fleet at 750 sail; Plumer, 22d American affidavit, estimates the American fleet at 700 sail; Pierce, 24th American affidavit, says from 700 to 800 sail; Gerring, 26th American affidavit, says 700 sail; Wonson, 30th Ameri- can aflidavit, says 700 sail; Embree, 167th American affidavit, says 700 to 800 sail; Grant, 186th American affidavit, says 700 sail. _ Bradley, the first American witness examined before the Commission, in answer to the American counsel (p. 2): Q. Give an approximate amount to the best of your judgment.—A. 600 or 700 certainly. I have been in the bay with 900 sail of American vessels, but the number rather diminished along the last years I went there. Everything tended to drive them out of the bay, cutters, and one thing and another, and finally I went fishing in our own waters and did a good deal better. Graham (p. 106 of American Evidence) undertakes to contradict Brad- ley, but finally he has no better data than Bradley to guide himself, and after all his efforts he admits the number to have been 600 sail. This was during the existence of the Reciprocity Treaty, and on this point, as well as on all others, it is to that period that we must refer to tind analogy of circumstances. he average catch of these vessels presents naturally a great diversity of appreciation, and on this, the causes which divided the witnesses are nore numerous than those concerning the number of vessels. First the tonnage of the fishing-vessels, varying from 30 to 200 tons, must have regulated the catch more or Jess. When a vessel had a full cargo, she had to go home, even if fish had continued to swarm around her. Then the most favored spots could not admit of the whole fleet at the same time. They had to scatter over the whole fishing area with. fluctuations of luck and mishap. We must add to this that many of the crews were composed of raw material, who had to obtain their edu- cation and could not bring very large fares. Some naturalists have expressed the opinion that fish are inexhaustible, and that no amount of fishing can ever affect the quantity in any manner. When it is » ae , AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1748 thought that one single eod carries from three to five millions of eggs for reproduction, one mackerel half a million, and one herring 30,000, as testitied by Professor Baird, on pages 456 to 461 of the United States Evidence, there was some foundation for that opinion, but several causes have been admitted as diminishing and sometimes ruining altogether some species of fish. Predaceous fish, such as shark, horse-mackerel, dogfish, bluefish, and probably many others, have had both effects on some species. (See Professor Baird’s evidence, at pages 462, 476, and 477.) A more rapid mode of destruction has been universally recognized in the use of seines or purse-seines, by which immense quantities of fish of all kinds and sizes are taken at one time. By that means the mother fish is destroyed while loaded with eggs. Fish too young for eonsumption or for market are killed and thrown away. It is the uni- versal opinion among fishermen that the inevitable effect of using purse- seines must eventually destroy the most abundant fisheries, and many American witnesses attribute the failure of the mackerel fishery on their own coast in 1877 to that cause. Itis true that this theory is not accepted by Professor Baird, who, however has no decided opinion on the subject, and who has given the authority of a publication which he controls to the positive assertion that this mode of catching fish is most injurious. (Pp. 476, 477.) When a vessel of sufficient tonnage is employed, that is from 40 tons upwards, the catch of mackerel has varied from 500 to 1,550 barrels in _ @ season for each vessel. Here is the evidence on the subject of mackerel : Chiverie, British Evidence, p. 11, makes the average 450 barrels per vessel in a period of 27 years. Some years that average reached 700 barrels per vessel. _ MacLean, p. 25, says the average has been 500 per vessel during the twenty years, from 1854 to 1874. Campion, pp. 32, 34, 38, average for 1863, 650 barrels; 1864, from 600 to 700; 1865, over 670; 1877, some caught 300 barrels with seines, in one week. One vessel seined a school estimated at 1,000 barrels. Poirier, p. 62, average catch 500 to 600 per vessel in one season. Harbour, p. 79, average catch 500 per vessel in one season. Sinnett, p. 84, average catch 500 per vessel in one season. Grenier, p. 87, average catch 500 to 600 per vessel in one season. McLeod, p. 98, average catch 500 per vessel in one season. Mackenzie, p. 129, average catch of mackerel 700 barrels per vessel. Grant, p. 182, average catch of mackerel 600 to 700 barrels per vessel. Purcell, p. 197, average catch 250 pertrip. McGuire, p. 210, average catch of mackerel 600 per seascn. Forty-four other witnesses, examined on behalf of the Crown, and _¢ross-examined before the Commission, have stated the same fact. These statements are confirmed by the following American witnesses: Bradley, American Evidence, p. 2, 600 barrels. Stapleton, s p- 10, 600 * Kemp, = p. 63, 600 to 700. Freeman, Me p. 75, 600 to 750. Friend, « p. 119, 520. ~ Orne, os p. 127, 233 per trip = 466 per season. Leighton, & SU aie ames any Riggs, s p. 156, 342 “ =684 Rowe, . pouel: 246. fF eae Ebitt, p.175, 375 “ =650 ‘ Cook, ch p- 181, 930 “ = 560 Smith, “ Plss eTA AS a dg 1744 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. McInnis, American Evidence, p. 191, eit per trip = an) per season. cs a 209; ea #¢ Mertie st 4 Pt ewe i) ae == 467 Turner, oH ps.226,. 2270). = 40 ges Rowe, a p- 235, 259 ‘ ira bo}e RS Lakeman, a p. 325, 443“ = 886. “ In order that any one may verify the correctness of this estimate for every witness, I may state that this is the process through which I ar- rived at it: I took the number of barrels caught in each trip by every witness, and divided the total by the number of trips. Some witnesses have made more than that average; others have made less. 1 abstain from taking the larger and the smallercatches; and, in this respect, I have followed a mode of estimating the matter which has been incorporated in our legislation. When, in 1854, seigniorial tenure was abolished in Lower Canada, indemnity was to be paid to the seigniors who conceded for lods-et-ventes ; that is to say, a kind of penalty upon any sale or mu- tation of property which took place, consisting of one-twelfth of pur- chase money. There was nofine imposed on property being transmitted by inheritance, only in case of mutation by sale, or anything equivalent to asale, such as exchange. Then to estimate the value of that right, which was so variable, because during some years there would be al- most no mutations in a seigniory, while during other years there would be many, arule was adopted by which the income of the seigniory from that source for 14 years was taken, the two highest and two lowest years struck out, and the 10 other years held to constitute an average, and the amount capitalized at 6 per cent. was to be paid. In that mat- ter they were dealing with facts which could be found in the books of the seigniories; it was not based upon what my learned friend, Mr. Dana, has so well called the swimming basis; while here the calculation is cer- tainly surrounded with much greater difficulty. Some of the fishermen have made only one trip in a year, but it was their own fault, as they could have made two and three. I have calculated on two trips a year only, although many have made three, and would have justified me in adding a third to the amount per season. I remained within that me- dium where the Latin proverb says that truth dwells. I have given the calculations for mackerel. Here is that for codfish: Purcell, p. 198. Has known of 1,000, but does not state whether quintals or barrels. Bigelow, p. 221. Spring cod-fisherieson Western and La Have Banks, summer and autumn fisheries on the Grand Bank. They make from six to twenty trips in a year, with fresh cod. No quantity stated. Stapleton, p. 226. Caught 600 quintals within 24 miles of Prince Ed- ward Island. Baker, p. 269. Has seen 200 American vessels cod-fishing in one part, between Cape Gaspé and Bay Chaleur, each vessel catching 700 quintals. Fiynn, p. 270, 700 quintals per vessel, canght on Miscou and Orphan Banks, all the bait for which is caught inshore, and consist in mackerel and herring. ae p. 259. 700 to 800 quintals, from Cape Chatte to Gaspé, per vessel, Roy, p. 293. Has seen 250 to 300 American vessels cod-fishing. John McDonald, p. 374. 600 quintals. Sinnett, p. 85. 300 draughts or 600 quintals. The following relates to herring : Fox, customs officer; Brit. Evid., p. 114. 600,000 barrels entered outward since 1854; at least one-half of the vessels have failed to re- port. This is near Magdalens. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1745 Purcell, p. 198. Fifty vessels fishing and catching each 1,000 bar- rels. McLean, p. 235. In Bay of Fundy, 100 to 125 American vessels fish- ing for herriug in winter, and ¢atching 7 to 10 million herrings, which went to Eastport. Lord, p. 245. From $900,000 to $1,000,000 worth of herring caught annually by Americans from Point Lepreaux, including West Isles, Campobello, and Grand Manan, Bay of Fundy. McLaughlin, p. 254, 255, estimates at $1,500,000 the annual catch of ee by Americans around the island and the mainland of Bay of undy. Halibut, pollock, hake, haddock were caught by Americans all over Canadian waters, but in smaller quantity, and their separate mention here would take more time and space than the matter is worth. How- ever, we will see what is said concerning these different kinds in the summary of evidence concerning the inshore fisheries. In the discharge of my duty to my government I[ have thought proper to go over grounds which lay at the threshold of the question at issue ; first, because the representatives of the United States Government had selected them as a fair field for surrounding that question with artificial clouds of prejudice and fictitious combination of facts and fancy ; and in the second place, because I thought that the main question would be better understood if the path leading to it was paved with a substantial and truthful narration of the circumstances which had brought this Commission together. The United States are bound to pay compensation, not for fishing generally in waters surrounded by British territory, but for being al- lowed to fish within a zone of three miles, to be measured at low-water mark from the coast or shores of that territory, and from the entrance of any of its bays, creeks, or harbors, always remembering that they ‘had the right to fish all around Magdalen Islands and the coast of Lab- rador, without restriction as to distance. The functions of this Com- mission consist in determining the value of that inshore fisheries, as compared to a privilege of a similar character, granted by the United States to the subjects of Her Majesty, on some parts of the United States coasts, and then to inquire what appreciable benefit may result to the Canadians, from the admission of the produce of their fisheries in the United States, free of duty, in excess of a similar privilege granted to the United States citizens in Canada; and if such excess should be as- certained, then to apply it as a set-off against the excess of the grant made to the United States over that made to the subjects of Her Ma)j- esty. . ; As the learned Agent and counsel, representing the United States, have often criticised the acts of the colonists, when they constrained the Americans to execute the treaties and to obey the municipal laws, first of the separate provinces, and then of the Dominion, probably with the object of contrasting the liberality of their government with the illiberal- ity of our own, I would like to ask which of the two governments went more open-handed in the framing of the fishery clauses of the Treaty of Washington? Did we restrict the operations of the Americans to any latitude or geographical point over any part of our waters? Not atall. We admitted them everywhere; while on their part they marked the 39th parallel of north latitude on one of their coasts, to wit, the eastern sea-coast or shores, as the herculean column beyond which we could not be admitted. The immediate and practical consequence was that we granted the liberty to fish over 11,900 miles of sea-coasts, where the 110 F 1746 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. bulk of the fishing is located; and we were granted the right to fish over 3,500 miles of sea-coasts, where no fishing is done, of any conse- quence, by the Americans themselves, and where no British subject has ever been seen. (As to area, see Prof. Hind’s paper, page VII.) In this instance the Americans cannot contrast the good will of the Imperial Government with the illiberality of the colonists, because the latter were represented in the Joint High Commission by their first minister, who assented to the treaty, and the Dominion Parliament, and the legislatures of Prince Edward Island, and of Newfoundland, equally assented, through solemn parliamentary acts. In dealing with the value and extent of the North British-Ameriean coast fisheries, I think I may, with all safety, say, that in the waters surrounding the three-mile limits there is no deep-sea fisheries at all. The assertion may appear hazardous to our American friends, but I am sure they will agree with me when I remind them of the whole bearing of their own evidence. No doubt their witnesses have made use of the words deep-sea fisheries in contradistinction to the shore fisheries proper; but is there one of their witnesses who has ever pretended to have caught fish in any place other than banks, when it was not inshore ? The whole of the witnesses on both sides have testified that when they were not fishing inshore they were fishing around Magdalen Islands, which is another shore, on Orphan, Bradley, or Miscou, or other Banks; but as regards a deep-sea fishery in contradistinction to banks or shore fishery, there is no such thing in the whole evidence. Sir ALEXANDER GALT. Are you now referring to the fisheries gen- erally, or to the mackerel fishery in particular? Mr. DouTRE. To the cod fishery also. Codfish is taken on banks. Mr. DANA. It is a question of names—what you call a bank fishery. Mr. DouTreE. Is not the result of the whole evidence, on both sides, that fish is to be found on the coast, within a few miles, or on banks, and nowhere else? This is the practical experience of all fishermen. Now, science explains why it isso. -That class of evidence is unanimous on this most important particular, namely, as to the temperature neces- Sary to the existence of the cold-water fish in commercial abundance, such as the cod and its tribe, the mackerel and the herring, which in- clude all the fish valuable to our commerce. According to the evidence I shall quote, the increasing warmth of the coastal waters of the United States as summer advances, drives the fish off the coast south of New England into the deep sea, and puts a stop to the summer fishing for these fish on those parts of the coast in the United States—a condition of things due to the shoreward swing of the Gulf Stream there. On the other hand, it is stated that on the coasts of British America, where the Arctic current prevails, the fish come inshore during the sammer months, and retire to the deep sea in the winter months. ; Professor Baird says, on page 455 of his evidence before the Commis- sion, speaking of the codfish in answer to the question put by Mr. Dana, “What do you say of their migrations ?” : Answer. The cod is a fish the migrations of which cannot be followed readily, because it is a deep-sea fish and does not show on the surface, as the mackerel and herring; but so far as we can ascertain, there is a partial migration, at least some of the fish don’t seem to re- main in the same localities the year round. They change their situation in search of food, or in consequence of the rariations in the temperature, the percentage of salt in the water, or some other cause. In the south of New England, south of Cape Cod, the fishing is largely off shore. That is to say, the fish are all the coast in the cooler water in the summer, and as the temperature falls approaching autumn, and the shores are cooled down to a cer- tain degree, they come jn and are taken within a few miles of the coast. In the northern waters, as far as I can understand from the writings of Professor Hind, the fish generally go off shore in the winter time, excepting on the south side of Newfoundland, where, I am in- —_______-_&._. ei te AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1747 formed, they maintain the'r stay, or else come in in large numbers; but in the Bay of Fundy, on the coast of Maine, and still farther north, they don't remain as close to the shore in winter as in other seasons. You will observe that Professor Baird limits his statement that the warm water in summer drives the fish off the coasts of the United States to the south of New England only. The water appears to be cold enough for them on the coast of Maine in summer to permit of their coming in- shore. But now let us see what he says of the condition of the fisheries there. In his official report for 1872 and 1873, the following remarkable statement is to be found: Whatever may be the importance of increasing the supply of salmon, it is trifling com- pared with the restoration of our exhausted cod fisheries ; and should these be brought back to their original condition, we shall find within a short time an increase of wealth on our shores, the amount of which it would be difficult to calculate. Not only would the general prosperity of the adjacent States be enhanced, but in the increased number of vessels built, in the larger number of men induced to devote themselves to maritime pursuits, and in the general stimulus to everything connected with the business of the seafaring profession, we | should be recovering in a great measure from that loss which has been the source of so much lamentation to political economists and well-wishers of the country.—( Page XIV, Report of Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries, 1872-73.) It thus appears from the testimony of Professor Baird, that the cod are driven off the shores of the United States south of New England by the increase of temperature in the summer months, and on the New Eng- land and Maine shores the cod fisheries are exhausted. The only con- clusions that can be drawn from these facts are that the sole dependence of the United States fishermen for cod, which is the most important com- mercial sea fish, is, with the single exception of George’s Shoals, alto- gether in waters off the British American coast line. _ Professor Hind says in relation to this subject and in answer to the questions— ». What about the cod? Is ita fish that requires a low temperature?—A. With regard to e spawning of cod, it always seeks the coldest water wherever ice is not present. In all the spawning grounds from the Strait of Belle Isle down to Massachusetts Bay—and they are very numerous indeed—they spawn during almost all seasons of the year, and always in those localities where the water is coldest, verging on the freezing point. Thatis the freezing point of fresh water, not of salt, because there is a vast difference between the two. The cause of the spawning of the cod and the mackerel at certain _ points on the United States coasts is thus stated by the same witness: Q. Now take the American coast; show the Commission where the cold water strikes.— A. According to Professor Baird’s reports there are three notable points where the Arctic current impinges upon the banks and shoals within the limits of the United States waters and where the cod and mackerel spawning grounds are found. If you will bear in mind the large map we had a short time ago, there were four spots marked on that map as indicating spawning grounds for mackerel. If you will lay down upon the chart those points which Pyofessor Verrill has established as localities where the Arctic current is brought up, you will find that they exactly coincide. One spot is the George’s Shoals. : So dependent is the cod upon cold waters for its existence that Pro- fessor Baird tells, in reply to the question put by Mr. Thomson, “ Could cod, from your knowledge, live in the waters which are frequented by the mullet?” “No; neither could the mullet live in the waters which are - frequented by the cod (p. 471). Now, in another portion of his evidence _ Professor Baird says, (p. 416) that “ the mullet is quite abundant at some _ seasons on the south side of New England”; and thus we have in a _ different manner explained the reason why the cod cannot live in gh * mer on the shores of the United States south of Cape Cod, on account 0 the water being too warm, and the evidence of the witness Is confirmed by the following evidence of Professor Hind. / __.Q.. Are those three fishing localities on the American coast, Block Island, George's fared and Stellwagen’s Bank, in Massachusetts Bay, affected every year, and, if so, in whe t 1748 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. way, by the action of the Gulf Stream?—A. The whole of the coast of the United States south of Cape Cod is affected by the Gulf Stream during the summer season. At Stoning- ton the temperature is so warm, even in June, that the cod and haddock cannot remain there. They are all driven off by this warm influx of the summer flow of the Gulf Stream. The same observation applies to certain portions of the New England coast.—{ Rebuttal Evidence, p. 3.) The testimony of these two scientific witnesses then agrees com- pletely with reference to the important question of temperature. We all know of the enormous fleet annually sent by the Americans to the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, the Nova Scotia Banks, and the various Banks in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. With the exception of the com- paratively small quantity of cod taken on the United States coasts in spring and fall, and on George’s Shoals, the greater part of the €4,831,000 worth of the cod tribe, which the tables put in by Professor Baird show us to be the catch of last year of United States fishermen, must necessarily have been taken in British-American waters, or off Brit- ish-American coasts, for there are no other waters in which Americans take this fish. Turning now to the mackerel, we shall find that the same prevailing in- fluence, namely, that of temperature, actually defines the spawning area and limits the feeding grounds of this fish. Col. Benjamin F. Cook, inspector of customs, Gloucester, tells the Com- mission that this very year, ‘“‘in the spring, out south, there was a large amount of mackerel, and late this fall, when we were coming from home recently, the mackerel had appeared in large quantities from Mount Desert down to Block Island; but during the middle of summer they seem to have sunk or disappeared” (p. 182). In the portion of Professor Hind’s testimony, just quoted, the cause of the mackerel seeking three or four points only on the United States coasts to spawn in the spring is given, which is, that there the Arctic current impinges on the coast line. Cold water is then brought to the surface, and as both the eggs of the cod and of the mackerel float, the low condition of temperature required is produced there by this north- ern current. This question of the floating of the eggs of the cod and of the mackerel is very important, for when the time of spawning is con- sidered, it shows from the testimony of both witnesses that the coldest months in the year are selected by the cod in United States waters; and the mackerel spawn only when the Arctic current or its offset insures the requisite degree of cold. The same peculiarity, according to Professor Baird, holds good with regard to the herring. This condition of extreme low temperature, necessary for the three commercial fishes, so limits the area of suitable waters off the coast of the United States that the Amer- ican fishermen are compelled to come to British American coasts for their supply of these fish, whether for food or for bait. All the American witnesses concur in the statement that the cod fish- ery is the most profitable, and there is an equal concurrence of statement that the cod fishery is erroneously styled an off-shore, or so-called deep- sea fishery. I call attention to the cod fishery as pursued by the great Jersey houses, wholly in small open boats, and almost always within three miles from the shore ; to the cod fishery pursued on the Labrador coast, wholly in- shore; on the whole extent of Newfoundland, except a small portion of the western coast, also wholly inshore; to the cod fisheries pursued in the deep bays and among the islands of Nova Scotia, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, on the northern coast of Cape Breton, quite close to the shore. : That leads me, by a natural connection, to banks and shoals, for it ‘AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1749 has been shown that these bring the cold water of the Arctic current to the surface by obstructing its passage. The underlying cold current rises over the banks and pushes the warmer water on each side. All our testimony goes to prove that the mackerel are almost altogether taken on shores, banks, and shoals where the water is cold. An-offshore bank is a submarine elevation—a hill-top in the sea—and the tempera- ture here is cold, because the Arctic current or cold underlying strata of water rises over the banks with the daily flow of the tides. (Professor Hind’s paper, p. 97.) This is the fisherman’s ground, both for cod at some seasons, and for mackerel at all seasons. But what of a shelving or sloping coast two or three miles out to sea, exposed to the full sweep of the tides? Is not that also practically one side of a bank, over which the flood tide brings the cold underlying waters, and mixes them with the warm surface waters, producing in such localities the required tem- perature? Looking at the chart of Prince Edward Island, the Magdalen Islands, and the estuary of the St. Lawrence, there is no part of the Magdalen Islands, where the Americans fish within the three-mile limits, where water is sodeep as within the three-mile limit on Prince Edward Isl- and east of Rustico, and covering fully one-half the mackerel ground there. The depth of water between two and three miles from the coast is shown on the admiralty chart to vary there from 9 to 13 fathoms within those limits, or 54 and 78 feet—enough to float the largest man-of-war and leave 25 to 40 feet beneath her keel. It will be remembered that in oue of the extracts I have read the depth of water where fish are taken is given at from five to eight fathoms. And yet we have been constantly assured that there is not water enough for inshore mackerel-fishing in vessels drawing 13 feet water at the utmost. Besides all this, we have the testimony so frequently advanced from fishermen on the shores of Prince Edward Island, that the American fishermen were a source of alarm and injury to them on account of their lee-bowing their boats. This proves two important facts: first, that the American fishermen did and do constantly come within the three-mile limit to fish for mackerel, and they come in with their vessels because the fish is there. Having given the reason why these cold water species of fish, accord- ing to a law of nature, must be found quite close inshore, I will now proceed to show that the facts put in evidence fully sustain science. I shall first direct the attention of your honors to the special facts connected with the fishing operations pursued on the coasts of the estuary of the St. Lawrence, and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, from Cape Chatte to Gaspé, and Cape Despair, on the south side, and from Point Des Monts, on the north side of the estuary, to Seven Islands, thence to Mingan, thence to Natashquan, an immense stretch of coast line. The witnesses from the Province of Quebec have more to say about cod, bait, halibut, and herring than about mackerel. Mr. P. T. Lamontaigne testifies, in reply to Mr. Thomson, as follows: Q. Take from Cape Chatte to Gaspé, along the south shore, what is the average annual export each year of fish; I refer to codfish and linefish /—A. From my place down to Cape ' Gaspé there will by 25,000 quintals, at least, of dry fish exported. Q. Taking the whole Gaspé shore, what would you say !—A. I should think not less than from 180,000 to 200,000 quintals of dried fish. : ee Q. What is the value per quintal previous to exportation ?—A. They shculd not be wort _ less than $5 per quintal. -Q. How are these fish taken, by vessels or by boats ?—A. By boats. . Q. Are they taken with hook and line ?—A. Yes. What we take on our coasts are ali y a boats and with hook and line. ee . ; . Have you any halibut on your coast ?—A. Not at present. : e Q. What 3s the Scone I—A. We attribute it to the Americans fishing for halibut on our coast, 1750 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. What time do they fish 7—A. About August. Q. What years did they come there ?—A. From 1856 to 1866 and 1870, as near as I can remember. Q. In 1866 the Reciprocity Treaty came to an end; did the Americans fish for halibut there in 1870?—A. I could not say exactly the year, but I am sure they fished there. Q. Did they fish after the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty in 1866?7—A, The Ameri- cans did fish there. Q. Was halibut taken within two miles of the shore ?—A. Near the shore. Q. The Americans came in after the Reciprocity Treaty was abrogated, did they ?—A. I believe they did. Q. And they cleaned out the halibut ?—A. Fishermen all agree in saying that they took away all the halibut on our coast. While we are speaking of the halibut, I must remind the members of the Commission of the strenuous efforts made by the American counsel and witnesses to impress them with the notion that halibut was extinct all over the Bay of St. Lawrence, and that the Americans never fished for codfish in the gulf anywhere. We are not left here to select between conflicting testimony. We have judicial authority to strengthen our assertions. I will extract from a report filed in the case, four seizures of er ne caught in the act of fishing halibut and cod within the three- mnile limit: Lizzie A. Tarr, 63 tons, Messrs. Tarr Bros., owners, Gloucester, Mass., U. S., seized 27th August, 1870, by N. Lavoie, schooner La Canadienne, about 350 yards from the shore in Saint Margaret’s Bay, north shore of Gulf of Saint Lawrence, Province of Quebec. An- _ chored at west point of Saint Margaret’s Bay, near Seven Islands, Saint Lawrence coast, west of Mount Joly, about 350 yards from the shore. Five fishing-boats were alongside the vessel, crew having just returned from tending their lines, which were set between the vessel and the main Jand. Six halibuts were found on the lines. Master admitted that the owner of vessel had directed him to go and fish there, as the government cutter was seldom seen in these places, and some of the crew stated that if they had good spy-glass they would not have been caught. Tried in vice-admiralty court at Quebec. Vessel con- demned. Defended. Sold for $2,801; money paid to credit of receiver-general, after deducting costs and charges. Samuel Gilbert, 51 tons, Richard Hanan, master, Gloucester, Mass., U. S., seized 24th July, 1871, by N. Lavoie, schooner La Canadienne, about two miles N. W. by W. from Perroquet Island, near Mingan, on the north coast of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. At the time of capture, schooner was taking fresh codfish on board from one of her flats alongside. Two of her boats were actively fishing at a distance of 450 yards from shore, and men on board were in the act of hauling in their lines with fish caught on their hooks. When seized, boats were half-full of freshly-caught codfish, and had also on board fishing- gear used for cod-fishing. Owner admitted having fished, but pleaded as an excuse that he was under the impression that the provisions of the Washington Treaty were in opera- pie Tried in the admiralty court at Quebec. Vessel condemned. Vessel released for Enola C., 66 tons, Richard Cunningham, master, Gloucester, Mass., U. S., seized 29th May, 1872, by L. H. Lachance, schooner Stella Maria, less than two miles from the shore in Trinity Bay, north shore of Gulf of St. Lawrence, Province of Quebec. Actively fishing at time of capture ; had been fishing all day with trawl nets set from 50 to 600 yards from shore, and extending 5 or 6 miles along the coast between Point Des Monts and Trinity Bay. When captured, vessel was becalmed inside of two miles of Trinity Bay; had on deck two fresh-caught halibuts, and two of her men were at the time engaged raising trawls set close in Trinity Bay. On their coming alongside of vessel, it was ascertained they had | two halibuts in their boat. Master admitted having committed the offense, but begged hard to be let off, on account of this being his first offense. Had been warned, before coming to Trinity Bay, not to fish within limits. At time of seizure vessel had on board a cargo of abont 2,000 pounds of halibut and salt. Sureties discharged. : ore, 62 tons, Allan McIsaacs, master, Gloucester, Mass., U. S., seized 18th reer 72, by L. H. Lachance, schooner Stella Maria, within 14 miles of the east énd of eyet Island, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Province of Quebec. At time of capture was rea ored within 1} miles from the shore, between Point Cormorant and the east end of startet aaa Actually fishing for halibut with five trawl nets set around the vessel, tween 50 yards and 14 miles from the shore, and had been fishing there for three days pre- vious, Master ackuowledged the offense i : se, and stated that he h wners hot to expose their vessel. Sureties discharged. ae teen anned beeewn Dr. Pierre Fortin, M. P. P., testified before the Commission as to the arge number of British establishments engaged in the cod fisheries. on» AWARD OF THE FISHERY CUMMISSION. 1751 the south shore of the river St. Lawrence, to the head of Baie des Chaleurs, and on the north shore of the river and Gulf of St. Law- rence. Dr. Fortin, examined by, myself, testified as follows: Q. All those establishments deal exclusively in cod?—A. Yes, their principal business is a Sometimes herring and mackerel are dealt in, but not mask. The principal is sh. Q. Do any of those establishments resort to Newfoundland for cod?—A. No. Notat all; never. Q. Well, where is all their cod caught ?—A. On the shore and from boats. Q. Is all the cod they deal in caught in Quebec waters 7—A. Yes. Q. With boats?—A. Yes, and they fish from the shore. Q. What kind of boats? Open boats?—A. Fishing-boats manned by two men. Q. Name the banks and their extent, which exist in these waters.—A. On the north shore I know of only two banks of small extent—St. John or Mingan and Natashquan. Q. St. Jobn-and Mingan are the same thing?—A. Yes, the same bank. Six or seven miles from the shore. Q. Of whatlength is it ?—A. They lie six or seven miles from the shore, but they merge into the shoal fisheries. They are not distinct from the shoal fisheries. They are seven or eight miles in length. Q. What is the length of the Natashquan?—A. It is about ten miles in length. These are all the banks on the north side. : Q. Now, on the south side?—A. Well, from Matane to Cape Gaspé, in what is called the river St. Lawrence, there are no banks. The fishing is all carried on within three miles, and sometimes within two miles. Then there are two banks opposite the shore of Gaspé and Bay Chaleur. There is a bank called Point St. Peter’s Bank, which is very small, ten miles out. Itis a very small bank, three or four miles in extent. Then there is Bank Miscou, or Orphan, a bank lying off the coast of Miscou; also off the coast of Gaspé or Bay Chaleur, a distance of about twenty miles—fifteen or twenty miles. Q. Now, taking into account these banks, could you state how far from the shore, or, rather, could you state what proportion of the whole quantity of cod taken is caught within three miles?—A. Taking into account that only our people that are settled in St. John’s River, and a place called Long Point, visit this Mingan or St. John Bank, also that but few fishermen from Natashquan go on the bank, that is of our own fishermen, and taking into account that our fishermen generally go on the bank only in two or three places, I should think that more than three-fourths, I should say eighty per cent., or up to eighty-five per ’ gent. of the codfish taken by Canadian fishermen are taken inside of British waters. As to bait for the halibut fishery, Dr. Fortin said: Q. What is the bait used for halibut ?—A. Herring and codfish. Codfish is as good as any, It is firmer than herring, and holds well on the hook. They put a large bait on, so that the small codfish cannot take the bait, because the object of the halibut fishers is to take nothing but halibut. When they take codfish, they have to throw it overboard. Q. And as codfish, as well as herring, are taken inshore, they have to come inshore ?—A. Yes, they come in close to the shore for halibut. And, with respect to codfish, Dr. Fortin continues : Q. Well, what bait is used for codfish ?—A. The bait they use are caplin, launce, herring, mackerel, smelt, squid, clam, trout, and chub. ‘ ss Q. Where do they generally’keep ?—A. Near the shore. The caplin and launce fish are on the shore, rolling on the beach sometimes, and our fishermen catch many of those with dip-nets, without using seines. Herring are caught also near the shore with nets. ; Q. Well, can the codfishery be carried on advantageously otherwise than with fresh bait ? —A. No, no. Salt bait is used sometimes, when no other can be had, but it cannot be used profitably. Q. Is there any means of keeping bait fresh for some time ’—A. Well, some of our large establishments which have ice-houses have tried to keep the bait they use in a fresh state as Tong as they could, bnt they have not succeeded well. They may from half a daytos day in warm weather perhaps. ah With ice ?—A. Yes, because the herring, for instance, may be fit to eat, but not for it. Q. Why ?—A. Because the bait they use must be fresh enough to stick on the hook. If it is not very fresh it does not stick on, and it will not catch the codfish, because the codfish will take the bait off the hook, and leave the hook. 3 Q. You say it can only be kept half a day, or a day 27—A. It may be kept perhaps aday or two. It depends upon the weather. : Ae ; hel Q. Well, would it be possible for the Americans coming there to fish for cod to bring their bait with them in a fresh state?—A. No, it is impossible. sae -Q. They could only bring salt bait, which is not much used ? —A. That is all. 1752 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. » Mr. John Short, M. P. for Gaspé, examined by Mr. Davies, gave evi dence as follows: Q. Can you give the Commission an estimate of the quantity of fish taken by our fisher- men annually along the coast 7—A. From Mount Cape Chatte to New Richmond the catch would be about 100,000 quintals. ; Q. Where is New Richmond ?—A. On Bay Chaleurs. There is Anticosti and the north shore of the St. Lawrence, from Joli northwestward, which will give 100,000 quintals, mak- ing together 200,000 quintals. re ; ; Q. The north shore of the St. Lawrence and Anticosti will give 100,000 quintals ?—A. Yes, with the Magdalen Islands. ; Q. What kind of fish is taken ?—A. Codfish chiefly ; herring is the next catch in quan- tity and importance. Q. You don’t fish mackerel to any extent ?—A. No. Q. You don’t go into it for the purpose of trade ?—A. No; we find the codfish more re- munerative. Q. What is the value of those 200,000 quintals of fish 7—A. The coast value is about $5 per uintal, which would give a value of $1,000,000. The market value is higher; it ranges rom $5 to $8 per quintal. Q. How far are those fish taken from shore by the fishermen, take the north shore ?—A. Principally, and nearly altogether, inshore. Q. Now take the south shore ?—A. From Cape Chatte to Cape Gaspé they are all taken inshore, and from Cape Gaspé to New Richmond the greater portion is taken inshore ; some are taken on Banks. Q. Where do the American cod-fishermen get their bait?—A. They get a great quantity from the inshore fishery. Q. Have you seen them catch bait?—A. I have seen them set nets, but not take them up. _ Q. Have you any doubt that they do catch bait?—A. I have not. They often draw seines to shore for caplin and small bait. Q. Could the Americans carry on the deep-sea cod-fishery without that bait?—A. Not with success. Q. You are quite sure about that 7—A. Yes; I have no hesitation in saying it could not be carried on. ak Josef O. Sirois tells the Commission, in his examination by my- self: I am a merchant at Grande Riviere, county of Gaspé. I have employed men to fish for me round my neighborhood. I have fished on the south side of the river St. Lawrence, from Paspebiac to Cape Gaspé, a distance of about 90 miles. My fishing was done with small boats, each having two men; I generally have six of such boats employed fishing. I have carried on this kind of business during the last twenty years. It is cod we take on that ceast. Cod is slightly more abundant than it was twenty years ago; it may be that each boat takes less, but the number of boats has considerably increased during that period. Part of the cod is taken along the coast, and the remainder on Miscou Bank. Ced is taken from one to two miles from the coast. They take about half their catch on the coast within the distance mentioned, and the remaining half on Miscou Bank. They take cod with bait, consisting of caplin, herring, squid, smelt, and mackerel. The bait is obtained at from a , al , vee AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1797 silentio. If the matter was being argued before a tribunal which bad then and there to decide on it, and the court were composed of lawyers, I would not ask to be heard, and would not insult the court by argu. ment against so untenable a proposition. The observations I am now making are for the purpose of refuting opinions, not in the minds of your excellency or your honors, but in the minds of the public who have not the same intelligence or means of information as your honors. The Reciprocity act recites: Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, being specially desirous, with the Government of the United States, to avoid further misunderstanding between their respective subjects and citizens, in regard to the extent of the right of fishing on the coasts of British North America, secured to each by Article 1 of a convention between the United States and Great Britain, signed at London on the 20th day of October, 1818, and being also desirous to regulate the commerce and navigation between their respective territories and people, and more especially between Her Majesty’s possessions in North America and the United States, in such manner as to render the same reciprocally beneficial and satisfactory, have respect- ively, &c. Your honors will see that the act commences by stating that both governments are desirous of avoiding further misunderstandings be- tween their respective subjects and citizens, with respect to the extent _ of the right of fishing given by that article; and after reciting the Con- vention of 1818 and the particular article in question, goes on to say that it was important that the right under the convention should be settled. So far from showing any intention to repeal the Convention of 1818, the exact opposite was the fact. That is the preamble. Here is the enacting part: It is agreed by the High Contracting Parties that, in addition to the liberty, &c. Does it say in this treaty that it swept away the Treaty of 1818 and enacted a new treaty in lieu thereof? So far from that being the case, it says: _ * * * Jn addition to the liberty secured to the United States fishermen by the above- mentioned Convention of October 20, 1518, of taking, curing, and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North American Colonies therein defined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, &c. And yet it is seriously urged by one of the learned counsel on behalf _ of the United States that the Treaty of 1854 abrogated the Convention _ of 1818. I think I have satisfactorily refuted Mr. Trescot’s argument - on this point, although that argument was not material to any question _ arising under the Washington Treaty. I now turn your attention to - Twiss on “ The Law of Nations.” I am reading from the edition of = . used by Mr. Trescot is that we are remitted to the rights acquired by the Treaty of 1783. He conveniently passes over, for the purpose 1859. At page 376 Sir Travers Twiss says: : a - . Treaties properly so called, the engagements of which imply a state of amity between the contracting parties, cease to operate if war supervenes, unless there are express stipulations to the contrary. It is usual, on the signature of a treaty of peace, for nations to renew ex- _pressly their previous treaties if they intend that any of them should become once more '. operative. Great Britain, in practice, admits of no exception to the rule that all treaties, as ~ such, are put an end to by a subsequent war between the contracting parties. it was nc- _ cordingly the practice of the European powers, before the French revolution of 1789, on the _ conclusion of every war which supervened upon the Treaty of Utrecht, to renew and confirm _ that treaty under which the distribution of territory among the principal European states _ had been settled with a view of securing an European equilibrium. This has a double bearing. Part of the argument which has been of _ his argument, the fact that a war oceurred between the United States and Great Britain in 1812, which was followed by a treaty o! pence signed in December 24, 1814, the Treaty of Ghent. There 1s no doubt, ‘Says Mr. Trescot, that in consequence of the repeal of the Convention & a 1798 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, of 1818 by the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, the two nations are remitted back to the right each possessed under the Treaty of Paris of 1783; and that the Treaty of Ghent has nothing to do with this matter. I answer to that argument, that such is not the law of nations. By the law of nations, when war was declared in 1812 by the United States against Great Britain, every right she possessed under the Treaty of 1783 was abrogated, and, except so far as it was agreed by the parties that the status quo ante bellum should exist, it ceased to exist. The status, which is commonly called by writers uti possidetis, the position in which the treaty found them, alone existed after the Treaty of 1814 was concluded, I have cited the express authority of Sir Travers Twiss upon the subject. But we do not stop with British law. I will take American law on the subject, and we will see where my learned friends find themselves placed by American writers. I now cite from “ Introduction to the Study of International Law, designed as an aid in teaching, and in his- torical studies, by Theodore D. Woolsey, president of Yale College.” At page 83, President Woolsey uses this language: At and after the Treaty of Ghent, which contained no provisions respecting the fisheries, it was contended by American negotiators, but without good reason, that the article of peace of 1783, relating to the fisheries, was in its nature perpetual, and thus not annulled by the war of 1812. By a convention of 1818 the privilege was again, and in perpetuity, opened to citizens of the United States. They might now fish as well as cure and dry fish, on the greater part of the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, and on the Magdalen Islands, so long as the same should continue unsettled; while the United States on their part renounced forever any liberty ‘‘to take or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of His Britannic Majesty’s dominions in America, not in- cluded within the above-mentioned limits. It is there positively declared by one of their own writers on inter- national law.in so mauy words; and he not only lays down the law generally, but takes up the specific case with which we are now dealing, that the American contention is entirely incorrect. He says: At and after the Treaty of Ghent, which contained no provisions respecting the fisheries, it was contended by American negotiators, but without good reason, that the article of the peace of 1733, relating to the fisheries, was in its nature perpetual, and thus not annulled »y the war of Is12. I think that statement is pretty conclusive. Now, here is the general law which President Woolsey lays down. At page 259 he says: The effect of a treaty on all grounds of complaint for which a war was undertaken is to abandon them. Or, in other words, all peace implies amnesty or oblivion of past subjects of dispute, whether the same is expressly mentioned in the terms of the treaty ornot. They cannot, in good faith, be revived again, although repetition of the same acts may be a righteous ground of a new war. An abstract or general right, however, if passed over in a treaty, is not thereby waived. _Tf nothing is said in the treaty to alter the state in which the war actually leaves the par- ties, the rule of uti possidetis is tacitly accepted. Thus, if a part of the national territory has passed into the hands of an enemy during the war, and lies under his control at the peace or cessation of hostilities, it remains his, unless expressly ceded. _ That is quite clear. If, at the end of this war, Washington had been* in the Possession of the British, and if nothing had been said about it in the treaty, it would have become British territory; but with the ex- ception of some unimportant islands in the Bay of Fundy, no territory fell into the lands of the British; and those islands, I believe, were subsequently given up. If, however, the cities of Boston or New York had at that time been actually in possession of the British, unless there had been a clause introduced into the treaty by which the territory was to return to the status quo ante bellum, it would have been governed by the uti possidetis rule, and would have remained British territory. IL also refer your honors to 3 Phillimore, pp. 457, 458, and 459, to the same any AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1799 effect. Now, I am not aware there is anything else in Mr. Trescot’s speech which I need specially take up; because some of the other points occur in the arguments of Mr. Dana and Mr. Foster. Mr. TRESCO?T. Perhaps you will allow me to say that you are reply- ing to an opinion and not to an argument. Mr. THomson. Where an opinion is put forward by counsel, he must either be counsel of such eminence that his opinion did not require to be supported by authorities, or else authorities should be advanced at the time. I admit that Mr. Trescot possesses great ability, but I have un- dertaken to meet him by British and American authorities, and, as L have shown, he is completely refuted by both. I think it was Mr. Tres- eot’s duty, when he put forward such an extraordinary doctrine, to have stated his authorities. If he did not choose to do so, I cannot help it; but if he now wishes to retract it as not being anything else than an opinion, well, of course, it makes the matter different. Mr. TrREscotT. No; but I did not argue it. Mr. THomson. It is put forward not as an opinion, but as a proposi- tion on behalf of the United States; there is no opinion about it; ‘and when the United States speaks through the mouth of counsel, I am bound to treat the matter seriously. If this were a common ease be- tween man and man, I would not treat it seriously; but when such a proposition is put forward on the part of a great nation through counsel, it cannot be treated lightly, but is entitled to be treated with respect ; and if there is nothing in it, [ am bound to show that such is the case. I pass from Mr. Trescot to Mr. Dana. I propose to take this course for this reason: while I admit the great ability of Mr. Trescot and Mr. Dana, still I think your honors will agree with me that whatever the ease of the United Staates has in it, is to be found in the speech of Mr. Foster. No doubt it is also to be found in the other speeches, but I am -taking Mr. Trescot’s speech and Mr. Dana’s speech out of their order, because I only want to touch on those subjects contained in them which Mr. Foster did not put forward. Anything submitted by Mr. Foster, although it is put forward by Mr. Dana and Mr. Trescot, I will treat as it appears in Mr. Foster’s speech, in order to avoid going over the ground twice. Besides, Mr. Foster, as Agent, put forward his case with great ability, and as he on this occasion is officially the representative of the United States, I shall treat his argument as the most serious one -of the three. - Mr. Dana stated that all these fisheries belonged to the United States as a right (it is very curious language), because, said he, they were won. He gave a very good description, only a little fanciful, of the whole of the contests for the last century in respect to the fisheries. It was a very pretty essay, and I had much pleasure in listening to it. It was | delivered, as one would suppose anything emanating from him would be _ delivered, very well indeed—the English was admirable, and the style not to be found fault with. But there was very considerable play of im- agination, and in this rezpect the learned counsel on the other side have a great advantage over me, for I am obliged to stick to hard facts. They have followed the practice of the free-swimming fish, and taken a little trip through history in a most graceful but free-and-easy manner. Mr. Dana sets out by stating that the fisheries belonged to the | nited States, and particularly to the State of Massachusetts, because, Says he, “they were won by the ‘bow and spear’ of Massachusetts men. I never had the pleasure of visiting any of the museums of Boston or other cities of New England where those bows and spears are, Bette ably, hung up; but if those bows of that olden time were anything like Pai 4 rats 1800 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. so long as the bow which American orators, statesmen, and lawyers sometimes nowadays draw in defense of real or imaginary American rights, then I must confess that they must have been most formidable weapons. It is a very extraordinary view, certainly, to present, that because those people fought in some former time with some persons on the coast—Mr. Dana does not say whether they were French, or barba- rians, or Indians—they at that time being British subjects, they have the right to our fisheries. , But Mr. Foster went a step further. Hestated—I suppose it was this which set off his colleagues—that we are indebted to the people of Mas- sachusetts for now being in possession of Nova Scotia, and that it was entirely owing to their efforts that the British flag waves to-day on the Citadel, instead of that of France. Well, it was rather a bold assertion to make, certainly. I believe some of these Massachusetts men were fighting characters in those days. They fought with the people of Eng- land, and came out because they could not live in peace and quietude under British rule ; they came out and found liberty of conscience for themselves, and terrified other people by burning witches, and stripping Quakers, showing that after all the old British intolerance was pretty well uppermost. But they were fighting people always, and they came over, and no doubt fought with the French to some extent ; and for the first time I knew they went down to Le Pre, and committed the abomi- -nable outrage of turning out all the Acadians ; I suppose they were com- manded by General Winslow. Mr. Dana should have told Mr. Long- fellow the story before he wrote Evangeline, because probably the Brit- ish might not have suffered so much in public opinion if it had been gen- erally known that they were Massachusetts people who committed the outrage. Iam glad to this extent that the people of Nova Scotia are relieved from the odium. » Mr. THomson. The proposition was, that there are no such things as territorial waters. : Mr. DANA. I made no such proposition. The question was this: Was there among territorial rights the right to exclude fishermen from fish- ing? Ar, THomson. I did say this, that Mr. Dana had put forward the proposition that no nation possessed territorial waters. But no doubt that was too broad, because there may be territorial waters so inclosed by land that I presume no question could arise in regard to them; there- fore, I stated his proposition too broadly. But Mr. Dana does not con- fine his statement to the one that no nation has absolute territorial rights over waters. He says that any foreign fisherman can come within any distance of the shores, and if he does not allow his leaded line or the keel of his vessel to touch the bottom, he has au undoubted right to fish. - Mr. DANA. There is no established recognized law of all nations against it. : ; : - Mr. THomson. Mr. Dana says, ** by any established, recognized law of all nations.” Ido not wish to have any fencing about words; I use words in their ordinary meaning. 1 presume Mr. Dana means civilized nations. I do not suppose he will contend that, if the civilized nations _ of Europe and America had recognized a doctrine totally different from - that enunciated by him, but the King of Ashantee, or Siam, or some other potentate away off in the interior of the vast continents of Asia and Africa had not acceded to that doctrine, it was not, therefore, the law of nations. I presume he refers to the civilized nations. I will now _ show the Commission that the proposition submitted by Mr. Dana has 7 1802 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. no foundation in internatioval law. I say again, that I understand the expression to mean all civilized nations. I undertake to prove the contrary of that proposition to be true, not only by international law writers in England, but also by the writers in the United States. Taking up the English writers, I call your attention to 1 Phillimore, page 180, edition of 1854, at which he says: Besides the rights of property and jurisdiction within the limit of cannon-shot from the shore, there are certain portions of the sea which, though they exceed this verge, may, under special circumstances, be prescribed for. : The writer there assumed that in regard to the three-mile line there was no doubt about it. Sir Robert Phillimore further wrote: Maritime territorial rights extend, as a general rule, over arms of the sea, bays, guifs, es- tuaries, which are inclosed, but not entirely surrounded by land, belonging to one and the same state. Not only does Sir Robert Phillimore lay down the law that round the coast of any maritime nation, to the extent of three miles, its territorial waters flow, but he goes further, and says that in the case of estuaries and bays, inclosed within headlands, such estuaries and bays belong to the state. That would have been an authority, had the headland question, per se, come up for argument. I state it, however, for another purpose. That is an authority which at all events shows the views of one of the greatest English writers on international law upon the subject under discussion. Mr. DANA. Is there anything said about fisheries ? Mr. THomson. I have read the passage, and will hand you the book, if you desire it. Mr. DANA. The question is, whether among the rights is there one to exclude fishermen. Mr. THOMSON. With great respect for Mr. Dana, I am meeting the proposition as I find it in his argument not, as he chooses to cut it down. It is thus stated : _That the deep-sea fisherman, pursuing the free-swimming fish of the ocean with his net or his leaded line, not touching shores or trawling the bottom of the sea, is no trepasser, though he approach within three miles of a coast, by any established, recognized law of all nations. I think the onus probandi lies on Mr. Dana and those who support such a proposition of showing that there is a special exception to be made in favor of fishermen of all nations by which they can enter, without permission, the territorial waters of another nation—a foreign nation— and be no trepassers. I have shown that the waters are territorial ; that is all I have todo. The moment I show that the waters are territorial, then for all purposes they are as much part of the State as are the lands owned by the State, with the exception that vessels prosecuting innocent voyages nay sail over them without committing any trespass; they may pass to and fro to their respective ports, but foreigners can pursue no Ls Within those waters any more than they can pursue business On land. Mr. DANA, Can nations inclose them ? Mr. Tomson. In answer to that question, I say that nations cannot enclose them, Other nations have the right of way over them, and the right in case of tempest to enter the ports. Humanity dictates that. But no business can be pursued by the citizens of one nation within the territorial waters of another, whether that business be carried on by fish- ermen or by any other class of persons. That proposition is sustained by the authority I have read from Phillimore. I will show, however, that Sir Robert Phillimore does not stand alone, and that it is not the law of England only, but the law of the United States as well. I call , AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1803 your attention to Wheaton on International Law, page 320. This lan- guage is used : The maritime territory of every State extends to the ports, harbors, bays, mouths of rivers, and adjacent parts of the sea inclosed by Nes dinada. belonging to the same State. The general usage of nations superadds to this extent of territorial jurisdiction a distance of a marine league, or as far as a cannon shot will reach from the shore slong all the coasts of the State. Within these limits its rights of property and territorial jurisdiction are absolute, and exclude those of every other nation. Mark the emphatic language of this great writer on international law: ‘* Within these limits its rights of property and territorial jurisdiction are absolute.” He declares that no right to interfere with these limits in any way is possessed by other people or by other classes of people. If fishermen had the right to approach within these limits of territorial jurisdiction which extend to the distance of three marine miles from the coast, no English-speakiug writer on international law would use the term here employed, and say that every nation whose coasts are surrounded by these territorial waters has such an absolute right. Under such cir- cumstances, the author would have used the term “ qualified right”; and supposing that fishermen were the only class to be allowed within these waters, he would say at once that ‘ these natious have this right against all the world, except fishermen, who undoubtedly have the right to fish within those waters if they do not touch the land with the lead of their fishing-lines or with the keels of their vessels”; but no one has so written, and this very accurate author, who is quoted with approba- tion by English and continental writers on international law, states that— Within these limits its rights of property and territorial jurisdiction are absolute, and ex- clude those of every other nation. j This language, I repeat, is emphatic, and I am glad that it is the language of an American writer, because I presume that it will in con- sequence have greater weight with Mr. Dana. Mr. DANA. I would like to ask my learned friend whether he would himself be willing to adopt that language and say that these rights of property are absolute. Mr. THomson. Yes; I have seen no decision which in any way quali. fies that, unless it can be said that the case of the Queen v. Keyn (which is quoted against us in the American brief, and reviewed at some Jength in the British brief in reply) qualifies it. To that case, it will become my duty to refer by and by. : ‘Mr. Wheaton further states that ‘the general usage of nations super- adds to this extent of territorial jurisdiction a distance of a marine league, or as far as a cannon shot will reach from the shore along all the - coasts of the state.” pines Now, I say that the propositions of international law thus laid down by this very eminent American writer are entirely at variance with the ‘doctrine laid down by Mr. Dana. ‘ Ui, Mr. Dana has put to me a question which I am quite willing to answer. It is this; Whether or no I would myself, if writing on the subject, use such language as that and say that a nation has exclusive right of property within its territorial waters? Mr. Dana. Absolute right. ; : Mr. THoMSON, Yes; absolute right of property; with the single ex- ception—which is, of course, understood by all writers on the subject— that the ships of other nations have the right to pass through and by those waters for innocent purposes, and iu cases of storm to enter har- 1804 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION bors or to anchor in them for the purpose of shelter. I say that nations have such absolute right, and that there is no law of nations, no inter- national law, or any other law anywhere, by which fishermen or any other class have the privilege of coming within those waters and fishing without the permission of the nation to whom those territorial waters belong and whose coasts they wash. Let me now turn the attention of your excellency and honors to the case of the Queen v. Keyn, upon the authority of which Mr. Dana very much relies. In that case the prisoner was indicted for the crime of manslaughter alleged to have been committed by him on board a for- eign ship, of which he was the captain, in the English Channel, and within three miles of the British shore. He was tried in the central criminal court of London, and convicted. A novel point of law was raised by the prisoner’s counsel and reserved by the judge. In order to understand the bearing of that point, I think it right to explain to the Commission that, in order to clothe Epglish courts of assize with the common-law jurisdiction to try offenders, the offense must have been committed within the body of a county. Unless so committed no grand jury could indict and no petit jury try or convict a prisoner. Those large bodies of sea-water within English headlands, called ‘‘ King’s Chambers,” were considered to lie within the bodies of counties, as the case of the Queen v. Cunningham cited in the “ British Brief” shows. No formal decision had ever, so far as I am aware, determined that the territorial waters lying around the external coasts of England were within bodies of counties. Over offenses committed upon the seas, and not within bodies of counties, the jurisdiction of the Lord High Admiral attached, and he or his deputies, sitting in admiralty court, tried and punished the offenders. _ By a statute passed in the reign of William IV, the criminal jurisdic- tion of the admiral was transferred to judges of assize, and to the cen- tral criminal court. The substance of the objection raised by Captain Keyn’s counsel was this: The realm of England over which the common law jurisdiction extends does not reach beyond the line of low-water, and therefore the court has no common law right to try the prisoner. In regard to the admiralty jurisdiction conferred upon it by the statute of William, that cannot affect the question, because the admiral never had jurisdiction over foreign vessels or over crimes committed on board of them. The court of appeal quashed the conviction, holding, by seven judges against six, that the realm of England did not at common law ex- tend on her external coasts beyond the line of low-water. But the judges icho quashed the conviction all held that the Parliament of Great Britian had the undoubted right to confer upon the courts of the kingdom full au- thority to deal with all questions arising within her territorial waters around the external coasts. Owing to the absence of such legislation, Captain Keyn escaped punishment. _ The court of appeal in this case was composed of thirteen, judges, and it is well to bear in mind that the authority of the judgment is greatly weakened by the fact that six were one way and seven the other. Mr. IANA. One of them died. Mr. Tomson. Judge Archibald died, I think ; and after his death the decision of the court letting the man go free, and holding that the central criminal court had no jurisdiction in the matter, was given by rea vote of the Lord Chief Justice of England, Sir Alexander I was surprised at Mr. Dana, who, whilst commenting on this case—I AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1805 presume that he had not read it very recently—stated that the common law lawyers were greatly puzzled and that the civil law lawyers alone Mr. DANA. I said other lawyers, other than those who were strictly trained in the common law. : Mr. THomson. I think that I can give your exact language. Mr. Dana. You will find it on page 71 of our argument. Mr. THomson. Mr. Dana said: The Franconia case, which attracted so much attention a short time ago, did not raise this question, but it is of some importance for us to remember. There there was no ques- tion of headlands. It was a straight-line coast,and the vessel was within three miles of the shore. But what was the ship doing? She was bearing her way down the English Channel against the sea and wind, and she made her stretches toward the English shore, coming as near as safety permitted, and then to the Freuch shore. She was in innocent use of both shores. She was not a trespasser because she tacked within three miles of the British shore. All this I conceded. It was a necessity, so long as that channel was open to commerce. The question which arose was this : A crime having been committed on board of that ship while she was within three miles of the British coast, was it committed within the body of the county? Was it committed within the realm, so that an English sheritf could arrest the man, an English grand jury indict him, an English jury convict him, under English law, he being a foreigner on board a foreign vessel, Baand from one foreign port to another, while perhaps the law of his own country was entirely different? Well, it was extraordinary to see how the common-law lawyers were put to their wits’ end to make any- thing out of that statement. The thorough-bred common-law lawyers were the men who did not understand it; it was others who sat upon the bench who understood it better. Now, I mean to say, that when my learned friend delivered himself after this manner, I think that he forgot who composed the bench on this occasion. That bench was wholly composed of common. law law- yers, with the solitary exception of Sir Robert Phillimore. The only civil-law judge who then sat on the bench, out of the whole thirteen, or whatever was the number, was Sir Robert Phillimore; and the judg- ment of the majority of the court was determined by a casting judg- ment, which was delivered by the Lord Chief Justice, against the juris- diction of the Crown ; and of course this is a decision of which I under- stand that Mr. Dana approves. So far, however, from the common-law lawyers having had nothing to do with this finding, the fact is, that if it had not been for the common-law lawyers, no such decision would have been given at all. Mr. DANA. I do not include the equity and chancery lawyers among the others. Mr. THomson. No equity or chancery lawyers sat on the bench— not one; allthe judges who sat on that bench were common-law judges, except Sir Robert Phillimore, who was a judge of the high court of ad. miralty ; and, as I have stated, the casting decision was given by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, himself a great common-law lawyer. How was the Parliament of England to exercise or give jurisdiction over these waters, unless they were within the territorial jurisdiction of the nation, for neither the Parliament of England nor the parliament of any other country can possibly make laws for the government of the high seas? The moment you get within the three-mile line of coastal sea you are within the jurisdiction of the country whose coast Is washed - by those waters. The Lord Chief Justice decided on a technical ground per against the authority of the Crown, but further stated his conviction— and so also expressly held all the other judges who agreed with him—that it was within the province and the power of the British Parliament to pass an act by which its own jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the courts (over these territorial waters which washed the coast) could be established and maintained ; therefore, so far from this judgment being against the doctrine that there are such territorial waters, it 1s the very best authority which could possibly be given for saying that such jurisdic- 1806 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. tion does exist. If it were not for the law of nations, the very moment that you got beyond the realm, that is to say, on the coast just below low-water mark, the nation would have no jurisdiction over you, and parliament could not touch you at all, as you would then be on the high seas; but by the law of nations, all civilized countries have this juris- dietion within the three-mile line, and hence, the parliament or other legislative body existing within the country can pass laws governing this territory; and it was only the absence of these laws that induced the Lord Chief Justice and the other judges to arrive at the decision to which they came. I therefore think, may it please your excellency and your honors, that I have refuted this proposition of Mr. Dana’s, and re- tuted it by the authorities of his own country, as well as by British au- thorities. Mr. DANA. Which proposition do you mean, the one that I put or the one which you put? Mr. Toomson. I refer to the one which you put, viz, that there is no exclusive jurisdiction enjoyed by any nation over its territorial waters. There is now another thing to be mentioned. What is the practice of the United States herself? Why, the United States has never per- mitted any vessel of any foreign country to approach her coasts within the three-mile limit to fish there. They have uniformly excluded such vessels; and not only have they uniformly excluded them from within the three-mile limit, but further, they have also rigidly excluded them from the large bays, such as the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays, and bays of a similar description—not bays which are merely six miles in width at the mouth, but many miles beyond. The whole practice of the United States is entirely against Mr. Dana’s theory; and what is the practice as recognized by this very treaty, under which your excellency and your honors are now sitting,—this Treaty of 1871? What do you find is here given by Great Britain to and accepted by the United States? It is the right to enter our territorial waters; and the United States gives to Great Britain, and Great Britain accepts from the United States the right to enter her territorial waters; and she absolutely not only gives that right, which England accepts—and England admits her right, or otherwise she would not accept the grant—but the United States also go a step further, and say that “although we give you the right to come on our coasts and fish in our waters within this privileged and territorial distance; yet we warn you that we only give you that right for the portion of our coasts lying to the northward of the 39th parallel of north latitude.” Can anything be clearer than that? It is in the face of that declaration of the United States herself, that one of her counsel, in arguing this case, advances this most extraordinary doctrine. If Mr. Dana be right about that matter, then the 39th parallel of north latitude is no barrier at all to our fishermen ; and we have the right to go down and fish where we please along the whole length of the coast of the United States. But do you think that this would be tolerated fora moment? What would be said of us if we attempted it? Would it not be this: “ You have admitted our rights, and we have admitted your rights; then how dare you come to the southward of that line?” W hat could be said to that? Why, clearly nothing, save that we were infringing our agreement. 7 And then, although Ido not know that this, in itself, would have very much strength as an argument, it might be mentioned that in 1818 the Americans agreed, not, on any account whatever, to come within three miles of our coasts; but we never made any agreement not to come within three miles of their coasts. At all events, we are not ham- 1: AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1807 pered by any such agreement; and if this novel law be correct, as Mr. Dana lays it down, then beyond a doubt we have a right to fish on their coast anywhere we please. There can be no doubt about that atall. It belongs to the law of nations, says Mr. Dana, that, as long as our leaded line does not touch bottom, and our vessel’s keel touches no sand beneath the water, we have the undoubted right to go there and fish; but I am very much afraid that the Americans would treat us to some of their torpedoes if we were soto go down there, and explode us out of those waters in a very short time; and I think that we would, under such eir- - cumstances, have very scant sympathy from the civilized world. What does Mr. Dana, or the other counsel in this case, mean by raising this _ question? A number of the observations made by Mr. Dana, in the course of his speech, I could understand would well become the hustings. I could well understand, that in a speech before a legislative assembly, having a jurisdiction over the matter, for the purpose of getting such as- sembly to alter the law, he might advance such reasons and argument to show why the law should be altered; but are we not now met—the very point which has been forgotten by some of the counsel—to deter- mine the relative values of reciprocal privileges bestowed on each nation by the Treaty of 1871? Is not that treaty the charter under which you sit; and does not that expressly admit that we have this three-mile limit? And have not the Americans accepted all our terms? They got permission, by that treaty, to enter these limits ; and you are here toas- sess the damages which they ought to pay to Great Britain for having that right extended to them. Why are these questions raised at all? I must now refer to some language employed by Mr..Dana, which, I hope, he used unadvisedly. I am not going to say a harsh word at all; but, I confess, it struck me that a great deal of what he said was out of place; and LI only refer to it for the reason which I stated at the outset, _ that I cannot pass by these observations without notice, lest it should _ be said hereafter that they were put forth by a man of high reputation at the United States bar, and therefore advanced seriously on behalf of the United States, and that Great Britain stood here, represented by her counsel, and never dissented from these views. Let me now say what they are. I will first take one expression which he uses on page 96. _ He says: But there were great difficulties attending the exercise of this right of exclusion—very _ gteat difficulties. There always have been, there always will be, and I pray there always _ shall be such, until there be free fishing as well as free trade in fish. Now, I hope that my learned friend Mr. Dana used that language un- advisedly. If Mr. Dana had been a member of a high commission ap- _ pointed to settle upon new treaties between two countries—two great and Christian countries, as Mr. Foster characterized Great Britain and the United States—this language might then be used, and he might then pray that the time would come when there should be no such exclusion ; but I think it is a very different thing when the law stands as it does, fixed, and as yet unaltered and unalterable for the next seven or eight __ years, to employ this dangerous and incendiary language. [use the term incendiary in this way: I fear that this language will come to the ears _ and be read by the eyes of a class of men whom the evidence laid before your excellency and your honors, if it be not entirely untrue, shows are not always the most peaceable and law-abiding citizens to be found in this world. Those fishermen are sometimes rather lawless men; and if they find language such as this used by the lips of a learned and emi- nent counsel of the United States, they may say at once: “This os _ United States doctrine, and they will back us up, and if we break through 1808 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. these laws, which we know perfectly well were passed for the purpose of preventing us having these rights, and passed for the purpose of pre- venting us entering these waters, the United States will back us up, for she has said so through her counsel.” I deprecate that language very much. In this connection I will point out some other sentences from which I entirely dissent for the same reason. I will take the following state- ment, which will be found on page 71 of the argument: There was, at the same time, a desire growing on both sides for reciprocity of trade, and it became apparent that there could be no peace between these countries until this attempt at exclusion by imaginary lines, always to be matters of dispute, was given up—until we came back to our ancient rights and position. It was more expensive to Great Britain than tous. It made more disturbance in the relations between Great Britain and her provinces than it did between Great Britain and ourselves; but it put every man’s life in peril; it put the results of every man’s labor in peril; and for what? For the imaginary right to ex- clude a deep-sea fisherman from dropping his hook or his net into the water for the free swim- ming fish that have no habitat, that are the property of nobody, but which are created to be caught by fishermen. I again say that these views might possibly be properly advanced by high commissioners appointed to settle upon new treaties between na- tions; but in respect to a definite treaty, which cannot be altered, and over which this Commission has no power whatever, this language ought never to have been uttered. Again, on page 72, we find the following: That, may it please the tribunal, is the nature of this three-mile exclusion, for the relin- quishment of which Great Britain asks us to make pecuniary compensation. It is one of immense importance to her, a cause of constant trouble, and, as I shall show you—as has been shown you already by my predecessors—of very little pecuniary value to England, in sharing it with us or to us in obtaining it, but a very dangerous instrument for two nations to play with. Now, I cannot conceive why any danger should exist in connection with any solemn agreement made by two great nations which clearly understood their respective rights under that agreement. Iam not now talking of the headland question at all. Iam not discussing that; but there is an explicit agreement that these people shall not enter within three miles of the land, and how that became a “ dangerous instrument,” unless one or other of the parties to it intend to commit a breach of it, I cannot understand. Of course Great Britain does not intend to com- mit any breach of it, because she gained no privilege under it; and un- less the United States fishermen intend to violate it, and the United States intend to uphold them in committing this breach of international law and this breach of faith, I cannot see where this “ dangerous instru- ment” is. Mr. DANA. Does the learned counsel refer to the present treaty. Mr. THomsoN. O, ceratinly not. AsI stated at the outset, I cannot perceive why this language was used at all, because, under the treaty by virtue of which you are now sitting, there is no question about this at all. The Treaty of 1818 has nothing to do with this inquiry, except, indeed, showing how Americans were formerly excluded from the limits, and, therefore, what privileges they had under it. So, on the same page (72) he says, after alluding to the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty : W e were remitted to the antiquated and most undesirable position of exclusion; but we remained in that position only five years—from 1866 until 1871—until a new treaty could be made, and a little while longer, until it could be put into operation. What was the result of returning to the old system of exclusion? Why at once the cutters and the ships of war that were watching these coasts spread their sails; they stole out of the harbors where they had been hidden ; they banked their fires; they lay in wait for the American vessels, and they pursued them from headland to headland and from bay to bay; sometimes a British officer | | | } | = AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1809 on the quarter-deck, and then we were comparatively safe, but sometimes a new- fledged provincial, a temporary officer, and then we were anything but safe. And they seized us and took us, not into court, but they took us into harbor, and they stripped us, and the crew left the vessel, and the cargo was landed, and at their will and pleasure the case at last might come into court. Then, if we were dismissed, we had no costs, if there was probable cause ; we could not see if we had not given a month’s notice, and we were helpless. I repeat that I deprecate these terms. Who brought the cutters down upon them after 1866? Did Great Britain do so? Did the Dominion of Canada do so? Most certainly not. The United States did so. Their eyes were open to the consequences of their act, and the United States, under these circumstances, of their own mere motion, abrogated the Treaty of 1854, by which common privileges were given to American and British fishermen. It was their own act by whicb that treaty was abrogated ; and, as a consequence, they were remitted to the old system of exclusion. Wedid not do this. According to Mr. Dana, during all this time, during the twelve years that this treaty was in force, our cut- ters were lying in all our harbors with their fires banked, and new- fledged officials, clothed in a little brief authority, strutting the quarter- deck, waiting to come out and make piratical excursions against Amer- ican fishing-vessels. : Is that description borne out by the evidence? I appeal to your ex- cellency and your honors whether that is language which ought to have been used on this occasion. I emphatically say that it is not. I say that it is calculated to excite a bad feeling amongst these fishermen, who are not too much disposed to be quieted by the law any way, and to make them more lawless in the future than they have been in the past. I will now read another statement to which I take exception. It is to be found on page 73. While speaking of the imposition of the licenses . and of their prices being raised, &c., he said this: , Why, this was the result—I do not say it was the motive—that it left our fishermen unpro- tected, and brought out their cutters and cruisers, and that whole tribe of harpies that line the coast, like so many wreckmen, ready to seize upon any vessel and take it into port and divide the plunder. It left us a prey to them and unprotected. Now, may it please your excellency and your honors, I would be less than a man, and be doing less than my duty, if I did not repudiate that language, and if I did not say there is not a tittle of evidence to war- rant that language being used in this court. This is not a matter to laugh at and joke about atall. These are serious statements, whick go forth to the public, and statements which, if they are uncontradicted, _ are calculated to prejudice not only the good relationships which sub- sist between the United States and Great Britain, but also those that exist between Great Britain and the Dominion of Canada herself, If it were true that her officers were a set of harpies, preying on the United _ States fishermen, and seizing their vessels, taking them into their har- bors, and dividing the plunder, it would be time that England should _ interfere; but such is not the case. I appeal to every member of this - Commission, to your excellency and your honors, whether there has _ been a tittle of evidence adduced warranting the use of language such -asthat. We have had no evidence at all upon this subject, except the testimony, I think, of a witness whose name I forget, and who gave evi- _ dence about a Mr. Derby, who commanded one of the government ves- sels. He stated that Captain Derby came on board and was going to - seize the vessel, when the master said that he would go on board of the cutter, see Mr. Derby, and settle the matter up; and that the master, _ when he came back, said that he had settled it up with Mr. Derby for 20 barrels of mackerel. On cross-examination of this man, I discovered, 114 FP 1810 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. by his own admission, that they had been in the harbor of Margaree that morning, or somewhere on the coast ot Cape Breton, and had then taken more than 25 barrels of mackerel within the three-mile limit. So that, if his statement were true, all that Captain Derby had done was, instead of putting the law into force and seizing that vessel, and confiscating her tackle and apparel and furniture and all the cargo she had on board, he had let the man off by taking only 25 barrels, which had been caught within British limits. Does that look like the act of a man who was a “harpy” or a “ pirate,” or who was disposed to “divide the plunder”? But I say, moreover, it is convenient to make these charges—I speak now of the witnesses, and not of Mr. Dana—it is convenient for a witness to make charges against a man who is dead. Captain Derby is now lying in his grave. The tongue that could come forward and show the falsehood and slander of that statement is silent forever; and it is cheap work for this witness, — with respect to a dead man, to say that such and such a thing was done, when he knows that the falseness of his statements cannot be proven. I pay very little respect to such testimony; and, with the exception of — this, not a particle of evidence has been presented in the course of this long inquiry which would justify the making of this very serious charge by Mr. Dana. On behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, I repudiate that language; I say that it is not called for in this case, and that there are no facts proven to warrant it. Again, we have very strong language used in reference to Mr. Pattilo, and it has been said that if a portion of his blood had been shed the seas would have probably been “incarnadined.” But what is Pattilo’s own statement? A curious subject was Mr. Pattilo to go to war about. What kind of a character he was when young I know not; but some person told me that he had experienced religion before he came into this court. I thought that if he had, the old man was not entirely crucified in him when he gave his evidence there. What did he tell you? That he was a Nova Scotian by birth; that he went to the United States, as he had a right to do, and that he took the oath of allegiance there, as he had a right todo. And when I put him the question as to whether, when he had taken this oath of allegiance, he had not taken an oath of abjuration against Queen Victoria and everything British, he admitted that be had. Now, in this there was nothing criminal. He had a per- fect right to take the oath of allegiance there; and certainly nobody ~ cared to have him remain in Nova Scotia. But what did he do? After becoming an American citizen, and a citizen more American than they are themselves, he takes his vessel into the gulf and systematically trespasses on our fisheries. It is not attempted to say that when it suited his convenience he did not go in and trespass on our fishing rights. He had no scruples, when it suited him to do so, about fishing | inside the limits, and so far did he carry this matter that he absolutely * sailed up into the territorial waters of Newfoundland, and got into the ice close up to the shore; and when some officers came there he armed his crew and set them all at defiance. He said that he drove away the | “whole calabash” of the officers. At all events he kept them off, and | staid there the whole winter, cutting holes in the ice, fishing, taking herring up, and walking off with them. This man did not appear to | understand that there are national rights which he could at all infringe. Was a man like that a man to go to war about ? | Take his own account of the circumstances and of the shots fired at his vessel, and what was it? He was passing through the Gut of Canso, and having the advantage of those very lights which one of the consuls AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1811 of his adopted country, Mr. Norton, has stated in his dispatches to be absolutely necessary to their fishermen, and for which they ought to pay. Now for the use of these lights, which save vessels from being destroyed, which warn them of their dangér, when danger is near, he refused to pay the dues; he does not pretend to say that he did not know that the officer in question had a perfect right to collect these duties, but never- theless, instead of paying, he asks, ‘‘ Where are your papers?” The officer replies, “I have Jeft my papers on shore.” Then, exclaims Pattilo, ‘‘ Be off out of here;” and he gives a most graphic description of how he turned the officer into his boat. I should think that he was a nice subject to go to war about. Mr. Foster. This affair arose, not because he would not pay the light- dues, but because be had the charity to bring home a woman. a Mr. THomson. No; it occurred on account of the refusal to pay light- ues. Mr. Foster. There is no evidence to that effect. Mr. THomson. I will turn to the evidence and we will see. I think that your excellency and your honors will recollect that it was the light- dues which the officer wanted to collect. If Pattilo stated that it was for bringing home and landing a lady who wanted to be landed there, I should say at once that you would not believe it. To suppose that any officer of any English or Dominion cutter would undertake to fire shots after him, because he landed a lady to whom he had charitably given passage to some place in the Gut of Canso, is simply too ridica- lous a supposition to be tolerated fora moment. Well, I will not take up your time now with this subject, but if my learned friend will turn to the evidence, and point out that I am mistaken in saying that the trouble ‘arose with reference to the light-dues, I will admit my error. Mr. FostER. Will you read these two paragraphs? - - Mr. Toomgon. In the course of my cross examination of this witness, the following evidence was given: Q. Were you lying close inshore?—A. I was at anchor and not fishing. Q. Lying close inshore?—A. Yes, right close in, under Margaree for shelter. He did not attempt to take.me; if he had I would have given him a clout, but he took another vessel, the Harp, Captain Andrews. I kepta watch all night, but they did not come alongside; if they aa: we would have given them grape-shot, I bet. I thought that I could not be mistaken at all about it. a? Had you grape-shot on board?—A. We had a gun, loaded with slugs or something of that sort. Q. In fact, then, you were never boarded by a customs or seizing officer?—A. I was boarded by an officer who came for light-money, at Little Canso, that same year. Q- Did you pay the light-money?—A. No. ae Q. Why ?—A. Because this man was not authorized to receive it. ; : Q. What did you do?—A. I hove him into his boat, of course, and got rid of him. Q. You knew that the light-money was due?—A. Certainly; and I was Willing to pay it, ‘had the right man come for it. : ~ Q. Did he represent himself to be a custom-house officer?—A. Yes. - Q. Did you ask him for his authority ?—A. Yes. Q. And did he show it?—A. No. : : _ Q. And then you threw him overboard ?—A. I told him he had to leave, and seeing he a Zo not go, I seized him by tie nape of the neck and his breeches and put him into his ~ boat. ae Story. Read on. There is an express distinction made in his statements. Mr. Foster. You want to read only what you please of the whole _ Mr. Tuomson. If Mr. Foster seriously thinks that lam wrong in saying that this man refused to pay the light-money, I will do so. The otlicer distinctly came to collect the light-money ; and this man put the officer 1812 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. overboard, and into his bovt. I will continue the quotation: “He was bound to take me because I had landed a poor girl.” Q. Was this girl contraband?—A. Yes, I suppose they called her so at any rate. Ido not know that she is now in town, but she became lawyer Blanchard’s wife afterwards. I merely took her on board as a passenger, and landed her. Afterwards I was fired at and chased by three cutters. ; Q. For putting this officer overboard ?—A. No, I did not put him overboard, but’ I put him into his boat. Q. In lawyer’s phrase, did you gently lay hands on him?—A. I put him in his boat in the shortest way. He stripped off and said it would take a man to handle him, but I made up my mind that he should not stop, though I did not want to fight; still I was quite able to take my own part. I talked with him and told him that I had merely landed a poor girl with her effects, a trunk and a band-box, &c.; but this would not do him. When he came on board he asked, ‘‘ Who is master of this vessel?”” Says I, ‘‘ I am for lack of a better.” Says he, ‘‘I seize this vessel,” and with red chalk he put the king’s broad R on the mainmast. He wanted the jib hauled down in order to have the boat taken on board. We had not come to an anchor; but I told him that he would have to wait a while. Finally he came down below and I took the papers out of a canister, and being a little excited, of — course, in hauling off the cover a receipt for light-dues, which I had paid that year, dropped — on the forecastle floor. He picked it up and said he would give me a receipt on the back of it. Says I, ‘‘Who are you?’’ He answered, ‘‘I am Mr. Bigelow, the light collector.” Well, says I, ‘‘ Whereare your documents?” Says he, ‘‘ I have left them ashore.”” Then, says I, ‘‘ Go ashore, you vagabond, you have no business here.” Says he, ‘* Won’t you pay me?” ‘‘Nota red cent,” says I; “out with you.” He cried out, ‘‘ Put the helm down.” Says I, ‘‘ Put the helm up;” but he came pretty near shoving us ashore, as we were within 10 fathoms of the rocks. Says he, ‘‘ Who are you?” I said, ‘‘ I am Mr. Pat- tullos.’’ Says he, *‘ You vagabond, I know the Pattullos.” ‘‘Well,’’ says I, ‘‘ then you must know me, for there are only two of us.’’ Says he, ‘‘I will take you, anyhow. I will have a cutter from Big Canso. There will be a man-of-war there; and if there is nota man.-of-war, there will be a cutter; and ifthere is nota cutter I will raise the militia, for I am bound to take you.” I asked him if he meant to do all that, and he said he was just the man to doit. I seized him to put him back into his boat, and he stripped off and told me that it took a man to handle him. With that I made a Junge at him, and jumped ten feet. If he had not avoided me, I would have taken his head off his body. I then seized him and chucked him into his boat. Then three cutters came down and chased me. Now, there is the whole story. It is perfectly ridiculous to suppose that the officer, when he went down to collect the money, went down to seize the vessel. Mr. Foster. The whole of that recital is something which you intro- duced in your cross-examination. Mr. THomson. I certainly introduced it in my cross-examination. There can be no doubt about that at all. There were a good many dis- agreeable things which I introduced into my cross-examination of Amer- ican witnesses. I was probably here for that purpose. It was hard to - get at all that this gentleman had done; but I wanted to discover it, and there is the story as told by himself. Taking his story according to his own account, it is this: He and the officer went down into the cabin, and the officer supposed that he was going to pay the light-dues. This man opened a canister, and a former receipt for light-dues fell out. The oflicer was going to give him a receipt on this paper, when Pattilo asked, | “Where is your authority?” followed with “Get out, you vagabond,” * when he found that the officer had not his papers with him. In refer- ence to Mr, Dana’s uncalled-for remarks reflecting upon the ofticers of cruisers which from time to time have been engaged in protecting our fisheries against the trespasses of American fishermen, I deem it my duty to make a few observations. To the instructions issued, in April, 1866, by Mr. Cardwell, secretary of state for the Colonies, to the lords | of the admiralty, I have already had the honor to call the attention of | this Commission. The spirit of forbearance and courtesy in which they were written speaks for itself. No unprejudiced mind can fail to appreciate it. The instructions issued by the Dominion Government for the guidance of its AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1813 own cruisers are nearly similar in form, and wholly similar in spirit, to those issued by the mother country. And here I would remark that the Imperial Government does not appear to have entertained for Dominion commissions the same contemptuous opinion which, unfortunately for us, has taken possession of Mr. Dana’s mind. You will see that each of the Imperial officers is advised to obtain, if possible, commissions from the Dominion Government. Mr. Caldwell says, ‘Any officer who is permanently charged with the protection of the fisheries in the waters of any of these colonies may find it useful to obtain such a commission.” Now, you will see that, under these instructions, no power of imme- diate seizure was given, although such power to seize existed under the Convention of 1818, and under a statute of George ILI., passed to en- force that Convention; yet so liberal was the British Government that they absolutely required cruisers, before seizing any one of these vessels which might be found trespassing over the lines, to give a warning of two or three days, and sometimes of twenty-four hours, as the case might be. You can see at once what was the effect of giving these in- _ gtructions—every American vessel, unless she persistently remained in _ these waters, and fished contrary to law, must of necessity escape. If they were found fishing in prohibited waters, they were warned off, and told not to offend again, but they could not. be seized, of course, unless they committed an offense contrary to that warning; and yet these officers are represented as if they were a body of naval freebooters. If you judge of their character from the language of Mr. Dana, you would imagine that they were a lot of pirates who remained in their harbors, with fires banked and steam up, ready to rush out on unoffending fishing vessels, to catch and bring them into port, and then to divide the plunder. This is the most extraordinary language that, I think, was ever used to characterize a respectable body of men, or that will ever again be used in any court, and especially in a high court of jas- tice, such as this. The instructions state that: American vessels found within these limits should be warned that by engaging or pre- aring to engage in fishing, they will be liable to forfeiture, and should receive the notice to rt. which is contemplated by the laws of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Ed- ward Island, if within the waters of one of those colonies under circumstances of suspicion. But they should not be carried into port except after willful and persevering neglect of the warnings which they may have received, and in case it should become necessary to proceed to forfeiture, cases should, if possible, be selected for that extreme step in which the offense of fishing has been committed within three miles of land. Mr. FosTER. What year is that? ae Mr. THomson. 1866. April 12th. This was just after the expiration of the Reciprocity Treaty. } Mr. Foster. Vessels were seized without warning. : Mr. THomson. Eventually, this was the case, simply because it was found to be of no use to treat these fishermen in this lenient manner, ‘It had no effect on them, if they could in any way possibly avoid the eutters. They took these concessions rather as a right than as a favor, and in every instance in which they were tried, took the advantage they conferred without showing any gratitude at all. They endeavored at all hazards, to force themselves into these bays; and then eventually - _ force themselves into the prescribed limits ; and so it was at last foun - aecessary by the Dominion Government to give up the warning st hagres It was found, that to warn these vessels was simply to give them ne right, the moment that they received warning, to sail out, and then the moment that the cutter turned her back to sail in again ; that is to say, _ they saved themselves from being caught by a cutter at all. They re- 1814 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ceived several warnings, I think, and even if they had only one, they had the chance to escape, and the result, of course, was that nothing at all was done towards repressing the evil. These instructions, therefore, had to be altered, and made more stringent; but nevertheless, it was still required that vessels should not be seized, except when caught flagrante delicto, and actually fishing, or preparing to fish, within the ‘prescribed limit. In truth, to preserve these waters, as they ought to be preserved, the moment that a vessel has once entered the limit, and incurred forfeiture, no matter where she sails to afterwards, she should be liable to be seized, and ought to be seized in my humble judgment, and condemned, unless it could be clearly shown that the captain, when he entered such limit, supposed that he was not committing any breach of the law, and believed that he was four or five miles offshore, when in fact he was within the three-mile limit. In such case, of course, no harshness should be extended towards him. I will show you, however, before I getthrough, that the American Government itself, having heard of these complaints—I dare say, very much in the language which Mr. Dana has thought proper to use on this occasion—sent down Commo- dore Shubrick to make inquiries into this matter; and you will find that Commodore Shubrick found that these stories were: utterly un- fonded. A dispatch dated September 9, 1853, was as follows: No. 23. ] PRINCETON, AT PORTSMOUTH, N. H., September 19, 1853. Str: My dispatches from the Ist to the 14th, inclusive, have informed the department of the movements of this ship up to the 16th of August. After leaving Halifax, baa along the coast of Nova Scctia to the Strait of Canso, which I entered on the evening of the 17th, and anchored at Sand Point. On the next day I anchored successively at Pilot Cove and Ship Harbor. At each of these places diligent in- quiry was made of the masters of American vessels, and, at the last, of our consular agent, in relation to the treatment of our fishing vessels by the armed vessels of other nations, and no instance was learned ot any improper interference. Some cases were reported of vessels spite been warned off who were found fishing or loitering within three miles ef the shores, It was thonght advisable to make particular inquiry in this strait, as it is the passage through which great numbers of vessels pass, and where wood, water, and other supplies are obtained ; and although there were not many Americans in it at the time of our visit, I was informed by the consular agent that in the course of the last year eleven thousand ves- sels, of all kinds, were counted passing through both ways, and some must have passed in the night who were not counted. _From the Strait of Canso I went to Pictou. This port is the residence of the consul of the United States for the north coast of Nova Scotia, to whom complaints of interference would naturally be made, if any should be experienced within the limits of his consulate; but he had heard of none. From Pictou I crossed over to Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and inquired into the case of the schooner Starlight seized by Her Majesty’s steamer Devastation ; the official papers in relation to which were forwarded with my dispatch No. 15. The Fulton having joined me at Pictou, accompanied me to Charlottetown, that some slight repairs might be made to her machinery, under the direction of Chief-Engineer Shock. She was dis vatched on the evening of the 29th August, under instructions; copies of which accompany this. Leaving Charlottetown, it was found necessary to anchor in the outer harbor of George- town in order to make some repairs to the engine of the Princeton—the necessity of which was not discovered until after we had left Charlottetown, but which, fortunately, could be done by our own engineers. On the 2d September, at meridian, we anchored in Gaspé Bay, Lower Canada, having, in the course of the night and morning, passed through many hundreds of fishing-vessels, show- ing generally American colors. These were all fishing outside the bays. The ship passed slowly rca ta them, with her colors set, but it was deemed best not to interrupt them in their fishing by boarding or running so near as to hail. If any one of them had complaint to make, communication could be easily had with the ship, and the slightest intimation 0 such a wish would have been immediately attended to, but none was made. The Fulton was at anchor in the inner harbor. A copy of Lieutenant Commanding Watson's report of his proceedings, under my orders of the 29th ultimo, is with this. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1815 Soon after I anchored at Gaspé, I was informed that the anchorage, which I had taken by advice of my pilot, was unsafe if it shou!d blow a gale from the east—of frequent occur- rence at this season. No pilot could be found to take so large a ship into the inner harbor, and, as night was approaching, I got undér way and put to sea with both vessels. It had now become necessary to replenish our coal, and I determined to go to Sydney, in Cape Bre. ton Island, for that purpose. I arrived at Sydney on the 4th, the Fulton in company, and, after taking on board a sup- ply of coal tor each vessel, put to sea again on the morning of the 9th. After a passage protracted by strong head winds, and a part of the time by thick weather, we anchored at St. John, New Brunswick, on the afternoon of the 13th. A large number of persons, estimated at fifty thousand, were congregated at this place to witness the ceremony of breaking ground for the European and North American Rail- : gh The occasion had brought the lieutenant-governor of the province, Sir Edmund Head, to St. John. We received from the lieutenant-governor and the authorities of the city the a cordial welcome, and every hospitality was extended to us, nationally and individ- ually. The absence from St. John of the consul for the United States prevented my getting any Official information on the subject of the fisheries ; but from no source could I learn that there had been any occurrence of an unpleasant nature; and by all persons, official and private, here, as in the other provinces, a most anxious desire was expressed that the rights and privileges of the citizens of the United States, and of the inhabitants of the provinces, in relation to the fisheries, might be so distinctly defined, and so authoritatively announced, that there should be no room for misunderstanding, and no possible cause for irritation on either side. I left St. John on the morning of the 17th instant, the Fulton in company, and anchored outside of this harbor on the evening of the 18th, in a dense fog. This morning we have - succeeded in getting to a good anchorage, off Fort Constitution. It is with diffidence that, from the experience of so short a cruise, prosecuted, as is known to the department, under circumstances of unusual embarrassment, I offer a few suggestions __ as to the description of force most suitable for the protection of the fisheries, and as to the time most proper for its operaticns, Some of the most valuable fisheries, such as those in Miramichi Bay, Chaleur Bay, and north as far as Gaspé, are carried onin small vessels and open boats, and close inshore, If, therefore, the privilege to fish in those bays is to be maintained by us, the vessels for that service should be small steamers of light draught of water. The shores of Prince Edward _ Island abound with fish of all kinds. The mackerel strike in early in the season, and can _ only be taken close inshore. ___” The fishing season around Magdalen Islands, through the Strait of Belleisle, down on the coast of Labrador, commences early in June. The herring fishing commences in George's Bay, Newfoundland, as early as April, and continues about a month. After that, the fish- ing on that coast is only for mackerel and cod ; and it is to be remarked, that where mack- erel is found, cod is also abundant. These fisheries are carried on in vessels of larger size, but still of easy draught of water; and the vessels intended for their pretection should also be of easy draught. 4 The coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, the south side of Prinee Edward Island, Cape Breton, Newfoundland, and Labrador, abound in good harbors, some of them capable of re- ceiving and accommodating large navies ; but there are numerous harbors to which the fishing- vessels principally resort, which will not admit vessels of heavy draught; and where the pro- _ tected go, the protector should be able to follow. The narrow passages, the strong and ir- Tegular currents, and the frequent fogs and thick weather, with which the navigator has here to contend, point emphatically to steamers as the best force for this service, ; One steamer Dt snitsblo size for the commanding officer, and two or three of smaller size and easy draught, having speed and power, with light armaments, would be sufficient for all the purposes of this station. Coal at a low price and of suitable quality could be con- tracted for at Sydney or at Pictou, both within the limits of their station ; and the command: ing officer, having his headquarters at Portland or at Eastport, might control their move- _ ments and make occasional visits to the different fishing-grounds himself. a The establishment of such a squadron would, I know, give great satisfaction to the citizens of the United States all along the coast from Boston to Eastport; of this we had unequivo- ~ eal evidence in our reception at every port where we touched. It would afford also an op- portunity for the introduction into the Navy of numbers of the hardy sons of New ag Sar _ who, from rarely seeing a vessel of war, have imbibed unfavorable impressions of the pu a service. An infusion into the lower ratings of persons drawn from such a population = * elevate the character of the service and enable it to maintain a discipline founded on goe _ Sense, moral rectitude, and patriotism. : Ronen The smaller vessels should be—one on the coast of Labrador, about Newfoundland ; — _ about the Magdalen Islands, Cape Breton, and the Strait of Canso; and the aby ove Hr tou, Prince Edward Island, and up as far as Gaspé, Lower Canada—all to leave the Unite . _ States by the 1st of June, and return by the last of September. 1816 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. It would not be advisable for any of the vessels to remain in the Gulf of St. Lawrence after the 15th of September: the gales by that time become frequent and severe; sharp frosts commence, and the tops of the Gaspé Mountains are generally covered with snow by the Ist of October. The north side of the Bay Chaleur has been known, I am informed, to be frozen to some extent by the middle of September. : I should do injustice to the excellent officer in command of the Princeton, Commander Henry Eagle, if I failed to make known to the department the able and cheerful assistance in the execution of my duties that I have received at all times from him, and from the accom- plished officers under his command. The Fulton, Lieutenant Commanding Watson, has been most actively employed, a great part of the time under my owneye. She has been managed with great judgment; and I am under obligations to her commander and officers for the alacrity with which my orders have always been carried out. The Cyane and the Decatur, though cruising under my instructions, have not been with me. The reports of Commanders Hollins and Whittle are doubtless before the department ; and, from my knowledge of those officers, I feel that they will be perfectly satisfactory. Since writing the above, the report of Commander Hollins has been received, and is here- with inclosed. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, W. B. SHUBRICK, Commanding Eastern Squadron. Hon. J. C. Dopsin, Secretary of the Navy. There is not one word in the whole of this report which shows that anything had taken place for which there was cause for any complaint _ whatever; and Lieutenant Commanding Watson, of the United States Navy, wrote the following dispatch, addressed to Commodore Shubrick : UNITED STATES STEAMER FULTON, Gaspé, Lower Canada, September 2, 1853. Sir: In accordance with your instructions of the 29th ultimo, I have the honor to report that I received on board at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Major-General Gore, com- mander-in-chief of Her Britannic Majesty’s forces in Nova Scotia, and staff, hoisted the English flag at the fore, and proceeded to Pictou, where I landed them. General Gore expressed himself much gratified at your having placed the Fulton at his disposal. After parting from you off the island of Pictou, I proceeded, according to your directions, along the north side of the island, in Miramichi Bay, Chaleur Bay, and to Gaspé, where I was in hopes of neeting you. It was my intention to have gone farther up the Bay of Chaleur; but a heavy sea induced me to run for Gaspé. While there, Her Britannic Majesty’s steam sloop of war Argus, Captain Purvis, came in. Captain Purvis immediately came on board, and an interchange cf.civilities took place on the most friendly and courte- ous terms, Captain Purvis states that he has not had the least difficulty with our fisher- men, with one exception, and that so slight as not to be taken notice of. On my way to this place, I passed between five and six hundred fishermen; and, in my conversation with those I spoke to, there appears to be the greatest harmony existing be- tween them and the inhabitants. On coming to anchor here, I waited on the collector and authorities of the port; and their statements tend to confirm my previous reports, that, so far from any dissatisfaction being felt at our fishermen, they are welcome on the coast, and nothing has yet transpired to alter my previously expressed opinion. Very respectfully, I remain, your obedient srrvant, J. M. WATSON, c ; Lieutenant Commanding, United States Navy. om. WILLIAM B. SHUBRICK, Commanding Eastern Squadron. Now, these are American official documents, which certify as to the treatment that the American fishermen had received at the hands of the cruisers up to that time. In order to show further what this treat- ment was | will mention the case of the Charles, which was seized by Captain Arabin, of the Argus, at Shelburne, on the 9th of May, 1823. Although this happened a long time ago, I cite it to show how the British Government treated these matters then and ever afterward. The Charles was actually seized in the very act of fishing; and there could be no doubt about the right to condemn her. But the midship- AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1817 man who was put in charge of her, while in the course of his passage from Shelburne to St. John, according to the instructions of Captain Arabin, stopped some other véssels which were fishing, and, I think, brought one or two of them into St. John. The Charles was then pat in the admiralty court and condemned; but when the British Govern- ment learned what had been done, inasmuch as Captain Arabin had ex- ceeded his instructions by using the vessel as a cruiser while en route from Shelburne to St. John, before her condemnation, not only gave her up, but also paid the costs of the prosecution, and the other two vessels which had been so taken—whether they were liable to condemnation or not I do not know—were also givenup. This was the treatment which American fishermen received at the hands of the British Government. Again, at Grand Manan, two vessels were taken by cruisers in 1851 or 1852—I think they were called the Reindeer and Ruby—or before that, because the account of this affair is found in the Sessional Papers of 1851 and 1852. ‘They were actually taken in one of the inner harbors of Grand Manan; a prize crew was put on board, and they were sent to St. Andrews; but on their way up, as these two schooners passed East- port, as they necessarily had to do, an armed force came out from East- port, headed by a captain of militia, overpowered the crew, and took possession of them. Correspondence ensued on this subject—to which I call your attention—between the British Ambassador and the Ameri- can Secretary of State, in which it was pointed out by the former that this outrage had been committed on the British flag; but through the whole of this correspondence I cannot find any apology. was ever made, or that the British Ambassador’s remonstrances on that subject were even answered. I only see, in looking over the correspondence—also as given in the _ American Sessional Papers—that a demand by the British Government WAP ‘for reparation was made; they did not demand the punishment of these men or even the restoration of the vessel; but simply demanded some acknowledgment for the outrage which had been committed on the British flag; aud yet that was never made. This conduct, I think, may be contrasted pretty fairly with the treat- ment which the Americans received at the hands of Great Britain, when Great Britain could have enforced the laws against them. The official list of the vessels that were seized was put in evidence, I think. I now call your attention to it; you will find in looking over it that in every instance where condemnation took place there was no doubt that a breach of the law by American fishermen had been committed. There is one matter in this connection to which I desire to call your attention ; it is to be found in the official correspondence, No. 17, and it throws some little light, I think, upon the extraordinary charges which Mr. Dana, I consider, has somewhat too hastily made. It is No. 17 of the official correspondence put in; it is a return of American vessels detained and prosecuted in the registered court of vice-admiralty at Charlottetown 1818 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. REGISTRY OF THE COURT OF VICE-ADMIRALTY, Charlottetown, October 6, 1852. A return of American vessels detained and prosecuted in this court for a violation of the con- rention made between the Government of Great Britain and the United States of America in the year A. D. 1818, and prosecuted in this court. Name of vessel. Date of seizure. | Date of condemnation. Remarks. Schooner Florida, of Glouces- | 3d August, 1852. | 7th September, 1852. (Detained by Her Majesty’s ter, United States of Amer- | schooner Telegraph, Hon. ica. H. Weyland Chetwynd, Schooner Union, of Brooklyn, | 20th July, 1852. | 24th September, 1852. commander, on the north- United States of America. ern coast of Prince Ed- ward Island. Schooner Caroline Knight, of | llth September, | *Not yet adjudicated. Detained by Her Majesty’s Newburyport, United States 1852. steam sloop Devastation, Co- of America. lin Yorke Campbell, com- mander, on the northern coast of Prince Edward Island. . “Subsequently condemned. ; WILLIAM SWABFY, Registrar. In addition to this return, the schooner Golden Rule, of Gloucester, U. S., was detained by the Telegraph, Lieutenant Chetwynd, and brought into Charlottetown. Before she was delivered over to the proper authorities, in terms of the imperial statute, Vice-Admiral Sir George Seymour arrived in Her Majesty’s steam-sloop Basilisk, to whom the master of the Golden Rule appealed, stating he was part owner of the schooner, and would be ruined if she was condemned. The admiral, on the 23d August, left authority with the lieutenant- Bahay to direct Lieutenant Chetwynd to liberate the schooner, provided the captain ac- nowledged the violation of the convention, and that his liberation was an act of clemency on the part of the commander-in-chief. Bartlett, the captain of the Golden Rule, left such an acknowledgment in writing, which was forwarded to Sir George Seymour, along with an addition on a question from the lieutenant-governor, that he had stood inshore to fish, mistaking the Telegraph tender for one of his countrymen’s schooners. A. BANNERMAN, Lieutenant-Governor. PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND, October 11, 1852. Here is the case of a man caught in the very act, but who made his appeal ad misericordiam, and was permitted to have his schooner back again simply because he said he would otherwise have been ruined. This is the treatment which American vessels have received at the hands of British officers. The treatment which British officers received in return is to be found recorded in the speech of Mr. Dana. I will now pass to the next point. Mr. Dana, on page 74, says: We were told that we were poisoning their fish by throwing gurry overboard, and for all that there were to be damages. Now, these inflammatory harangues, made by politicians, or published in the Dominion newspapers, or circulated by those persons who went about through the Dominion obtaining affidavits of witnesses, produced their effect, and the effect was & multitude of witnesses who swore to those things, who evidently came here to swear to them, and took more interest in them, and were better informed upon them, than upon any of the important questions which were to be determined. When we came to evidence to be relied upon, the evidence of men who keep books, whose interest it was to keep books, and who mai the best possible books, men who have statistics to make up upon authority and responsibility, men whose capital and interest and everything were invested in the trade, then we brought forward witnesses to whom all persons looking for light upon this question would be likely to resort. A marked distinction is drawn, you will perceive, by Mr. Dana there, with regard to the witnesses called on behalf of Her Majesty’s Govern- ment, as to credibility, and those heard on behalf of the United States. He refers to our witnesses in slighting terms, and says that they were brought here under the influence of inflammatory harangues, and articles published in Dominion newspapers, which Mr. Dana may have read, but which I never had the good or bad fortune to see. He states that they were brought here under that influence, and thus did swear to things which AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1819 they appeared to know a great deal about.’ Now, I think that I can con. trast the testimony given on the part of Her Majesty’s Government with that given on the part of the United States, without fear of any damag- ing conclusion being drawn against our witnesses. And I put it to your excellency and your honors whether during the long period that we have sat here, and witnesses on both sides have been called, a period extending over twelve weeks, at least, one single witness called on the part of the British Government broke down under cross-examination? And I ask whether it can be with truth said that this was the result of the cross- examination of the American witnesses ? I consider that in many respects a number of the American witnesses appeared to great disadvantage; and I am surprised not only at Mr. Dana’s remarks in this respect, but I am also surprised at his following up his remarks on this point by saying: When we came to evidence to be relied upon, the evidence of men who kept books, &c. Why, if ever there was a breakdown that happened in this world, it was the breakdown which Mr. Low made under the cross-examination of my learned and clever friend and colleague from Prince Edward ‘Isl- and, Mr. Davies. That man came forward to represent the fishing-vessel owners of Gloucester and the fish-dealers of Gloucester; and he brought forward their books, or at least such books as they were pleased to show, and not the books we required to have, but their trip-books; and he put in statistics, to which I will have the honor hereafter to call the attention of your excellency and your honors, for the purpose of showing very small catches made in the bay, and very large catches off on the American shore; and also for the purpose of showing that the catches in the bay resulted almost in the ruin of those who sent vessels there, while they made large sums of money out of their catches taken on the _ American shore; but when under cross-examination by Mr. Davies, what *was the result? It was this, that those figures which were intended to establish, and which were brought forward here for the purpose of show- ing that state of facts, showed conclusively and proved directly the opposite. Mr. Low, under Mr. Davies cross-examination, entirely broke down, and was compelled to admit that his figures proved the exact reverse of that which he had previously said and undertaken to prove; and the exact reverse of the pretended state of facts which his clients or his principals sent him here to prove. I am not misstating this matter at all. I will show you, when these statistics come to be considered, and from the figures themselves, and from the very admission of Mr. Low himself, that this was the result. If there ever was a man who was utterly destroyed on cross-examination it was Mr. David Low, the great statistician from Gloucester, who came up here intending to defeat us by cooked statistics and manipulated figures. _ My learned friend Mr. Trescot, in the course of his observations, made avery humorous allusion toa time during the Revolution when a schooner - ¢ame down to Prince Edward Island, captured the governor and council, and took them off and presented them to General Washington, who looked at them as curiosities, and then, as Mr. Trescot says, “ — them as young codfish are treated, threw them back into the water, a0 _ told them to swim home again.” Well, time brings its revenges, and the -— premier of Prince Edward Island, I think, revenged that insult to his island and his government, for the great Low from Rl scape down here, prepared to destroy and bent upon destroying Her Majesty's _ case; but when he fell into the hands of my learned friend a raphe _ I think that he revenged that insult to hisisland. He captured Mr. ’ 1820 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. turned him inside out, and utterly destroyed his testimony; and taking him to the water, if I may use Mr. Trescot’s figure of speech, said, ‘‘ Now, Mr. Low, I drop you down, and you had better swim back to Gloucester; and he swam back to Gloucester as fast as he possibly could. But I will show that after he got there he endeavored to retrieve his fallen reputation by sending down here affidavits which were probably thought to be beneficial to the American case, but which I will have the honor to show, if they do benefit the American case, benefit it in this way; and that is that every important statement made under oath in these afiidavits will conclusively prove a precisely opposite state of facts to that set forth in the affidavits which were filed by the American Gov- ernment in the earlier part of the case. Ifthat be supporting the Ameri- can case in any respect, I am quite ready to give them all the advantage that can accrue to them from it. TUESDAY, November 20, 1877. The Conference met. The closing argument delivered on behalf of Her Majesty’s Govern- ment was resumed by Mr. Thomson, as follows: ~ When I left off last evening, may your excellency and your honors please, I had not the book in which the decision of the Queen vs. Keyn is reported. I have that book now, and, as I supposed, I find that my learned friend Mr. Dana was in error in intimating that the common- law lawyers in that case were entirely afloat. I thought, from my recol- lection of the case, that the judges who decided it were all common-law lawyers, as I said yesterday, except Sir Robert Phillimore, a judge of the high court of admiralty. I hold in my hand a report of the case, and I find that my recollection of it was accurate. Mr. Dana, also, in his remarks, referred to the decision of the judicial committee of the privy council, given in the case of the Direct United States Cable Company vs. The Anglo-American Telegraph Company. It is reported in Law Reports, Second Appeal Cases, 394. It was an appeal from the supreme court of Newfoundland to the highest appel- late court in the realm on matters either connected with the admiralty jurisdiction of England or with colonial matters. This court is composed of the lord chancellor for the time being, and of all ex-chancellors—and there may be a number of them—and of several paid judges, and quite a number of other eminent men besides, all or nearly all of them great lawyers. The judgment in this case was delivered by one of the ablest men on the English bench; I mean Lord Blackburn, who was trans- ferred from the common-law bench to the House of Lords under a new act which authorized peers to be created for life. _ Mr. Dana appeared to think that Lord Blackburn, in delivering this judgment, merely spoke for himself; but this was not simply his own judgment; it was also the judgment of the other judges who were asso- ciated with him. He simply pronounced it, that is all; and he un- doubtedly wrote it, but all the judges agreed with him. He said—I cite from page 421: ; There was a convention made in 1818 between the United States and Great Britain relat- ing to the fisheries of Labrador, Newfoundland, and His Majesty’s possessions in North America, by which it was agreed that the fishermen of the United States should have the right to fish on part of the coasts (not including the part of the island of Newfoundland on which Conception Bay lies )— AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1822 1 may mention here thaf the simple question at issue was whether Conception Bay was a British bay, and I think that it is 20 or 30 miles wide at the mouth— ; and should not enter any ‘‘bays” in any part of the coast except for the purpose of shelter and repairing, and purchasing wood and obtaining water, and no other daar whatever. It seems impossible to doubt that this convention applied to all bays, whether large or small, on that coast, and consequently to Conception Bay. It is true that the convention would only bind the two nations who were parties to it, and consequently that, though a strong assertion of ownership on the part of Great Britain, acquiesced in by so powerful a state as the United States, the convention, though weighty, is not decisive. But the act already referred to (59 Geo., III, chap. 38), ke fe passed chiefly for the purpose of giving supply from the Gulf of St. Lawrence; and that they cannot get - . erel in the gulf without going inshore, we make out our case, do we 1848 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. not? It is not a question as to what each fisherman sailing out of Gloucester is to be charged. The question is this, whether the United States must not pay for the privilege that enables Gloucester to main- tain its present state of prosperity. Every nation has said, every nation has considered, that the fisheries form the nursery of her fleet. Itisa business which has been nurtured by large bounties by the United States and other countries. The class of fishermen is a favored, privileged class. This is the most ancient calling in the world. And can it be said it is nothing to the United States to keep up that class? Is it nothing that they have there the nucleus, out of which their naval force must be kept up? The United States cannot get on without her Navy; she must have a great Navy. It is not sufficient that she should be a great power on land; she intends to be, and I hope always will be, an important and great power on the sea. And how can she be a formida- ble naval power in the world, unless she has some means of nurturing her marine; and how is that to be nurtured, except through the fisher- ies? It is one of the most important schools she can possibly have. I shall have to call your attention to speeches on this point in which it is shown to be one of the benefits accruing to the United States. I there- fore say, that when Mr. Foster laid down the extraordinary rule that your honors must approach the consideration of the question of value a8 a common matter of business, with pencil in hand, he took a narrow and erroneous view of the matter, for there is the fallacy underlying their whole case, that it is a question between the fishermen of Gloucester and Great Britain, when it is nothing of the kind. Upon the question of the value of the two fisheries, alluded to by Mr. Foster, tables were put in by Major Low to which I wish to call your honor’s attention. In Major Low’s evidence, page 402, he gives two statements of Mr. Steele’s transactions, showing the average of monthly earnings of Mr. Steele’s fleet each year, from 1858 to 1876, in each department in which they were employed, after paying stock charges and so forth. In 1858, the number of vessels was 8. I am reading now from an analysis of Major Low’s tables, made up very carefully by Mr. Miall, of Ottawa, avery able man in statistics, who has given me a great deal of assist- ance in this matter, and who is very accurate in his figures. Mr. Foster. Let Mr. Miall be put on the stand as a witness. Mr. THomson. All you have to do is to refer to Major Low’s evidence. I want to call your honors’ attention particularly to this, because a large portion of the evidence submitted by the United States was for the purpose of showing that the cod fishery was an important business, and the mackerel fishery was not. This is the sum total of Major Low’s own figures, as put in for the years from 1858 and 1876, the average earnings of each vessel in the cod-fishing business per month was $393, while the average earnings of each vessel per month in the bay mackerel busi- ness was $442, and on the American shore only $326. These are Mr. Eyl own figures, and the results which they prove. Here is the state- nent: AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1849 Analysis of statement of Messrs. Steele's transactions, put in evidence by Major Low, a wit- ness on behalf of the United States, showing the monthly earnings of Messrs. Steele's fleet, each year from 1858 to 1876, in each department in which they were employed, after paying stock charges and crews’ wages. ; BAY MACKEREL-FISH- Suore | No. of | COD-FISHING. ING, MACKEREL-FISHING. Year Vessels a Sa ee ” . TMimeaehrared. | Vessels Time d Vessel's Ti 1 Vessel s | gaged. | Share. me engaged. ‘share. ime engaged. | ire During Reciprocity | | ao di | Months.) Days. | Months.) Days. Months. Days | Pogies, TENG. 2 dcewescis 8 | 3h 7 $215 | 33 22 Co ee Ulises gssaas 10 33 9 | 271 42 13 MAG) ccsictessbhacecedes Wa aade be ll 42 15 | 21) 33 18 273 7 a #07 11 55 3 158 22 3 202 6 14 | 235 9 59 8 | 243 14 16 326 2 27 199 9 | 39 14| 392 20 7 659 1 4) 209 8 | 37 6 | 407 27 25 B00) sc eccacstteebeccelvacsahes 8 | 26 24 | 836 34 % WOO |nowveneslusceesicstidsoctdu | | ‘ 10-36 6, 551 43 9 OAT) Se. vel Svdccenvleseccans 10 52 9 | 410 34 13 AOA oe aecne 18 * 130 10 | 66 6 | 488 17 16 MOL sveacies ectadedecae |rseeee 8 | 48 21 545 | 19 3 BOP stew leeceeese liseasues 7 | 37 26 | 40S ieccas clsneuaccs|eecceeas 17 18 | 46 6 35 a (ie permed Nae anes Pes 9 “A 10 56 9 416 5 5 513 7 13 209 Treaty : | BES cavamer doen 8 57 11 | 482 13 8 AGS as xeccleascecuclscucenae 1874..... pcevece | 9 63 25 466 11 25 BO ecetccelsenaeaya ls eneeans BAIS iEi eee caves 9 61 27! 430 | 9 NG “BAO sles an¥ccslscocedes fceeeene tf eS | 13 74 11| 360) 17 BY | MSE | casdeaal seca ccaleceetecs { | Average Bs dire wc 9 1-10 | me engaged annu- é eens Sictascaalscoseces 48 months.............-| 21 months, 3 days..... -- 3 months, 3 days. Time engaged per 4 eae eadstenns aanea ee MONS ssa wocsses caren | 2 months, 10 days....... 10 1-5 days. *Vessel’s earnings per month per vessel..|.......-. $9035 oot ece ae rocco Phe scassceracstscpabae= $326. Mr. Foster. I understand that this paper will be put in, that we will have an opportunity of examining it, and of replying to it, if justice -is done. Mr. THomson. We will have no mistake about that matter. I am quoting from a paper what the result of Major Low’s evidence is. | Mr. Foster. Here is a table of statistics presented and held in the hand, and we are told with what care and by what skillful hands it has been prepared, and yet they do not propose to give even the details from which the result is made up. Mr. THomson. I will hand over the figures, and you can look at them. ? _ Mr. Foster. I say we are entitled to have it to examine, and we are entitled to reply to it. If the learned counsel is allowed to read any- thing prepared by Mr. Miall, whom he has had at work all summer and did not see fit to call as a witness, we certainly are entitled to examine it and reply to it. a Mr. THomson. If you will look at page 402 A of the American Evi- dence you will find the table. You will find by that, which contains _ Major Low’s figures, that, from 1858 to 1876, Mr. Steele’s vessels made an average of $393 per month during the time they were ee That is what the statement shows; whether it is true or false, I neit ‘el know nor care. These figures also show that, in American cca oo earnings per month per vessel while mackerel-fishing were any 0, while in the bay mackerel-fishery the vessels made per month, curing 1850 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the summer season, an average of $442. That table was put in for the purpose of showing the comparative values of the several fisheries—the cod-fishery by itself, the mackerel-fishery on the American shore, and the mackerel-fishery in the bay; and the result is just what I state. Sir ALEXANDER GALT. The statement, I think, must be made as part of your argument. Mr. THOMSON. There is no intention to offer the statement as evi- dence—it is argument; but I think it would be very unfair if I did not point out where the result stated was to be found. Surely, it is easy to see what the result is. Mr. FosTER. We do not object to your assertion as to that being the result. Sir ALEXANDER GALT. It is now, I judge, the business of the Com- mission to say whether the evidence bears out the statement. The time has passed for receiving evidence. Mr. Foster. [ assent to that, with a certain qualification. That is the ultimate business of the Commissioners; but when, at the end of the last argument, a statement of that sort is brought forward, of which no pre- vious notice has been given, although ample notice might have been given, then common justice and the rules that apply before all tribunals that I ever heard of, give to the parties who have not the last word tbe right of making an explanation. It is just what we gave notice would happen, if, after all our arguments were made, the other side were al- lowed to reply, and sometimes in derision, and sometimes sportively, the phrase that fell from me, that I believed masked batteries would be opened, has been repeated during the investigation. It is just what I meant by the phrase; it is bringing out at the end something that re- quires explanation, and then trying to cnt off the opportunity of giving that explanation. I never knew that attempt to succeed in a court of justice, and I do not mean that it shall succeed here till we have done our utmost to prevent it. So, then, the learned counsel puts in these statements at this time; we will have overnight to examine them, and if we require an opportunity to make an explanation, we expect to be heard upon it to-morrow. Mr. THomson. I can only say that not one figure has been referred to by me on this point that is not to be found in Major Low’s statement, put inalong time ago. But he absolutely admitted it himself, in so many words, in his cross-examination. I call attention to his evidence on page 389, given on Sth October, more than a month ago. At the bottom of that page you will find his cross-examination by Mr. Davies, as follows: Q. Dividing the number of the vessels into the results, what will it leave you?—A. $623. Q. So that the average catch per month of the vessels employed in the American shore fishery from 1558 to 1865 amounted in value to $623, while the average catch per month of the vessels engaged in the Gulf of St. Lawrence fishery realized $998?—A. Yes. ; Q. And the average value of the catch of the vessels engaged in the gulf fishing for the same period of time was $998 ?—A. Yes. Now, how can my learned friend say that we are springing any new matter upon them. Here is their own testimony, given by the man of stastistics from Gloucester, the great man who came here literally shielded by Steele. It is the most extraordinary thing I ever heard in mv life. Now, I want to follow this matter up a little. These statistics were put in for the purpose of proving two results, viz, that the mackerel catch on the United States shores was a first-rate one, and the eatch in the bay was a verry bad one; but it happens that, by their own showing, AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1851 they prove just the contrary. I repeat what I said yesterday, thgt Mr. Davies captured that gentleman morally by his own confession. We will now turn to another portion of his testimony. I call your honors’ attention to a statement put in by Major Low, at page 338 of his evidence. He is asked by Mr. Dana, as follows: Q. Have you ever made up any statistics relative to the shore and gulf fisheries, showing the difference between the American-shore fishery and the Gulf of St. Lawrence fishery !— A. Yes; and the statement is as follows: Number of fishing vessels in Gulf of St. Lawrence mackerel fishing and the American shore : mackerel fishery. 1869. 194 vessels in gulf, average catch 209 barrels..........2. 022. .ee eee cencee 40, 546 1869. 151 vessels offshore, average catch 222 barrels.... 22.22... e ee ee eee ne ce Mackerel caught by boats and some eastern vessels packed in Gloucester... 19, 023 Mackerel inspecied in Gloucester ............ dieeia t's sioner re Seer 93, 126 1875. 58 vessels in gulf, average catch 191 barrels...... 22.20. cc cee cw cece woes 11,078 1575. 117 vessels, American shore, average catch 409 barrels .........-......-.- 47: 853 58, 921 The average catch is based on the average catch of 34 vessels from 17 firms in 1869; and 28 vessels in bay and 62 vessels off American shore from 20 firms in 1575, These firms have done better than the rest. I desire particularly to call your honors’ attention to this extraordinary statement. They select as a specimen of the catches on the American shore, not a series of years, say from 1869 down to the present time ; but they select 1869, which, according to the evidence, was the worst year of the fishery in the gulf, and 1875 happened to be the best year the American fishermen have had on their own coast, and put the state- ment before this Commission as a fair average of the result of the two fisheries. Now, this man was under oath, and this statement was put in, and if I can show you from his testimony that he afterwards had to ad- mit it was not a fair way of submitting the matter, and the average was totally different, I say I am justified in characterizing this piece of con- duct on the part of Major Low as a gross attempt to deceive the Com- mission. Mr. FostER. Major Low had made a collection of statistics in 1869 for the purpose of a report, as town clerk of Gloucester, long before the treaty was made, and wholly without reference to it. In 1875 he made another, for the purpose of the Centennial, both of them wholly aside from the purpose of this investigation. Now, in seeking for light, we sought from him only the statistics he had made. As to 1875 being the best year on our coast, that is a very great mistake. If you will tarn to Table B, Appendix O, which shows the number of barrels of mack- erel packed and inspected in Massachusetts, from 1850 to 1576, you will perceive that 1875 was a very bad year, and far below 1876 and 1874, and the shortest year for quite a series of years. So the state- ment that 1875 was selected as a good year is quite out of the way. Mr. THomson. In view of what I showed this morning to be the con- tents of Appendix O, I think Mr. Foster is very bold to refer to it. Mr. FosTEr. It shows that the catch in 1875, even that of Bay St. Lawrence, was a very small one. Mr. THomson. Let us see what Major Low says about this table at page 389. . : Mr. Foster. It is given at page 359. Four questions and answers 1852 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. contain an explanation of how they were made up, only you do not happen to read them. Just read them. Mr. THoMsSON. This question is put to Major Low by Mr. Dana. Q. In order that the Commission may understand whether these Gloucester merchants, when making these statements here, are guessing at what they say, or have absolute data to go upon, and know what they are about, you have, at our request, made an examination of the books of one of the firms?—A. I have examined the books of the most successful firm engaged in the bay mackerel fishery. ; Q. That is the firm of Mr. Steele?—A. Yes. I did this of my own accord, because I wanted the Commission to see how these books are kept. Q. Will you produce these books ?—A. I have the trip-book, which I have numbered one, for the years since 1858 and 1859; their previous books were burned in the great fire at Gloucester in 1864. I have the trip-books for the years extending from 1853 to 1876 inclusive 19 years. Mr. FostER. Go back to what you were upon. Mr. THomsoN. It is as follows: Q. You do not, I suppose, include in this statement any but vessels ; it has nothing todo with boat-fishing?—A. No. : Q. Will you state from what source you have made up these statistics ?—A. The informa- tion concerning the vessels which fished in the gulf, and those which fished off our shore, I obtained and tabulated for the information of Gloucester, when I was town clerk, in 1869, and the report for 1875 was procured for centennial purposes—not by myself, but by some one who did his work well. Q. Can you say, as a matter of belief, that these statistics were made up for Centennial purposes, and not with reference to this tribunal?—A. Yes; I believe that is the case. Q. From what sources were those for 1875, for instance, taken ?—A. The catch was taken from the reports of the number of firms I mentioned. i a oes many firms do you refer 9—A. These include the most successful firms, George steele, &c. ; Q. Those are firms that had been the most successful, whether on our shore or in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which are to be considered the most successful firms in Gloucester ?—A. George Steele, Leighton & Co., Dennis & Ayer, and Smith & Gott. Q. These are generally considered to be the most successful firms 7—A. Yes. Q. Were they all included in this return ?—A. Yes. Q. The tonnage of the vessels was somewhat larger in 1875 than it was in 1869?—A. I think not. I think it was abeut the same. What does that amount to? That he made up the statement for 1869 for the Centennial, and the other for some other purpose; but he brings them both for the purpose, as I charge upon him, of deceiving this Com- ™m18s10n. : Mr. TRESCcoT. He tells you what they are. Mr. THomson. I say again that when a witness puts in evidence state- ments such as these—because there was no object in showing what the catches were 1869 and 1875, unless it was intended as a fair specimen of the average years—and has the information in his own breast by which directly opposite results would be shown—a witness who comes here and makes such a statement does so deliberately to deceive the Com- mission. Your honors will recollect that nothing but the trip-books were pro- duced ; though we gave notice to produce the other books they did not do so. Look at page 385 and see what Major Low says on this subject, and then say whether he is a gentleman whose testimony can be de- pended on. At page 385, towards the bottom, there is the following: Q. In the first place, is George Steele a charterer of vessels?—A. No. Q. Then this statement, which assumes to relate to George Steele’s business, as his name is entered as the charterer of the vessel, does not represent an existing state of facts, but is merely a theory which you put forth ?—A. I supposed I had mentioned on the account that it was an estimate. At pages 368 and 369 of Major Low’s evidence, a statement is handed in entitled “ Number of vessels engaged during 17 years, from 1858 to 1876 inclusive, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence mackerel fishery, excepting AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1853 the years 1870 and 1871, when none were sent, by George Steele, ot Gloucester, 107; average time employed yearly 4 months 13 days; average number of hands employed yearly for 17 years 15.” In regard to that, I desire to call attention to the evidence on page 385, your honors bearing in mind the fact that Mr. Dana put to Major Low the question that he had examined the books for the purpose of giving a statement which could not lie—no guess-work, but absolute verity, so far as the books were concerned. Mr. Davies on cross-examination elicited the fol- lowing: Q. The owner would suffer no loss though-the charterer would. It seems singular, does it not? You say this is where a man charters a vessel?—A. Yes. Q. In the first place, is George Steele a charterer of vessels?—A. No. Q. Then this statement, which assumes to relate to George Steele’s business, as his name is mentioned as the charterer of the vessel, does not represent an existing state of facts, but is merely a theory which you put forth?—A. I supposed I had mentioned on the account that it was an estimate. Q. That is the real fact, is it not?—A. Yes. The real fact is that I made a mere estimate in this regard. Now, that is a most extraordinary statement. Mr. Foster. In what regard ? Mr. THomson. In regard to this, that Mr. Dana put forward Major Low as a man who had examined the books of Gloucester merchants for the purpose of getting an absolutely correct statement, and no guess- work, yet we find him coming forward with a deliberate piece of guess- work. Mr. FostER. He made a statement from the books, and then made a supposititious hypothetical case of one voyage to show what the result would have been. Mr. THoMsSon. At page 386, your honors still bearing in mind that this was to be no imaginary matter, but absolutely made up from the books, a number of questions are put by Mr. Davies: Q. How did you get these 13 or 14 trips ?—A. I saw the trip-books. I asked Mr. Steel for permission to show them to the Commission. ei Q. You then had the opportunity of examining his books ?—A. Yes, as to his trip-books, but not as to his ledger. Q. Did you ask for his ledger ?—A. I did not. ; Q. - suppose if you had done so you would have obtained access to it?—A. Probably if should. Q. Therefore you do not know what his books show as to actual profit and loss sustained by him during this period ?—A. I do not. . Q. And the actual state of facts may be at variance with the theory you advance!—A. I hardly think so. : ant Q. Supposing that George Steele stands in the position you assume in this statement, he would be bankrupt beyond all redemption ?—A. Yes. , a Q. You have proved him from theury to be bankrupt beyond all redemption when, in fact, he is a capitalist worth $45,000, which exhibits the difference between the practical state- ment and the theory ?—A. Yes, but he had capital when he went into the business. - Q. Do you state that he brought it in with him !—A. One-half of it was made in the sail- . making business. Q. ¥ but here was the other half made?—A. ‘n the fishing-business, during 19 years, that is only $1,000 a year, and he ought to make that. , - Q. The actual loss on each vessel, for 107 vessels, you place at $1671—A. Yes. “ae; Q. Will you make that up and tell me for how much he ought to be a defaulter ‘—A. His loss would be $17,869. 7—A. He Q. And that is not consistent with the facts; he is not a defaulter to that amount =e se has made it up in other parts of his business, but as far as his vessels are concerned, Le ba probably lost that sum. Q. You did not get access to his profit and loss ledger ‘—A. No. Sccoula Wert Q. That would show exactly how it is, and this is an imaginary cone os Ticeate fail could not make it up without the actual bills of expenses for his vessels. already understood that this was imaginary. Now, this is the testimony that is given in answer to Mr. D request that the statement should be perfectly true. ana’s 1854 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. WEDNESDAY, November 21, 1877. The Conference met. Mr. Thomson continued his closing argument in support of the case of Her Britannic Majesty. YourR EXCELLENCY AND YOUR Honors: When we adjourned yes- terday I was referring, I think, to a statement produced by the Ameri- can witness, Low, the figures of which were prepared to show the re- spective values of the fisheries on the American shore and in the Bay St. Lawrence for a period of years, from 1858 down to 1876 inclusive. It appeared, however, on cross-examination that the earnings of the vessels engaged in cod-fishing averaged each $393 per month after paying off the crews and liquidating the “ stock charges ;” the vessels mackerel- fishing on the American shore made $326 per month ; while those mack- erel-fishing in Bay St. Lawrence averaged each $442 per month. These figures, as determining the relative values of these fishing-grounds, to which I will hereafter call your attention, are, I conceive, conclusive. While Low was on the stand he put in statements from the books of George Steele and Sinclair and Low. The statement of Steele, which is to be found on page 402 of American evidence, shows when the figures are examined that the bay-catch from 1858 to 1876 was 33,645 barrels, of the value of $403,832. It shows that the catch extending over the same period of time on the American shore was but 5,395 barrels, of the value of $43,101. The average price of the bay-catch per barrel was $12, and of the shore-catch $7.99. Now that, your honors will see, is important, for it comes from Major Low, who came here for the purpose of proving directly the opposite. He came here to sustain the extraor- dinary view that was presented in the American Answer and by Amer- ican witnesses, namely, that the fish caught on the American shore were more valuable than the fish caught in Bay St. Lawrence. Unfortun- ately the figures by which it was attempted to prove that, proved di- rectly the reverse. Your honors have only to take up the American evidence at page 402, and take the statement A, to find the result. The statement of Sinclair and Low, which is found at pages 380 and 381, shows that in the years 1860, 1861, and 1862 the bay-catch was 3,645 barrels, bringing $23,059, or an average of $6.32 per barrel, whilst the catch on the American shore was 1,024 barrels, bringing $5,532, or an av- erage of $5.42 per barrel. Sylvanus Smith, an American witness, when on the stand, produced a statement, or his evidence will establish, that from 1868 to 1876 his bay-catch was 10,995 barrels, realizing $111,703, averaging $10.16 per barrel ; whilst the United States shore-catch was 19,387 barrels, bringing $176,998, or $9 per barrel, $1.16 less per barrel than the bay-catch. Procter’s statement shows that his bay-catch from 1857 to 1876, for 19 years, was 30,499 barrels, realizing $345,964, or an average of $11.57 per barrel. Procter gives uo American sbore-catch. I suppose he had good reason for not doing so. I presume that the figures would not have compared favorably. It is remarkable that the statement of Sylvanus Smith (which is to be found at page J30 United States evidence) is taken for the period from 1868 to 1876, when the American fisheries were said to be at their best, I think. Bat be that as it may, he shows—although he came here for a different purpose—that his bay-catch was 10,995 barrels, realizing $111,703, or an average of $10.16 per barrel ; whilst his catch on the American shore was 19,387 barrels, realizing $176,998, or an average of $9 per barrel. Now these statements are put in by Mr. Low, with the exception of those of Sylvanus Smith and Procter, who, though brought here for another purpose, was obliged in cross-examination by Mr. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1855 Davies to admit the facts which I have shown. It is significant also that Low was put forward by Mr. Dana as a gentleman who would put in statements direct from books in order to insure accuracy, and Mr. Dana himself takes this view in his speech, for he says, after comment- ing somewhat severely on the British evidence, “ Now, let us turn to evidence that can be relied on”—the evidence of books. Yet Low, though he had full access to the books, did not care to take the whole of the contents, such as they were, but he chose only to take certain figures and hold back those on the other side of the account in favor of the gulf fisheries; and he is obliged to admit that he made the statement up merely as an estimate. This is significant, because at first it was put forward that all these were accurate statements. Why the man who came here professedly to give the contents of the books of the Gloucester merchants engaged in the fishing business should give an estimate instead of the actual facts passes my comprehension. Mr. Foster. You are entirely incorrect; the statement he came here with was an estimate. He made an estimate for one voyage, after putting in the result of the analysis of the trip-books, and after the whole trip-books were before you. Mr. THomson. I say that the trip-book only shows certain expenses connected with a particular voyage ; not the whole expenses of the ves. sel. There was no record therein as to what was paid for provisions, for coal, and a number of articles. And while I am on that subject I may mention that hard coal was charged in one of the accounts—lI for- get which, but your honors will recollect—at the rate, I think, of $10 a ton. It struck me as an exceedingly high price, when it can be bought in St. John for $5.50 and perhaps less. It strack me as very odd. Mr. Foster. It depends on the year. Mr. THomson. Well, this year. Cordwood—for what purpose it is re- quired I do not know—is entered at $8 or $10 a cord, while Mr. Patillo said in cross-examination that he had bought it at $2.75 per cord. These are all little straws on the current showing which way it isranning. _ Mr. Foster. He never said that in the United States he could buy it at that price. Mr. THomson. He got it at Canso. He said the American fishermen all got their wood at Canso; and I then asked him how much they paid for it. It is wholly absurd to suppose that shrewd American fishermen would buy their wood in the United States and pay a high price, when they could get it at Canso, which was directly on their route, at $2.75 a cord. Mr. Foster. He has been out of the business since the end of the war, and Steele’s books are for later years. Mr. THomson. I apprehend that Steele’s trip-books do not show what was paid for wood, and the other books have not been produced. It is true the extraordinary offer was made to us that we should go down and examine all the books of the Gloucester merchants. I greatly doubt whether the learned Agent of the United States could have borne me out if I had gone into one of the Gloucester houses and asked to see their books. Mr. Foster. You had better come and see. 6 cae Mr. THoMSON. And besides, judging from the two sets ot affidavits . which have been filed, both professing to come from one set of books, j i i iff ies i ame books it appears as if these were different sets of entries in the same t relating to the same subject, or that they were taken from different books. ce te Mr. DANA. Do you mean that the offer was not made in good fal 1856 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Mr. THomson. I do not mean to say the offer was not made in good faith. It was also rejected in good faith, We knew exactly where we were. I apprehend that the agent and counsel of the United States could have no possible authority to enable us to go into the stores of Gloucester merchants and search their books. I think that like Pattillo they would have asked for our authority. Mr. DANA. It is very well to make sport out of it, but you are calling in question the honor of persons. Mr. THomson. If Mr. Dana thinks I am calling in question the honor of counsel, I must say | am doing nothing of the kind. I would be very sorry to be misunderstood. We have got along so far very pleas- antly at this Commission, and I hope we will do so to the end. I state most distinctly on my honor that I have not the slightest idea of charg- ing any dishonorable motive on the part of the United States counsel ; but I mean to say, that, though the offer was made in good faith, it was rejected in good faith, and for the reason which I have stated. These are the last observations I have to makein regard to Low. He certainly was a most preposterous failure, coming here as he did, paraded as a man of figures and statistics, having the title of major in the army, and having filled the office of postmaster, and I don’t know how many more offices. He was brought here to destroy our case, and by his an- swers on cross-examination he really benefited it as much as a witness could possibly do. I think that the only parallel case to that of Low— andit may beaparallel case—occurred some thousands of yearsago on the hills of Moab. I can imagine Mr. Collector Babson, who appeared to have charge of a great number of witnesses, and marshalled them in and out, saying to Low, after he had given his evidence, in the same language as was used by the King of Moab to the Prophet Balaam, “I brought you here to curse mine enemies, and ‘Low’ you have blessed them altogether these three times ; now depart into your own country.” And I presume he departed. There has been some difference of opinion as to the catch taken within the limits. It has been put down by a large number of witnesses as being at least a two-thirds catch; some of them have said it was a nine- tenths catch. Mr. Foster has based his argument on the assumption that it was a one-third catch. The evidence on our side is overwhelm- ing on this peint. I called your honors’ attention yesterday to the fact that the evidence produced to answer our case was given by witnesses who had not been on the ground themselves at all; they fished, they said, elsewhere, and did not value the inshore fisheries, simply because they did not choose to use them. Let us refer to the testimony of some of our witnesses: Mr. Simon Chivirie stated that two-thirds at least of the mackerel caught off Prince Edward Island is taken within three miles of the shore, and some seasons none could be caught outside (he spoke from an experience of thirty years), the reasons being that mackerel come in- shore to feed. In the Bay of Chaleur the fishing is all inshore, the reason being that in the center it is deep water with a strong current. Un the south side are banks where fish food abounds. Mr. McLean stated that he himself had seen vessels among schools of mackerel, as far as the eye could see either way along the coast, right inshore. He had seen mackerel taken with jigs in two fathoms of water. Mackerel, he said, are only taken when shifting, excepting in shoal grounds or on banks. When he was in the habit of fishing, all the mackerel he took was within three miles of the shore. Mr, Campion said he did not fish outside the limit, because there were ” AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1857 no fish there. Some vessels used to drift off the land, but they would woe to sail in again; they could get no fish beyond the three-mile Mr. Campbell stated that two-thirds of the fish taken by the fishing- vessels in the Bay of Chaleur are taken within the three-mile limits. The American fleet, he said, caught mackerel from two to two and a balf os from the coast. There was not much fishing doing outside three niles, Mr. Poirier stated that he could safely say, from an experience of forty oe that he had never caught mackerel more than two miles from the shore. Mr. Sinnett, of Gaspé, stated that he had seen American skippers fish two miles from the shore, and inside a mile for mackerel. He had never seen them further than that; they generally fished, said he, in by the shore. Codfish, said he, is caught in his neighborhood at from one and a half to two miles from the shore. Mr. Grenier stated that he had seen some fishing for mackerel beyond three miles, but the majority fished within the limit. More than two- thirds of the whole catch of Americans is taken inside three miles, Mr. MacLeod stated that American fishing-vessels fished mostly within three miles, in the Bay of Chaleur. He himself had taken fish off Miscou and Shippegan within half a mile of the shore. Mr. A. McKenzie stated that the American fleet took two-thirds of their catch inshore, but he added that some skippers got all their catch in deep water, perhaps one vessel in tiventy. Mr. Angus Grant'spoke of the trips he had made, all inshore or close inshore, from one-half mile to one and one-half miles. Mr. Brown made a statement to the same effect. Mr. MacKay spoke of the catches he had made inshore off Cape Breton, so close that he would sometimes be at anchor among the boats. Captain Hardinge, R. N., stated that the best fishing was without a doubt within three miles; there could be no two opinions on that point. From his experience and observation on his fishing station, and from information he had obtained, he stated it as his opinion that the outside fishing for mackerel was of no account whatever. He had never re- ceived any information to the contrary. Mr. Nicholson stated that with regard to the mackerel he had seen taken, all the catch was within three miles of the shore. Mr. McGuire stated that most of the United States captains with whom he had conversed said that they caught their mackerel inshore. | Mr. Stapleton considered, as a result of his conversations with Ameri- ean fishermen, that three-fourths of the fish are caught inshore, In 1851 he had fished with fifty American vessels close inshore near Mar- garee and around Cheticamp, and all got full fares within a quarter of a mile of shore. Mr. Baker stated that three-fourths of the mackerel taken by the Americans on the Gaspé coast and in the Bay of Chaleur was taken within the three-mile limit. ‘ ne eR ater Mr. Jessop, of Gaspé, had seen the Americans fishing in his district right along the shore, and within one mile or two miles of the shore. Mr. Coutoure stated that he had taken cod in an American vessel on . the Cape Breton coast, from oue mile to one aud a half miles from the shore, and had made good catches of mackerel off P, E. Island within two miles of the shore. ; } ‘! Mr, William MacDonnel stated that all the fish he had taken at Mar- garee and Cheticamp were within three miles of the shore. AVF 1858 AWARD OF THE FiSHERY COMMISSION. Mr. Paquet likewise spoke to large catches taken inshore. The fish, said he, taken near Margaree, Cheticamp, Broad Cove, and Limbo Cove, on the Cape Breton shore, are all caught within the limits. About P. E. Island, he said, the fish were taken within half a mile and two miles of the shore. On the New Brunswick shore within two and a half miles and three miles of the shore. In the Bay of Chaleur within a half mile and two and a half miles of the shore; but a few might be caught, he said, in the center of the bay. Along the south side of the river St. Lawrence fish were caught about one hundred and fifty yards from shore. Mr. McIsaae stated that about two-thirds of the entire catch of mack- erel was taken inshore. Mr. Tierney spoke of large catches of mackerel taken from within a mile toa mileand a half of the shores of P. E. Island. He had fished for eleven years around the island, and had taken three-fourths of his catch within that distance. Mr. McPhee that during the whole period of bis fishing from 1862 to 1874 three-fourths of the fish he had caught had been taken within three miles. Mr. John McDonald also spoke to the large quantities of fish taken during a period of nearly twenty years, the greater proportion of which were taken inside the three-mile limit. Mr. John R. and Mr. John D. McDonald spoke to a similar experience. - Mr. Richardson, who had fished in American vessels from 1850 to 1874, stated that nine-tenths of the fish he had caught while in them had been taken within three miles of the shore. Mr, Clement McIsaac stated that he had never caught 100 barrels of mackerel outside of three miles. Mr. McInnis, who had fished in American vessels from 1858 to 1873, stated that two-thirds of the catches he had made were made within the three-mile limit. Mr. Benjamin Campion, speaking from an experience of seven years’ genie: said that two-thirds of the catch had been taken within the three miles, Many other witnesses testify to the extreme value of the inshore fisheries, but I think I have quoted enough for my purpose. Let us now examine the testimony as the number of United States vessels frequenting Canadian waters: _ Mr. Chivirie estimates the number of United States mackerelin g vessels in the gulf annually from 1848 to 1873 at about 400; since 1873 not over 200 or 300. _ Mr. James R. McLean states that in 1858 the American fleet was 600 or ae Has counted 400 anchored under the south shore at East oint. ; es 2 John Campion places the number from 1862 to 1866 at from 600 0 700, Mr. Joseph Campbeil estimates the number at from 450 to 500 in 1866 and 1867, aud 400 in 1869, 1870, and 1871. Mr. Poirier stated that he had seen 300 sail come into the waters be- tween Cascumpeque and Mimnigash; all fishing very close to shore. Hon. Mr. Howlan, of Cascumpeque, says: “I have seen 340 United stheg vessels annually in my harbor; generally when there is a gale of Gregoire Grenier states that he has seen more than a hundred sail in @ season, and more than twenty came to an anchor in front of his place. Mr. Foster. Grenier’s evidence all refers to what passed more than seven years ago. ke AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1859 : a THOMSON. Well, even so, the mackerel have not changed their abits. Mr. Foster. I thought that they had. Mr. THomson. Mr. McLeod says: During the season of 1852 there were from 460 to 470 American vessels in the gulf— mackerelers. In 1854 from 200 to 300 American vessels were fishing in the Bay of Chalears, In 1855 from 200 to 300 in that quarter; probably 600 in the gulf. They told me that there were about 600 inside of Canso. In 1856 about the usual number. In 1457 the same, and up to 1862 about the same thing: also in '64, 65, and '66 the same. In 1867 there were from 300 to 400 inside the Bay Chaleurs. I have seen in 1867 250 lying at anchor in Port Daniel Bay, and as many more at Paspebiac on the same day, three-fourths Americans. Mr. Philip Vibert, of Perce, Gaspé: Of laté years few United States vessels have visited our district for mackerel, but I have seen two hundred or three hundred in sight at one time. Not more than four or five years ago I counted 167 from my house. I have seen 300 in Bay Chalenrs, and steaming od to Quebec ; have seen as many more on the way up. The average number from the Gut ot Canso upwards, I should put at uct less than from 350 to 400, averaging 70 or 75 tons. Skippers come ashore, and are communicative; in fact, in many instances they are interested in other vessels, and they leok after the catch, and can tell pretty well what itis. There is no difficulty in arriving at a general estimate of the take of boats. . A vessel may come into Georgetown with a broken spar, and the captain state that there are 75 vessels at the Magdalen Islands; another vessel would report 100 vessels in Bay Chaleurs. That is the only way in which you can get at the number of vessels in the bay. Mr. George Harbour, of Sandy Beach, Gaspé: 300 is about the average; has seen as many as 50 at one time in the harbor. In 1872 there were at least 300 sail. Mr. William A. Sinnet, of Griffin’s Cove, Gaspé: Has been told by American captains that there were 300; sometimes as high as 500; did not see all that number at one time, but has counted as many as 60-odd sail at one time at Madeleine River. The testimony of Angus Grant, Port Hawkesbury, will be found on page 180. He says: From 1854 to 1856 average between 500 and 600 within the bay ; has seen 400 sail in Port Hood at atime. The number increased from 1856 to 1869, and of larger tonnage. Since 1869 down, 600 to 700 sail. Quite a large fleet in 1873; about 500 in 1374; not so many in 1875; and 1876, perhaps not quite half of that. This year there is quite a large fleet coming; has seen them coming every day ; lives on Strait of Canso, and can see them across; average number of United States cod-fishing fleet, from 200 to 300 sail. I want to see whether he gives the proportion of the catches made inshore. Mr. Foster. The bulk of your witnesses did so. Mr. THOMSON. Yes, they did do so. Now, let me see what the Amer- icans state in their own affidavits. My learned friend, Mr. Foster, as- sames the catch taken inshore, for the purpose of argument, to be one- third, but I am going to show you that a number of his own aftidavits— affidavits which were made by a number of his own men—give this catch as about one-half, interested as they were; some of our witnesses placed it at nine-tenths, and consequently I think that this Commission may fairly assume that at least three fourths of these catches are taken ‘inshore. I will take affidavit No. 201, contained in Appendix M. Mr. Foster. Read the whole of it. . Mr. THomson. It runs as follows: I, Roderick McDonald, of Low Point, Nova Scotia, do declare and aay on oath as I am living at Low Point, Inverness County, Nova Scotia; am over thirty years 0 been fishing for about 12 years, until three years ago, when I knocked off, because — rel was scarce in the bay, and it did not pay; the mackerel-tishing has much fallen of : uring the last six or seven years; during these six or seven years the average yearly sorte z- Aye been over one-half of what it was eight or ten years ago; during some seasons they will be follows: ld; have 1860 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. much more off shore, at other seasons more inshore; during hot weather they will work more off shore; the best place for mackerel I have ever seen is on Bradley Bank, about twenty miles from North Cape, Prince Edward Island. Sometimes the Americans when mackerel is plenty will catch about two-thirds of their entire catch outside a line three miles from shore, but striking an average I think that during a season when mackerel is plenty, Americans will catch about one-half outside and the other half inside a line three miles from shore. That is the only part of this affidavit which I need read at present. Mr. Foster. Remember that Mr. McDonald is a Nova Scotian. Mr. THoMSON. So is Pattilo a Nova Scotian. Mr. FosteR. McDonald lives there, and his affidavit was taken down there. Mr. Toomson. No matter where the affidavit is taken; the affidavit is here among those submitted by the American Government, and they must adopt it as they have put itin. Having obtained this statement, if they did not like to put it in, they need not have done so; but having put it in, they are bound by it. Mr. FostrEr. That is a fair argument. Mr. THOMSON. George Critchett, being duly sworn, says: I am living at Middle Milford, Guysboro, County, Nova Scotia; I am 37 years old; from my 18th year until 4 years ago I have been out mackerel and codfishing mostly in Ameri- can vessels ; I left off fishing because the mackerel-fishing had been poor for several years and is still; whenever mackerel get to be plenty again I will be out fishing in vessels. I think that in former years, say from 10 years ago and longer, the average number of the American mackerel fleet was upwards of three hundred during the season; during the same period about 30 or 40 provincial vessels were in the Gulf of St. Lawrence; the number of American vessels above referred to is intended as the number in the Gulf of St. Lawrence ; during the years previous to the last 10 years the average catch of mackerel was two trips for each vessel ; during the last 6 or 7 years they they have scarcely averaged one full cargo during the season. I think that mackerel go where they find the best and largest quantity of feed, and that when the wind is off shore it drives the small fish on which mackerel feed into deeper water, and the mackerel follow them, and whenever there is a big fleet off shore and heave over much bait, the mackerel will follow the fleet. During the years I was out fishing we did better outside a line 3 miles from shore than inside that line. On an average, I am of the opinion about from half to two-thirds of all mackerel caught by vessels in the gulf is caught outside of a line 3 miles from shore. This deponent states that from one-half to two-thirds of the catches were made outside, and thus virtually admits that one-half were taken inside of the three-mile limit; this is about as favorable as our own tes- timony. We all know that the language which appears in most aftida- vits is the language of the man who draws them up; and this is true in nine instances out of ten; and undoubtedly the most that they could get out of this man was, that from one-half to two-thirds of the trips were made outside of the limit. Mr. Foster. He says that during seven years past the vessels have averaged a full cargo during the season. Mr. THOMSON. That makes no difference. I only want to see what the catch is. I am not at present discussing any other question. Mr. Foster. He also states that until the present season only two or three vessels seined in the gulf. Mr. Tomson. That is another point; and I am only touching on one point at the present moment. In aflidavit No. 177, Appendix M, George Bunker says: I, George Bunker, do solemnly declare that I am 31 years old; that I am living at Mar- garet eas 24 miles from Halifax. I have been employed as a fisherman ever since I was a boy. “or ten seasons I have been master of a fishing-vessel, fishing in the waters off the American coasts, and those of Nova Scotia, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and Magdalen Island for cod and mackerel and herring. Codfish is not at all caught by the American fishermen within three miles from the shore. About half of the mackere] caught by the Americans is caught within three miles from shore. " rence there are many places where these fish do not | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1861 Mr. Foster. He states that the catch of mackerel has largely fallen off during the last five or six years. . Mr. Toomson. I cannot read all through this affidavit. They are very interesting reading, I dare say, but they take time. : In affidavit No. 192, Appendix M, I find that Philip Ryan says: I, Philip Ryan, do solemnly declare that I am living at Middle Milford. I am 42 years of age. I think I was about 16 years of age when I first went out fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in fishing-vessels. I have mostly been mackerel-fishing, although some sea- sons I have been cod-fishing in the bay. I left off going in fishing-vessels in IXT2. The American fishermen don’t dry their nets nor cure their fish on our coasts as far as 1 know. During the last eight or ten years mackerel -fishing has much fallen off, and during the last two years, as far as I can hear, mackerel-fishing has almost been a failure. Porgies and clams, as far as I know, is universally used in the bay as bait, although a few provincial vessels may occasionally use herring. Porgies and clams get all from the States as far as I am aware. I should think that about one-half of all the mackerel caught by vessels is caught outside a line 3 miles from shore. : Now, that is what he says. This, you see, is contained in the Ameri- can testimony, and I say that it is conclusive against the case of the American Government. If they did not like these aflidavits, they need not have put them in; but being in, I say that they are conclusive against the American Case. Besides, there is another matter which sets this question at rest. When Professor Hind was on the stand, he gave evidence which was not only very interesting, but, as 1 submit, concla- sive, in view of this conflict of testimony. I have no doubt that it was so to the Commission, as certainly it wasto us. He pointed out the sei- entific reasons why the fish, such as the cod, mackerel, halibut, and other fish of that description which are useful for food, inhabit the Bay of St. Lawrence. He says that these fish must necessarily live in water of the temperature of 37 or 40 degrees, or even of a temperature colder than that. He states that the great Arctic current which brings down from the north those immense icebergs, that make our climate so exces- sively cold and inhospitable—quite as “inhospitable” as many of the statutes of which my learned triends opposite have complained, also brings with these icebergs an antidote to the poison, in the shape of these fish of commerce. He says that this cold stream of water enters the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the fish with it, and he points out that on the American coast there can of necessity be but very little fish of this description. He also points out—and I am not going to take up your time by referring to his evidence in extenso at all—that on three or four points on the American coast this great Arctic current Impinges ; that it remains there for a certain period of the year, and in the spring that the fish go with it, and remain on the shore there until this cold current of water recedes; but that the great “ocean river,” as It Is called by Lieutenant Maury, the Gulf Stream, in its sammer swing, approaches very near the American coast in some places, and touching it in other places, separates the surface current from the colder waters beneath, where these fish feed, and thus drives them from the American shore to colder regions. He further pointed out that even in the Gulf of St. Law- ive; that zones of water of different temperatures are found there, some warmer and some colder than others; and that in the colder zones these tish live, whilst in the warmer zones they are unable to live. : You will recollect, no doubt, without my calling your attention er ticularly to the evidence, that a number of witnesses, Sapse re British, testified that every now and then after having tolled t ie zn . out from the inshore waters by throwing pogie bait they would sad Pr 3 disappear and be lost to them, and this is accounted for at once by Pro- 1862 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. fessor Hind’s evidence. The cause is this: that the fish then suddenly find themselves in a zone of warmer water in which they do not care to live, consequently they at once dive to a greater depth for the purpose of finding a zone of water more congenial to their habits of life, and by and by they find their way back to the shore. Another piece of evi- dence which Professor Hind gave struck me as being of great impor- tance in this case. He pointed out one extraordinary phenomenon, which is observable in the great Bay of St. Lawrence. He says that the tides come in through the Straits of Belle Isle, and are divided by the Mag- dalen Islands into two portions. One portion runs away along the southern coast of Labrador, around the island of Anticosti, and up the northern bank of the river St. Lawrence, while the other portion passes down to Prince Edward Island and into the Strait of Northumberland. He says that, in consequence of the great distance which one portion of the tide has traversed while the other has traveled a shorter distance, the tide coming down from the northern coast meets the ebb tide about the middle of the island, and as a consequence of that there is really high water always found about the center of the island; and for that reason the island presents the peculiar appearance it does, having been hollowed out year after year by the action of these tides. The effect of that phenomenon is—and it is a phenomenon which I think Professor Hind stated only occurs in one or two other places in the habitable globe—that the whole of the fish food is carried inshore. The cold water which is necessary to the existence of these food-fish of commerce, such as the mackerel and the cod and the halibut, is carried inshore in the bight of Prince Edward Island; it is carried inshore along the southern coast of Labrador; it is carried inshore along the northern bank of the River St. Lawrence. All this he points out as being the necessary result of that tide. These fish are thus brought inshore, and they necessarily have to remain inshore in order to get the food which they most desire to feed upon. 1 then put this question to Professor Hind: ‘If there should be two classes of witnesses here, each of them being a numerous class, and if one class swears that the catch of mackerel off the Prince Edward Island shore is very slight within the three-mile limit, and the other that this catch is very good within the three-mile limit, which would you say, In a scientific point of view, is telling the truth?” ‘ Undoubtedly,” he replied, “those who swear that a very great portion of the catch is taken there within the three-mile limit, because science says that this must be the case.” So you see that, supposing these witnesses came here and honestly told what they believed to be the truth, we have science stepping in and deciding the question, and moreover deciding the question entirely in favor of the British case. I shall therefore not trouble your excellency and your honors any further with the evidence upon that point, but pass to another branch of my argument. I believe that I stated yesterday in the course of my argument, that were we to assume the American account of the inshore catch of mackerel in the gulf to be correct, and fix it at one-third, that even then it would be quite impossible for them to pros- ecute successfully mackerel fishing in the gulf, without having access to the inshore fisheries. The business would not pay. They would eventually be compelled to abandon the Gulf of Saint Lawrence alto- gether, and in that case their market would not be supplied with mackerel. _ The evidence shows that although an exceptional catch may be made in the bay without going near the shore at all, yet that no man in his senses would fit out vessels and send them into the bay unless he had c AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1863 the privilege of following the schools of mackerel to the shore. There is a consensus of evidence on that point, I submit. There was a statement made with reference to this fishery by Mr. Foster in hisspeech in connection with the evidence of George Mackenzie, which I think I can convince Mr. Foster was erroneous. No doubt he unwittingly misrepresented Mr. Mackenzie’s statement. Mr. FostER. What is it about? Mr. THomSoN. You put in his mouth this language; it is quoted in your speech: ‘ There has not been for seven years a good vessel mackerel fishery, and for the last two years it has been growing worse and worse.” Now, he did not say anything of the kind; and I want to show that this is the case. I will read you what you said: We have the statement of one of the Prince Edward Island witnesses, George Mackenzie, on page 132 of the British Evidence, who, after describing the gradual decrease of the Amer- ican fishery by vessels, says, ‘ There has not been for seven years a good vessel mackerel fishery, and for the last two years it has been growing worse and worse.” I wish to call the attention of the Commission to this matter to pre- vent their being misled by this statement. I do not, of coures, charge any willful misstatement upon my learned friend, and consider that he has fallen into an unintentional error. Such language was never used by the witness in question; he never said ‘and for the last two years it has been growing worse and worse.” If my learned friend will turn up the evidence and point such a statement out, I will withdraw this as- sertion; but though I have carefully gone through his evidence, I can- not find it. Mr. Foster. Do you think that I am quoting that expression of opinion ? Mr. THomson. It is printed with quotation marks. You put forward this statement as having been made by him; and I undertake to say that this statement in that respect has never been made. Mr. Foster. I am put down as having quoted that continuously. I may say that 1 did not correct that portion or a great portion of my speech. : are THOMSON. You say that this statement is to be found on page 135. Mr. Foster. The following portion of his examination is to be found on page 133: Q. The fisheries failed pretty suddenly, did they not?—A. No. For a good many years they were failing. ; . Which was the last good year?—A. We have not really had a good year during the last seven years. -I think you are right. I do not think that the exact words of the ex- pression which is placed in quotation-marks are to be found there; but that statement contains the spirit of his evidence. —_ Mr. THOMSON. On page 128 he gives an opposite view. Mr. Foster. I have just read from page 133. I must compare the statements, and see how they correspond. I should hate to be respon- ‘sible for the accuracy of the printing. Mr. THomson. I will not take up any more time about this matter, further than to say to the Commissioners that | have carefully gone through this evidence, and I cannot find it. i Mr. Foster. I say that the substance of this statement Is there. ; Mr. THomson. I differ from you on that point ; but if you show that it is there I will withdraw what I have said about It. ah 2 Mr. Fosrer. I have already pointed out the sabstance of it on page 133. 1864 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Mr. THomson. And I say that the substance of the statements which appear on page 128 is exactly the opposite. Mr. Foster. I dare say. Mr. Davies was then examining; but the statements from which I quoted were made in cross examination. Mr. Tuomson. The following statement appears on page 44 of Mr. Foster’s argument: That would make 26,404 barrels caught in British territorial waters the first year of the Treaty. What were these mackerel worth? Mr. Hall tells you that he buys them, landed on shore, for $3.75 a barrel. This is the point to which I wish to call your attention. I cannot comprehend why Mr. Foster’ should assume the value of the privilege of taking these fish to be fixed by the cost of procuring them. It seems to me quite clear that the value of fish in the water is just their value in the market, less the cost of procuring them and transporting them thither. However, taking his own method of valuation, this calculation is based on the statement which Mr. Hall makes, that he bought up these mack- erel for $3.75 a barrel. I have looked over Mr. Hall’s evidence, but it is very difficult to say whether he meant that he paid $3.75 a barrel by reason of having his men in his employ on particular terms, or that he got them at that price; but George McKenzie, who was also a witness, States on page 132 of his evidence that he paid $6 a barrel for mackerel this year. Now, these two statements are entirely at variance, if Mr. Hall meant that such was the actual value of the fish when they were taken out of the water and transferred to him. Mr. Foster. Mr. McKenzie testified as follows, on page 132: (. Then do you pay as high as $6 a barrel for fresh fish ?—A. Yes. Q. How much did you pay last year ?—A. We did not then pay higher than $1.50. Q. That would be $4.50 a barrel ?—A. Yes. Q. And the year before last ?—A. The price then was the same as it was last vear. Q. How much did you pay four years ago 7—A. About the same, from $1 to $1.50. Mr. THOMSON. As you will perceive, Mr. McKenzie states, as I said, that he has given $6 a barrel for these fish this year, as against the price which Mr. Hall chose to say he only pays, or $3.75 a barrel. Mr. McKenzie says that these fish cost him $6 a barrel. Mr. Foster’s calcu- lation is based on the statement made by Mr. Hall, and this is here con- fronted with the evidence of Mr. McKenzie. If your excellency and your honors believe that the evidence given on this point by Mr. McKenzie is correct, and you must judge between the two—the calculation of Mr. Foster is necessarily at fault. _Mr. Foster. Mr. McKenzie buys his fish by the hundred, and he es- timates the number of fish contained in a barrel; that is the way in which he makes out the price as being $6 a barrel. Mr. 1 HOMSON. Mr. Foster says, “That would make 26,404 barrels caught in British territorial waters that year,” which was 1873. Now ae Mr, loster’s own figures in this matter. He further Says, on page ; That was the first ycar of the treaty, and there were imported into the United States from the British Provinces 90,889 barrels, on which the duty of $2.a barrel would amount to $181,778. The value of the fish that our people caught is $99,000, and the British fishermen g4in in remission Of duties nearly $182,UU0. This is the only year which Mr, Foster has selected. £ , AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1865 Mr. FosTER. I have taken the figures for every year since the Wash. ington Treaty went into effect. Mr. THomson. Even allowing, as the United States affidavits affirm, that the part of the gulf catch which is taken by them within the three. mile limit only amounts to one-half, we have 40,000 barrels. To this quantity you have to add the quantity imported from Canada, which is nearly all taken inshore, amounting to 91,000 barrels, the total is 131,000 barrels, and consequently it appears from these figures that there were taken from British territorial waters about 45 per cent. of the entire consumption of the United States. .And if the proportion of the voy- ages made in the gulf and taken within the three-mile limit be two- thirds, then these figures are increased to 150,000, or to over 50 per cent., and this is the result which follows from Mr. Foster’s own figures. Mr. FostER. That is—you add the catch of your own people to the catch of our people, in the gulf, and say that is such a percentage of the total amount that went into the United States market. I dare say it may be so. Mr. THomson. So, as United States fishermen obtained in the gulf that year 80,000 barrels, and there were imported into their market from the British Provinces about 91,000 barrels, that makes a total catch in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence of 171,000 barrels; that is to say, the catch on the United States coast was 130,339 barrels, or 43 per cent., and the eatch in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence 171,000 barrels, or 57 per cent.; this makes a total of 301,339 barrels. Now these very figures themselves are about the very best evidence that can be advanced as to the relative value of these two fisheries. With reference to the value which the United States themselves put on our fisheries, I want to cite some of their own figures; and the value which the Americans themselves have set on these fisheries is very con- *elusively shown by admissions of their own public men. Sir ALEXANDER GALT. Before you take up that point, Mr. Thomson, will you be kind enough to tell me what the proportion of the catch you claim as taken inshore, bore to the whole American consumption, 0 per cent. you have made it, and I think it was 33 per cent. Mr. THomson. I say that if the proportion of the voyages, takeu inshore, within the three-mile limit be two-thirds, there were taken in British territorial waters about 50 per cent. Sir ALEXANDER GALT. Fifty per cent. ; Mr. Tuomson. Yes.. I will read the proposition again: Now; allow- ing as the United States affidavits affirm, that one-half of the catch was taken inshore, viz, 40,000 barrels,add importations from Canada, 91 ,000 barrels, which makes 131,000 barrels; and therefore there have been taken in British territorial waters 45 per cent. of the entire gonsumption of the United States. That is what I said. - Mr. Foster. That is assuming the whole of your catch to have been taken inshore? _Mr. THomson. Yes; and if the portion vouched for as taken from _- within the three-mile limit be two thirds, then these figures would make 152,009, or over fifty per cent. of that consumption. 7 Mr. Foster. I hope that the Commission will not charge us for the privilege possessed by British fishermen of catching mackerel, Mr. DANA. Some of the British catch is taken eight miles from land. Mr. THoMSoN. In order to show the value, as stated by Americans themselves, of these fisheries, I will quote the language of Mr. Secretary 1866 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Seward, which is quoted on page 16 of the British reply to the United States Answer. Mr. Secretary Seward said: Will the Senate please to notice that the principal fisheries in the waters to which these limitations apply are the mackerel and the herring fisheries, and that these are what are called ‘‘ shoal fisheries,” that is to say, the best fishing for mackerel and herring is within three miles of the shore. Therefore, by that renunciation, the United States renounced the best mackerel and herring fisheries. Senators, please to notice also, that the privilege of resort to the shore constantly, to cure and dry fish, is very important. Fish can be cured sooner, and the sooner cured the better they are, and the better is the market price. This circumstance has given to the colonies a great advantage in this trade. That stimu- lated their desire to abridge the American fishing as much as possible; and, indeed, they seek naturally enough to procure our exclusion altogether from the fishing-grounds. Mr. Foster. What year was that? Mr. THOMSON. 1852. Touching the mode in which the Treaty of 1818, as regards large bays, shall be construed, Mr. Secretary Seward said this: While that question is kept up, the American fisheries, which were once in a most pros- perous condition, are comparatively stationary or declining, although supported by large bounties. At the same time, the provincial fisheries are gaining in the quantity of fish ex- ported to this country, and largely gaining in their exportations abroad. Our fishermen want all that our own construction of the convention gives them, and want and must have more—they want and must have the privilege of fishing within the three in- hibited miles, and of curing fish on the shore. Certainly the circumstances which induced Mr. Secretary Seward to use that language in 1852, have not since changed in such a manner as to authorize the United States or any of her public men to use differ- ent language to-day. ; : Senator Hamlin, after describing the magnitude and importance of the American fishery as the greatest fountain of their commercial pros- perity and naval power, declared that if the American fishermen were kept out of our inshore water, an immense amount of property thus in- vested would become useless, aud the fishermen would be left in want and beggary, or imprisoned in foreign jails. And in the House of Representatives, Mr. Scudder, of Massachusetts, referring to this subject, said : These fish are taken in the waters nearer the coast than the codfish are. . A considerable proportion, from one-third to one-half, are taken on the coast and in the bays and gulfs of the British Provinces, Now, upon that question, not only as to the value of our fisheries, but — also as to the proportion of the eatch which is there taken, this seems to be very strong testimony coming from an American statesman. He continues: The inhabitants of the Provinces take many of them in boats and with seines. The boat and seine fishery is the more successful and profitable, and would be pursued by our fisher- men, were it not for the stipulations of the Convention of 1818, betwixt the United States . and Great Britain, by which it is contended that all the fisheries within three miles of the coast, with few unimportant exceptions, are secured to the Provinces alone. Mr. Tuck, of New Hampshire, said : This shore fishery which we have renounced is of great value, and extremely important to American fishermen. * * From the first of September to the close of the season, the mackerel run near the shore, and it is next to impossible for our vessels to obtain fares with- out taking fish within the prohibited limits. The truth is, our fishermen need absolutely, and must have, the thousands of miles of shore fishery which have been renounced, or they must always do an uncertain business, He may well call them thousands of miles, because we have shown by | evidence here that they amount to no less than 11,900 square miles. i = f AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1867 He further says: If our mackerel men are prohibited from going within three miles of the shore, and are forcibly kept away (and nothing but force will do it), then they may as well give up ther business first as last. It will be always uncertain. This is a significant observation. We find through all these speeches allusions made to the trouble which the course that had been adopted under the provisions of the Treaty of 1818 toward the body of Ameri- can fishermen coming on our shores to fish would continue to bring upon the two countries, and that war was imminent. Why was this? Surely, if the fishery on their coast is so valuable, they can stay there, and if the fisheries on our coast are so valueless, they can stay away ! We have not asked them to come into our waters. And it does appear to me that it comes with extremely bad grace from these people to make complaints that harsh measures are used to keep them out of them. What rigbt have they at all? They have renounced all right. They have solemnly, as far back as 1818, renounced any right to enter these waters, and that convention is in full force still, save as tempora- rily affected by the Washington Treaty. Wehave no right except tem- porarily, under the same treaty, to enter their waters. But, according - to the argument of Mr. Dana, we have the right to enter them, because he says that there are no territorial waters belonging toany country. In that sense you cannot be prevented from fishing in any waters, if 1 - understand his proposition correctly; and we therefore have the right to go there and fish. But what do the United States say? They hold to no such construction of the law of nations. So far from that being the case, their own shore-fisberies cannot be touched by foreign fish- ermen, and even under the treaty, by virtue of which your excelleney and your honors are now sitting, our fishermen have only the right to fish on their shores from the 39th parallel of north latitude north- ward ; not one step, not one mile to the southward of that parallel can they go. The strongest possible proclamation of sovereignty which one country can possibly hold out to another is here held out by the United States with regard to their territorial waters to England and to the world; and yet, for the purpose of getting into our waters, we are told that, under the law of nations, American fishermen can come in and demand complete freedom of access to them ; but when it comes to their own waters that doctrine will not doat all. This is the reductio ad absurdum, with a vengeance! Who ever heard anything like it? Here is a solemn agreement which has been entered into be- - tween two countries, and yet,we have complaints—complaint after complaint—regarding the means which our men have exercised in order to keep these people from fishing in our waters, from which they are inhibited by a solemn treaty. Why, it does not seem to me Lo be fair— not to use any stronger term than that, and using the mildest possible term to characterize it—to adopt this tone. All thisseems to be most unfair; and here Mr. Tuck states that nothing but force will keep the American fishermen out of our waters. But there is a strong reason for the employment of this language. Whatis it? Why, our fisheries are all valuable, while theirs are practically useless ; “ and the truth is, Says Mr. Tuck, “our fishermen absolutely must have access to our thou- _ Sands of miles of shore fisheries.” ’~ He states: - mot consent to the endurance of former restrictions, the annoyances au mai i ight to erect and They (the American fishermen) want the shore fisheries; they want the night ' eed maintain structures on shore to cure codfish as soon as taken, thus saving oe septs ing better fish for market; and believing their wishes to be easy of accomplishment, they wil : | d trouble which they have so long felt. o 1868 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Now, this is very extraordinary language for any man to use. The admission is clear, and also the conclusion which Mr. Tuck draws from it. It isthis: they want our inshore fisheries, free from those restrictions the effect of which the United States fishermen have so long felt; and this is simply a declaration made on the part of American citizens that a solemn agreement entered into between their country and Great Britain is an agreement which they do not choose to keep. Bat of course such views cannot be tolerated in any court. Now, let us see what are the views as to the value of our fisheries entertained by the persons who live in Boston, the very center of the fish trade. I will call your attention for a few moments to the first annual report of the Boston Board of Trade, of 1855, and just after the teciprocity Treaty had come in force. It was presented at the annual meeting which was held on the 17th January, 1855. I willonly read an extract, but the whole book may go in, if necessary, and be considered as read, if you please. This is the same extract which I read when I cross-examined Mr. Wonson : But in connection with the Reciprocity Treaty, it is to the importance of the fisheries that your directors wish at this time particularly to call your attention ; seventy per cent. of the tonnage employed in the whale, cod, and mackerel fisheries in the United States belongs to Massachusetts, and Boston is the business center. By colonial construction of the Convention between the United States and Great Britain of 1318, we were excluded from not less than four thousand miles of fishing-ground. The valuable mackerel fishery is situated between the shore and a line drawn from the St. Croix River southeast to Seal Island, and extending along the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia, about three miles from the coast, around Cape Breton, outside Prince Edward Island, across. the entranee to the Bay of Chaleur; thence outside the ‘island of Anticosti to Mt. Joly on the Labrador coast, where the right of shore-fishing commences. The coasts within these limits following their several indentations are not less than four thousand miles in extent, all excellent fishing-grounds. Before the mackerel fishery began to be closely watched and protected, our vessels actually swarmed on the fishing-ground within the spaces inciosed by the line mentioned. Each of these vessels made two or three full fares in the season, and some thousands of valuable cargoes were landed every year in the United States, adding largely to our wealth and prosperity. A sad contrast has since existed. From Gloucester only one hundred and fifty-six vessels were sent to the Bay of St. Lawrence in 1853. Of these, not more than one in ten made the second trip, and even they did not get full fares the first trip, but went a second time in the hope of doing better. The principal persons engaged in the business in Gloucester estim that the loss in 1553 amounted to an average of one thousand dollars on each vessel, with- out counting that incurred from detention, delays, and damages from being driven out the harbor and from waste of time by crews. It was agreed by all parties that if their ves- sels could have had free access to the fishing-grounds as formerly, the difference to that dis- trict alone would have been at least four hundred thousand dollars. In 1553, there were forty-six vessels belonging to Beverly ; thirteen of them went to the bay in 1552, but, owing to the restrictions, their voyages were wholly unsuccessful, @ none of them went in 1853. At Salem, only two mackerel licenses were granted in 1853, and at Marblehead only six. At Newburyport there are ninety fishing-vessels ; seventy of these went to the bay for mackerel in 1553, but almost all of them, it is said, made ruinous voyages. At Boston only a dozen licenses were grauted for this fishery in 1853, and very few of the one hundred ves- sels belonging to the towns of Dennis and Harwich, on Cape Cod—two-thirds of which are engaged in the mackerel fishery—went to the bay for mackerel last year, because of the ill- success attending the operations of the year previous. One of their vessels of one hundred tons burden, manned by sixteen men, was six weeks in the bay in 1853, and returned with only one barrel of mackerel. ; Unless some change had taken place beneficial to the interests of our hardy fishermen, the northern fisheries would have been wholly ruined, and in all probability have entirely except on @ very limited scale on our own shores. The one hundred and fifty thousand toms of shipping employed in those fisheries would have been obliged to seek employment else- where, and the product of the fisheries themselves, amounting to three or four million dol- lars annually, would have been Jost to us. The present treaty opens to us again all these — valuable fisheries, and our thanks are due to the distinguished statesmen who have labore¢ in bringing it to a successful termination ; and your directors are most happy to make men- tion of the services of Israel D. Andrews, esq.—a gentleman whom we hope to have the a paths AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1869 any of meeting to-day—who has worked most assiduously for the last four years in col- lecting and furnishing in his valuable reports almost all the information possessed on the ‘subject, and without whose exertions, it is hardly too much to say, the treaty would never ‘have been made. \ : Is not this conclusive? These vessels, I suppose, kept away from the three-mile limit, and they made ruinous voyages; and yet we have had witness after witness declaring here on the American side that the best | en was outside of that limit, and that there was no fishing inside at all. ; This is the opinion of the Boston Board of Trade on this subject. In fact, we hold the key in our hands which locks and unlocks the North | American fisheries of both countries ; and of course it is necessary for us to take care that we are not deprived of our rights without receiving | proper and adequate consideration. Your exceilency and your honors will recollect that the Reciprocity | Treaty was not put an end to by us; but it was put an end to by the ‘solemn act of the United States against the desire of Great Britain, and , against the wishes of the Dominion of Canada. On page 391 of the American evidence, the following question was | put to Major Low, the then witness on the stand: Looking up the files of the Cape Ann Advertiser, with reference to the Centenvial, I | notice a statement relative to your fisheries, and to the effect their prosecution has had on ‘Gloucester, to which I would like to call your attention, to see whether you agree with it or ) not. Of course it has been shown here before the Commission, and it is well known to everybody that is acquainted with the fisheries, that this paper, the Cape Ann Advertiser, is the great organ of the fishing in- 'terests of New England. This article runs as follows: In 1841 the fishery business of Gloucester had reached its lowest ebb. Only about 7,000 ‘barrels of mackerel were packed that year, and the whole product of the fisheries of the r. was only about $300,000. In 1851 the business began to revive, the George's and Bay haleur fishery began to be developed, and from that time to this year, 1675, has been ) steadily increasing, until at the present time Gloucester’s tonnage is 10,000 tons more than Salem, Newburyport, Beverly, and Marblehead united. Nearly 400 fishing-schooners are | owned at and fitte1 from the port of Gloucester, by 39 firms, and the annual sales of fish od said to be between $3,000,000 and $4,000,000, all distributed from here by Gloucester | houses. THE COMMERCIAL WHARVES. The wharves once covered with molasses and sugar hogsheads are now covered with fish- | flakes, and the odors of the ‘‘ sweets of the tropics ” have given place to ** the ancient and fish- like smells” of oil and dried cod; the few sailors of the commercial marine have been succeeded by 5,000 fishermen drawn from all the maritime quarters of the globe; and the wharves that were the wonders of our boyhood days are actually swallowed up in the. splendid and ' Capacious piers of the present day, so much have they been lengthened and widened, . THE SALT TRADE. For many years after the decline of the Surinam trade hardly a large vessel was over seen at Gloucester, and many persons thought that never more would a majestic ship be seen en- tering this capacious and splendid seaport. But never in the palmiest days of Gloucester 8 | foreign trade were such immense vessels seen as at the present day. Ships of ear é ae (as big as six William and Henrys) sailed into Gloucester Harbor from Liverpool anc Ca iz, and came into the wharves without breaking bulk, and also lay afloat at se water. More than forty ships, barks, brigs, and schooners of from 400 to 1,400 ere rary at salt alone, have discharged at this port the present year, and also the same number last year. | The old, venerable port never presented such a forest uf masts as DoW can be seen; sem times six ships and barks at a time, besides innumerable schooners. THE CITY OF GLOUCESTER OF 1875 AND THE TOWN OF 1825. prese nted in _ What a contrast is presented, as a ship enters the barbor now, with what was elle 1825! The little rusty, weather-beaten village, with two ‘‘ meeting- houses "' and a few 1870 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ings and wharves gathered around them: two or three thousand people with $500,000 prop- erty, was all that Gloucester then was, as near as we can ascertain. Now the central wards, without suburban districts, contain 14,000 people, with $9,000,000 valuation. The article continues in this fashion : Five banks, with nearly $2,000,000 in them (including savings); and this increase has arisen, not from foreign commerce, but from the once despised and insignificant fisheries. It will be seen by a review of the history of Gloucester that a foreign commerce did not build the town up in population or wealth; that from 1825 to 1850 its increase had been very small; but from 1850 to 1875 it has grown from 8,000 to 17,000 inhabitants, and its valuation from $2,000,000 to $9,000,000! It is the fisheries that have mainly caused this great change; it is the success of that branch of industry that has lined Gloucester harbor with wharves, warehouses, and packing establishments, from the Fort to ‘‘ Oakes’ Cove.” It is the fisheries that have built up Rocky Neck and Eastern Point, and caused ward 3 (Gravel Hill and Prospect street) to show nearly all the gain in population from 1870 to 1e75. This is the testimony of the organ of the Gloucester fishermen. I might consume a great deal of your time in similar quotations. i turn your attention now to this book which was quoted by my learned friends on the other side, this book of Mr. Adams upon “ The Fisheries and the Mississippi.” At page 204 this language is used under the head of fish- ing liberties and their values: Of these ten thousand men, and of their wives and children, the cod fisheries, if I may be allowed the expression, were the daily bread—their property—their subsistence. To how many thousands more were the labors and the dangers of their lives subservient? Their game was not only food and raiment to themselves, but to millions of other human: beings. There is something in the very occupation of fishermen, not only beneficent in itself but noble and exalted in the qualities of which it requires the habitual exercise. In common with the cultivators of the soil, their labors contribute to the subsistence of mankind, and they have the merit of continual exposure to danger, superadded to that of unceasing toil. Industry, frugality, patience, perseverance, fortitude, intrepidity, souls inured to perpetual conflict with the elements, and bodies steeled with unremitting action, ever grappling with danger, and familiar with death—these are the properties to which the fisherman of the ocean is formed by the daily labors of his life. These are the properties for which He who knew what was in man, the Saviour of mankind, sought His first and found His most faithful, ardent, and undaunted disciples among the fishermen of His country. In the deadliest ran- cors of national wars, the examples of latter ages have been frequent of exempting, by the common consent of the most exasperated enemies, fishermen from the operation of hostili- ties. In our treaties with Prussia, they are expressly included among the classes of men ** whose occupations are for the common subsistence and benefit of mankind ;” with a stipulation that, in the event of war between the parties, they shall be allowed to continue their employ- ment without molestation. Nor is their devotion to their country less conspicuous than their usefulness to their kind. While the huntsman of the ocean, far from his native land, from his family, and his fireside, puree, at the constant hazard of life, his game upon the bosom of the deep, the desire of 1is beart is, by the nature of his situation, ever intently turned toward his Yioate, his. chil- dren, and his country. To be lost to them gives their keenest edge to his fears; to return with the fruits of his labors to them is the object of all his hopes. By no men upon have these qualities and dispositions been more constantly exemplified than by the fisher- men of New England. From the proceeds of their ‘‘ perilous and hardy industry,” the value of three millions of dollars a year, for five years preceding 1808, was added to the exports of the United States. This was so much of national wealth created by the fishery. Wi what branch of the whole body of our commerce was this interest unconnected ? Tato what artery or vein of our politica body did it not circulate wholesome blood? To what sinew of our national arm did it not impart firmness and energy? We are told that they were “annually decreasing in number”: Yes! they had lost their occupation by the war; and where were they during the war? They were upon the ocean and upon the lakes, fighting the battles of their country. Turn back to the records of your revolution—ask Samuel Tucker, himself one of the number; a living example of the character common to them all, what were the fishermen of New England, in the tug of war for Independence ? Appeal to the heroes of al/ our naval wars, ask the vanquishers of Algiers and Tripoli, ask the re- deemers of your citizens from the chains of servitude, and of your nation from the humilia- tion of annual tribute to the barbarians of Africa, call on the champions of our last strugzles with Britain, ask Hull and Bainbridge, ask Stewart, Porter, me Macdonough, what pro- portion of New England fishermen were the companions of their victories, and sealed the proudest of our victories with their blood; and then listen if you can, to be told that the | le AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1871 unoffending citizens of the West were not at all benefited by the fishing privilege; aud that the few fishermen in a remote quarter were entirely exempt from the danger. ; But we are told also that ‘‘ by far the greatest part of the fish taken by our fishermen before the present war was caught in theopen sea, or upon our own coasts, and cured on radi naa This ceria is, like the rest, erroneous. e shore fishery is carried on in vessels of less than twenty tons burthen, the pro io of which, as appears by Seybert’s Statistical Annals, is oii one-seventh of the ps ba With regard to the comparative value of the Bank and Labrador fisheries, I subjoin hereto information collected from several persons acquainted with them, as their statements will show in their minutest details. I know of no language that can more forcibly bring home to the Com- mission the value of this fishery. If the eloquent language that I have _ quoted contained a tittle of the truth, then this fishing isthe nursery of the _ American navalmarine. The future maritime defenders of their country - are to be found amongst the bold and fearless men who prosecute these fisheries, and amongst them alone. From the fishing-vessels of America sprang these maritime defenders of her flag, who maintained with un- daunted bravery the honor of their country in the last war with Eng- land, and from the same source must be drawn those who doubtless would do so again if unfortunately another war should arise betweén the two countries. Yet, when we speak of such a fishery as this, we are calmly told by Mr. Foster you must not look at these advantages at all, but like business men, you must, pencil in hand, put down the figures, and make a calculation of the values as though it were a petty matter of bargain and sale between man and man. In the name of our common humanity, in the name of the common honor of England and America, and of the Dominion for which I am counsel this day, I repudiate such a construction being placed upon this treaty. There are some other passages in this book to which I may call your attention. At page 210 this language is used : These fisheries, as most advantageously secured to the United States by the Treaty of 1733, and made at the time, I have always understood, a sine qua non of that treaty, offer an invaluable fund.of wealth and power to our country; one which has never been duly attended to, nor justly appreciated, but which, if continued and improved, was destined to grow with our growth and strengthen with our strength. The prosecution of these coast and bay fisheries, although it had already become extremely advantageous, had undoubtedly reached, in a very small degree, the extension and impor- tance it was capable of attaining. The unsettled state of the commercial world for the past twenty years, and the more alluring objects of mercantile enterprise which such a state of things evolved, seemed, in point of immediate consideration and atteution, to throw these fisheries into the background; but still, until first checked by the system of embargoes and restrictions, and finally stopped by a declaration of war, they were silently, but rapidly, pro- sing, and reaching an importance which, though generally unknown to our country avd ts statesmen, had become highly alarming to the governments and more wealthy merchants of the provinces, and was beginning to attract the attention and jealousy of the cabinet of Great Britain toward them. i The shores, the creeks, the inlets of the Bay of Fundy, the Bay of Chaleurs, and the Galf of St. Lawrence, the Straits of Bellisle, and the Coast of Labrador, appear to have been ‘designed by the God of Nature as the great ovarium of fish; the inexhaustible repository of this species of food, not only for the supply of the American, but also of the European con- tinent. Atthe proper season, to cies them in endless abundance, little more effort is ‘needed than to bait the hook and pull the line, and occasionally even this is not necessary. In.clear weather, near the shores, myriads are visible, and the strand is at times almost _ literally pavcd with them. ; : N All this was gradually making itself known to the enterprise and vigilance of the New England fishermen, and for a few seasons prior to the year 1503, the resort to this employ- ‘ment had become an object of attention, from the Thames at New London, to the Schoodic ; and boats and vessels of a small as well as a larger size were flocking to it from all the in- - termediate parts of the United States. In the fishing season, at the best places for Gestnggrt ' the cod, the New England fishermen, I am told, on 4 Sunday, swarmed like flies upoa t i” shores, and that in some of these years, it probably would not make an overestimate ma en the number of vessels employed in this fishery belonging to the United States at aed 5 oh to 2,000 sail, reckoning a vessel for each trip or voyage, and including the larger boat-hsh . i 1872 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ery; and the number, if the fisheries were continued, would shortly}be still further and very greatly extended. ; The nursery for seamen, the consequent increase of power, the mine of wealth, the aceu- mulation of capital (for it has been justly observed that he who draws a codfish from the sea gives a piece of silver to his country), the effect upon the trade and custom of Great Britain, and the corresponding advantages to the United States, of which the enlargement of such an intercourse was susceptible (for the stock of fish appears inexhaustible), you are much better able to conceive them than I am to describe; but I with pleasure point them anew for your consideration, as,on many accounts, presenting one of the most interesting public objects to which it can be directed. At page 199 the following language is used: Be the opinion of Mr. Russell what it may, the portion of the fisheries to which we are entitled even within the British terntorial jurisdiction, is of great importance to this Union. To New England it is among the most valuable of earthly possessions. Now, in the course of his argument, Mr. Foster put the question as if it turned distinctly upon who paid the duty, the producer or the consumer. Whether that be absolutely necessary for the purpose of determining this case in favor of Great Britain or not, is not for me to say. That is a question of political economy with which I am neither desirous, nor probably capable of dealing. But Iam not afraid to let our case turn upon that question. I think I shall show you, by evi- dence of witnesses and by figures, that in every instance in this case the duty is paid by the consumer. Iam speaking more particvlarly of the mackerel. I shall conclusively show that in the year when the Re- ciprocity ‘Treaty was in force, the price of mackerel fell off; that imme- diately after the Reciprocity Treaty terminated, the price of mackerel rose in the market. I shall show that immediately after that state of affairs was terminated by the Treaty of Washington the price of mack- erel again fell off, and we say that these facts establish at once that the consumer must have paid the duty. Our witnesses have, one and all, or nearly all, testified that in their judgment the consumer paid the duty. In answer to the question put by the learned counsel associated with me and myself, “ Would you rather have the Americans excluded from your fisheries and pay the duty?” they have said “Yes.” While I am upon this subject I will remark, although I will not have time to turn attention to the document itself, that Mr. Foster, or at all events one of the learned counsel for the United States, read in his speech a communication from Hon. Peter Mitchell, then minister of marine and fisheries, for the purpose of showing that the repeal of the Reciprocity Treaty would be ruinous to our fishermen. Now, upon reference to that communication you will find that what he did put forward was this: that if the Americans would come in without either paying a license- fee or giving any other compensation at all for our fisheries, and if they fished in our territorial waters where the fish were to be taken, side by side with our own fishermen, and then carried their catch into the American market free of duty, while our fishermen, fishing on the same terms and with no better appliances, were met there with a duty of $32 a barrel on mackerel and $1 on herring, it wouid necessarily be ruinous. And that proposition no doubt has a vast deal of truth init. It is im- possible, 1 assume, for two persons to fish upon equal terms in the same waters, and then when they go into the American market for one to be met by a duty while the other has no such duty to pay, without it oper- ating to the disadvantage of the former. But that isa totally different case from the one we have to deal with. Now I shall show you, as I have said, that during the period of the Reciprocity Treaty the prices were low, and that the moment that treaty Was repealed or abrogated by notice from the American Government _ the treaty 7—A. Yes. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1873 the prices rose ; that the moment that state of affairs was terminated by the Washington Treaty the prices fell again, and we say that is con- clusive proof that the Americans have to pay the duty. There has been a concensus of testimony, Ameiican and British, upon that point. ‘Let us see what the American witnesses say, for I affirm that on both sides the witnesses agree in the statement that the consumers pay the duty. Itis true that American witnesses who are themselves fishermen, or those who speak the opinion of fishermen, say that they would pre- fer the old state of things. Why? Because under that state of things they could steal into our harbors and carry off our fish for nothing, and then their British competitor was met in the market with a duty of $2 a barrel, while they were free. But I apprehend the consumer did not waut that state of affairs. These witnesses admitted that it made the fish dearer, whenever the question was put tothem. I have cat out the evidence referring to this point, and I will just read it: AMERICAN WITNESSES ON DUTIES. Page 75.—F. Freeman: Q. If you were allowed to make your choice, which would you take—exclusion from the British inshore fisheries and the imposition of a duty on colonial-caught fish, or the privilege of fishing inshore in British waters and no duty ?7—A. I would rather have the duty. Q. You say you would rather have the duty paid; you think you would make more money ; you are speaking as a fisherman ?—A. Yes. Q. You would have a better market for your fish? Under the present system the con- sumer gets his fish cheaper, does he not? You would make the consumer pay that $2 duty / -You would sell your fish $2 higher?—A. Yes. . : Mr. TRESCOT. That is political economy. Mr. THOMSON. Why did you ask him ? Mr. Trescor. I asked him simply which system he would prefer. Mr. THompson. I am asking him why. Q. And you say the reason is that you would get so much money in your pocket at the expense of the people that eat fish. Is not that the whole story ’—A. Certainly. Page 93.—N. Freeman : Q. Were you among those who opposed or favored the continuance of the Reciprocity Treaty 7—A. I was among those that opposed it. oe Q. There were some that opposed it, or rather required the duty to be maintained upon ‘codfish ?—A. I was one who preferred to have the duty retained upon codfish. Q. Upon codfish ?—A. Yes. Q. Your people wished in fact to keep the duty on codfish?—A. Yes. Q. Why? Be kind enough to state why.—A. Because we felt it would be better for us as a cod-fishing town to exclude as far as possible the fish from the provinces. It would give us a better.chance, as we supposed, to dispose of our fish at higher rates. ee = Q. And the effect of the treaty you considered would be to reduce the price ’—A. We ‘supposed that the effect of the treaty would be to bring in codfish from these provinces into our port, and of course necessarily it was presumed that it would reduce the price of fish. Q. I suppose the mackerel fisheries have the same object, to keep up the price of fish ’— . I presume they have. : ; : Pe Q. Then, of course, you think your views are correct? You think now, I presume, you opinion was correct ?—A. Yes. ee Q. And you still continue to think that is correct, and that the effect of the provisions of the treaty is to briag down the price of fish /—A. Yes; I think that is the tendency. I am not aware whether it has brought the prices down. ~ Q. I mean to say you have not changed your opinion !—A. No. poet Q. Of course there might be other causes operating, but that is the general tendency o Well, Q. To make the fish cheaper for the consumer?—A. We have so regarded it _ perhaps it would have that tendency. We have thought that it would. nf be is precisely what your opinie yale Yes. - You have nat altered your opinion ’—A. No. : ae -Q. Your spiciex if you au ailoe me to put it in my words, is that it makes fish cheaper to the consumers in the United States ?—A. My opinion is (hat it will have that eee: 118 F 1874 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Page 107.—Graham : Q. You say that you would prefer a duty on Canadian fish entering American market to the privilege of fishing within three miles of the shore in the bay ?—A. Yes; I should if I went fishing. Q. Why ria Because I do not think that the privilege amounts to as much as the duties to us. Q. Why do you want the duty kept on?—A. Because, in the first place, we would get more for our fish in the United States. Q. And when the duty is abolished the price naturally comes down?—A. The fish might then be a little cheaper. Q. That is your opinion ?—A. I do not think that the price would come down much. Q. Then why do you want the duty kept on? Do you not think that you gave a rather hasty answer? You say you would prefer the duty to the privilege of fishing in the Bay of St. Lawrence, within the limits?—A. Yes. . Why? I understood you to say it was because this would keep the price up ?—A. That was a little erroneous, I think. Let me think the matter over. Q. Why would you rather prefer the duty to the privilege mentioned ?—A. Because that would keep the price up, and we would then get more for our fish. I thought you had me a little. Q. I merely want your statement on the point ?—A. That is my candid opinion. Q. You now speak as a fisherman ?—A. Yes; if I was fishing that would be my idea. Q. All classes of men have selfish motives 7—A. I want to get all I can for what I have to sell, and to buy as cheaply as possible. Q. And in order to get a high price for your fish, you want the duties on ?—A. Yes. Page 124.—Friend : Q. You thought you would get more mackerel and get a better price for them ?—A. If we had a duty on mackerel we would get a better price, and would get more mackerel if we fished off shore. Page 130.—Orne: Q. You say you would prefer a duty of $2 a barrel to the liberty of fishing within the limits of the bay ?—A. I do. Q. Why ?—A. Because I think the mackerel which I take to market would then bring more. Q. Would the price be then higher by $2?—A. I could not say. Q. What is your belief ?—A. J believe that would be the case. Q. Consumers might appreciate the matter differently ?—A. I speak as a fisherman. Page 147.—Leighton : on regard to mackerel, leaving herring out, would you prefer a duty on mackerel !— es. Q. You speak as a fisherman ?—A. Yes. Q. Why would you prefer a duty on mackerel?—A. Our mackerel would fetch that much more a barrel, We lose that, you know. ; Q. By the duty coming offf—A. Yes; the fishermen lose it. The government does not ose it. Q. And the people who eat the fish gain it?—A. Yes. Q. And if you were to speak to a man whose business was consuming mackerel, you would get an opinion adverse to a duty ?7—A. Yes. Q. You would not object, I suppose, to run the duty up a little higher; how would that suit the fishermen ?—A, I think that is about right. Page 160.—Riggs: Q. You say you would prefer a duty being imposed on our mackerel to the right to fish 4 inshore in British waters ?—A. I should. Ras Why do you want a duty on ?—A. It is no benefit to us to fish inshore, that I ever Q. Why do you want it on ?—A. Well, we would have a better market for our fish. @. Would you get a higher price for them ?—A. We should; yes. .@. And therefore you are speaking as a fisherman; as such you would like to get the rey price you could for your fish?—A. Certainly. _@. You think that the imposition of a duty would give you a better market ’—Yes; if Canadians had to pay the duty it is likely they would not fetch the fish in. oor hat would be the result of that ?—A. We would have a higher price and a quicker Q. You would have 8 higher price ?—A. I do not know that this would be the case or anything about it, but it would be a quicker market for us. | “al AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1875 Page 187.—Smith: -Q. You speak as a fisherman; you want to get the most you can. How much do think ~~ would get ?—A. As much as the duty. f sp ise Q. I don’t know but you are right. Pérhaps you would like to have a little more on. Supposing a duty of $3 was put on, I suppose it would still have the effect of raising the price of fish ?—A. I think it would kill us. No, let me see. I don’t know anything about that. I think by keeping the English fish out our fish would bring a better price. Page 201.—Procter : Q. Speaking as a fisherman, would you prefer to have the duty on?’—A. Personally, I would rather have the duty on. Q. Why ?—A. Because the duty is better for ys, for it would have a tendency in years of good catches to prevent your people from increasing their business. It has that tendency. Q. Has it any tendency to better you as well as to injure your neighbors !—A. That is what we were looking for—for better prices. Q. Has it a tendency to increase prices to your fishermen ?—A. It would. Q. So, if it increases the price of the fish, it strikes me the consumer must pay the in- ea price?—A. I am not clear that the duty has anything to do with it; it is the catch. Page 207.—Procter : Q. And did not the duty on Canadian-caught fish replace the bounty?7—A. Yes, and the reduction of the duty on salt was granted as an offset for the removal of the duty. Page 208.—Procter : Q. And that came later?—A. Yes; two or three years after the ratification of the treat Q. When it was proposed to take the duty off you remonstrated, thinking that this would reduce the price of fish, and this was the general feeling among fishermen and of the in- habitants of the coast of New England?—A. Yes. Page 312.—Warren : Q. Now, with regard to the right of carrying our fish free into the United States, I suppose be think that it is of no advantage to your fishermen, that provision of the treaty!—A. I have no idea it is any advantage to our side of the house. Q. It is a disadvantage, isn’t it?7—A. Yes; it is against us. Q. Be kind enough to explain how.—A. All these things seem to me to be regulated by ‘supply and demand. If there is 100,000 barrels of mackerel hove into our market on top of what we produce, the tendency is to depreciate prices. : ; Q. Ifthis provision of the treaty increases the supply of mackerel in the United States market, it will bring down the price of fish?—A. State that again. Question repeated. A. I think it would have that tendency. a. Q. That is the reason you think it is no advantage to your fishermen to have the privilege of fishing inside?—A. No, putting both questions of the 2 together, it is no advantage, because the supply is increased and the prices are depreciated. ey Q. You will admit this, that it is an advantage to the consumers, by bringing down the price? You admit that ?—A. Yes. F Q. Then, in point of fact, it gives you cheap fish !—A. The tendency is to cheapen them. Q. For the people of the United States ?—A. Yes. Page 326.—Lakeman : ' Q. The American fishermen want the duty back on fish, I suppose !—A. I do not know about that, I'am sure; but they naturally would wish to have it back again, I suppose, in order to exclude our fish from their market. ; Q. I suppose that the consumer got his fish cheaper, owing to the removal of the duty and | the admission of your fish into the American market !—A. The consumer would then get fe fish cheaper. The more fish that are put on the market the cheaper the consumer gets m. Q. Is not the result of the treaty, which admits your fish into the American market on equal terms with the American fish, to make the price of fish lower in that market !—A. It has that tendency evidently. au ee ene Q. Therefore, he gets his fish for less money 1—A. Evidently he does. When herring are abundant the price is lower. : Sete Q. It further follows that although a certain class of fishermen may lose something bs . this free admission of British fish into the American market, the American public. et y ES itt—A. By getting their fish at a lower price! Of course, it makes the price of fish ‘ower - In that market. That is clear. ae ener __ Q. Then the consumer gets the fish cheaper ?—A. He evidently does ; the larger the q tity that is put upon the market the less the price will be. a. ; 1876 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Page 389.—Sylvanus Smith : Q. Supposing the mackerel caught in colonial waters were excluded, would it or would it not have any effect upon the price you get for your fish? Supposing one-fourth of the quan tity consumed in the States was excluded, would it have any effect on the price of the other three-fourths ?—A. I think some, not much. I think it would stimulate our home pro- duction. Q. In what way would it stimulate it? By raising the price, is it not?—A. Well, toa smal] extent. Q. Well, then the effect of the British mackerel coming in is that the consumer is able to buy it cheaper than he otherwise would ?—A. Well, up to acertain point. The effect would be very small. There is not a large enough quantity. It is our home catch that af- fects it. Page 429.—Mpyrick: Q. What would be the effect upon the business of your firm of putting back the former duty of $2 a barrel upon mackerel sent from Prince Edward Island to the States? I would like you to explain your views in this regard particularly 7—A. Well, I suppose, since we have got our business established there and our buildings and facilities for carrying on the fishery, it would be difficult for us to abandon it altogether, but we would then turn our attention more particularly to cod-fishing, until, at any rate, the mackerel season got well ad- vanced and the mackerel became fat, and if any would bring a high price it would be those taken in the latter part of the season. We might catch some of them, but we would not un- dertake to catch poor mackerel to compete with those caught on the American shore. Q. Explain why not ?—A. Well, No. 3 mackerel, which are poor mackerel, generally bring a good deal less price than fat mackerel, and men do not catch any more poor mackerel than they do fat ones; the cost of catching them, and of barreling and shipping them, is the same, while the fat mackerel bring a better price. We would carry on the cod-fishing busi- ness irrespective of the American market; we would catch, cure, and ship codfish to other markets—to the West India markets—and we might make a fair business at that: but as to eas mackerel exclusively under such circumstances, it would not do to depend on it at all. Page 430.—Myrick: Q. What is it that fixes the price of mackerel in the United States market?—A. O, well of course il is the supply and demand, as is the case with everything else. When there is a large catch of mackerel on the American shore, prices rule low; this is a very sensitive market. If a fleet of 500, 600, or 800 vessels are fishing for mackerel, and those interested get reports of the fleet doing anything, the market falls at once; and this is the case par- ticularly when prices are any way inflated. Page 488.—Isaac Hall: Q. You told Mr. Foster that if a duty was reimposed you would consider very seriously whether you would continue in the business 7—A. Yes. Q. You made that statement on the assumption that you paid the duty ?—A. Yes. @. I think it has been explained very clearly that the price of fish depends almost alto gether on the catch ; this is the case to a large extent 7—A. To a large‘extent; yes. If there - is a large catch of mackerel prices rule low, and if there is a small catch they rule high. Q. If the evidence given here on the part of British witnesses is correct, two-thirds of the fish taken by American vessels in the Gulf, I may say, are caught inshore; and assuming that two-thirds of their whole catch in the Gulf is taken inside of the three-mile limit, could the American fleet, if they were excluded from fishing within this limit, prosecute the Gulf fishery for the other third ; would this pay them?—A. I think it would be a difficult busi- ness to do so, if that proportion is correct. . Q. if the price goes up, who pays the enhanced price ; is it not the consumer ?—A. Yes. 4 Q. And if the catch is large the price goes down? So it would depend in some measure on whether the catch on the American or on our own shore was large as to who would pay this duty ’—A. Yes; and on the quality of the mackerel. These are quotations that I make from the American evidence. Ido not quote from our own, as Mr. Dana admitted that there was such a con- sensus of evidence on that point that he almost insinuated that it was too uniform to be depended upon. _ Lnow propose to deal at length with two questions of vital importance in this inquiry, viz: ist. In favor of which country is the balance of advantages aie en reciprocal freedom of trade gained by the Treaty of Washington nD a | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1877 2d. Upon whom is the incidence of duties levied upon fish exported by Canada into the United States, the producer or the consumer ? I again (if I may do so without giving offense to my learned friends on the other side) express my obligations to Mr. Miafl for the valuable assistance he has afforded in preparing ny argument on these points, Article X XI of the Treaty of Washington is as follows: It is agreed that for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of this treaty, fish ' and fish-oil of 4ll kinds (except fish of the inland lakes and of the rivers falling into them, and except fish preserved in oil), being the products of the fisheries of the United States or of the Dominion of Canada, or of Prince Edward Island, shall be admitted into each coun- try respectively free of duty. ; ARTICLE XXII.—Inasmuch as it is asserted by the Government of Her Britannic Majesty that the privileges accorded to the citizens of the United States under Article XVIII of this treaty are of greater value than those accorded by Articles XIX and XXI of this treaty to - the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, and this assertion is not admitted by the Government of the United States, it is further agreed that Commissioners shall be appointed to de- termine, having regard to the privileges accorded by the United States to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, as stated in Articles XIX and XXI of this treaty the amount of any compensation which, in their opinion, ought to be paid by the Government of the United States to the Government of Her Britannic Majesty in return for the privileges accorded fo the citizens of the United States under Article XVIII of this treaty; and that any sum of money which the said Commissioners may so award shall be paid by the United States Government in a gross sum within twelve months after such award shall have been given. The advantages which might be expected to flow from the reciprocal freedom of markets, provided for by Article XXI, might be of two kinds— : 1. Increased trade. - 2. Increased profits upon the volume of trade already existing. _ The latter, however, could only obtain upon the supposition that the duties previously levied had been a burden upon the foreign producer, In reference to the first of these questions it is contended— ~ _ 1st, That the increase of consumption in the United States of British- ¢aught fish has not been equal to the increase of consumption in Canada of the products of the United States fisheries. a 2d. That a considerable portion of the products of British-American fisheries, exported to the United States for many years past, has been re-exported to foreign countries, where they have entered into competi- tion with other foreign exports of Her Majesty’s British-American sub- _ jects; and it must be borne in mind that these fish have not paid any These propositions will be dealt with seriatim. P _ By reference.to statement No. 8, to be found on page 435 of the Brit- - ish Evidence, it will be found that for the seven years following the ab- | Pogation of the Reciprocity Treaty (when duties were payable upon impor- tations) the imports of fish and fish-oil from the United States into the Dominion of Canada and Prince Edward Island were as follows: OF oe IE EE AE I eR Pee ARON SR PaO PION TTS $172,366 ae See RT aay oe ae ee bate ek SLRS 170,156 Peas He es ee nen 99,563 * EB a en a the pe ST a ra aa 99, 409 tS GEC 8 Oe eg Se Ti ee ue arn ateenanes 123,331 er ee. rae ore ee bad ee De Ee ee eae Re es Re hrc ore kee 279,049 | the average annual value being $152,506. During the years 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, when no duties icere payable, | they have, under the operation of the treaty, been as follows: $725, 221 sata ions eee nenier esse $725, ihe pagers aerinemunpen- saan ssnstissersesacab ese Sen irettirri +e hee - Bb en ese oc cesp cee cose cocese coepee cess ooeee e . 679 eat BUEN LONI cease a 1 the annual average having been increased to $721,637. 1878 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, The increase, therefore, of the United States exportations of fish and fish-oil annually to Canada has been $569,131, of which $179,030 con- sisted of fresh fish, leaving $390,101 as the increase upon articles previously subjected to duty. As against this gain to the United States the British producers have gained an increased market in the United States of only $340,589, as will be seen by the following figures to be tound in the same statement. During the seven years immediately preceding the Washington Treaty, when duties were payable, the United States imported the fish products of Canada and Prince Edward Island as follows, viz: 7 RS ND Seer Nae A RAR SP cam aPe rte eee $1, 108, 779 yor: ge I cit is Sac EVN At ees Re Aa Ra Sey SUP te aye) 1, 103, 859 POGOe eg Necoten oa asacy cueusauc case aaaeccce aoe 1, 208, 805 rl ae ee EG i MERE ene Na hs RENE hens BE 1, 129, 665 yd PRE AIR oe wits Mee het MME R Sienc ite eM, Aeneas 1, 087, 341 PPS ioe oe att aha ge een ge et ee toch Jay 933, 041 Te ae pe RE BND LSE A ae ot A, SESE ERS 1, 393, 389 the annual average being $1,137,839. Since the treaty has been in full operation the annual average has in- creased to $1,505,888, the imports having been as follows: Eek BO eee ie Rae reat ENP ORI Me MRE os STB RENE RAN Ce $1, 612, 295 Te eRe EIN op EN EG PDN RN Nr Eee hand Sg A Sta 1, 637,712 Io eles Sa tact te aes ee i ee 1, 455, 629 WOR Se Bice those. as inet aoe as see Ne re eee 1,317, 917 the increase in the annual average being $368,049, of which increase $27,460 was due to fresh fish, leaving $340,589 as the increase upon arti- cles previously subjected to duty. From these figures it is clear, then, that as respects the advantages arising from an increased market the United States and not Canada has been the greatest gainer. It may be remarked, before leaving this part of the subject, that although the sta- tistics put in by the Government of the United States, as to the total imports into the United States from Canada, approximate very closely to those put in by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the exports from Canada to the United States, there is an important discrepancy _ between the exports from the United States to Canada as put in evi- dence in Table XIV of Appendix O, and the imports into Canada from the United States as put in evidence by her Majesty’s Government. This has already been referred to during the course of the evidence, but the attention of the Commissioners is now again directed to the ex- plicit admissions of Mr. Young, the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics at Washington, in his reports of 1874, 75, and °76. With regard to this subject, for example, he says, at page XV of his report for 1876: ‘During the year ended 30th June, 1876, the total value of domestic merchandise and produce exported to Canada, and which was omitted in the returns of the United States custom officers on the Canadian border, as appears from the official statements furnished by the Commissioner of Customs of the Dominion, amounted to $10,507,563, as against $15,596,524 in the preceding year, and $11,424,566 in 1874.” 2. I beg now to call the attention of your excellency and your honors to the fact that a considerable proportion of the products of the British- American fisheries, exported to the United States for many years past, has been re-exported to other forei gn countries, where they may be fairly presumed to have entered into competition with the direct foreign exports of Her Majesty’s British-A merican subjects. This will clearly appear by a reference to statement No. 11, to be found on page 437 of the British Evidence, which shows that the exports of dried and smoked, pickled and other cured fish (exclusive of Cali- AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1879 fornia) to all other foreign countries, from 1850 to 1876, averaged annu- ally (at a gold valuation) as follows, viz: \ TEU SO S045. Seccceceswascasicetecscscceced $755, 165, Non-reciprocal years. 1860 MOM BOG Teas ocice vows sox seleeemoe cece: 1, 001, 984, Récipeocsl vee $EOG 00: 1BTS ns ian Socncw Su cwes' ec cccusce ean 1, 196, 554, Non-reciprocal years. BOGS £01516 <5 nos coneesncmanhacncescasioss 1, 640, 426, Reciprocal years. Now, comparing these exports from the United States to all foreign countries with the imports from Canada into the United States, it would appear that they are largely interdependent.. The imports referred to are as follows: EOOO Ce IRONS acs. a wn cei ecenvinseasennedene sess Gane cecuiaes $792, 419 PIM UN LOOO eo wunviny se acca was weg seceme'ane slits sce belies ses 1,377, 727 POUO MO 1 lahariaeas csc scsaechinccscwaw sheueh Wien seceos lec ase 1, 137, 839 D7 DONOIS caus cochealnesdun venpide anes ae-siesnadvancnceseeces 1, 505, 888 With regard to this matter, I call attention to the following assertion made at page 9 of the “Answer ” of the United States, viz: “* But while the result (of the Washington Treaty) to them (Canadians) has been one of steady development and increasing wealth, the United States cod fishery even has declined in amount and value.” If, then, the domestic production of the United States has decreased, and the exports to for- eign countries have increased in about the same ratio as have the im- portations from Canada, is it not evident that the increased imports have been made mainly with a view to the supply of foreign markets, or what is equivalent, to supply the hiatus in the markets of the United - States due to the exportation of a greater quantity of their own fish products than the yield of their fisheries warranted in view of their own requirements for home consumption? It would seem from an ex- amination of the statistics that the increased importations from Canada during those years in which no duties were levied on Canadian fish were largely due to an increased foreign trade, and it is contended that Her Majesty’s subjects gained no substantial pecuniary advantage from sup- plying those foreign markets by indirect rather than direct trade. On the other hand, the tendency of this class of trade is to throw the for- eign carrying trade hitherto conducted by subjects of Her Majesty more and more into the hands of the ship-owners and brokers of the United States. y A close examination of Canadian exports confirms this view. Of the entire exports, those to the United States and to other foreign coun- tries compare as follows: -_—» Percentage sent to |Percentage sent to other Years. the United States. foreign countries. 1850-'54 314 6) 1856-'66.. Hy, 65, LN palielaeae nape alli aias iar ong ae aaN Ei RRA Na ad | 234 The 1 POMS S OS SSCOSHS COEHSES CESSES SSSHOSTHOSCEOSOS SESS SBZSCOLOS? | 31 , @a * SR SS eel ert reer ert eee: 18 If any further reasoning is required in support of this very evident contention, the following extract from page 029 of the United States Census Report for 1860 may be useful: ‘ By the warehousing act of _ 1846, foreign fish were allowed to be imported and entered in bond, and “thence exported without payment of duty; but under the reciprocity act colonial fish are admitted free of duty. These acts have merge id principal fish-distributing cities, such as Boston, New York, oa rila- delphia, to become exporters of large quantities of foreigu fish. A 1880 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION Although, therefore, the export trade of Canada has progressively increased from year to year, it is plain that the removal of fiscal obstrue- tions on the part of the United States has had the effect, more or less, of turning a certain proportion of our foreign trade, with other foreign countries, into American channels. In other words, a larger proportion of the West Indian and South American fish trade of Canada has been done through United States merchants, whenever tariff restrictions have been removed. Now, the able counsel and Agent of the United States has chosen, as the basis upon which to determine the question of remissions of duty, the year 1874. It is contended that it would be manifestly unfair to take as a basis upon which to estimate such remissions, those years during which it is alleged the exportations from Canada to the United States have (mainly in consequence of such remissions) considerably increased. The United States imports from Canada and Prince Edward Island of fish and fish-oil from 1867 to 1873, during which period duties were imposed upon such importations, were as follows: Oy Ae ARE RAE a NIR ERIN AGREE Ae ONT Lite A $1, 108, 779 ee ee Oe a eee 1, 103, 859 a REE pea NRT AI BeOS EMaET SP ts Fo ea) Se ere “1, 208, 805 To Set ES Re Ei oe tira mee MORAY ELC SS Sete 1, 129, 665 (oo, Cae ee Needle Reet ae ne ea ka ety Sea ee ate MOE ETB 9 ted OST SAE De a ei St ee 933, 041 O73 A oe Se a ee oa ae) ae A 1, 393, 389 The average annual value of the above-mentioned importation was $1,137,840, and the largest in any one year, $1,393,389, in 1873. The commerce and navigation returns of the United States give the importation from Canada in that year at $1,400,562; or, including New- foundland, at $1,685,489, as follows: | |proe 28 | - Imported. _ |sBs 38 | — | pe NM an a Description. | Rate of duty. |S Pisce | : Bs ove e | Quantity. Values. ES Z°88 | BESLSE& Cee — ee 2 Wtaiittpeah i c22 Kare at po onto | 8, 627,724 Ibs ...| $278, 707 | Free......--..|....----sees oe aeeedivestcscss ecb ea ne uasesciec sor oee 53, 039 bbls -. 179, 377 | $1.00 per bbl... $53, 039 ackerel ........... REE ON Sea e ee 29,698 bbls -.| 605,778 | 200per bbl.-| 179, 396. Sardines, &c., preserved in oil .......22..2-.|.c ccc ween eee meee 4%, 527 50 per cent. 1, 763 All others not elsewhere specified..........|.................. 552, 032 13} per cent; |. 74,524 Oil -whale‘and\ fish 220-2. 2255220 | 127,315 galls... 66, 068 20 per cent. 13, 213 - sa eee ete etre ate EE We cnesatcs eran ¥ 665, 400)... Sse | 321, 935 Now, by reference to the United States Commerce and Navigation Re- turns for 1873 (page 311) it will be seen that the re-exports of foreign fish. were as follows: | Barrels. | Amount. Rate. Duty. Merting :<<:.cc.s2 | OTC OPE pet ns PRR 19,928 | $81,775 | $1.00 per bbl..| $19, 928 pe palace aisle sleleiaieisice aisle Nas aes we me eokk oe ree eas | 36,146 | 178,328 | 2.00 per bbl.. 72, 292. OW are sie ee eae 213, 534 134 per cent 28, 827 pag PGs Fenesnictssaicine eid ence cle eos aL ea cepa | naen Noe 25, 601 20 per cent. 5, 120. ROM eae wceiee sats cc ssecu tas seicseee eed ten eo oe 126, 167 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1881 figures just. previously given, Viz: .............. -cccce eens $321, 935 Deduct— . MAGANR Ol TE-ORDOVIS) 25 35.0: occ ccs oc vce alsa ve $126, 167 Estimated duties on fish products not covered by Washington Treaty, estimated at.............. 10, 000 136, 167 TONS JOAVIDE & SUM OL 7505). . ee seer kien cen cae en's et 185, 768 in regard to which it remains to be decided whether or not its remission has inured to the benefit of the Canadian producer. The United States contend, at page 31 of the Answer, that the remis- sion of duties to Canadian fishermen during the four years which have already elapsed under the,operation of the treaty has amounted to about $400,000 annually, which proposition it was explicitely stated would be conclusively proved in evidence which would be laid before the Cqm- mission. This extraordinary assertion which, it has been contended, has been contravened by the whole tenor of the evidence, whether ad- duced on behalf of the United States or of Great Britain, was followed up by the laying down of the following principle, viz: Where a tax or duty is imposed upon a small portion of the producers of any com- modity, from which the great body of its producers are exempt, such tax or duty neces- sarily remains a burden upon the producers of the smaller quantity, diminishing their profits, which cannot be added to the price, and so distributed among the purchasers and consumers, ; It is contended in reply that this principle is true only in those cases in which the ability on the part of the majority of producers to supply the commodity thus taxed is fully equal to the demand. The question whether the consumer or producer pays any imposts levied upon the importation of certain commodities does not depend upon whether the body of foreign producers is large or small relatively to the body of domestic producers, with whose products theirs are to come into competition, but simply upon the question whether or not the existing home production is equal to the demand. If it be not equal, and a quantity equal to one-third or one-fourth of that produced at home be really required, prices must go up until the foreign producer can be tempted to supply the remainder, and the consumer will pay the in- creased price not only upon the fraction imported, but upon the greater quantity produced within the importing country as well. And the tendency of all the evidence in this case, British and American, has been @ most explicit and direct confirmation of this principle. The British evidence, to which I shall immediately call your attention, proves beyond a doubt that when duties were imposed upon mackerel of $2 per barrel, British exporters to the United States realized a safli- cient increase of price to enable them to pay those duties and still receive a net amount equal to the average price received before those duties were imposed, as well as after they were removed. ae Upon a careful examination of the United States testimony, 't will, I submit, appear that during those years when duties were imposed upon British-caught fish, the price of mackerel when landed by United Lage vessels from their fishing voyages in the bay, was to the full extent Oo the duty in excess of the price they commanded after the duty was repealed, or before it was imposed. 1882 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. It is impossible;to conceive a clearer proof that the consumer and not the producer had to bear the burden of the duty, and not only that, but an equivalent burden upon every barrel of mackerel caught and landed by the United States mackerel vessels during the existence of that duty. In the evidence adduced on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government this point has been established beyond possibility of refutation. The aver- age prices obtained by the following firms, viz, A. H. Crowe, Lawson & Harrington, and Young, Hart & Co., in gold, at Halifax, after payment of duties and all other charges, are given by the various witnesses as follows, the sales being‘made in all cases to United States buyers: British evidence. 1861-1866 (DURING RECIPROCITY). P4204 2h H. Crowes onccsae. s/esiatents No. 1. $13 12 Wo.2. $875 No.3. $6 65 P. 419, Lawson & Harrington -........ Novi. 12578 No.2. 7 98 No. 3. 6 73 P. 425, Young, Hart & Co .222225---5- No. 1.. 12 66 No.2. 8 54 No. 3. 6 04 Average prices 2.52. t-s.005.0>< : 12 8 4: 6 47 1866-1873 (DUTIABLE PERIOD). Pet4t4; cA. Hs Crow sescieeccscccaeccots No. 1. $13 05 No.2. $9 43 No. 3. $6 55 P. 419, Lawson & Harrington.......... No.1. 13 30 No.2. 9 83 No. 3. 6 63 P. 425, Young, Hart & Co....... Seca No.1. 14 46 No.2. 1062 No.3. 6 28 AVelape priceacccscsissceacteecs es 13 60 9 96 6 49 1873-1877 (DURING WASHINGTON TREATY). PAPA A, Fy CLOWG coe ses ce Sc csaeeacee No. 1. $12 37 No. 2. $10 00 No.3. $8 00 P. 419, Lawson & Harrington ......... No.1. 12 25 Non2.= "= 8:62 No. 3. 7 46 P42, Young) Hart:& Cos. coc. 5c se oe No.1. 12 81 No.2. 9 39 No. 3. 7 18 & AVGIAge Prices.: = sce ceccwceees 12 47 9 33 7 5d It will be observed, then, that the Halifax merchants had to submit to no decline in price from 1866 to 1873. . The evidence adduced on behalf of the United States proves the prices at which mackerel caught by United States vessels in the Bay of St. Lawrence during these same periods were valued, on settling with the crews (exclusive of the cost and profits of packing, which would have increased the prices by 82 per barrel), to have been as follows : - AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1883 ee ee | RBs | sdy | §E s28 288 43 Year See “55 il [Beal ded | oa | &&g | >&s . | | 6)85 97 5)67 00 5)73 AVGEBDOUS scouts sone cen daca ane oe | walsn pias sees oasae sealoals 14 33 13 40 14 77 = SS ESS —= MS Soa gens ccc ces teeta cece eater peace hesae ee nee wok detec ncuseencsesees 9 8 93 10 ky GRRE ee erent Sie rine wre ies Ser Sete Re parame er 5 52 6 00 6 BG veces chae eee s coe oe ee oC necee bacon Csensecaccneieeaaetaenessens 14 46 13s 14 18 kIT RRR Seren mt Sore i ese rit ge he ree tee ne ee ee en SE ary ie 11 10 ll @ 4)40 88 = -4)36 75 2” AVOIBEO nc cee aas secsasaesdetssassesecsssssescescocevers senenkse an 102 919 10 @ These prices produce the following result : , we e a we \ea5| 3 | tf “32 | 25 | 36 Witnesses. ae | gi Es Sei 3 33 : go* | § ts abe OR RRUOUNE = wo canvccccccs>coseccoucsccesccceorsseseassrsstecesscss eas $10 22 A Sraith': 2659086 Sse ests, 3 40 9 19 MIOOT IC SUGOG 2s coos oo occ soe ce 14 77 10 @ Average price in United States currency 1417 16 ot Approximate gold prices* 1s 9 oo * Average price of currency, 1857 to 1865, 88 cents; 1866 to 1872, 80 cents; 1573 to 1576, 90 cents. From these prices it is abundantly clear that the consuming classes in the United States were compelled to pay at least $2 ( gold) per barre! more for all the mackerel brought in by United States vessels during the existence of the duty. What stronger evidence can be required than these facts ( perhaps the only facts with reference to which the testimony of witnesses on both sides is fully and absolutely in accord) to satisfy an impartial mind as to the real incidence of taxation upon the article in question t And inas- 1884 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. much as the mackerel is the only fish the market for the best qualities of which is limited to the United States, it is not deemed necessary to continue the inquiry with reference to other fish products to which the markets of the world are open, and whose prices therefore can in no way be influenced by the United States. Now, if your honors please, there is but one other subject to which I will call the attention of this Commission, before I close, and that is to the offer made by the American Commissioners at the time this Treaty of Washington was being negotiated. I refer to the offer to remit. the duty on coal, lumber, and salt. The circumstances are stated at length in the Reply of Great Britain to the Answer of the United States, and therefore I need not refer particularly to the figures. The sum was $17,800,000, as far as I can recollect. Now, if it is true, as contended by the United States in their Answer, that the remission of duties means a boon to the persons in whose favor they are remitted, and that those persons are the producers, then if is clear that this is a fair estimate, put by the American High Commissioners themselves, upon the fishing privi- leges that they were then endeavoring to obtain from the British Government. Whether that is a correct principle or not, is not what I am here to con- tend. My argument is that that was the view of the United States as a country, believing in the proposition that the producer, aud not the consumer, pays the duty. In their own Answer they put the remission of duties which they say inures to our benefit at $400,000 a year. While we do not admit the correctness of their view of that remission, either in principle or amount, their answer is an admission of their estimate of the value of the con- cessions afforded to them. If the concessions were worth as much as that, then the award of this Commission must of necessity be in favor of Great Britain for a large amount. But it may be said “You have got the value of this because we have remitted these duties.” We have shown by evidence and argument, conclusively, that the producer does not pay one dollar of these duties, that fish from the Halifax market was sent there during the period when the duties were paid, and that the fish merchant here received back, in his own counting-house, for the fish sold in Boston, as much money as when there was no duty paid at all. The remission of duty, therefore, is a benefit to citizens of the United States, and not to us. I have, in order to close this argument to-day, passed over a number of subjects which I at one time intended to call to the attention of the Commission. But the time is pressing. We are to a considerable ex- tent worn out with the labors of the Commission. Yesterday I asked the Commission to open at an earlier hour to-day, in order that I might finish my remarks without further adjournment, and I am happy to be able to redeein my promise. I have now brought my argument on behalf of Great Britain to a close. To the shortcomings and defects of that argument I am pain- fully alive. But the cause I have advocated is so righteous in itself, has been supported and sustained by evidence so trustworthy and con- clusive, and is to be decided by a tribunal so able and impartial as that vielen I have the honor to address, that I entertain no fears of the esult. Although I rejoice that a responsibility which for many months has pressed with no ordinary weight upon my learned colleagues. aud. my- self, is well nigh ended, yet I cannot but feel a pang of regret. that the. days of my pleasant intercourse with the gentlemen engaged in and connected with this most important inquiry are drawing to a close. TE ° AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1885 For the kind consideration and unfailing urbanity extended to my colleagues and myself, I tender to your excellency and your honors my most sincere acknowledgment and thanks. i What shall I say to my brethren of the United States? To their uniform courtesy, tact, and kindly feeling we chiefly owe it that this protracted inquiry has almost reached its termination without unpleas- ant difference or dissension of any kind. To the cause of the United States, which both my patriotism and my professional duty constrain me to regard as utterly untenable, the ability, ingenuity, and eloquence of Judge Foster, Mr. Dana, and Mr. Trescot, have done more than justice. They have shown themselves no unworthy members of a profession which in their own country has been adorned and illustrated on the bench and at the bar by the profound learning of a Marshall, a Kent, and a Story, and by the brilliant elo- quence of a Webster and a Choate. From my learned, able, and accom- plished brethren of the United States I shall part, when this Commission shall have closed its labors, with unfeigned regret. A few words more and I havedone. To the judgment of this tribanal, should it prove adverse to my anticipations, Great Britain and Canada will bow without a murmur. Should, however, the decision be other- wise, it is gratifying to know that we have the assurance of her counsel, that America will accept the award in the same spirit with which En- gland accepted the Geneva judgment, and like England pay it without unnecessary delay. This isasit should be. It is a spirit which reflects honor upon both countries. The spectacle presented by the Treaty of Washington, and the arbitrations under it, is one at which the world must gaze with wonder and admiration. While nearly every other nation of the world settles its difficulties with other powers by the dreadful arbitrament of the sword, England and America, two of the most powerful nations upon the earth, whose peaceful flags of com- merce float side by side in every quarter of the habitable globe, whose ships of war salute each other almost daily in every clime and on every sea, refer their differences to the peaceful arbitrament of Christian men, sitting without show or parade of any kind in open coart. ; On the day that the Treaty of Washington was signed by the High Contracting Parties, an epoch in the history of civilization was reached. On that day the heaviest blow ever struck by human agency fell upon that great anvil of the Almighty, upon which in His own way, and at His appointed time, the sword and the spear shall be transformed into the plowshare and the reaping-hook. — eee Ae ING I Es es BRIEF ON BEHALF OF HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT IN pe TO THE BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED A : The extent to which the dominion and jurisdiction of a maritime state extends on its external sea-coast has not always or by different nations been treated with unanimity. After the introduction of fire-arms (see “Anna,” 5 Rob., 385) that extent or distance, upon the then reason of the thing—‘“‘ terre dominium finitur ubi finitur armorum vis, as cited by Lord Stowell—was said to be usually recognized to be about three miles from the shore, but now that the range of modern artillery has been so largely increased, if not upon other grounds, it is probable that a greater dis- tance would be claimed by many nations, including the United States of America. The practical, and therefore real and true reason of the rule is stated by Kent (‘‘Commentaries” I, p. 32), where after comment- ing on a citation of Azuni, he says: ‘All that can reasonably be asserted is that the deminion of the sovereign of the shore over the contiguous sea extends as far as is requisite for his safety and for some lawful end.” No dispute has arisen touching the distance from the external line of coast from which American fishermen have been excluded from taking fish, and therefore that subject may be rejected from the present dis- cussion. It is admitted by all authorities, whether writers on international law, judges who have interpreted that law, or statesmen who have negotiated upon or carried it into effect in treaties or conventions, that every nation has the right of exclusive dominion and jurisdiction over those portions of its adjacent waters which are included by promontories or headlands Within its territories. The rule is thus stated in Wheaton’s International Law (second edition by Mr. Lawrence, p. 320): ‘The maritime territory of every state extends to the ports, harbors, bays, mouths of rivers, and adjacent parts of the sea inclosed by headlands belonging to the same state.” Upon examination of Article I of the Convention of 1818, mentioned in the eighteenth article of the Treaty of Washington, it will be ascer- tained how far the privilege has been conceded by the latter article to the United States fishermen to use bays in British North America. The following is Article XVIII of the Treaty of Washington: Tt is agreed by the High Contracting Parties that, in addition to the liberty secured to the United States fishermen by the Convention between Great Britain and the United States, signed at London on the 20th day of October, 1815, of taking, curing, and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North American Colonies therein de- fined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty, for the term of years mentioned in Article Rey of this treaty, to take fish of every kind except shell-tish on the sea coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbors, and creeks of the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, ance Brunswick, and the colony of Prince Edward Island, and of the several sentes there- unto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the shore, w ior spaheryss sion to land upon the said coasts and shores and islands, and also upon hes =") r Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish: J’rorwed, ° ba _ 80 doing they do not interfere with the rights of private property or with British fish- . 1888 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ermen in the peaceable use of any part of the said coasts in their oceupancy for the same purpose. : It is understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to the sea fishery, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and all other fisheries in rivers and in the mouths of rivers, are hereby reserved exclusively for British fishermen. : Article I of the Convention of 1818 is as follows: Whereas ditferences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the United States for the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, and cure fish on certain coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks of His Britannic Majesty’s dominions in America, it is agreed between the High Contracting Parties that the inhabitants of the said United States shall have, forever, in common with the subjects of His Britannie Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands, on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland, from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks from Mount Joly, on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through the Straits of Belle Isle, and thence north indefinitely along the coast, without prejudice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson Bay Company; and that the American fishermen shall also have liberty, forever, to dry and cure fish im any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland, hereabove deseribed, and of the coast of Labrador; bat so soon as the same or any portion thereof shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled, without previous agreement for such purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground. And the United States hereby renounce forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed, or claimed by the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of His Britannic Maj- esty’s dominions in America not included within the above-mentioned limits. Pro- ~ vided, however, that the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or- harbors for the purpose of shelter,and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under sueh restrictions as shall be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curi tish A pritdases or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserv to them. The controversy turns upon the true effect of the renunciation on the part of the United States “of any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish ou or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of His Bri- tannic Majesty’s dominions in America,” not inciuded within certain above-mentioned limits. On the part of Great Britain it is maintained that the United States fishermen were prohibited from fishing within three marine miles of the entrance of any of sach bays, creeks, or harbors of His Britannic Majes- ty’s dominions in America, while the United States Government contend that the United States fishermen were permitted by that article to fish in the said bays, creeks, or harbors, provided they did not approach within three miles of the shore in the pursuit of their calling. The correspondence between the Government of Great Britain and that of the United States, a portion of which is set out in the United States brief, shows that with the exception of the Bay of Fandy, whieh, for exceptional reasons, and by the indulgence of Great Britain, was differently treated, Her Majesty's Government has uniformly contended for the construction now relied on. > This correspondence as well as the utterances of American statesmen, su i the construction contended for by Great Britain. ¥ — Mr. Stevenson, United States minister in London, in 1841, March 27, writing to Lord Palmerston, then foreign secretary, puts the two views very clearly, “ The provincial authorities,” he says, “assume arightto exclude the vessels of the United States from all their bays (even in- clading those of Fandy and Chaleurs), and likewise to aT OMbIE pir approach within the three miles of a line drawn from headland to head- land, instead of from the indents of the shores of the provinces. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1889 fishermen of the United States believe that they can with propriety take fish anywhere on the coasts of the British provinces if not nearer than three miles to land.” ; But Mr. Everett, also United States minister in London, in 1844, May 25, puts a different construction upon the Treaty of 1818. In his letter to Lord Aberdeen of May 25, 1844, quoted in the United States Brief (pp. 15, 16, 17, and 18), he says: It was notoriously the object of the article of the treaty in question to put an end to the difficulties which had grown out of the operations of the fishermen from the United States along the coasts and upon the shores of the settled portions of the coun- j. try, and for that purpose to remove their vessels to a distance not exceeding three # mules from thesame. In estimating this distance the undersigned admits it to be the | inient of the treaty as it iz in itself reasonable to have regard to the general line of the coast, and to consider its bays, creeks, and harbors—that is, the indentations usually 90 eccounted— as included within thai line. But the undersigned cannot admit it to be reasonable, instead of thus following the general directions of the coast, to draw a line from the southwesternmost point of Nova Scotia to the termination of the northeastern bound- ary between the United States and New Brunswick, and to consider the arms of the sea which will thus be cut off, and which cannot, on that line, be less than sixty miles wide, as one of the bays on the coast from which American vessels are excluded. By this interpretation the fishermen of the United States would be shut oat from the waters distant, not three but thirty miles, from any part of the colonial coast. The undersigned cannot perceive that any assignable object of the restriction imposed by the Convention of 1818, on the fishing privilege accorded to the citizens of the United ' by the Treaty of 1753, requires such a latitude of constraction. It is obvious that by the terms of the treaty the farthest distance to which fishing vessels of the United States are obliged to hold themselves from the colonial coasts and bays is three miles. But owing to the peculiar configuration of these coasts, there is a succession of bays indenting the shores both of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, within any dis- tance not less than three miles—a privilege from the enjoyment of which they will be wholly excluded—in this part of the coast, if the broad arm of the sea which flows ee ee Scotia is itself to be considered one of the for- Here, in plain, unambiguous language, Mr. Everett represents to Lord Aberdeen that the Bay of Fundy ought not to be treated as a bay from which United States fishermen were to be excluded, under the Conven- tion of 1818, because the headlands were not only 60 miles apart, but one of them was not British. Moreover, he points out that “owing to the Settee cenfigarstion of these coasts” (i. ¢., the coasts of the Bay of dy itself), there is a succession of bays indenting the shores both of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia (i. ¢., the two shores of the Bay of Fandy), within any distance not less than three miles,” from which last- named the American fishermen had a right to approach, and from which privilege they were necessarily excluded by holding the whole ‘body of the Bay of Fundy to be British territorial water. _ Itis by no means conceded that because on both coasts of the great Bay of Fundy large bays exist which, according to the British conten- tion, American fishermen are forbidden to approach, Mr. Everett was right in his argument that the Bay of Fundy is really open sea, yet there is at all events a plausibility about the reasoning which cannot attach to the contention of the United States in reference to any other bay on the British American coasts. ; yon a word is to be found in this letter affording the a ee counte- ‘Rance to the doctrine contended for in the answer an brief of the Tnited States, viz, that no bay was intended to be included in the = Yention of 1818, except bays of no greater width at the mouths than miles. Had such a doctrine been in the mind of Mr. Everett when he Wrote this letter, it may be assumed that he would not have refrained from bringing it under Lord Aberdeen’s notice. But so far from setting Up such a doctrine, he says that he “admits it to be the intent of the 119 F 1890 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. treaty, as it is in itself reasonable, to have regard to the general line of the coast, and to consider its bays, creeks, and harbors, that is, indenta- tions usually so accounted, as included within that line.” What line? Clearly the line within three miles from which all American fishing-ves- sels are excluded under the convention. Mr. Everett never ventured to hint that the bay of Miramichi or the bay of Chaleurs did not fall within the words of the Convention of 1818. He argues that if the United States fishermen are to be excluded from the Bay of Fundy, ‘two en- tirely different limita‘ions would exist in reference to the right of shelter - reserved to American vessels on the shores of Her Majesty’s colonial possessions. They would be allowed to fish within three miles of the place of shelter along the greater part of the coast, while in reference to the entire extent of shore within the Bay of Fundy they would be wholly prohibited from fishing along the coast, and would be kept at a distance of twenty or thirty miles from any place of refuge in case of extremity. This argument impliedly admits that, whatever may be the case as to the Bay of Fundy, United States fishermen were, by the Treaty of 1818, excluded, except for purposes of necessity, from other bays along the — coast of Her Majesty’s colonial possessions and from fishing within three mniles of those bays. The British Government, however, in 1845, whilst maintaining as a matter of strict construction that the Bay of Fundy was rightfully claimed by Great Britain as a bay within the meaning of the Conven- tion of 1818, relaxed the application of this construction to that bay, and allowed the United States fishermen to pursue their avocations in any part of it, provided they should not approach, except in cases specified in the Treaty of 1818, within three miles of the entrance of any bay on the coast of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. This proviso shows clearly the construction put at that time (1845) and before by the British Government upon the word ‘bay ” in the Convention of 1818 on both points, that the dimensions of the bay were immaterial, and that no approach was permissible within three miles of the entrance of a bay. In a state paper dated July 6, 1852, Mr. Webster, Secretary of State, although contending that the wording of tue Convention of 1818 was not conformable to the intentions of the United States, as one of the con- tracting parties, says: It would appear that by a strict and rigid construction of this article (Article I of Convention of 1518) fishing vessels of the United States are precluded from entering into the bays or harbors of the British provinces except for the purposes of shelter, repairing damages, and obtaining wood and water. A bay, as is usually understood 18 an arm or recess of the sea entering from the ocean between capes or headlands ; and the term is applied equally to small and large tracts of water thus situated. It is common to — of Hudson’s Bay or the Bay of Biscay, although they are very large tracts of ‘ yater, The British authorities insist that England has a right to draw a line from headland to headland and to capture all American fishermen who may follow their pursuits in- side of that line, It was undoubtedly an oversight in the Convention of 1818 to make so large a concession to England, since the United States had usually considered that those vast inlets or recesses of the ocean ought to be open to American fishermen as | freely as the sea itself, to within three miles of the shore. Had this lan guage been used by so great and experienced a statesman | as Mr. Webster in any ordinary debate, it would be testimony of the most weighty character against the views put forth on this subject in the answer of the United States. But when it is borne in mind that Mr. Webster used these words in his official capacity as Secretary of — State they must be considered as conclusive. | ' | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1891 Mr. Rush, who negotiated the Treaty of 1818, in a letter to Sec Marcy, dated 18th July, 1853, says: ; ii These are the decisive words in our favor. They mean no more than that onr fish- ermen, whilst fishing in the waters of the Bay of Fundy, should not go nearerfthan three miles to any of those small inner bays, creeks, or harbors which are known to indent the coasts of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. To suppose they were bound to keep three miles off from a line drawn from headland to headland on the extreme outside limits of that bay—a line which might measure fifty miles or more, according to the manner of drawing or imagining it—would be a most unnatural supposition. Similar reasons apply to all other large bays and gulfs. In signing the treaty we believed that we retained the right of fishing in the sea whether called a bay, fe or by whatever name designated. Our fishermen were waiting for the word not A ie sion but of admission to these large outer bays or gulfs. This reasoning of Mr. Rush evades the question. He admits the right of exclusion from some bays, but can only say as to larger bays (not defining or even describing what he means by larger bays) that it is not to be supposed the right of fishing in them would be signed away by the American negotiators, a supposition, however, which, it appears, r. Webster and other American statesmen did entertain and express. Senator Soulé, in the Senate, August 5, 1852, referring to the words of Mr. Webster, already cited, said: Is England right? If we trust the Secretary of State, in the view which he takes of her claims, it would seem as if the terms of the letter of the treaty were on her side. This Mr. Webster peremptorily admits, while others but debate it upon mere technicalities of language. After quoting from Webster, Senator Soulé continued : Here the whole is surrendered ; there is no escape from the admission. It was an oversight to make so large a concession to England. The concession was then made, was it not? If so, the dispute is at an end; and yet it were a hard task to justify the summary process through which England has sought to compel us to compliance with the concession, particularly as she had, to say the least of it, suffered our fishermen to haunt the Bay of Fundy, by express allowance in 1544. On August 12, 1852, Senator Butler, though expressing a desire to make further inquiries into the subject, said : We cannot go beyond the Treaty of 1818; and that What is a British bay? What is one of the bays and harbors of Great Britain ? - And after speaking of the clear concessions to American fishermen on some of the coasts, bays, &c., of Newfoundland, Senator Batler adds: But so far as regards the Bays of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, we have no right xcla- under the terms of the treaty to fish in them if they can be regarded as British bays. the government occupies both sides of the coas On August 14, 1852, Senator Seward, answering the members of the Senate who had criticised the passage above quoted from Mr. Webster, Said : ‘I cannot assent to the force of the argument of the honorable Senator from Louis- jana. 1am the more inclined to go against it, because I think it is geting pretty late in the day to find the Secretary of State wrong in the technical and legal construction of an sor mgaanay Let us Gest the argument. The honorable Senator says that where t, and where the strait through which the waters of the bay flow into the ocean is not more than six miles wide, then there is dominion over it. ne ae Now, then, the Gut of Canso is a most indispensable communication for our fi . men from the Atlantic Ocean to the Northumberland Straits and to the Gulf of Saivt ' Yet the Gut of Canso is only three-quarters of a mile wide. e by referring to the map; argum Is ould be sorry to adopt 3 ent which Great Britain might turn against us, to exclude us from that im- portant passage. * * * S as I recall the honorable Senator’s argument, Viz: “Two things unite to give a country dominion over an inland sea. Wrence, for a reason which any one will very readily se The first is, that 1892 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the land on both sides must be within the dominion of the government claiming juris- diction ; and then that the strait is not more than six miles wide; but that if the strait is more than six miles wide, no such jurisdiction can be claimed.” Now, sir, this argument seems to me to prove too much. I think it would divest the United States of the harbor of Boston, all the land around which belongs to Mass- achusetts or the United States, while the mouth of the bay is six miles wide. It would surrender our dominion over Long Island Sound—a dominion which, I think, the State of New York and the United States would not willingly give up. It would surrender Delaware Bay; it would surrender, I think, Albemarle Sound, and the Ches- apeake Bay; and I believe it would surrender the Bay of Monterey, and perhaps the Bay of San Francisco on the Pacific coast. Senator Tuck, during the same debate, said : Perhaps I shall be thought to charge the Commissioners of 1818 with overlooking our interests. They did so, in the important renunciation which I have quoted; but they are obnoxious to no complaints for so doing. In 1818, we took no mackerel on the coasts of British possessions, and there was no reason to anticipate that we should ever have occasion to do so. Mackerel were then found as abundantly on the coast of New England as anywhere in the world, and it was not till years after that this beautiful fish, in a great degree, left our waters. The mackerel fishery on the pro- vincial coasts has principally grown up since 1838, and no vessel was ever licensed for that business in the United States till 1828. The Commissioners in 1818 had no other | business but to protect the cod fishery, and this they did in a manner generally satis- factory to those most interested. The document dated April 12, 1866, partially quoted at page 28 of the United States brief, would convey a far different meaning if given in full. The Commissioners are desired to notice that the extract there given is in the text immediately preceded by the following: Her Majesty’s Government are clearly of opinion that, by the Convention of 1818, the United States have renounced the right of fishing, not only within three miles of the colonial shores, but within three miles of a line drawn across the mouth of an British bay or creek. But the question, what is a British bay or creek, is one whic has been the occasion of difficulty in former times. 2 It is therefore, at present, the wish of Her Majesty’s Government neither to concede, nor, for the present, to enforce any rights in this respect which are in their nature open to any serious question. It must be remembered that at the date of this document the Ameri- can fishermen were passing from the free use of all Canadian fisheries granted by the Reciprocity Treaty to the limitations of the Convention of 1818, and Her Majesty’s Government, through friendly feelings, de- sired to give American fishermen some time to return quietly to the sys- tem created by the Convention of 1818, With regard to the memorandum quoted at p. 32 of the brief, Her Majesty’s Government are not aware that any such memorandum was communicated by them to the Government of the United States, and the United States Agent is challenged to produce any record of such communication having been officially made to the United States Gov- ernment by the British representative at Washington. As a matter of fact, a private memorandum in such terms was sent‘ to Her Majesty’s representative at Washington, but accompanied by distinct instructions not to bring it under the consideration of the Government of the United States at the time. | The matter with reference to which it was written was a project for the appointment of a joint commission which might serve to remove occasion for future misunderstanding. The quotation given in the brief is as follows: { The right of Great Britain to exclude American fishermen from waters within three miles of the coast is unambiguous, and, it is believed, uncontested. But there appears to be some doubt what are the waters described as within three miles of bays, creeks, and harbors. Where a bay is less than six miles broad, its waters are within the three- miles limit, and, therefore, clearly within the meaning of the treaty; but when it is ' AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1893 more than that breadth, the question arises whether it is a bay of Her Britannie Majesty’s dominions. . his is a question which has to be considered in each partict ri : international law and usage. When such a bay, &c., is ok pe ticaer! We py rnb dominions, the American fishermen will be entitled to fish in it, except within three miles of the “coast; when it is a bay of Her Majesty’s dominions,” thes will not be entitled to fish within three miles of it; that is to say (it is presumed), within three miles of a line drawn from headland to headland. : * _ The following are, however, the subsequent passages in the memoran- dum which are entirely omitted in the brief: It is desirable that the British and American Governments should come to a clear understanding in the case of each bay, creek, or harbor, what are the precise limits of the exclusive rights of Great Britain, and should define these limits in such a way as to be incapable of dispute, either by reference to the bearings of certain headlands or other objects on shore, or by laying the lines down on a map or chart. ; With this object it is proposed that a commission should be appointed to be com- posed of representatives of Great Britain, the United States, and Canada, to hold its sittings in America, and to report to the British and American Governments their opinion, either as to the exact geographical limits to which the renunciation above , quoted applies, or, if this is impracticable, to suggest some line of delineation along the whole coast, which, though not in exact conformity with the words of the convén- tion, may appear to them consistent in substance with the just rights of the two nations, and calculated to remove occasion for future controversy.” It is not intended that the result of the Commission should necessarily be embodied in a new Convention between the two countries, but if an agreement can be arrived at it may be sufficient that it should be in the form of an understanding between the two ele as to the practical interpretation which shall be given to the Convention ri) It would be difficult for the Commissioners, with the context of the memorandum thus before them, to understand, even if this document had been officially communicated to the United States Government, how by it any doctrine was laid down to vary or alter the Convention of 1818, and it is submitted that nothing was intended by the memo- ‘randum, as in fact nothing was expressed therein, in any manner waiv- ing or abandoning the rights secured to Great Britain by that Conven- tion. . As to the instructions from Mr. Mitchell, quoted at pp. 31 and 32 of the brief, it is only necessary to say that, instead of contributing to the establishment of the “status” claimed in the brief, they are of a char- acter to prevent any such misapprehension. They reaflirm the doctrine of the headlands in its fullest sense; but in view of impending nego- tiations, which resulted in the Washington Treaty, the authorities, both in England and in Canada, were desirous of removing all obstacles by the temporary relaxation of their rights, and thereby promoting a friendly and amicable settlement. This consideration may explain the language of Mr. Rogers in his letter to the admiralty of April 30, 1870, quoted at p. 30 of the brief. 2 ons Oe It may be here added that the Joint High Commissioners, when the Washington Treaty was in course of negotiation, could not and did not ignore the difference which had from time to time arisen as to the inter- pretation of the first article of the Convention of 1818. In fact, these _ differences had given birth to the Reciprocity Treaty of 1554, and being revived by the termination of that treaty in 1566, the Joint High Com- _mision was proposed primarily to dispose of that difficulty. In the order of the subjects to be submitted to that Commission, according to . the letter from Mr. Fish to Sir E. Thornton, 30th January, 1571, the question of the fisheries is first mentioned. It was “ deemed of impor- tance to the good relations which they were ever anxious should subsist and be strengthened between the United States and Great Britain that -_afriendly and complete understanding should be come to between the ajesty’s 1894 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. two governments as to the extent of the rights which belong to the citi- zens of the United States and Her Majesty’s subjects, respectively, with reference to the fisheries on the coasts of Her Majesty’s possessions in North America, and as to any other questions,” &ce. Had the “status” contended for in the United States brief been con- templated, it is reasonable to suppose that it would have been formally adopted or referred to in the treaty. Not oaly, however, are the proto- cols of the conference silent on this subject, but no record exists that such a status was ever entertained as a basis of negotiation on the part of either government. On the contrary, and as if to exclude the possi- bility of doubt, the words of the Convention of 1818 are adopted in their integrity, and thus constituted the legal and actual basis on which the indemnity to be paid is to be assessed. , The question, therefore, is simply one of construction of words. The particular expressions in the first article of the Convention, which have furnished the occasion of a disputed construction, are “on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of His Britannic Majesty’s dominions.” For the solution of this question it will be convenient, in the first place, to state certain principles of inter- pretation to which recourse may be had when there is any ambiguity in the terms of the treaty. In the first place, it is an universal rule, dictated by common sense, for the interpretation of contracts, and equally applicable to all instru- ments, that if there is anything ambiguous in the terms in which they are expressed they shall be explained by the common use of those terms in the country in which the contracts were made. (Pothier, Obligations, No. 94, Ce qui peut paraitre ambigu dans un contrat, s’interpréte par ce qui est @usage dans le pays.) In the second place, itis an admitted principle that, for the meaning of the technical language of jurisprudence, we are to look to the laws and jurisprudence of the country, if the words have acquired a plain and positive meaning. (The Huntress, Davie’s Admiralty | American] Reports p. 100. Flint v. Flemyng, 1 Barnwall and Adolphus, 48.) In the third place, as treaties are contracts belonging to the law of nations, and the law of nations is the common property of all nations, and, as such, a part and parcel of the law of every country (De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gallison’s Admiralty [American] Reports, p. 398; Buvot 2%. Burbot, cited by Lord Mansfield in Triquet and others v. Peach, 3 Bur- rows, p. 1481), if we have recourse to the usage of nations, or to the decisions of courts in which the law of nations is administered, for the definition of terms which occur in such contracts, and which have received a plain and positive meaning, we are not going beyond the law of either of the countries which are parties to the treaty. _ Vattel says that it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of , Interpretation, If the meaning be evident, and the conclusion not obscure, you have no right to look beyond or beneath it, to alter or add to it by conjecture. Wolff adds, that to do so is to remove all certainty from human transactions. To affix a particular sense, founded on ety- mology or other reasons, upon an expression, in order to evade the obli- gation arising from the customary meaning, is a fraudulent subterfuge . aggravating the guilt of one feedifragous party “ fraus enim adstringit non dissolvit perjurium.” These rules are adopted by T. D. Woolsey, late president of Yale Col- lege (New York, 1877), p. 185, § 109, in his Introduction to the study of International Law. The Convention of 1818 was a contract between Great Britain and | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1895 the United States, and is to be construed like any other contract. The rule for such construction is well laid down by Mr. Addison in bis work on contracts (seventh edition) at,page 164. He says: “ Every contract ought to be so construed that no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant; every word ought to operate in some shape or other, nam verba debent intelligi cum effectu ut res magis valeat quam pereat.” In Robertson v. French (4 East, 137), Lord Ellenborough says that the terms of a contract “are to be understood in their plain, ordinary, and popular sense, unless they have generally, in respect to the subject-mat- ter (as by the known usage of trade or the like), acquired a peculiar sense distinct from the popular sense of the same words.” In the case of Shore v. Wilson (9 Clark and Finnelly. pp. 565, 565), Lord Chief Justice Tindal, speaking of the construction of written instra- ments, says: “* When the words of any written instrument are free from ambiguity in themselves, and where external circumstances do not create any doubt or difficulty as to the proper application to claimants under the instrument, or to the subject-matter to which the instrument relates, such instrument is always to be construed according to the strict, plain, and common meaning of the words themselves, and evidence dehors the instrament for the purpose of explaining it according to the surmised or alleged intention of the parties is utterly inadmissible.” In fact, judges, arbitrators, or commissioners, who would disregard such rules, would assume the right of recasting the law or the treaties to suit their own fancy, instead of enforcing the execution of a clear con- tract. In this instance the two parties agree not to invite this Commis- sion to travel over such ground, and her Majesty’s Government are con- fident that the Commissioners will adhere to the instructions contained in the Washington Treaty, which directs them to estimate the value of “the privileges added by article 18 to those already eujoyed under arti- cle 1 of the Convention of 1818. : As regards the power of arbitrators, such as the Commissioners in this instance, to interpret terms of treaties, Hertslet’s Treaties, vol. 3, p. 518, contain the following precedent: Great Britain and the United States having referred a difficulty, grow- _ing out of the Treaty of Ghent (1814), to the arbitration of the Emperor of Russia, to interpret the intentions of the parties as contained in an article of that. treaty, his Imperial Majesty stated that he considered himself bound “ strictly to adhere to the grammatical interpretation of article first,’ &c. And, on a further reference to his Majesty (same vol., p. 521), the Emperor was of opinion that the question could only be decided according to the literal and grammatical meaning of article 1 of the Treaty of Ghent. A notice of this decision is to be found in Lawrence’s 2d edition of Wheaton, pp. 495, 496. - The Emperor of Russia, in dealing with this question, acted in accord- ance with the rules laid down in Phillimore’s International Law, vol. 2, p. 72, as follows: “ LXIX. Usual interpretation is, in the case of treaties, that meaning which the practice of nations bas affixed to the use of cer- tain expressions and phrases, or to the conclusions deducible from their omissions, whether they are or are not to be understood by necessary implications. A clear usage is the best of all interpreters bet ween pee tions, as between individuals; and it is not legally competent to eit - nation or party to recede from its verdict.” And at p. i3 the ads author says: “The principal rule has already been adverted . ee cat to follow the ordinary and usual acceptations, the plain ~ : add meaning of the language employed. This rule is, tn fact, inculca i ‘ 1896 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. - cardinal maxim of interpretation equally by civilians and by writers on international law.” The interpretation contended for by the United States Government requires that we should, in effect, insert the words, “ of the shore,” in the article itself, as understood although not expressed, either before the words *“‘of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors,” &c., as nee- essary to make those words operative, or as authorized by usage; or before the words *‘bays, creeks, or harbors,” as demanded by the con- text, and indispensable to prevent a conflict with other provisions of the treaty. Such an interpretation, however, is, in the first place, not required to make the words “of any of the coasts” operative. Assuming that we should be justified in applying to the language of the treaty the decis- ions of the admiralty courts of the United States, where any words have received a judicial interpretation, the treaty being’ a contract according to the law of nations, and the admiralty courts in the United States being tribunals which administer that law, we find that the term “coast ” has received a judicial interpretation expressly with reference to territorial jurisdiction; and that, according to that interpretation, the word “coasts” signifies ‘‘the parts of the land bordering on the sea, and extending to low-water mark;” in other words, ‘ the shores at low low water.” The question was formally taken into consideration in the year 1804, in the case of the ‘‘Africaine,” a French corvette, captured by a British privateer off the bar of Charleston, and on the outside of the Rattle- snake Shoal, which is four miles at least from land. (Bee’s Admiralty Reports, p. 205.) On this occasion, the commercial agent of the French Republic claimed the corvette to be restored as captured within the jurisdiction of the United States; and it was contended in argument, in support of the claim, that the term ‘‘coasts” included also the shoals to a given distance; and that all geographers and surveyors of sea-coasts understood by the term “coasts”: the shoals along the Jand. Mr. Justice Bee, however, who sat in the court of admiralty in Charleston, overruled this argument; and after observing that the interpretation of coasts in the large sense of the word might possibly be correct in a maritime point of view, decided that ‘ coasts,” in reference to territorial jurisdiction, is equivalent to shores, and must be construed to mean ss ne land bordering on and washed by the sea extending to low-water mark. _ That the words “shores” and “ coasts” are equivalent terms, accord- ing to the common sense of these terms in the jurisprudence of the United States, may be gathered from the language of various acts of Congress. For instance, the revenue act of 1799 (Laws of the United States, vol. iii, p. 136) assigns districts to the collectors of revenue, whose authority to visit vessels is extended expressly to a distance of four leagues from the coast; and the districts of these collectors, in the case of the Atlantic States, are expressly recited as comprehending ‘all the waters, shores, bays, harbors, creeks, and inlets” within the respective States. This act of Congress has also received a judicial in- terpretation, according to which the authority of revenue officers to visit vessels is held to extend over the high seas to a distance of four leagues from the shore of the mainland. Again, the judiciary act of June, 1794, uses the words “ coasts” and “ shores” not as alternative, but as equivalent terms according to judicial decisions on this very point, when it speaks of the “territorial jurisdiction of the United States extending a marine league from the ‘coasts’ or ‘ shores’ thereof. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1897 It would thus appear that it is not necessary to understand the word *‘ shore” before “coasts” in order that the latter word should be fully intelligible. It remains to consider whether such an understanding would be authorized by usage on the principle laid down by Pothier : ‘‘ L/usage est d’une si grande autorité pour l’interprétation des conven- tions, qu’on sousentend dans un contrat les clauses qui sont d’usage, quoiqu’elles ne soient pas exprimées.” (Obligations, No. 95.) No such usage, however, of nations prevails, applicable to the term “coasts.” Islands, indeed, which are adjacent to the land, have been pronounced by Lord Stowell to be natural appendages of the coast on which they border, and to be comprised within the bounds of territory. (The Anna, 5 Robinson’s Reports, p. 385.) The assertion, therefore, of an usage to understand the word “ shore” before * coasts” in treaties, would tend to limit the bounds of territorial jurisdiction allowed by Lord Stowell in the case just cited, in which a question was involved to which the United States Government was a party, and in favor of whose claim, on the ground of violated territory, Lord Stowell pro- nounced. ‘ It remains next to consider what is the true construction of the ex- pressions within three marine miles of any of the “ bays, creeks, or harbors.” That the words “ bays,” “ creeks,” and “harbors” have all and each a distinct sense, separate from and supplemental to the word “coasts,” to which effect must be given, where there are reciprocal rights and obligations growing out of the treaty in which these words have been introduced, is consonant with the rules for interpreting con- tracts, which have been dictated by right reason, and are sanctioned by judicial decisions. Mr. Justice Story may be cited as an authority of the highest eminence, who has recognized and applied this principle in construing a statute of the United States. ‘‘ The other words,” he says, “descriptive of placein the present statute (Statute 1825, c. 276, 8. 22), which declare that ‘if any person or persons on the high seas, or in any arm of the sea, or in any river, haven, creek, basin, or bay, within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, and out of the jurisdic- tion of any particular State,’ &c., give great additional weight to the suggestion that the ‘high seas’ meant the open, uninclosed ocean, or that portion of the sea which is without the fauces terre on the sea- coast, in contradistinction to that which is surrounded or inclosed be- tween narrow headlands or promontories; for if the ‘ high seas’ meant to include other waters, why should the supplemental words, ‘arm of the sea, river, creek, bay,’ &e., have been used ?” (United States v. Grush, 5 Ma- son’s Admiralty Reports, p. 298.) sf This view of Mr. Justice Story isin accordance with Pothier’s rale, Lorsqu’nne clause est susceptible de deux sens, on doit platot Penten- dre dans celui dans lequel elle peut avoir quelque effet que dans celui dans lequel elle n’en pourrait avoir aucun.” (Obligations, No. 92.) The word “bay” itself has also received a plain and positive meaning in a judicial decision of a most important case before the Supreme Court of the United States, upon the construction of the 8th section of the act of 1790, cap. 9: A murder had been committed on board the United States ship of war Independence, lying in Massachusetts Bay, and rm question was whether any court of the State of Massachusetts, or only the circnit court of the United States, as a court of admiralty and mar- -bay. Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering itime jurisdiction, had jurisdiction over a murder committed in such a the opinion of the court, defined “ bays” to be “inclosed parts of the sea.” (United States r. Bevan, 3 Wheaton’s Reports, p. 387.) 1898 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Again, Mr. Justice Story, in a question of indictment for assault with intent to kill, under the crimes statute of 1825, cap. 276, sec. 22, which declares “that if any person or persons upon the high seas, or in any arm of the sea, or in any river, haven, creek, basin, or bay, within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, on board any vessel, shall commit an assault,” &e., decided that the place where the murder was committed (the ves- sel lying at such time between certain islands in the mouth of the Bos- ton River) was an arm of the sea. ‘‘An arm of the sea,” he further said, ‘‘ may include various descrip- tion of waters, where the tide ebbs and flows. It may be a river, har- bor, creek, basin, or bay.” (United States v. Grush, 5 Mason, 299.) It would thus appear that the word “ bay” has received a positive definition as a term of jurisprudence, which is in accordance with the common use of the term in text-books on the law of nations, which invariably speak of ‘ bays” as “ portions of sea inclosed within indents of coasts,” and not as indents of coast. Assuming, therefore, as established beyond reasonable doubt, that the word “ bay” signifies an arm or elbow of the sea inclosed within head- lands or peaks, and not an indent of the coast, we may consider what is the true intention of the expression “‘ within three marine miles of a bay.” Are such miles to be measured from the outer edge or chord of the bay, or from the inner edge or arc of the bay? In the first place it may be observed, that the inner edge or are of a bay touches the coast, and if the distance is to be measured from the shore of the bay, the word “ bay” itself has virtually no distinct signification from “ coast,” and has no supplemental force; prima facie, therefore, this interpretation does not recommend itself on the grounds already stated. Again, the interpretation which is given to the measure of distance from bays must be given to the measure of distance from creeks and harbors, both of which, by the municipal law of the United States, equally as of Great Britain, are infra corpus comitatus, and whose waters are subject to the provisions of the municipal law precisely as the shores of the land itself. But it may assist in determining this question to keep in mind the rule that in contracts “on doit interpréter une clause par les autres clauses contenues dans lacte, soit qu’elles précédent ou suivent.” (Pothier, , Obligations, No. 96.) In other words, a subsequent clause may serve to interpret a former clause, if the latter be at all am- biguous. Accordingly, we find the renunciation of the liberty to fish within three marine miles of any of the bays, creeks, or harbors of His Britannic Majesty’s dominions followed by the proviso that American fishermen shall be permitted to enter such bays and harbors for certain specified purposes other than taking fish. In other words, they may prosecute their voyage for other purposes than fishing within the entrance of any bay or harbor, but may not take fish within three marine miles of any bay or harbor, i. e., within three marine miles of the entrance of any bay or harbor. If this interpretation be not adopted, the proviso would be absurd ; for if American fishermen are implicitly permitted to fish within three marine miles of the shore of any bay or harbor, they are permitted to enter such bay or harbor, if the breadth of the mouth be more than six miles, and the distance of the head of the bay or harbor from the entrance be more than three miles, for another purpose than for the purpose of shelter, or of repairing damages, or of purchasing wood, or of obtaining water. But the convention expressly says, “for no other purpose whatever.” If, therefore, they cannot enter any bay or harbor for the purpose of a te AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1899 prosecuting their occupation of fishing, it cannot be intended that they should be allowed to fish within three marine miles of the shore of any bay or harbor, as the two provisions would be inconsistent. Accord. ingly, as the question resolves itself into the alternative interpretation of shore or entrance, it follows that the correct interpretation which makes the language of the entire article consistent with itself is within three marine miles of the entrance of any bay, such entrance or mouth being, in fact, part of the bay itself, and the bay being approachable by fishing vessels only in the direction of the mouth or entrance. That a bay of sea-water wider than six miles at its mouth may be within the body of a county is laid down by Lord Hale in his treatise De Jure Maris et Brachiorum ejusdem (Hargrave’s Tracts, chapter 4): “An arm or branch of the sea which lies within the fauces terre, where a man may reasonably discern between shore and shore, is, or at least may be, within the body of a county.” This doctrine bas been expressly adopted by Mr. Justice Story in De Lovio v. Boit (2 Gallison’s Reports, p. 426, 2d ed.), in which, to use the language of Mr. Wheaton’s argu- ment in United States v. Bevans (3 Wheaton’s Reports, p. 358), “alk the learning on the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the admiralty is col- lected together.” There is, consequently, no doubt that the jurisdiction of the municipal law over bays is not limited to bays which are leas than six miles in breadth or three miles in depth, since the general rule is, aS was observed by the same eminent judge in United States v. Grash (5 Mason, p. 300): ‘* That such parts of rivers, arms, and creeks of sea, are deemed to be within the bodies of counties, where persons can see from one side to the other.” Ate! ; That the jurisprudence of the United States has recognized the prin- ciple of courts of municipal law exercising jurisdiction over bays at a distance more than three miles from the shore, is shown by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Church v. Habbard. (2 Cranch’s Reports, p.187.) In this case an American brigantine, the Adrora, when at anchor in the Bay of Para on the coast of Brazil, and four or five leagues from Cape Paxos, was seized aud condemned by the Portuguese authorities for a breach of the laws of Portugal on a matter of illicit trade. Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering the opivion of the court, said, “ Nothing is to be drawn from the laws or usages of nations which proves that the seizure of the Aurora by the Portuguese Government was an act of lawless violence.” ye ; The same principle was also involved in the opinion of the Attorney General of the United States upon the seizure of the British vessel Grange by a French frigate within the Bay of Delaware, and which was accordingly returned to the owners. In his report to the L nited States Government (14 May, 1793), the Attorney-General observed, “that the Grange was arrested in the Delaware, within te capes, before she had reached the sea,” that is, in that part of the waters of the Dela- ware which is called the Bay of Delaware, and which extends to a —* of sixty miles within the capes. It is worthy of remark that the Bay o Delaware is not within the body of a county, its northern headland, Cape May, belonging to the State of New Jersey in property and ghee diction, and its southern headland, Cape Henlopen, being pee rt : State of Delaware, yet the whole bay was held to be American Ms rri sot . The same principle was also involved in the judgment of the ead i Court of the United States in the case of Martin and others rv. i - pr : (16 Peters’ Reports, 367), in which it was agreed on all sides ie See: prerogative of the Crown prior to the American Revolution e 1900 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. over all bays and arms of the sea, from the river St. Croix to the Dela- ware Bay. Again, in the report of the committee of Congress (November 17, 1807) on the affair of the Little Belt, it was maintained that the British squadron had anchored within the capes of Chesapeake Bay and within the acknowledged jurisdiction of the United States, whilst it seems that the alleged violation of territory had taken place at a distance of three leagues from Cape Henry, the southern headland of the Bay of Chesapeake. This assertion of jurisdiction was in accordance with the instructions sent May 17, 1806, from Mr. Madison to Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney, according to which it was to be insisted that the extent of the neutral immunity should correspond with the claims maintained by Great Brit- ain around her own territory; and that no belligerent right should be exercised within the chambers formed by headlands, or anywhere at sea, within the distance of four leagues, or from a right line from one headland to another. What those claims were, as maintained by Great Britain, may be gathered from the doctrine laid down by Sir Leoline Jenkins in his report to His Majesty in Council December 5, 1665 (Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins, vol, ii, p. 726), in the case of an Ostend vessel having been cap- tured by a Portuguese privateer about four leagues west of Dover, and two Dutch leagues from the English shore, in which case a question arose whether the vessel had been taken within one of the King of En- gland’s chambers, 7. é., within the line (a straight one having been drawn) from the South Foreland to Dungeness Point, on which supposition she oud have been under the protection and safeguard of the English Jrown. The same eminent judge, in another report to the King in Council (vol. ii, p. 732), speaks of one of those recesses commonly called * Your Majesty’s chambers,” being bounded by a straight line drawn from Dunemore, in the Isle of Wight, to Portland (according to the account given of it to the admiralty in 1664). He says, “It grows very narrow westward, and is scarce in any place four leagues broad, I mean from any point of this imaginary line to the opposite English shore.” And in a third report, October 11, 1675 (vol. ii, p. 780), he gives his opinion that a Hamburg vessel captured by a French privateer should be set free, upon a full and clear proof that she was within one of “ Your Majesty’s chambers at the time of seizure, which the Hamburger in his first memorial sets forth as being eight leagues at sea over against Harwich.” This doctrine is fully in accordance with the text-books. Thus Azuni writes in his Droit Maritime de V Europe, chap. ii, art. 3, § 3: ‘Les obli- gations relatives aux ports sont également applicables aux baies et aux golfes, attendu qwils font aussi partie de la souveraineté da gouverne- ment dans la domination et le territoire duquel ils sont placés, et qui les tient également sous sa sauvegarde: en conséquence, Vasile accordé dans une baie ou dans un golfe, n’est pas moins inviolable que celui @’un port, et tout attentat commis dans un comme dans l’autre, doit étre regardé comme une violation manifeste du droit des gens.” Valin, Com- ment. & VOrdonnance de France, tit. “Des Rades,” art. i, may be cited in confirmation of this doctrine. The words used in the 1st Article of the Convention of 1818 are, “On the coast of Newfoundland, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks from Mount Joy,” &e. The word “on” is thus used as applicable to shores, coasts, bays, creeks, and harbors, and the United States renounce any liberty to take, AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1901 dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts bays, creeks, or harbors. : It is admitted that the liberty to fish is renounced within three miles of the coasts. If the contention of the United States, that this renun- ciation applies only to a specified distance from the shores of the coasts, bays, creeks, and harbors, and is to be ascertained by a line following the bays, creeks, and the indents thereof at a distance of three miles, be right, then shores, or coasts if synonymous with shores, is the only necessary word, and the words, ‘“ bays, creeks, and harbors,” are with- out meaning—a construction which would be contrary to the rule which requires that effect be given to every word. The word “ bay,” then, must have a meaning. The distance, therefore, from headland to headland ought not and ean- not be confined to a measure of six miles in order to give exclusive dominion within the bay formed by the headlands. The general principle is that navigable waters included in bays be- tween two headlands belong to the sovereign of the adjoining territory as being necessary to the safety of the nation and to the undisturbed 33) of the neigbboring shores. (Puffendorf, b. 3, ¢. 5; Vattel, b. 1, ch. The difficulty of limiting the extent to which this privilege should be carried is thus stated by Azuni: It is difficult to draw any precise or determinate conclusion amidst the variety of opinions as to the distance to which a state may lawfally extend its exclusive dominion over the sea adjoining its territories and beyond those portions of the sea which are embraced by harbors, gulfs, bays, &c., and estuaries, and over which its jurisdiction anquestionably extends. (Azuni on the Maritime Laws of Europe, 1, p. 206). After commenting on this passage of Azuni, which he cites, Kent Says: Considering the great extent of the line of the American coasts, we bave a right to claim for fiscal and defensive regulations a liberal extension of maritime jurisdiction, and it would not be unreasonable, as I apprehend, to assume, for domestic pare con- nected with our safety and welfare, the control of the waters on our coasts, though in- eluded within lines stretching from quite distant headlands, as, for instance, from Ca Ann to Cape Cod, and from Nantucket to Montauk Point, and from that point to the cape of the Delaware, and from the south cape of Florida to the Mississippi. It is certain that our government woald be disposed to view with some uneasiness and sensi- bilty, in the case of war between some other maritime powers, the use of the waters of our coast far beyond the reach of cannon shot, as cruising ground for belligerent par- poses. Chancellor Kent therefore considers that some distance between the headlands of more than six miles would properly be insisted on by the United States for securing the objects above mentioned, the safety of the territory, and other lawful ends. <3 The right of exclusive fishing is undoubtedly a lawfal.end. (Vattel, b. 1, c. 23.) And where the nation has an exclusive right it is entitled to keep the exercise of that right in its own power, to the exclusion of others. In the Convention of 1818 no limited construction was put upon the word “bay.” The treaty employs as distinct terms the words “ coasts, bays, creeks, and harbors.” ‘“ Bay,” therefore, should be taken, in the plain and ordinary sense of the term, to mean a portion of the sea in- closed between headlands, which, together with the shores within them, belong to the same nation. : oe The entrance to this bay is marked or ascertained by a line « rely from headland to headland, whatever be the depth of the bay, an though the line drawn from headland to headland exceed six marine miles. — 1902 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. The United States renounced the right to take fish in such bays. The Treaty of Washington, 1871, frees them from such renunciation. The restriction or exclusion is altogether removed. The case of the Queen vs. Keyn (L. R. 2 Ex. Div. 63), so much relied on in the Answer and Brief of the United States, affords no support whatever to the posi- tion there taken. The question involved in that case was whether or not a foreigner commanding a foreign vessel could legally be convicted of manslaughter committed whilst sailing by the external coast of Eng- land, within three miles from the shore, in the prosecution of a voyage from one foreign port to another. The court, by a majority of seven judges to six, held the conviction bad, on the ground that the jurisdiction of the common-law courts only extended to offenses committed within the realm, and that at common law such realm did not extend on the external coasts beyond low-water mark. None of the judges, however, doubted that Parliament had full power to extend the laws of the realm to a zone of three miles around the outer coast if it saw fit soto do. The Lord Chief Justice of England, by whose casting judgment the conviction was quashed, not only guarded himself expressly against being understood as throwing any doubt what- ever upon the jurisdiction of the courts over inland or territorial waters, but emphatically affirmed such jurisdiction. ‘ But,” says he (p. 162), *‘only so much of the land of the outer coast as was uncovered by the sea, was held to be within the body of the adjoining county. If an offense was committed ina bay, gulf, or estuary, inter fauces terre, thecommonlaw would deal with it because the parts of the sea so circumstanced were held to be within the body of the adjacent county or counties; but along the coast, on the external sea, the jurisdiction ot the common law extended no farther than to low-water mark.” Again, at p. 197, he thus expresses himself: ‘‘To come back to the subject of the realm, I cannot help thinking that some confusion arises from the term ‘realm’ being used in more than one sense. Sometimes it is used, as in the statutes of Richard II, to mean the land of England and the internal sea within it, sometimes as meaning whatever the sovereignty of the Crown of England extended or was supposed to extend over. When it is used as synonymous with territory, I take the true meaning of the term ‘ realm of England’ to be the territory to and over which the common law of England extends. In other words, all that is within the body of any county, to the exclusion of the high seas, which come under a different jurisdiction only because they are not within any of those territorial divisions into which, among other things, for the administration of the law, the kingdom is parceled out. At all events I am prepared to abide by the distinction taken in the statutes of Richard II, between the realm and the sea.” This clearly shows that as far back as the time of Richard II, beyond which legal memory is not permitted to run, the realm of England was known and understood to include within its bounds those inland waters which were inclosed from the high seas be- tween headlands. The Answer of the United States (p. 5) quotes with approbation the strong coudemnatory language of the Lord Chief Justice, and holds it out to the Commissioners and the world as applicable to the contention of Great Britain in this matter. If the language was really so applied, it might be considered as damaging to the case of Great Britain, but if it has no reference to any question now before the Commission, then it is submitted that its presence in the Answer is calculated to mislead. In the course of his judgment, Sir Alexander Cockburn, referring to claims made by England centuries ago, not merely to exclusive domin- nn i AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1908 ion over the four seas, but to the right to preserve thepeace of the King in all seas, and even to treat as pirates the crews of those foreign ves- sels which refused to strike their colors to a King’s ship on any sea, pro- ceeds as follows (pp. 174, 175): “ Venice, in like manner, laid claim to the Adriatic, Genoa to the Ligurian Sea, Denmark to a portion of the North Sea. The Portuguese claimed to bar the ocean route to India and the Indian seas to the rest of the world, while Spain made the like assertion with reference to the West. All these vain and extravagant pretensions have long since given way to the influence of reason and common sense.” The remainder of the passage quoted in the Answer is to be found at p. 196 of the Report, where referring to the jurisdiction of the admiral, which extended over the whole ocean as regards British ships, and to the reasoning of some older authorities which sought from that circumstance to extend the realm of England over the whole ocean, the Lord Chief Justice says: ‘‘ These assertions of sovereignty were man- ifestly based on the doctrine that the narrow seas are part of the realm of England. But that doctrine is now exploded. Who at this day would venture to affirm that the sovereignty thus asserted in those times now exists? What English lawyer is there who would not shrink from maintaining, what foreign jurist who would not deny, what foreign gov- ernment which would not repel such a pretension ?” In what possible way this language can be made to bear upon the present inquiry, Her Majesty’s Government are at a loss to under- stand. Sir Robert Phillimore, one of the judges who agreed with the Lord Chief Justice in the conclusion that the conviction ought not to stand, was equally careful to put the consideration of the law governing bays and inland waters out of the case. He says (p. 71): ‘The question as to dominion over portions of the seas inclosed within headlands or con- tiguous shore such as the King’s chambers, is not now under considera- tion. The King’s chambers referred to by Sir Robert Phillimore are them- selves well-known bays or inland waters on the English coast, inclosed within headlands, many of them as large or larger at the mouths than are the Bays of Miramichi or Chaleurs. It is confidently claimed by Her Majesty’s Government that the case of the Franconia, so far from affording any support to the Answer of the United States, is an authority in favor of the right of Her Majesty to exercise sovereign and exclusive jurisdiction over all “ bays” and other inland waters lying on the coast of British America inclosed with headlands, be the distance between such headlands what it may. A subsequent case directly in point and containing an interpretation of the very word in the very instrument now under discussion, has been decided by the judicial committee of the privy council, the highest appellate court in the realm in relation to all British colonial matters, as lately as the 14th February, 1877. The case Is that of The Direct . United States Cable Company (Limited), appellants, v. The Anglo-Ameri- can Telegraph Company (Limited), and others, respondents, reported = o Law Reports, Appeal Cases, vol. 2, p. 394. The suit was one in w = the respondent company had obtained and injunction against the ae . lant company restraining them from laying a telegraph cable in te ception Bay, Newfoundland, and thereby infringing rights co bs the legislature of that island to the respondent company. The appe co company contended that Conception Bay (which is rather — ore twenty miles wide at its mouth and runs inland between os ant ny miles) was not British territorial waters, but a part of the high seas. 1904 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. buoy and cables complained of were laid within the bay at a distance of more than three miles from shore. The contention of the respondent company was not sustained, and the injunction was retained. The judg- ment of the judicial committee was delivered by Lord Blackburn, and the attention of the Commission is directed to the following quotation from the judgment, which, so far as judicial interpretation can affect that object, must be held to set the question at rest: Before proceeding to discuss the second question, it is desirable to state the facts which raise it. Conception Bay lies on the eastern side of Newfoundland, between two promon- tories, the southern ending at Cape St. Francis, and the northern promontory at Split Point. No evidence has been given, nor was any required, as to the configuration and dimensions of the bay, as that was a matter of which the court could take judicial notice. On inspection-of the admiralty chart, the following statement, though not precisely accurate, seems to their lordships sufficiently so to enable them to decide the question : The bay is a well-marked bay, the distance from the head of the bay to Cape St. Francis being about forty miles, and the distance from the head of the bay to Split Point being about fifty miles. The average width of the bay is about fifteen miles, but the distance from Cape St. Francis to Split Point is rather more than twenty miles. The appellants have brought and laid a telegraph cable to a buoy more than thirty miles within this bay. The buoy is more than three miles from the shore of the bay, and in laying the cable, care has been taken not at any point to come within three miles of the shore, so as to avoid raising any question as to the territorial dominion over the ocean within three miles of the shore. Their lordships therefore are not called upon to express any opinion on the questions which were recently so much discussed in the case of The Queen r. Keyn (the Franconia case). The question raised in this case, and to which their lordships confine their judg- ment, is as to the territorial dominion over a bay of configuration and dimensions suc as those of Conception Bay above described. The few English common-law authorities on this point relate to the question as to where the boundary of counties ends and the exclusive jurisdiction at common law of the court of admiralty begins, which is not precisely the same question as that under consideration: but this much is obvious, that, when it is decided that any bay or estuary of any particular dimensions is or may be a part of an English county, and so completely within the realm of England, it is decided that a similar bay or estuary vd or may be part of the territorial dominions of the country possessing the adjacent shore. The earliest authority on the subject is to be found in the grand abridgment of Fitzherbert ‘Corone, 399,” whence it appears that in the 8 Edward II, in a case in chancery (the nature and subject matter of which does not appear), Staunton, justice, expressed an opinion on the subject. There are one or two words in the common printed edition of Fitzherbert which it is not easy to decipher or translate, but subject to that remark this is a translation of the passage: ‘‘ Nota per Staunton, justice, that that is not safice [which Lord Coke translates ‘ part’] of the sea where a man can see what is done from one part of the water and the other, so as to see from one land to the other ; that the coroner shall come in such case and perform his office, as well as com- ing and eg in an arm of the sea, there where a man can see from one part of the other e the a word not deciphered], that in such a place the country can have conu- sance, &c. This is by no means definite, but it is clear Staunton thought some portions of the sea might be in a county, and within the jurisdiction of the jury of that county, and at that early time, before cannon were in use, he can have had in his mind no refer- ence to cannon-shot. Lord Coke recognizes this authority, 4 Institute, 140, and so does Lord Hale. The latter, in his treatise “ De Jure Maris,” part 1, cap. 4, uses this language : “ That arm or branch of the sea which lies within the ‘ fauces terre,’ where a man may reasonably discern between shore and shore, is, or at least may be, within the body of a county, mea within the jurisdiction of the sheriff or coroner. Edward II, Corone, Neither of these great authorities had occasion to apply this doctrine to any particu- lar place, nor to define what was meant by seeing or discerning. If it means to see what men are doing, so, for instance, that eye-witnesses on shore could say who was to blame in a fray, on the waters, tesulting in death, the distance would be very lim- ited ; if to discern what great ships were about, so as to be able to see their maneuvers, it would be very much more extensive; in either sense it is indefinite. Butin Regina v. Cunningham, (Bells C. C., 86), it did become necessary to determine whether a par- ticular spot in the Bristol Channel, on which three foreigners on board a foreign ship AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1905 { | 4 : . . . . P ee emitied i hip ila od Natta seein of Glamorgan, the indictment having, Sate ecessarily ’ g © offense as having beén committed in that | _ The Bristo] Channel, it is to be remembered, is an arm of the sea dividing E | from Wales. Into the upper end of this arm of the sea the river Severn “nei “Aen the arm of the sea lies between Somersetshire and Glamorganshire, and afterward be- tween Devonshire and the counties of Glamorgan, Carmarthen, and Pembroke. It widens as it descends, and between Port Eynon Head, the lowest point of Glamorgan- shire, and the opposite shore of Devon, it is wider then Conception Bay; between Hart- land Point, in Devonshire, and Pembrokeshire it ismuch wider. The case reserved was carefully prepared. It describes the spot where the crime was committed as being in the Bristol Channel, between the Glamorganshire and Somersetshire coasts, and about ten miles or more from that of Somerset. It negatived the spot being in the river Severn, the mouth of which, it is stated, was proved to be at King’s Road, higher ap the channel, and that was to be taken as the finding of the jury. It also showed that the spot in question was outside Penarth Head, and could not, therefore, be treated as within the smaller bay formed by Penarth Head and Lavernock Point. And it set ont what evidence was given to prove that the spot had been treated as part of the county of Glamorgan, and the question was stated 10 be whether the prisoners were properly convicted of an offense within the county of Glamorgan. The case was much considered, being twice argued, and Chief Justice Cockburn delivered judgment, saying: “The only question with which it becomes necessary for | us to deal is whether the part of the sea on which the vessel was at the time when the offense was committed forms part of the body of the county of Glamorgan, and we are of opinion that it does. The sea in question is part of the Bristol Channel, both shores of which form part of England and Wales, of the county of Somerset on the» _ one side and the county of Glamorgan on the other. We are of opinion that, looking at the local situation of this sea, if must be taken to belong to the counties respect- ively by the shores of which it is bounded; and the fact of the Holms, between which and the shore of the county of Glamorgan the place in question is situated, having | always been treated as part of tbe parish of Cardiff, and as part of the county of Gla- | morgan, is a strong illustration of the principle on which we proceed, namely, that the whole of this inland sea between the counties of Somerset and Glamorgan is to be considered as within the counties by the shores of which its several parts are respect- ively bounded. We are therefore of opinion that the place in question is within the | body of the cou ty of Glamorgan.” The case reserved in Cunningham’s case inei- | .. dentally states that it was about ninety miles from Penarth Roads (where the crime *was committed) to the mouth of the channel, which points to the headlands in Pem- __ broke and Hartland Point, in Devonshire, as being the fauces of that arm of the sea. _ It was not, however, necessary for the decision of Cunningham’s case to determine what was the entrance of the Bristol Channel, further than that it was below the place t where the crime was committed; and though the language used in the be dears is such as to show that the impression of the court was that at least the whole of that part of the channel between the counties of Somerset and Glamorgan was within _ those counties. perhaps that was not determined. But this much was determined, that a place in the sea, out of any river, and where the sea was more than ten miles wide, was within the county of Glamorgan, and consequently, in every sense of the words, within the territory of Great Britain. It also shows that usage and the manner in which that portion of the sea bad been treated as being part of the county was mate- . vial, and this was clearly Lord Hale’s opinion, as he says, not that a bay is part of the county, but only that it may be.> F : Passing from the common law of England to the general law of nations, as indicated by the text-writers on international jurisprudence, we find an universal agreement that harbors, estuaries, and bays landlocked belong to the territory of the nation which possesses the shores round them, but no agreement as to what is the rule to de- termine what is “ bay ” for this purpose. ; ; : : It seems generally agreed that where the configuration and dimensions of the bay are such as to show that the nation occupying the adjoining coasts also occupies the bay it is part of the territory ; and with this idea most of the writers on the subject refer to defensibility from the shore as the test of occupation ; some suggesting, therefore, a : width of one cannon shot from shore to shore, or three miles; some a cannon shot | front each shoré, or six miles; some an arbitrary distance of ten miles. All of chess are rules which, if adopted, would exclude Conception Bay from the territory of } a foundland, but also would have excladed from the territory of Great Brita‘n that Lad . of the Bristol Channel which in Regina ¢. Cunningham was decided to be in the county of Glamorgan. On the other hand, the diplomatists of the { pieced Seas | 1793 claimed a territorial jurisdiction over much more extensive bays, and € east as Kent in his Commentaries, though by no means giving the weight of bis — pOrity | this claim, gives some reasons for not considering it altogether unreasona® se a It does not appear to their lordships that jurists and text-writers are ag 120 F 1906 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. are the rules as to dimensions and configurations which, apart from other considera- tions, would lead to the conclusion that a bay is or is not a part of the territory of the state possessing the adjoining coasts; and it has never, that they can find, been made the ground of any judicial determination. If it were necessary in this case to lay down arule, the difficulty of the task would not deter their lordships from at- tempting to fulfill it. But in their opinion it is not necessary so to do. It seems to them that, in point of fact, the British Government has for a long period exercised dominion over this bay, and that their claim has been acquiesced in by other nations, so as to show that the bay has been for a long time occupied exclusively by Great Britain, a circumstance which in the tribunals of any country would be very impor- tant. And, moreover (which in a British tribunal is conclusive), the British legisla- ture has by acts of Parliament declared it to be part of the British territory, and part of the country made subject to the legislature of Newfoundland. To establish this proposition it is not necessary to go further back than to the 59 Geo. III, c. 38, passed in 1319, now nearly sixty years ago. There was a convention made in 1818 between the United States and Great Britain relating to the fisheries of Labrador, Newfoundland, and His Majesty’s other possess- ions in North America, by which it was agreed that the fishermen of the United States should have the right to fish on part of the coasts (not including the part of the island of Newfoundland on which Conception Bay lies), and should not enter any ‘“ bays” in any part of the coast except for the purposes of shelter and repairing damages, and purchasing wood, and obtaining water, and no other purposes whatever. It seems impossible to doubt that this convention applied to all bays, whether large or small, on that coast, and consequently to Conception Bay. It is true that the convention would only bind the two nations who were parties to it, and, consequently, that though a strong assertion of ownership on the part of Great Britain acquiesced in by so power- ful a state as the United States, the convention though weighty is not decisive. The meaning of the word ‘*“ bay” being settled, what therefore did the United States renounce when they renounced the right to take fish bce auntee marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks It is admitted they could not take fish within three marine miles of the coast. It has been shown that they could not fishin the bay. Some right or privileges outside the bay is therefore renounced. But how far outside? The distance is expressly given—three marine miles. But from what point is this distance to be measured. Not from the shore or coast, for that construction would render the word “bay” sup- erfluous. If any place within the bay had been intended the treaty would have said so. The entrance of the bay must therefore be the point whence the three miles are to be measured. The entrance is detined by the line drawn from headland to headland, and the three miles must be measured seawards from that line which defines and marks the sea limit of the bays, as a corresponding three miles are to be measured from the line or boundary of the shore. ; _ This restriction not to fish within three marine miles of any bay, is of importance in considering the whole argument of the United States. The restrictions are, fishing in and within three miles of any bay. They are quite distinct in seuse and wording. That the United States fishermen might not enter any bay for the purpose of fishing, is made quite distinct by the permission given to enter such bays for other specified purposes; and when the further restriction is added that they are not to take fish within three marine miles of any bay, the conclusion is Inevitable that by the Convention of 1818 the United States fisher- men were excluded from fishing within three marine miles of the entrance of or line drawn across from the headlands which form the bay. ; } ‘ pi nee | _ this present year and what it was 8 years ago, when I left It. » fishing is spoiled entirely by keeping vessels out of the bay; | opinion, for there is no fish except right along the land, and vy BN dh all 270 Oe i. eames UNITED STATES EVIDENCE. Nowd, MONDAY, August 27. The Conference met. JAMES BRADLEY, fisherman, Newburyport, Mass., called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Trescot: Question. You are a fisherman, I believe ?—Answer. Yes. Q. You have been fishing for a good many years ?—A. Yes. Q. For how many years?—A. It is about thirty years since [ became master of a vessel. Q. What sort of fishing have you prosecuted ?—A. Mackerel fishing principally. Q. Whereabouts?—A. Well, I fished in Bay St. Lawrence until the last eight years. I had not been there fishing since then till this year. Iam from there now. es ee have been fishing in Bay St. Lawrence over twenty years !— . Yes. Q. As far as your experience goes, where were the large catches of mackerel made by you in Bay St. Lawrence ?—A. On Banks Bradley and Orphan and what we call the west shore, along the Canada shore, the land just. being in sight. Q. How far out?—A. From 12 to 15 miles, and from that distance to 25 miles. - Q. Very little fishing was done by you within 3 miles of the shore ?— A. Very little. In the fall of the year we did fish a very little inshore, Q. Have you formed any estimate of the proportion of your catch taken in deep water aud the proportion taken within 3 miles of the coast ?—A. According to the best of my judgment, I should say I took Seven-eighths of them outside of the three-mile limit all the time I was in the bay. * Q. And you think, taking the majority of the fishermen, the bulk of the fleet took that proportion of their fish outside ’—A. Well, | don’t know, taking the bulk of the fleet, but certainly one-half fished as much as I did outside. S. Q. You say you were fishing in the gulf up to within the last 8 years ?—A. Yes. , : - Q. And you went back this year for the first time in 8 years !—A. _ For the first time. Q. Did you find a great difference in the fishery !—A. No man could have made me believe there was such a difference between he Oatiee 1e Day that is my ery few at that, and of very poor quality. ; < 7 Q. Bow lone ite you been in the gulf this year ?_ A. Four weeks I __ was in the bay. 1908 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. And what have you caught this year?—A. 104 barrels I have on board. Q. What should have been your catch in a good year?—A. 300 bar- rels in an ordinary year. Q. You think the fish have not only fallen off in quantity but so in quality ?—A. Both in quantity and quality. Q. During the eight years you were not fishing in the gulf where were you fishing?—A. In American waters. Q. What sort of fishing had you there?—A. We had good fishing. Our eight years’ average was better than any eight years’ average I have made in Bay St. Lawrence. Q. What do you suppose your average was ?—A. 1,000 barrels. Q. With a vessel of what size?—A. We say a schooner this size is just as good as any. The size does not matter so much in our own waters as in Bay St. Lawrence. Q. What do you suppose is the number of the fleet engaged in mack- erel-fishing in American waters ?—A. 400 sail. Q. ‘These vessels are confined to the mackerel-fishing in American waters, and will average from 5 to 6 barrels to the ton ?—A. I don’t know that. The small vessels catch about as many as the large vessels, because they are nearer the market and go right in and come right out, and do not lose any time. Q. With regard to your large experience in the mackerel-fishing, is it a profitable business taken by itself?—A. It has not been so for the last 5 or 6 years. Q. Have you found it pay unless you did something else 7—A. No. When we went into Bay St. Lawrence we could not have made it pay except we had done other business with it. We simply put in there three or four months in the summer time when we could not do any other business. Q. What would yeu consider a fair profit for a mackerel fisherman as you conducted the business ?—A. We could not make anything more than insurance and wear and tear; not anything, really. Q. And the profits were obtained by running the vessels on other voy- ages ?—A. Yes; and in the winter we generally make $2,000 by running with fruit into New York. Q. Among the advantages you had fishing in the gulf, what was the advantage of having the privilege of transshipment ?—A. I never con- rig, itany. I followed it for five years, and the result was I lost y 16. Q. What was the object of transshipping ?—A. The object in our case was to get a good market, to get the mackerel into market early. Q. Not so much to make athird fare?—A. The object was to get them to market in good condition so as to get a better cull. When they are two or three months on board a vessel they don’t look so well. If they are sent in early you get a better cull, the fish are better quality, and you get more money for them. But I found the expense more than made the difference, and I stopped transshipping on that account. Q. What was the expense of the transshipment ?—A. About $1.50 per Logik when I transshipped. That is including freight and expenses in oston. Q. In your ordinary trips when you were accustomed to fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, what was about the annual expenditure, the amount of money you laid out ?—A. When I used to land my fish I used to pay out on an average from $1,000 to $1,200. g AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1909 Q. That was for current expenses at the ports ?—A. Yes, at the Strait of Canso, where I used to land. Q. In those days, what was the average number of the fleet that did very much as you did 7—A. I don’t know that I could make a very good average. Q. Give an approximate amount, to the best of your judgment.—A, 600 or 700 sail, certainly. I have been in the bay with 900 sail of Amer- ican vessels, but the number rather diminished along the last years I went there. Everything tended to drive them out of the bay—cutters and one thing and another—and finally I went fishing in our own waters, and did a good deal better. _ Q. Judging from your experience in the gulf, and your experience of the American fisheries, you have really no doubt about the value of the fishery on the American coast as compared with the fishery in the gulf? —A. No; not the slightest. It is worth ten times as much as the Gulf of St. Lawrence fishery. Q. In American waters, where is the bulk of the fish taken !—A. They are taken from 10 to 30 miles from the land; that is where we take most fish. The men who fish most outside get the most fish, both on the American and Canadian shores, except this year. Q. What is the matter with the fishery on the United States coast this year?—A. The trouble is on account of the bait. The cold east wind in the spring killed all the live bait—the shrimps—and the fish did not come to the surface. There is plenty of mackerel on our coast. I left plenty of fish there, and I would have done better there than in Bay St. Lawrence; and if I had gone back to our coast I would have been $1,000 better off. I held on, for they told big stories of the quan- tity of fish; but I have given it a fair trial, and found there was none. Q. The bait, I believe, is found not only inshore but also outside !—A, ~ It is found offshore just the same as inshore; there is more offshore than inshore as arule. I know the trouble was caused by the east winds, of which we had a great quantity, killing the bait, for we could not account for it any other way. There was plenty of mackerel south, but wheu we got on the east coast they did not come to the surface, and that is the reason the fishermen could not eatch them. By Mr. Thomson: Q. Then, 8 years ago, the fisheries in the gulf were first rate ’—A. Bight years ago they were rather slim. I lett to-day eight years ago. The eutters drove me out, or rather I cleared out because they made such a row with me. : 3 . Q. You did not like to annoy the cutters by staying there !—.. I did not like to be ‘scared to death all the time. I did not care anything about the cutters. : Q. You did not care about the cutters, but you did not want to be scared ?—A. I could not tell whether I was 3, 5, 6, or 7 miles from shore. You might appear to be three miles from shore and might not be on _ than one. The atmosphere is such you cannot judge distances wit our eye. 4 Q. it was impossible to tell whether you were three miles from the shore?—A. You cannot do it. sie gaia - _ Q. It is not impossible to tell whether you are one mile or half a a from the coast?—A. I have seen the time when I was one mile off anc I thought I was more than three miles. es Took _ Q. You recollect the time when you were one mile off and it looke as if yon were three miles off ?—A. Yes. & i 1910 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. I suppose that was pretty much all the time you fished; you were actually a mile from the shore and the distance looked like three miles ?— A. If that is your opinion I am perfectly willing. I tell you facts; you can draw what inference you please. I have stated just exactly, to the best of my judgment, what I did in Bay St. Lawrence, and I tell you just the same and nothing else. @. I understood you to say that on many occasions you fished within one mile of the shore when it looked three miles off?—A. I told you I could not judge the distance. I did not refer particularly to fishermen. When I have been making land sometimes I have found myself close inshore and had to tack out. Q. Did you not tell me you were frequently within one mile of the shore when you believed you were three miles out?—A. Yes; but I did not refer particularly to fishing. Q. Did you fish during those times when you thought you were three miles off shore and it turned out you were only one mile?—A. No. IfI thought I was inside the three miles I would not fish there. Q. Then I understand that no consideration would have induced you, when in the gulf, to have fished within three miles of the shore ?— A. I don’t intend to convey any such idea. I would fish wherever I could find them, if no cutters were there. . Q. If the fisb were within the three-mile limit you would follow them ?— A. I would if there was no cutter there to take me. @. Did you do that 7—A. I fished off shore and did not pretend to go inshore because I did not do better there. While I perhaps one month might have done better inside, take the months through and I did bet- ter outside. Q. Did you or did you not fish inside the three miles before the end of the eight years ?—A. I fished inside three miles because I stated that I caught one-eighth of the mackerel inside the three-mile limit. Q. Do you swear that you did not catch more than one-eighth within the three-mile limit —A. I swear that, to the best of my judgment, I did not catch more than one-eighth within the three-mile limit. Q. Then, in point of fact, you swear positively that the inshore fish- eries of the gulf are not nearly so valuable as those away out ?—A, They were not when I fished there. Q. How long did you fish there !—A. Fifteen years. Q. Ending eight years ago?—A. Nine years this summer. Q. That would be from 1854 to 1869 ?—A. I don’t remen:ber dates. . You stated that you fished there fifteen years, ending eight years ago ?-—A. Yes. Q. Then you fished during the whole of the time of the Reciprocity Treaty, which commenced in 1854?—A. Yes, I fished under that treaty on a Neense. Q. During the time the treaty was in force did you not fish inshore as a rule 2—A. Inshore when I thought I eould catch more fish there. @. Did you catch more fish inshore than out ?—A. No, I did not catch apy wore inshore than outside. Q. Then, as I understand, you did not fish inshore ?—A. No, because I did better out. Q. How did you take your fish ?—A. With hooks. Q. Not with purse-seines?—A. We had a seine but we never did much with it. Q. You caught them altogether with hooks ?—A. Yes. Q. What bait did you use —A. Pogies and clams. Q. Where did you get them ?—A. We got them from home ; some I : AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 191] bought in Canso, from your people down there, but they are brought there from our shores. I always carried bait for the first trip with me. Q. What was your average catch each year from 1854 down to 1869 ?—A. I should think about 600 barrels. Q. Would that be a fair average catch for each vessel in the fleet !— A. That would be more than an average, a good deal. Q. You were more lucky than they ?—A. I[ think I was. Q. What was the size of your vessel ?—A. 1 had vessels of different sizes; I was in several different vessels during that time. Q. What is the ordinary size?—A. About 100 tons. Q. And during that time you got 600 barrels per seasonf—A. Yes. Q. And other vessels got far less ?—A. I don’t know. Some did bet ter than I did. Q. What do you place the average at ?—A. J don’t know that I could give an average for the whole fleet. Q. Have you any reason to believe that the majority did far worse iy you 7—A. I know our vessels did which went from the place | ive. Q. Where do you live?—A. At Newburyport. th How many vessels went from that port ?—A. Twenty five sail then. Q. They all went into the gulf?—A. Yes. I used to get more than they did; and jadging from what they caught, I got a good deal more than the average. That is all I have got to go by. Q. You don’t know in regard to tbe other vessels ?—A. No. Q. Did you ever go to fish in Bay Chaleurs ?—A. I never fished bat one season in Bay Chaleurs in my life, and that was the season of the licenses. Q. That would be 186% ?—A. I caught 200 barrets outside of Cara- ~ quette Bank. That was the only time I fished in Bay Chaleurs. " Q. You never went in before ?—A. I have been there to harbor bat not to fish. , \ Q. Where do. you take the fish ?—A. Outside of Caraquette Bank, four miles from the land. Q. Inside of Point Miscou ?—A. Yes. Q. How far inside?—A. About 15 miles, I should think. Q. About 4 miles from Jand?—A. Yes. _ Q. How did you judge the distance that time ?—A. I judged by the lay of the land. : Q. At what time did you fish 4 miles from the shore !—A. We carried a patent log and sometimes we ran out and measured the distance 80 that we could tell the number of miles. That was when the cutters were around. . Q. Why were you afraid of the cutters when you were fishing with a license ?—A. I am speaking of the time when there were cutters about. Q. Why did you not go nearer the shore when you had a license '— A. Because we evuld not catch as many fish there. Q. Why did you not try ?—A. It would have been no use to have gone inside the Bank. We caught them outside where the fish play. . Q. Did you ever try inside ?—A. I never hauled to inside of the Bank, but if fish had been there vessels would have been inside. : Q. Did you ever go close to the shore to see how much worse the fish. ing was than the outside fishing ?—A. I don’t think I ever did. a Q. As arule, you always caught your fish three or four miles out '— A. Without I saw somebody catching fish inside. me i 1912 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ’ . Q. Do you mean in boats ?—A. No, in vessels. I might have gone there if 1 had seen vessels in there. Q. Were American vessels there?—A. Plenty of English vessels were there. Q. If you saw a vessel catching fish inshore you would follow in ?— A. I did not always follow in, but I have done such a thing. Q. As a rule, did you fish much inshore ?—A. Very little indeed. Q. I suppose you have fished along Prince Edward Island ?—A. I have fished there, but not very much. I know nothing about the in- shore fishery of the island. Q. Take the north side of the island, from North Cape to East Point, do you say the inshore fisheries are comparatively valuless as compared with the outside fisheries ?—A. 1 say they used to be when I went mack- erel fishing. Q. For 15 years you found it so?—A. I found it so right along, year after year. I never fished in there. @. Do you say the fish were not there?—A. I don’t know anything about the fish when I was not there. I made a point to run from East Cape to North Cape; I never fished inshore of the island. Q. Shall I be right in stating to the Commission that you have no practical knowledge of the inshore fishery of Prince Edward Island ?— A. LT have had more this year than ever before. Q. Will you undertake to say that during the 15 years you were fish- ing in the Gulf—that is to say, from 1854 to 1869—the inshore fisheries of Prince Edward Island, from North Cape to East Cape, were nothing as compared with the outside fisheries ?—A. I don’t mean to say any- thing of the kind. Q. What did you mean to say about the inshore fishery 7—A. I mean to say we used to fish off East Point in the fall of the year, and off shore in the summer time always. We fished also off North Cape; but we did not fish within three miles of the shore. Q. You never went inside of the three-mile limit?—A. I have said I caught one-eighth part inside of the limits. Q. Did you fish during those 15 years, during 12 years of whieh the Reciprocity Treaty was in foree, enough inside of the three-mile limit at Prince Edward Island to be able to tell the Commission whether the inshore fishery is worth anything as compared with that outside 7—A. It was not worth more than the outside fishery, from my experience. Q. How do you know that, if you did not goin and try —A. We had captains go down to the island, take vessels and go and fish where they pleased, and we beat them when they fished inshore and we fished out- side. Captain Jacks, of Newburyport, bad an island vessel. Q. You swear that during that time, when you were fishing outside, other captains went in and fished within the three miles along the bight of the island, and you beat them all ?—A. They went and fished; I cannot say where. Q. When I put the question as to your knowledge of the inshore fishery of Prince Edward Island, you put forward the eaptain’s expe- rience; why did you give such an answer as that if you knew nothing "ito it?—A. I tell you I fished around East Point and around North ape. Q. Will you undertake to say that you have any personal knowledge of the fisheries between North and East Capes in the bight of the island within three miles of the shore ?—A. I do not think that I have; I have bot, within three miles of the shore. Q. So during the whole of these 15 years you carefully avoided going AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1913 ie this limit; and during that time you say you lost money !—A. 0. Q. Did you make money ?—A. I did very well. Q. You did very well ?—A. Yes. Q. And so well that you did not think it necessary to go inside the limit. Did you ever fish along the shore of Cape Breton !—A. Yes. Q. Did you always keep three miles off the shore 7—A. No. Q. You did fish within the three-mile limit ,—A. I did sometimes. Q. As a rule, did you keep three miles off shore, or fish inside that al ?—A. Of course, we kept outside, when we could catch fish out there. - Q. Did you catch fish oftener inside than outside of the three-mile limit?—A. We caught them outside a great deal oftener than inside, for the very reason, I suppose, that the fish were there. If the fish had been inside, we would probably have caught them in there. Q. Did you state, in answer to Mr. Trescot, that during these 15 years you lost money by fishing in the bay ?—A. No, I do not think so, Q. Did you not state that since that time you have done better by _earrying on the American fishery than you did during the whole of i these 15 years ?—A. Yes, I did. Q. Then you did not lose money in either case ?—A. I lost money one way, if you had a mind to reckon it in that light. I just got about insar- ance, and wear and tear of the vessel, and pay for the employment of the vessel during three or four months, when we could not do anything else. Q. In point of fact, you made no money 7—A. Reckoning it that way, we «did not. Q. You laid up no money ; you only paid for wear and tear!—A. We paid for insurance and interest on the money ; and that is every cent which we got out of it; and I could show the books to prove it. Q. And during the last eight years you have been fishing on the American coast ?—A. During the last six years, throwing out the two last years, when I did not make much money, fish being very low in price, we have done first rate there. Q. On the American coast ?—A. Yes. I averaged over $2,000 a year Q. For six years?—A. Yes—previous to the last two years, Q. Were these six exceptional years, or were they a fair specimen of the fishing on the American coast?—A. Yes; that is, since I followed it. Q. You are a Newburyport man?—A,. Yes. Q. I presume that you had as much knowledge of the fisheries near your own doors, by reputation and hearsay, as you did of the Gulf of St. Lawrence fisheries betore you started to fish in the gulf ?—A. 1 used to fish in the Bay of St. Lawrence altogether. Re, Q. When you had good fisheries at your own doors, why did you start _off to the gulf fisheries ?—A. Because we did not know how to catch them, and did not understand making seines so as to catch them. _ Q. So you went to the gulf fisheries ?—A. The fish in the gulf would bite hooks, and our fish would not do so. The latter are too shrewd to bite hooks; we had to make nets to catch them. ; . Q. Your fish were too shrewd to take the hook ; it was only the ae: fortunate British fish that could be so gulled !—A. The latter woul bite the hook. Q.. And that was what drove you fo the gulf fishery !—A. As: op ae we understood the making of seines to catch the fish 10 deep water we did much better on our own Coast. Q. Did L understand you to say that the catch off your own coast Was 1914 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. taken ten miles out from the shore ?—A. I should think that three. quarters of what we caught were taken ten miles from land. Q. You mean off the coast of Maine and Massachusetts ?—A. Yes; - and all along the coast. Q. Where did you get the other quarter?—A. We might get them inside of that; but the men who fish outside and stay there get the most fish, I can tell you. Q. The men who fish outside on the American coast get the most fish ?—A. Yes. Those who stop right near the land do not get so many. Q. The American inshore fisheries, according to your statement, are~ just a little worse than the British inshore fisheries, while your off-shore fisheries are better than the British off-shore fisheries ?—A. I guess they are better now. Q. This has been the case for the last two years?—A. Yours are good for nothing now. They are not worth sending a vessel down to them. Q. You allude to our shore fisheries ?—A. I mean the fisheries in the bay. Q. Oat in the bay the fisheries are good for nothing ?—A. The fishery in tke bay is good for nothing. Q. Your off-shore fishery is first-rate now ?—A. I believe that this year is exceptional on account of the bait. Q. But take the last six or seven years ?—A. Taking the last eight years into consideration, it has been good enough. There have been plenty of fish and we have done well there. Q. And you do not know anything about the off-shore fisheries in the gulf during these years?—A. We had vessels go there from Newbury- port every year, but the results were so unsatisfactory—they lost so much money, that lately only three were sent there. Q. Was this in consequence of their keeping out in the bay ?—A. These vessels were fitted out for the bay because they did not under- stand seining. Vessels were fitted out for the bay, until results were so poor that they were taken off these grounds. Q. Did you understand that they fished inshore?—A. I do not know where they fished. They fished anywhere. They stated that during the last two years they could not catch fish there except inshore; but [ hardly believed it until I came down this year. The fish have been nearer the shore this year than they used to be. Q. You say that the off-shore fisheries on the American coast are first- rate, while in the gulf the off-shore fisheries are good for nothing ?—A. Yes, now, during this present season. _ Q. And the inshore fisheries of the gulf are better than the American inshore fisheries?—A. Yes; along the coast more fish are caught with hooks there than on the American coast. Q. During the last eight years, when you have been making $8,000 a year, have you fished in your own schooners ?—A. I owned part of them. Q. Have you fished in the same vessel during the whole eight years ? —A. No; I have been during the last eight years in the S. C. Noyes and in my present vessel. Q. Are you the owner of her?—A. I am part owner of her, and also of the 8. ©. Noyes. Q. What is the name of your present vessel?—A. The Miantonoma. It is an Indian name. Q. What is her size !—A. 77 tons and 45-hundredths is her register. ‘ sp hat is the size of the other vessel?—A. 124 tons and 76-hun- arec 18. Q. These are not the same vessels in which you went to the galf?—A. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1915 I never went in the gulf in this one until the present year. I always went there in the S. C. Noyes. She is ten years old. I afterwards had this one, which I have now, built. Q. These were the vessels which you used during the eight years mentioned 7—A. Yes. Q. Which one did you command?—A. I went for two years in this one, when new; and in these two years I made 86,000 clear money on our own coast. I then never went nigh your waters, Q. When speaking of fishing on your own coast, you mean that you did so 8 or 10 miles from the shore ?—A. I do not know as it was that distance, but I caught three-quarters of the mackerel off shore. Q. At least three-quarters ?—A. I should think I caught at least three- quarters of the fish outside of ten miles from the shore during that time. ~ Q. Who are the other owners of the vessels with you?—A. I could not tell till I see the papers. There are several owners. Q. Do I understand you to say that you cannot tell the names of the joint owners of the vessel—that they number several people, and that you cannot remember their names?—A. I[ cannot remember them— perhaps not the whole of them. There are Hayden, Brown 38. Noyes, another Noyes, and Dr. Peevil, &c. Perhaps I cannot remember them all. Q. Where do these gentlemen live 7—A. At West Newport and New- bury port. Q. They are all alive?—A. Yes. Q. And all of them are acquainted with the facts which you state, and they are all alive ?—A. Yes. Q. They know all abont it?—A. They got the money, and they know all about the catch as well as I do; and they can show you the books for any time during the last 15 years. : " Q. Who is the agent?—A. Edward Burwell, of Newburyport. We have got it all in black and white. I don’t want you to take my word for it, not a bit. Q. And he is quite ready to make the same statement ‘—A. He will show you the figures which will make the same statement. Q. I think you said there were about 67 vessels in the bay in an answer to Mr. Trescot. What did you say ?—A, I said that there were 600 or 700 vessels there, as well as I could judge, about 15 years ago. Q. In what year was this?—A. I could not pretend to tell the year. Q. Was it more than eight years ago’—A. O, yes; it was 10, 12, or 13 years ago. Q. And the owners of all these vessels were still under a delusion re- garding the fisheries on the American coast!—A. No. I do say that the Cape Cod vessels always fish on our own coast with hooks, and do first-rate; they do well on Georges, but our fishermen wou't go there. Q. I am speaking of the same ground where you say that during the last two or three years you made $2,000 or 33,000 a year, ten or twelve miles out from your coast?—A. They did not think that they could cateh fish in deep water with seines. They bad not tried it, so they did not know about it; but as soon as this was once tried of course It was a sue cess. Q. Do they now catch the fish in these waters with purse-nets !—A. Yes. _ Q. What do they catch in these nets besides mackere not get much of anything. 1?7—A. We do ; 1916 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. You catch nothing but mackerel ?—A. We catch pogies and men- haden, and herring, with the mackerel—blue-backs, as we call them. Q. What are the pogies and meuhaden ?—A. What we use for bait. We catch them sometimes. Q. How many do you take at a draught ?—A. That varies very much; sometimes the haul is very large and sometimes very small. Q. Do you save all the fish you thus get ?—A. We sometimes catch so many that we cannot save them, and have to let them go; and some- times we get so many that they let themselves go. Q. Are they alive or dead when you let them go 7—A. They are almost always alive. Q. Do you mean to say that you do not kill any with the seines?—A. We kill the small mackerel which get meshed in the net; the small be- ing taken with the big ones, of course are killed. Q. Do you not take a large number of the small fish ?—A. We did last season, but never before. Last year the small and large fish were mixed together, and we hauled in a great many of the small ones, which were meshed and killed. Q. This destroyed them, of course?—A. Of course they were worthless. Q. And you have not had them back again this year ?—A. I tell you we have plenty of fish on our shore if they would only show on the sur- face. It is not for want of fish that they are not taken. Q. How do you know ?—A. I saw them out south. Bait was found there and plenty of fish were schooling out south this spring. Q. Do you mean that there was no bait on the coast of Maine—that there were no pogies there?—A. There were pogies enough, but no bait for the mackerel. Q. Are not porgies bait for the mackerel ?—A. The former are a big fish, and the mackerel could not eat them very well, unless they were ground up. Q. This fish requires to be prepared for bait ?—A. Yes. Q. What was the bait on your coast ?—A. This little shrimp bait, of which I spoke. = Is that shrimp found ten miles from the shore ?—A. Yes; and fifty niles. Q. And that bait has failed this year ?—A. Yes, entirely on the eastern shore, but not out on the southern shore. Q. How do you know that it is to be found down south ?—A. I was there and saw the fish. Q. Where did you go?—A. To Cape May and all along down there. Q. This spring ?—A. Yes. . Q. Did you get many fish?—A. We did not get a great many; we obtained a couple of hundred barrels. Q. Were these not poor mackerel ?—A. Yes. Q. And are not the fish, the number ones, caught in the Gulf of Saint ’ Lawrence, first rate?—A. We now have not got over 20 barrels of num- ber ones on the vessel, and they are nothing bué miserabie trash. Q. Have you marked them number one ?—A. The inspector marks them. If I could do so, I would mark all the fish number one. Q. I have no doubt of that.—A. There is no trouble about that. (. I have not a shadow of doubt about that.—A. There is no trouble about that. Q. You would mark them all number ones?—A. Yes. Q. And they are good for nothing ?—A. They are very poor fish, in- deed, speaking candidly about them. ’ Q. And what the inspector will inspect as number ones are trash ?{— ie | oS AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1917 A. According to the best of my judgment, I should say that about 20 in the 104 barrels [ have are fit for number ones, and the rest for number twos. \ Q. And these are poor trash ?—A. They are of very poor qualit y- Q. Did you not say that they were poor trash and good for noth- ing 7—A. I say that they are not fit to eat. Q. Who are the unfortunate people upon whom you expect to palm them off ?—A. People who don’t know anything about mackerel. There are plenty of such people in the world, to whom you can sell almost anything. Q. Are not the inspectors sworn officers 7—A. Yes. Q. And youexpect these sworn inspectors to mark them No.1 although they are such poor trash and uot fit to eat ?—A. Yes, sir; and they will be marked bay mackerel, not shore mackerel, and people will buy them with that understanding. Q. Do they understand that No. 1 bay mackerel are fit for nothing !— A. They are not nearly so good as shore mackerel; we have to sell the former for $3 or $4 less, and perhaps $5 or $6 less than the latter.’ I have sold them at $9 less than ours in the market. Q. No. 1 bay mackerel is not equal to No. 1 American mackerel 1—A. No; but I have got $3 a barrel more for the former than the latter, when we fished in the bay 15 years ago. Q. Why is that?—A. I could not tell you. Q. There was a time when the bay mackerel were better than the American mackerel ?—A. Yes; they used to be better than our shore fish ; they commanded a better price; but during the last 8 or 10 years it has been quite the reverse; but why tbis is so is more than I ean tell you. ’ Q. The American fisheries along the coast failed, until within the last year or two, very much ?—A. I am not aware that this was the case. Q. I allude to the inshore fishery on the American coast !—A. I did not know that it had. Q. You did not know it 7—A. No. Q. Will you swear that this was not the case?—A. I do not know that it was. Q. And you never heard that it had failed? A. No. — Q. You did not know it of your own personal experience, and you never heard that it had failed 7—A. No. Q. And you have been a practical fisherman for 15 or 23 years !—A. Yes. ‘that is my business. Q. And during these 23 years you have no personal knowledge of the American fishery having failed on your coast, and you have never beard of such a thing ?—A. Ihave known that mackerel were awful scarce, as they are in your bay this year, but I know that they were plentiful last year. They were more plentiful on our shore last year than | ever saw them to be in the Bay of St. Lawrence. -Q. Then you have not known, and you never even heard, of the _ American fishery on your own coasts failing at all !—A. Failing eu- tirely ? : It has Q. Practically failing, and not being worthy of pursuit I—A. t cag n more of a failure this year than I ever suw since I went fishing. Q. Do I understand you to say that during all these years, as ra - you are aware, the American fishery on the American coast Was 4 aes as good as it was during the last two years, and better, of Course, saa it has been this year; and that you know of no difference in this re- d 1918 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. lation ?—A. I know but little about it. I used to go to the Bay of St. Lawrence. Q. Why did you come up here ?—A. I pursued the fishery in the Bay of St. Lawrence, but between Newburyport and Cape Cod the fisher- men pursued it along our own shores. Q. Did you ever see vessels fishing along the American coast 7—A. I know that they used to do better there than we did here. Q. Then why did you not stop and fish there ?—A. Because I thought that they could do better there than we could. We had always been accustomed to come here, and we could not go anywhere else, as will be the case with any man when he has got into a habit. Q. And you kept this losing Lusiness up; not to put it too strong, you continued this business in which you only made enough to pay for interest and wear and tear ?—A. I did not say that we lost by it. Q. But you only made enough to pay interest and wear and tear on the vessel ?—A. Yes; and the depreciation on the vessel, and when we did that we thought we had done well. Q. And you passed vessels fishing on the American shore and doing better than you could ?—A. We could not all get crews and go there and fish. They were brought up to that kind of fishing and they could get crews for it, but we could not. Q. Why not?—A. We did not have enough men, and men were scarce. @. Do they take a larger number of men on vessels fishing along the American coast than they do in the bay ?—A. No; they take just the same number. Q. Why, then, were you prevented fishing on the American coast ?— A. We could not get crews to stay there. The men had themselves no faith in the shore fisheries. Q. This was fishing ten miles off shore?—A. The men were brought up to fishing here, and they thought that they must come here and fish. Q. Were they not just as able to manage a vessel and fish as other men ?—A. Ido not know but what they were just as good fishermen, but they never fished there, and we could not get them to go on George’s Bank, they bad such a dread of it. Q. Iam not referring now to George’s Bank. How many miles is that from the shore ?—A. About 100 miles. Q. Iam speaking of the fisheries in which you have been engaged during the last two years, about 10 miles out from the shore 7—A. I call George’s Bank our shore fisheries. : Q. Then do I understand, when you speak of having made $2,000 a year for the last six years, that you refer to George’s Bank, which yoa call the shore fishery ?—A. We go there at certain times of the year. Q. Do I understand you so to include that Bank 2?—A. I never did but little of that kind of fishing. Q. Will you answer the question? Do you approve of that or not ?— A. | do not, in my case. I can leave it out in my case. _ Q. Did you fish there during that time?—A. I was there twice dur- ing that period. Q. Did you get any fish there ?—A. I obtained about 10 barrels. _Q. The trip down there was a failure?—A. It was in my case. I just simply go across there from the south to try for a week or ten days with the other vessels. . i Q. Then your experience of George’s Bank during the last 8 or 10 years is that the fishing there has been a failure ?—A. The vessels that stop there and fish do first rate. tial _ oe * . + t “that as to the other quarter you cannot state that one sing ' taken within three miles of the shore?—A. I can. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1919 Q. And you did not stop there ?—A. No; I expected to find fish on the eastern shore, where I went and fished. Q. During these 8 years you only obtained 10 barrels of fish on George’s Bank 7?—A. Yes. Q. And all the rest you secured on the American inshore fishing grounds 7—A. Yes. Q. And you took them all about ten miles from the shore 1—A. I said I should judge that I took about three-quarters of what I caught out- side of ten miles from the shore. Q. How far outside of 10 miles ?--A. From 10 to 50 miles. Q. And you took about three-quarters of your fish at that distance ‘from the shore ?—A. Yes; I should think that these were taken outside of 10 miles from the shore. Q. How far from the shore did you catch the other one-quarter !—A. We cannot go very near the shore; our nets are 27 fathoms deep, and we must not go near it or we would touch bottom. We have to fish 7 _or 8 miles from the land. Q. As I understand you, then, instead of catching one-quarter of the fish inshore, not a single barrel of all those you have taken during the last eight years have been caught within three miles of your own coast? —A. In some places we can go within a mile of the shore and have plenty of water. Q. You are upon oath, and you say that during these eight years you have not, on any one occasion, fished within three miles of your own coast ?—A. I have caught one-quarter of the fish from two or three miles out, according to my judgment. Ido not know exactly how far it was from the shore. I never define it. I might have caught one- quarter of my fish inside, perhaps, of three miles from the shore. Q. Did you not tell me just now that you caught one-quarter of the fish within 7 or 8 miles of the shore and the other three-quarters from 10 to 50 miles out?—A. It might have been inside of the three miles that I got the quarter. We took tiem anywhere where our seine would not touch bottom. : Q. Did you not tell me just now that you took them between 7 or 5 or 10 miles of the shore ?—A. I did not mean to say so, but I might have done so. I did not intend to say so, if I did do it. Q. Will you tell me what proportion of the three-quarters was taken between 8 and 10 miles of the shore, and what proportion between 5 miles from, and the shore?—A. 1 cannot tell you anything about It, save from my judgment. I tell you that we caught the mackerel any- where where the net would not touch bottom. Q. You stated that it would touch bottom anywhere along shore, did you not?—A. I did not say anywhere, but that we must have + fath- oms of water for it. - Q. How far have you fished from the shore 1—A. We have fished all around the ledges. } .Q. But how far from the shore ?—A. It was two miles from the shore. Q. Will you swear it was within two miles of the shore [—A. Yes; plenty of mackerel are inshore, but we could not get at them. . Q. Will you swear that any portion of that one quarter was taken within three miles of the shore?—A. I do not know that 1 could swear to that. ¢ that Q. It then comes to this: You can swear that of the whole of tha : : 0 15 miles off the shore, and eatch you caught three-quarters from 10 to lo papa wissen 1920 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. How many were so taken ?—A. I have caught 50 barrels off Cape May within half a mile of the land. Q. When ?—A. Well, the year before last. Q. Was that the only time you did so?—A. I cannot say that I recol- lect of more than that one instance. @. How many barrels did you catch that season ?—A. 1,000. Q. And out of these 1,000 barrels you caught 950 barrels from 10 to 50 miles off shore?—A. I did not say that. I say that they were taken where the net would not touch bottom. Some vessels carry a fathom net. Q. Willyou swear now that of these 1,000 barrels, one single barrel was _ taken within three miles of the shore?—A. I could not swear that I did. Ido not know that I did, save in the one instance I have men- tioned. Q. Will you now undertake to say that the local fishery on the Amer- ican coast was exceptionally good during the last 6 or 7 years ?—A. I do not know that it has been extraordinarily good; but last season there was a large catch. Q. Up to last season it wasin an ordinary condition, as faras you are aware ?—A. Last season the catch on our coasts was very large. Q. And this year none have been caught there ?—A. This year there has been a small catch so far; but I cannot state what may yet be the ease. A long time must elapse before the fishing winds up. Q. Do you know how many barrels have been taken from 10 to 50 miles off your coast and up to the coast?—A. No. I could not tell you anything about it. Q. Can you give any approximate to the number ?—A. No. I could not come any wheres near it. Q. Have you read the reports of this year’s catch ?—A. No. Q. Do you read the papers at all?—A. I think I do when I get them, but I have not had many of them since I have been down here. Down in this country we do not get any papers. Q. You have stated in answer to Mr. Trescot that so far from trans- shipment of cargoes on our shores being a privilege it is a delusion and a snare, and that you lost money by it ?—A. That was my experience. Q. Do you put that statement forward as the experience of your rbd fishermen ?—A. Every man from our place will say the same ling. Q. Do I understand you to say that it is the general experience of the American fishermen, so far as you are aware ?—A. I say that it is the case with those who go from Newburyport, but I would not speak for places farther away. I do not know mach about other ports. Glouces- ter is a large place, but I know very little about it. Q. Do you know whether the Gloucester people avail themselves of this privilege of transshipment?—A. I know that they ship very few mackerel, and not nearly so many so they used to do. _Q. When did they used to transship?—A. They did so at the same time I did. Q. When did you do so’—A. 10, 12, or 15 years ago. Q. Was this during the Reciprocity Treaty or afterward ?—A. It was both at that time and after the treaty was terminated, when we had licenses. Q. Did you ever transship after the Reciprocity Treaty expired, and when you had no licenses !—A. I do not think that we could ship with- out licenses. : Q. Did you ever do so after the expiration of the Reciprocity Treaty | | ne AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1921 and when you had no licenses ?—A. I think I always had licenses, but I would not be positive about it. ; | Q. Will you swearthat you never evaded the license system?—.A. | would not so swear, but I might possibly have done it. [am sure that I had a license every year. Q. Do you mean that you had licenses but did not pay for them !—A. No; of course if I had them I paid for them. You don’t generally give away much down in this country. | Q. Dol understand you to say that every year after the Reciprocity Treaty you fished in the bay, until the negotiation of the Washington Treaty, you had a license?—A. I say there might possibly be one year when | did not have one, but [ think that I had one every year. Q. Dol understand you to say you think you had a license every year !— A. I think I had; but possibly I did not onee—during one year. _Q, And during that year, when you may not have had a license, did you go into the bay and run the risk of seizure ?—A. Yes. Q. And if the bay fishery was no good, why did you go there and run the risk of capture 7?—A. I do not think I was so foolish as that; bat I might possibly have done so. : Q. Still you are not prepared to say that you did not do so_—A. [ am not. My memory is not very good on that point; but I do not knaow—I might possibly have done so. I think I bad a license every year that they granted them. Q. Did you not speak about evading the cutters ?—A. Of course. We did not go inshore when we saw the cutters. Q. Why ?—A. If we saw a cutter ready to take us we would not go ‘in. Q. During what year was that ?—A. It was any year and at any time. If I saw a man at any time going to take me I would keep away. , Q. Then, during the Reciprocity Treaty, if you saw a cutter you would not go inshore?—A. During the treaty, of course we did not care for the cutters. Q. When did you evade them ?—A. We were afraid when they were there to take us, whether it was within three or five miles of the shore. Q. During what year were you so afraid 7—A. Ido not know, It was after the Reciprocity Treaty when we were most afraid of them. Q. Was that in 1869?—A. Yes, about nine years ago, Q. You did try to evade the cutters that year ?—A. Yes; but 1 did not then go inside. I never hove to that year when I thought I was inside the limit. Q. And eventually you went out of the bay on this account ?—.. It was because I was in dread of the cutters, and not because | tished inside of the limit. _ Q. Why were you in dread of the cutters if you had a license '—A. They would not then give licenses. Q. In 1869?—A. No. Q. Do you swear that no licenses were issued then 1—A. I swear that when I left the bay the last year I was there they would not give me or grant anybody licenses. - Q. And this was in 1869?—A. It was in 1869 or 1870, or the year I left the bay, whichever it was. Q. And you state that this was in 1869?—A. I think that it was eight years ago. No licenses were then issued, anyway. Q. Then you went into the bay with full knowledge that you could not get a license ?—A. Yes. 121 F 1922 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. And with a full knowledge that you were liable to seizure by so doing ?—A. I knew that they would take me, if possible. Q. And though you ran the risk of seizure, still you went to this miserable wretched fishery, the proceeds of which were only sufficient to pay for wear and tear ?—A. I tell you that we did a fairly good busi- ness up to that time, eight years ago. Q. You swear that this was the case?—A. Yes. I did what I calla fair business. @. And you made money at it?—A. I made insurance and deprecia- tion, which just about kept us along the same as we were before. @. And do you eall that a good business ?—A. It was a good business when we could do nothing else. Q. You did not make a dollar of money but only paid for wear and tear and the insurance ?—A. Weran our risk and got the insurance and interest money, of course. ; Q. And that is all ?—A. We did not take out any insurance. We took our own risk. Q. You put the premium in your pocket, and that was all you made? —A. Yes. . . And do you eall that a business which any man in bis senses would pursue ?—A. A man would pursue it when he could do nothing better. @. And you could not do anything better?—A. No. @. Your own coasts did not offer any inducement to you for fishing ? —A. That was before we began to seine. _ Q. And you then saw other vessels on your own coast fishing and doing first rate?—A. They did so with hooks on George’s Banks. Q. But not along the coast ?—A. They would not do much along the © coast except in the fall of the year. I guess that they fished principally on George’s Bank. Q. If I understand you aright; you say that these gulf fisheries are of no earthly use to the Americans at all ?—A. They are not now; they are not so to me, anyway. Q. That is, they are not if you have a better business to’ go into ?—A. I have my business and I am a fisherman; and these fisheries are of no good to me. } Q. Do you believe that the gulf fishery is in fact of no practical value whatever to the United States fishermen, speaking generally and not individually ?—A. I cannot speak for the United States. I can only speak for myself. This fishery is of no earthly use to me individually as a fisherman, because our coast fishery is ten times as good. Q. And that is the only answer you will give ?—A. That is all. 1 oud not speak for everybody in the United States. It is a pretty large. place. : (). And you cannot speak for the body of American fishermen either ?— A. I do not know that I could speak for the fishermen at large. _ Q. And do you think that all these men have gone into the bay to do Just the kind of business you did; that is to say, simply to pay the in- terest on expenditure, and to enable them, as underwriters on their own trips, to pocket the premiums ?—A, I do not believe that there is a ves- sel which, during the last six years, has done that in the bay, or aver- aged that. ‘ Q. Or averaged it ?—A. No, they could not begin to do so. Q. And still you will persist in going into this wretched place year after year? This is a most extraordinary thing.—A. I tell you that we used to do well enough there until we went to fishing on our own shore oS | ———— i sz AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1923 caught mackerel there. I have told you that almost a thousand imes. Q. And your fishery is a deep sea fishery 7—A. Certainly itis, Every- body has got the same privilege there that we have. ; Q. Do you do anything in cod-fishing 7—A. No; I am no cod-tisher- man at all. Q. And you do not know anything about that fishery !—A. No. I went as far as Labrador once, but that is all [ can tell you about ecod- fishing. One season at it was enough for me. Q. And you do not know anything about the bait required for cod !— A. No. Iam no cod-fisher. I am a mackerel-catcher in évery sense of the word. I have caught mackerel in all kinds of ways. Q. You have heard that Prince Edward Island is a first-rate fishing place?—A. I have heard that it is a regular rat-hole. A good many of our men have lost their lives there, and they are and have been a little shy of it. Q. How many Americans, since what is called the great Yankee gale in 1851, have lost their lives there?—A. They have taken very fine care not to get caught there. Q. That is the only way you account for the fact, as you think that after the gale of 1851 no American fishermen have ever ventured in reach of Prince Edward Island?—A. They have taken fine care to give it a clear berth. . : Q. Are you aware of the fact that there are extensive harbors of refuge on the northern side of the island, provided for American fisher- men at the expense of the Dominion Government?—A. No, I am not. Q. Are you aware that expensive lights are kept up along the shore for the benefit of fishermen?—A. I am aware that there are a good many of them now; but they were dreadful few when I went there years ago, -though we used to have to pay light-money. Q. This was the case years ago?—A. They were then dreadful few. Q. Aud since eight years ago they have been put up!—A. There was one on East Point and one at North Cape, when I went there before. Q. Do you mean to say that there were none there in 1870 or 1369 !— A. I say they had then built one at East Point and one at North Cape. - Q. But a great number of the light-houses have been built since !—A. Yes; the coast is very well lighted now. Q. This has been done since the Washington Treaty was negotiated, for the benefit of Americans if they come there?—A. I doubt very much that it has been done for our benefit. Q. Are they of any benefit to you if you go there ?—A. Of course they are of just as much benefit to us as to anybody else, but you have got a very large trade, and large vessels go through by there. Q. Is there not a large harbor at Souris ?—A. It Is ot no earthly ~ to our fishermen; if eight or ten vessels were there they would choc it full, and I would not then like to have my vessel behind the break- water with a southeasterly wind for anything. ; . - Q. You were in there ?—A. I just came from there the day before yes. rday. : Rog And you will swear that eight or ten vessels will fill the who'e har- bor ?—A. [ should think that 10 vessels would be as many as could bar- - . bor there safely in a gale of wind and have a decent berth. ‘ve gail: -Q. How many were in when you were there ?—A. Twenty-n >, sea but not over ten of them lay inside of the breakwater. I do uot th _ that this number was inside of it. u 1924 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. All the rest were out in the open sea ?—A. They were outside of the breakwater, anchored in the cove. Q. That is the harbor ?—A. Itis a fair harbor except during a south- easterly wind. Q. Would not that breakwater protect 25 vessels lying in the ordi- nary harbor?—A. No. I could not stop there under such cireum- stances; I would then get right under way and go right out of the rlace. ; Q. Will you swear that there have not been as many as 50 American vessels in that harbor at one time protected by the breakwater 7—A. I should like to see them get in there. Q. Will you swear that it was not so, or that it could not beso? Can you swear that 100 vessels could not harbor there ?—A. It don’t look to me as if they could put 5 vessels in there. q. And you undertake to state that 100 vessels could not be put there, and that it looks as if 5 could not be put there ?—A. It looks very small: I think that 8 or 10 vessels are as many as ought to be there to havea decent kind of a berth. Q. You admit that 10 vessels could get a decent berth there 7—A. J] think that they could. Q. If this is so, what made you say that it looked as if 5 could not be put there and in the next breath that ten vessels could have a decent berth there ?—A. I say I do not know but what they could. I give it as a rough guess. @. You told the Commissioners on your oath that this harbor did not look as if it would protect five vessels, and ip the next’breath you tell them that ten could be harbored there ?—A. It don’t look as if it would protect one vessel. Q. Not one vessel 7—A. No; it does not. I would not dare risk my vessel behind it. @. Do you know anything about the fleet which, for the last 15 years, or during the Reciprocity Treaty, found shelter in Malpeque and Souris Harbors ?—A. No; I was never in Malpeque Harbor more than two or three times in my life during that period. By Mr. Trescott : Q. With regard to the value of the gulf fisheries, do you say that if you had your choice, as far as a decision is concerned, you would con- sider yourself much better off with a duty laid on imported fish, and be entirely excluded from fishing on the Canadian coast within the three- mile limit; and as far as you know in stating this you represent the general opinion of American fishermen ?—A. I never thought anything Pe I always advocated that all through ; I am strongly in favor of it. \ Q. With regard to the unwillingness of the fishermen to go and the difliculty of getting to George’s Bank, is it the fact that a large propor- tion of these crews was composed of Canadians ?—A. Well, these people had a certain dread of that Bank. _ Q. They were prejudiced against it, and preferred to go to their own fishing grounds ?—A. Yes; they were accustomed to come here, and they would not go there. Q. With regard to the difficulty of telling whether you are three or Six miles from the shore, I understand you to mean that it was uncer- tain where you were, and that you were unwilling to ran the risk of being taken by acutter when you were really outside of the limit, or when. you were inside of it, owing to being deceived as to your distance from a veel : vw AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1925 the shore ?—A. To be taken nine miles from land would be just as bad for me as to be taken three miles off; that would make no difference to me as far as my summer’s work was concerned. No: 2; EDWARD STAPLETON, fisherman, of Gloucester, was called on behalf of the Government of the United States, affirmed and examined. By Mr. Foster: Question. Where were you born ?7—Answer. In Nova Scotia. Q. And you now live in Gloucester 7?—A. Yes. Q. How long have you lived there ?—A. Since I was four years old ; and I am now 33. Q. For how many years have you been captain of a vessel !—A. Thir- teen. Q. In what ‘fishing have you been engaged ?—A. In mackerel and Bank fishing. ‘ Q. By the Bank, you mean the cod fisheries 7—A. Yes. Q. In which did you begin first?—A. In mackerel fishing. Q. And thirteen years ago you commanded a vessel which was en- gaged in mackerel fishing ?—A. Yes; she was called the Fashion, Q. She was from Gloucester 7—A. Yes. Q. What was her tonnage ?—A. I think it was somewhere about 46 tons. She was a small vessel. Q. Who owned her ?—A. George J. Marsh and Frank Holmes. Q. During how many years were you in her ?—A. I was in her one season. Q. In what vessel did you next ship ?—A. The Laura Mangan. Q. Was she also from Gloucester ?—A. Yes. George Marsh owned ‘her. Q. For how many years were you mackerel, fishing !—A. I have been for ten years master of a vessel. ; Q. In what year did you make your last mackerel trip ?—A. In 1873. . The year of the great gale ?—A. Yes. Whave did you ash fe you fished for mackerel 1—A. In oe Bay of St. Lawrence, around the Magdalen Islands, and Banks Brad- ley and Orphan. Wane Q. Generally state what course you were expected to pursue Whe : you Jeft Gloucester on a trip to catch mackerel !—A. We used generally to rari down the Nova Scotia shore and go through the Straits of Canso. We stopped, however, at this strait to get wood and fers re teases up to North Cape in sight of Prince Edward Island, and o onaventure. . : rte Where did you begin to fish?—A. We generally useG v5: af a ‘off North Cape—nearly northeast off North Cape or Prince Edware Island. Q. ‘On which part of the insland ?—A. Off the northwest part. sta Q. Where is Bonaventure ?7—A. It is over off the Gaspe coast. is u é. , 5 Sees a the land did you begin to fish off th Cape ?—A. The land would be justin sight. | eee eth : Q. And how far off Bonaventure did you fish _—A. t So as to see the hills. 3 4 ; . Rank — Q. Is there a Bank in this quarter ?—A. Yes, Bonaventure Bank. A e No! th 1926 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. How far from the land is it situated ?—A. I should think that it is twenty miles off shore, or about that. Q. Where did you go from Bank Bonaventure ?—A. Well, we went down off the west shore, off what we call the Pigeon Hills; we would be about 12 or 15 miles off shore. (Q. Where are Pigeon Hills ?—A. On the Canadian shore, at that oint. . Q. How far would you be from the shore?—A. I should think about 15 miles. Q. Would you lie off Shippegan?—A. We would be broad off Ship- pegan. : 0. And how far from the shore?—A. From 15 to 16 or 17 miles. Q. Where did you go next?—A. About the 1st of July we generally struck up along the coast and across to Magdalen Islands. We gener- ally calculated on fishing there on the 4th of July. Q. What did you next do?—A. We always finished up the season at . the Magdalen Islands; and along late in the fall we would go to Marga- ree and Cheticamp. We would probably stay there for a week ‘or 10 days. Q. During how many years did you successfully follow the mackerel fishing?—A. I was master of a vessel during ten seasons. Q. And during these 10 seasons, how far from the shore did you take the greater part of your fish ?—A. We got the most of them off shore— 10, 12, 15, or 16 miles off shore. Q. At which of the points you have named was the best mackerel fishing to be found ?—A. At the Magdalen Islands. @. Lhave heard something about the danger of fishing at the Mag- dalen Islands; is this correct ?—A. The best harbor in the bay is there. Q. Explain.—A. This is the case, because you can always make the lee, no odds how the wind is around the land; you can always put down the anchor there, and be in smooth water. : Q. Is the weather there rather boisterous ?—A. It blows spells. (. But no storms are peculiar to that locality ?—A. No. Q. When itis stormy there, itis stormy throughout the gulf?—A. Yes. _Q. And though the water is rough there, you are always safe 7—A. You can always fish under the lee of the land at the Magdalen Islands; and this makes it the best fishing ground in the bay. You can always be near the land, and in smooth water, if it is blowing a good breeze. Q. Laying aside the Magdalen Islands, what proportion of your mackerel catch was taken, according to the best of your judgment, within three marine miles of the coast, and what proportion, farther out than that ?—A. I do not think that I ever got 150 barrels inside of the three-mile limit in my life in the bay. Q. What was your average catch, yearly, during these years ?—A. It was about 600 barrels, [ should think, a season. j Q. Were you in the habit of transshipping ?—A. I shipped two fares, while I fished for mackerel. Q. From Where ?—A. The Strait of Canso. Q. And in what way did they go to Canso?—A. One fare went in @ sailing vessel, and the other in a steamer. Q. What was the principal object to be gained by transshipping catr- goes 7—A. I sent one trip home, in order to have the time that would have been consumed if I had gone home with it to fish in the bay. Q. How much did it cost you to take the mackerel to Gloucester ?— A. About what we made on the next trip. Q. What did it cost ?7—A. About $1.50 a barrel. —= = =e left for the grounds about the middle of April every year since AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1927 Q. And the expense of transshipment brought the cost to 81.50 a barrel 7—A. [ think it was somewhere about that. I would not say for certain. \ ; Q. Did you buy your bait !—A. I brought it from home, but I boaght barrels and salt at Canso. Q. What else were you and your crews accustomed to buy there f— A. Boots and mittens, and some stores—small stores for the vessel. Q. When you did not transship, what would be the average expendi- ture of the crew of the vessel in British Provinces !—A. We used to spend about $100 during a season down there, Q. Did that include what the crew bought for themselves ?—A. That was for what I used to use. Q. How much would the crew expend ?—A. Probably some would spend more than others. ; Q. What would be the average ?—A. They might spend #4 or 85 apiece. Q. All told, what would be the average amount of money which you would pay out in these provinces when you did not transship éar. goes ?—A. About $150. Q. A trip?—A. Yes. Q. And when you transshipped, how much would you expend !—A. From $500 to $600. Q. And you always brought your bait from home !—A. Yes. Q. Did you never buy any of it?—A. Not here. I had no occasion to do so. , Q. As to the thackerel fishery, which in your judgment is most advan- tageous to the fishermen of the United States—to be excluded from fishing within three marine miles of the coasts of the British Provinces, and to have provincial mackerel subject to a duty of 32 a barrel, or to have the right to fish close inshore on the coasts of these provinces, and to have pro- vincial mackerel imported into the United States free of duty '—A. As far as I am concerned, I would sooner see the $2 a barrel duty imposed ; it would be more money in my pocket, I should think. Q. What is the opinion of American fishermen generally on this point ?—A. The same. Q. You have been engaged in the coast fisheries since 1873, | believe !— A. I missed one year. [ have been cod-fishing during the last three rears. 4 Q. Which year was it when you did not fish ?—A. That was three years ago. I have been fishing for cod three seasons, for two years -and this season. Q. This, then, is your third year ?—A. This is my third season eo \- fishing. ae Q. What is the name of the cod-fishing vessel of which you are cap. ‘tain ?—A. The Viking. Q. What is her tonnage 7?—A. Seventy-three. * Q. During what portion of the year do you fish in her [—A. Bove have been so fishing. - Q. Up to what time do you fish for cod !—A. To the last of O Q. Where have you fished ?—A. At the Grand Banks. Q. What has been the number of your crew !—A. 'welve. cee Q. When you have started from Gloucester In April ona cou ashing trip, what have you done about bait I—A. I have gone to Fortune Bay for our first baiting; I used to go there winters for ASIUINE nae Q. You have generally bought your bait in Newfoundland !—A. 1¢ ‘tober. . 1928 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. What sort of bait ?—A. Herring, squid, and caplin. @. Which is the most important bait ?—A. Squid. Q. What degree of importance do you give to caplin?—A. Well, I have a poor opinion of caplin. I never used it but once, and I did not do anything with it this year. Q. Do you intend to buy caplin for bait any more?—A. No. Q. How long can you keep squid for bait?—A. About a fortnight, or from 14 to 16 days. It is all owing to the weather; if you have good weather it will remain good for three weeks. Q. If kept on ice ?—A. Yes. Q. And if frozen hard, would it keep longer ?—A. I have stated as long as they will keep when frozen. Q. Then, if you wanted to keep them more than 14 or 16 days, you would only use more ice and freeze them harder ?—A. Yes. Q. How is it with herring ?—A. The same. Q. Can you keep them frozen hard as long as you please ?—A. No; but for about a fortnight. Q. If frozen absolutely hard with an abundance of ice, how long will they keep ?—A. Three weeks are as long as they will keep at the outside, @. Have you ever used salt bait?—A. Yes; some. . What did you so use ?—A. Clams and squids and slivers; we got them on our own coast. Q. What are slivers ?—A. Pogies and menhaden cut into ‘slices. Q. To what extent are clams and slivers and other salt bait used in cod-fishing 7—A. Vessels from this out to the last of October use it altogether. It is late to get bait anywhere on the Newfoundland coast ; but they can now get good bait from the south. Q. You have not been cod-tishing long enough to know when the use of fresh bait began ?—A. No. Q. Perhaps you know from tradition or hearsay how long it is siace it has been used ?—A. I could not say; but I should think that it has been used during the last 7 or 8 years—that is on the Grand Banks. Q. Prior to that, did people for 150 years succeed in catching cod ?— A. Well, they used to go there and fish with salt bait and clams and what bait they got out of the fish; they saved everything inside of the fish for bait. : Q. Did they also catch bait on the Banks ?—A. O, yes; squid. Some vessels, which got their own bait on the Banks, obtained fall fares. Paci your practice has been to go to Newfoundland and buy bait ?— Ten Q. Do you catch it yourself ?—A. No. Q. Did you ever catch any; and, if so, how ?—A. I caught a few squid; that is all. @. Under what circumstances ?—A. This year two baitings of squid cost me $220, Q. How much did you catch ?—A. I have caught $5 or $6 worth. Q. Is that the proportion of what you caught, to what you have bought 7—A. Yes. Q. How many herring have you bought this year ?—A. I bought two baitings ; the first cost me $52, and the second $30. _Q. Do you go and catch bait, when preparing for cod-fishing ?—A. No; we buy it. We xo to Newfoundland, see the American consul, and get our money. We proceed to St. Peter’s when bound up to For- ae Bay, and see the American consul, and then go up and buy our alt. ae a - natives in hauling the seines we get nothing for it. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1929 Q. Are the people there willing to sell you bait?—A. Yes. They are glad to see us come. : Q. Do you have to go and look them up?—A. They look usup. They board us at St. Peter’s, and go in with us. They come out to sell bait to the French, and while we are there, perhaps 6 or 7 different men wil! come aboard and take us in to get bait. Q. This purchase of bait is a business which the people of Newfound. land solicit?—A. Yes; if it was not for the American fishermen, I should think that the people of Fortune Bay would starve; this is what maintains them. ‘ Q. What do you do there in winter?—A. I go there and trade for erring. Q When you leave Gloucester to trade for herring, what do you take from Gloucester? How do you clear?—A. Sometimes I have gone under register, and more frequently under fishing papers. Q. What fishing papers ?—A. The same as I have now. Q. Do you take 2 permit to touch and trade ?—A. Yes. Q. What do you take with you 7?—A. Mostly money; but also a little flour and pork and kerosene oil. Q. When you get to Newfoundland, do you enter your vessel at the custom-house ?—A. Yes. Q. And do you pay 2 duty on your goods ?—A. Yes. Re ates uae goods you bring for trading purposes, you pay cus- ms duty 7—A. Yes. Q. And having done so, you trade with the inhabitants 7—A. Yes; we pay money enough for light dues, without paying any other duty. Q. You pay the duty on your goods when you go in?—A. Yes. . Do you remember what it is?—A. We pay, I think, $1 a barrel on pork, 25 cents a barrel on flour, and 14 or 15 per cent. on kerosene -oil—that is on cost prices. Q. Where do you then go for herring ?—A. Generally to Long Harbor. Q. How do you get your herring ?—A. We go there and, having an- chored, we build a scaffolding all over the vessel just as level as a table, and having bought the herring, we spread them on this scaffolding and freeze them. Q. Where do you buy your boards with which you make the scaffold- ing ?—A. Sometimes we bring our own down, and sometimes we pro- cure them on-our way down. . Q. And you build a scaffolding all over the vessel ?—A. Yes ; about 10 or 12 feet from the deck. : : ; Q. And having bought the herring, you freeze them there !—A. Yes. Q. From whom do you buy the herring ?—A. From the natives. Q. Do they come to you with boats ?—A. Yes. _ ae : Q. Do your people assist in catching the herring ’—A. No. Some- ‘times we might be over on the beach and lend a hand to haul them ip, but we have to pay them for the fish. ong spies ee tal ai : i 7 | i—A. NO; ane } SES Q. You take no seines with you We buy the fist from them. : Q. You buy the fish and freeze them ?—A. Yes. wane Q. You take them home, and they are used partly for bait and part), for food ?—A. Yes. Q. Do you salt them?—A. No, te Q. You have been in this business for three years ‘—A. So occupied for fifteen winters. I have been 1930 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. You then have carried on that business in connection with the sum- mer mackerel fishery ?—A. Yes. Q. You have traded in Newfoundland during all the years when you were mackerel-fishing ?—A. Yes; and for two years before I became master of a vessel. Q. And during that period has the condition of the people who sold you bait grown worse or better ?—A. It has improved since I went there for the first time. Families which when I first went there were not worth a dollar, are now well off for that country. @. How much money do you spend there ?—A. Last winter I left $1,000 there. Q. For herring ?—A. Yes; that is, for everything. Ido not take much goods with me. ; @. Taking into consideration all the American vessels which go there with permits to touch and trade, as you do, how much money do they leave with the inhabitants of Newfoundland in payment for herring, as far as you can judge?—A. I think that last winter there were about thirty sail of Gloucester vessels there; and they would each average $1,000. There were two from our firm, and we left there $2,300. Q. Do you hear any complaint from the people who so deal with the Americans about this business and of buying bait ?—A. No. Q. Who makes any complaint, if any is made?—A. An English firm at Cape Breton does. Q. They complain about it?—A. Yes Q. Do you go to any place in Newfoundland besides Fortune Bay ?— A. For herring, no. Q. If you were totally excluded from buying bait at Newfoundland, or anywhere else in the British possessions—suppose that they were fenced off and you could not go there at all—would you experience any diffi- culty in carrying on the cod fishery on the Banks?—A. No. Q. Why not ?—A. I think that we would then do just as well, because we all have salt bait when we left home, and salt bait would not be there; and the time we lose in going into Newfoundland for bait we would make up by fishing. __Q. But if one vessel has fresh bait the others want it too?—A. Yes; if a vessel alongside of you has fresh bait you are not going to catch your share of fish with salt bait; but if all the vessels have salt bait the fish take it. Q. Can you buy bait at St. Peter’s?—A. Yes. The Fortune Bay peo- ple run over there with it in the spring. Q. They carry it there and sell it?—A. Yes. _ Q. Is there an ample supply of it at St. Peter’s ?—A. Yes; a pile of itis taken in there. Sometimes they have to heave the herring overboard because they cannot sell it. GC. This is because they have too many herring ?—A. Yes. Q. No objection of which you are aware is made to the Americans trading there 7—A. No. Q. These people are willing to take United States money ?—A. Yes; they are willing to take our gold, By Mr. Weatherbe : (. Where were you. born in Nova Secotia?—A,. At the Strait of Canso. Q. How long is it since you lived there ?—A. Since I was four years old, I have lived at Gloucester. Q. You say that for ten years you were fishing in the Bay of St. Law rence’—A, Yes; and during that time was master of a vessel. Fa - AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1931 Q. Tell me the names of the American vessels in which you fished !— A. I built the first one in which I fished—the Fashion. ‘The next oue was the Laura Mangan ; the next the American Eagle; the next the Fitz J. Babson; and the next the Pathfinder, Q. Had you any Nova Scotians in the Pathfinder ?—A. Yes. Q. How many barrels did you catch in the Pathfinder !—A,. I think we obtained 600 barrels during one season when I was in her; during another season I made only one trip with ber and got 360 barrels. Q. What did you catch in the other vessels ?—A. The first year | went master of a vessel, I think we got somewhere in the neighborhood of 700 barrels. We made three fares. Q. What did you catch in the other vessels ?—A. We caught about 700 barrels in the Laura Mangan one summer; and the next summer about 500 barrels. I think we secured 400 barrels during the first sea- son I was in the American Eagle. Q. How many trips did you make in her ?—A. Two. Q. How many trips did you make in the other vessels ,—A. Two. Q. You made two trips in all of them ?—A. Yes, except the first year, when I made three trips. Q. And in all the others you made two trips ?—A. Yes, excepting one year, in the Pathfinder, when I made only one trip. Q. How long were you in the Pathfinder on that one trip ?—A. I think that we were gone about eight weeks. Q. Altogether 7—A. Yes. Q. This was from the time you left until the time you returned !— A. Yes. ; Q. And you got 600 or 700 barrels during that time ’—A. Yes; we took about 600 barrels in the Pathfinder. Q. Did you not get 700?—A. We caught 360 and 270 in the two trips. Q. That is just what you obtained 7—A. Yes. Q. During what years did you take out a license ?—A. I| took outa license when I was in the Laura Mangan, I think; but I would pot say whether I bought two licenses or one license. Q. Did you fish in our waters under the Reciprocity Treaty, when it was not necessary to take out a license ?—A. Yes. ; Q. And afterward you took ont a license ?—A. Yes. When I went into the bay in the Laura Mangan I paid the first year, I think, 50 cents a ton. Q. Did you take out a license the first year you fished !—A. I think I did so the first year I fished in the Laura Mangan. ; Q. Did you do so the first year you came fishing 7—A. Yes; the first year that licenses were issued I took one. ant Q. Were you in the bay the year previous 7A, Yes; and the year before that. Q. This was when you could fish without a license 1—A. Yes. Q. Did you take out a license every year afterward t—A. Ido not know. I almost forget whether I took licenses out for two years or not. Q. During how many years afterward did you tish !—A. I tished every year in the bay when licenses were issued, oe | Q. Did you take out a license every year !—A. No; not every year. Q. You fished without a license for one or two years !—.\. Ves. ™ Q. In what vessel did you then fish ?—A. In the Laura Mangan a the American Eagle. I took out a license when in the former, but [do not know whether I took out a license during two years or Hot. Q. At any rate, you have fished without a license A... Yes. 1932 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. You found that others did so?—A. Yes. Q. And you did not see why you should not do the same ?—A. I was not seared of being taken, and finally we could not get fish enough to pay for the license. Q. And, besides, you found that others were not paying for licenses ?— A. Yes. Q. And you thought that you could run the risk as well as they ?— A. I knew that I was not going to run any risk; I was not going to fish so as to run any risk. Q. Why did you take out licenses previously 7—A. The charge was 50 cents a ton then, and I did not want to be bothered, if I anchored around the land. If I did so I did not wish to be driven out. Q. If I understand you aright, you transshipped the last year, when you had no license ?—A. I never transshipped when I had no license. Q. What did you do with your cargo, then ?—A. I shipped a trip the first yearI was master of a vessel, but no licenses were issued that year. Q. What did you do with your cargoes afterwards ?—A. I carried them home. Q. Have you transshipped since the Washington Treaty has been in force?—A. Yes. Q. Where were you fishing last year ?—A. On the Grand Banks. @. And the year before ?—A. On the Grand Banks. Z Q. And where have you been fishing this year?—A. On the Grand anks. Q. What do you fish for ?—A. Cod. @. You now fish for cod altogether ?—A. Yes. Q. When did you come into this port ?—A. About 12 o’clock to-day. Q. Did you come as a witness, to give testimony 7—A. No. Q. You just happened to come in ?—A. Yes. ‘is ue you did not know anything about giving testimony here?— A. NO. : Q. Did you come with the American fleet?—A. They were in here when I came in. @. You came alone?—A. Yes. Q. Do you know how many American vessels have come down here this year?—A, No. I have been away from bome for four months, and I do not know anything about what has been going on at home during that time. Q. When did you last fish for mackerel?—A. In 1873. Q. And did you fish during that year in the bay?—A. Yes. Q. Did you fish that year tor mackerel in any other place besides the bay?—A. Yes, I went out south that year on our shore. Q. You went south, and then came to the bay?—A. Yes. a That is the course usually taken by American mackerel fishers?— 4i. es. Q. The usual course for them, according to the evidence given, is to commence fishing out south, and to follow the mackerel when the latter come Into the bay?—A. Yes, that is the way we did that year, but during the last three or four years there have been no mackerel in the bay. Q. How do you know that?—A. The vessels have found mackerel enough on our coast. Q. You are now speaking from hearsay ?—A. Yes. Q. You are saying what you have heard?—A. Yes. Q. But Iam referring to the years when you fished for mackerel; Bb bie AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1933 the usual course was to commence south and to follow the fish up into the bay?—A. Yes. Q. That was always the course taken?—A. Yes. Q. And you arrived in the bay about the middle of June?—A. We came there about the first of July, | think. Q. Did not some vessels get in earlier ?—A. They came, I think, about the Ist of July. Q. And you remained until the 1st of November?—A. I got one fare, went home and came back. Q. That was the usual course which you followed ?—A. Yes. Q. The vessels followed the mackerel up from the south and reached the bay about the middle of June or the Ist of July, and then followed them round the bay, staying in the bay until late in the fall !—A. They remained in the bay until about the middle of October. Q. The fish are very large and fatter in the fall than in the spring, are they not ?—A. Yes. Q. Give me the names of the Vessels in the fleet in which you fished. —A. There was the Captain Lee, the William Sutton, and Captain Brad. ley’s vessel, the 8S. C. Noyes; the William S. Baker, the Colonel Cook, and the Electric Flash. Q. What Nova Scotians had you in the vessel in which you fished in the bay ?—A. I had Jim Summers, | think. Q. Where does he reside 7—A. At the Strait of Canso. Q. Does he reside there now 7?—A. Yes. Q. Give me the names of some other Nova Scotians who were with you ?—A. I do not know whether I had any more with me or not. Q. Did you have many Nova Scotians with you ?—A. I guess I had aman named Cushing with me. Q. Give us the names of all the Nova Scotians who have fished with you during the whole period you were mackerel-fishing.—A. I had with me a man named Colin Murray. Q. In the Pathfinder ?—A. No. Q. Did you have only one Nova Scotian in the Pathfinder 7—A,. I am thinking whether I had any more. I had a man named Robert Carter, I think. Q. In the Pathfinder ?—A. Yes. Q. Where does he live ?—A. At the Strait of Canso. Q. Had you any others ?—A. I had John Credington. Q. That is a Canso name?—A. Yes; he belongs to Canso. Q. And we will find him there ?—A. I think that you likely will. Q. Do you remember any other in the Pathfinder ?—A. No. | Q: Do you remember the names of any Nova Scotians who were with you previously ?—A. I had a man named Colin Murray. Q. Of Canso?—A. Yes; but I cannot think of any other names, though I had a good many of them along with me. Q. Do you know the Stapletons of Canso ?_-A, I know only one man of that name there. Q. Does he go fishing 7—A. No. Q. Can you give me any other Canso names !—A. There was James Wilkinson. Q. Of Canso ?—A. Yes. ; Q. In what vessel was he with you ?—A. In the American Eagle. Q. Do you remember any other name i —A. I have had three or four Scotchmen with me, but I cannot remember their names, but they be- long around there. I cannot think of any more. - 1934 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Is it difficult to tell when you are three miles from land or not ?— A, Yes. Some days land will look nigher than on other days. Q. It is very difficult to tell whether you are 3 miles from shore or not ?—A. Yes. Q. And sometimes when you are only half a mile from the land, will you imagine that you are 3 miles off shore ?—A. No; but if you are one and a half miles off you will think that you are 3 miles off land; at another time you will be 5 miles.off and think that you are only 3 miles off shore. Q. How do you find out when, you are nearly 5 miles from the land ?— A. We tell by the distance; we take the chart and draw a line from one headland to another. Q. You can always find out where you are by taking the proper means for ascertaining it ?—A. Yes. Q. Then I suppose that when you fished without a license you kept your chart constantly in your hand ?7—A. Well Q. Did you do so or not ?—A. We did not. Q. Did you keep your chart constantly in your hand to ascertain where you were ?—A. No. Q. You took no trouble at such times to find out where you were ?—A. I fished around the Magdalen Islands and Margaree. Q. Where did you cateh the fish at Margaree ?—A. Off shore. @. Do the mackerel not feed and breed at Margaree ?—A. The fish strike along the shore and follow the shore down. Q. Do the fish not feed and breed on the shore altogether ?—A. No. Q. Do I understand you to swear that they do not?—A. I do not think that they do. (. Will you undertake to say that they do not breed and feed along the shore of this coast ?—A. Do you mean close to the shore of Marga- ree ? | (. Yes, and Prince Edward Island.—A. I never fished close to the shore of Prince Edward Island. Q. Did you ever see vessels fishing there ?—A. I have seen them fish- ing up and down the shore. Q. We have a large mass of evidence here on the subject, and I want to know whetber you contradict it or not. It is stated that large num- bers and fleets of vessels fish within three miles of that shore from day to day ?—A. I never fished there. Q). Did you fish within a mile or half a mile of the coast?—A. I never did; I caught a few mackerel near the shore, but never many. Q. Did these Nova Scotians who were with you in the Pathfinder catch any mackerel inside of three miles from the shore ?—A. We might have got 30 or 40 barrels in shore. (. Will you undertake to say that you did not catch the most of what you got within three miles of the shore?—A. Yes. : (. You are positive on that point?—A. Yes; as to the time I was in ier, Q. How did you know that you were not within three miles of the shore ?—A. | could tell by the land, (). Did you catch them five miles off shore?—A. No, I do not think so. Q. You said that you caught a great many fish within 5 and 10 miles of the coast ?—A. Yes; and 15 and 16 miles from it. ss Q. Did you catch one-half of the fish five miles from the coast ?—A. a0; Q. You will swear that ?—A, Yes; I have caught a whole trip during different seasons about the Magdalen Islands. Hh ee _ ¢ AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1935 Q. Did you catch them there within three miles of the coast !—A. Some of them I did, aud some I did not. Q. How many did you catch within the three-mile limit _—A. I could not tell. Q. But we want you to tell?—A. I might have taken 150 or 125 bar- rels within the three-mile limit. Q. Would you say the number was 126?—A. I would not be certain to a barrel. Q. Would the number be 130?—A. We will call it 130. Q. Would you allow us to call it 140 or 150?—A. Yes. Q. Or 2007—A. No. Q. Did you take any count of the catch in this regard at all—will you swear to it?—A. I am not able to swear to it in that way. I never kept such count. Q. You are not obliged to say how many you caught within any particular distance from the shore. I do not think it possible—A. No, I cannot say that; but then I can say that I have never obtained many fish inshore. ; ; Q. But you may have caught 125, 130, 140, or 150 barrels inshore !— Yes. Q. But you will not say 200 ?—A, No. Q. The number so caught was somewhere between 125 and 150 !—A. Yes. Q. Do I understand you to say that you had a legal right to fish near the coast of the Magdalen Islands ?—A. I knew that we had a legal right to catch them as close to that shore as we liked. Q. Is that the reason why you say you caught that number there in- shore ?—A. No. It was all owing to where the mackerel played, I suppose. : Q. Altogether ?—A. Yes. " Q. The legal right in question made no difference in the matter !—A. No. When we went to the Magdalens we caught mackerel wherever we found them. Q. How many vessels fished at the Magdalen Islands?!—A. I have seen as many as 200 sail there, I should think. Q. Where did they fish ?—A. All around the islands. Q. Inside or outside of the three miles from the shore —A. Inside and outside, and everywhere. Q. Did you éver get a full fare at the Banks in a few days and then go home ?—A. No. Q. Did you ever see such a thing done ?—A. No. The most | have ever caught in a few days was 200 barrels in three days off the Mag- dalen Islands. : ite Q. Did you ever fish above Cape Gaspé ?—A. Not since I have been master of a vessel. Q. But did you ever fish on the shores of the St. Lawrence above Cape Gaspé, either on the north or south side of the river 1—A. No. ‘Q. You never fished there at all 7—A. I have never been up to Gasp: Q. And you have never fished off Prince Edward Island at all ’—A. I have tried for mackerel! there. % if Q. How many times did you do so?—A. I could not tell you. Q. How many times did you try on the island ?—A. | could not nah Q. Will you undertake to say that you never tried once for ache within three miles of the coast ?—A. Yes, I have tried for them witaim _ the three-mile limit. Q. How often?—A. I could not say. 1936 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Could you give any idea in this relation ?—A. No. Q. You can give uo idea whatever as to thenumber of times you have tried for mackerel within three miles of the island?—A. No. Q. Can you give us any sort of an idea as to how many times you tried for them at Margaree within three miles of the coast 7—A. I have never been there many times. Q. How many times have you been there ?—A. Probably half a dozen times for mackerel. (). In your life ?—A. That is, since I have been,master of a vessel. Q. You now refer to the Cape Breton coast ?—A. Yes. Q. Did you ever try for mackerel off any other part of the coast of Cape Breton ?—A. Yes; down at Cheticamp. (. How often did you try for them there?—A. I recollect trying once, on coming across from the Magdalen Islands. Q. You only recollect of doing so once ?—A. Yes. Q. You can only give evidence as to having done so once?—A. Yes. (). Will you name any other place on the coast where you have so tried 7—A. I have told you of all the places. @. Cannot you name auy other place ?—A. I cannot think of any more now. Q. Can you give me any sort of an idea as to how many fish you caught within five miles of the coast ?—A. No; I could not. (. You can give no sort of idea whatever as to such proportion 7—A. No. @. Can you give me any idea as to what you so caught—more or less ?—A. The most of the mackerel I ever caught have been taken off the Magdalen Islands, and broad off the Pigeon Hills. These are my fishing-grounds. Q. You only went to these places ?—A. I would go there, and having tried for fish would leave again. @. How many mackerel, more or less, did you catch within five miles of the coast?—A. I could not tell. ~ @. You can give no sort of an idea in this relation ?—A. No. Q. And no idea, whether the proportion be greater or Jess? —A. No. Q. And you say that it is very difficult sometimes to tell when you are five or two miles off shore ?—A. I say it is difficult to tell whether you are five or three miles off shore. Q. During the time when you had no license you never on any occa- sion undertook to ascertain by the chart where you were—whether you were three miles from the shore or not?—A. Yes; we did do so as well as we could while we were sailing along. Q. But you never undertook to ascertain whether you were within three miles of the shore or not ?—A. No. Q. And you never heard of any other American vessel making such ap attempt?7—A. No. _ Q. You never heard of an American trying to do so when outside or inside of the three-mile limit ?—A. No. Q. And I suppose you will agree to this, that when you are following a school of mackerel you were much less likely to find out where you were 7—A. Yes; that is so. Q. And when you were inside of the three-mile limit?—A. I never had a cutter order me off shore in my life. Q. I suppose that they would do you the common eivility to give you warning, aud if you then went off nothing farther would be said about it?—A. If you went inside the limit they would take you. Q. I always understood that they would not seize vessels if they did ' . 4, ) Se 7 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1937 not know where they were ?—A. If they caught you fishing inside they would take you. ; Q. You think so ?—A. Yes. , Q. Why ?—A. Every vessel caught fishing inshore they have taken, have they not? Q. If they have taken vessels fishing inshore, why do you say that?!— A. Vessels have been taken, and I supposed that they were taken for that reason. . Q. You have simply heard of it?—A. Yes. Q. And you never saw any vessels taken ?—A. No. Q. Did you ever see a cutter ?—A. Yes. Q. What was she doing ?—A. I suppose she was keeping American fishermen from fishing inshore. Q. Within what distance from the shore ?—A. Three miles. Q. I thought you said that there was no fish in there !—A. I suppose fish are to be found in there. That is what the vessels go there for. Q. You do not mean to say that fleets of vessels go in to catch fish where there are no fish ?—A. Some go in, I suppose, when the nackerel are there. Q. Then the mackerel do go inshore sometimes ?—A. I think that is likely the case. : Q. Did you ever hear of their being caught there ?—A. Yes. poe you ever hear of a load of wackerel being caught inshore !— A. No. Q. Did you bear that the mackerel were very largely found near the shore this year ?—A. I have heard nothing about them this year. Q. Did you hear of other vessels catching fish inshore 7—A. No. Q. You do not know where other vessels obtained their fish !—A. No. I always looked out for myself. , Q. And you never heard the men on other vessels say where they caught their fish ?—A. O, yes, very often. Q. Why do you say that you always looked out for yourself ?—A. I never bothered any man as to where he gets his fish as long as I can get them. Q. When you had no license did you catch a single fish inside the three-mile limit ?—A. I think it is likely that I have done so. Q. How many do you think that you have caught within the three. mile limit ?—A. I do not know; I have so caught a few. Q. In which vessel were you then ?—A. I could not tell you. T think it is likely that I have so caught a few in every vessel in which I have been. Q. Was this the case when you had no license 7—A. [am trying to think whether I had a license then or not. Q. You said you so caught some fish when you had no license; how did you know that you caught fish inside the three-mile limit when you had no license ?—A. I think it likely that I so got a few. .Q. Do you remember saying a little while ago that you never ran any risk when you had no license ?—A. Certainly. I told you that! did not ealeulate that I ran any risk. I think it is likely that I caught some fish _ within the three-mile limit. . @- Q. You do not know whether this was the case or not!—\. I do not; bat I think it is likely that I did. ioe Q. And why is that likely 7—A. A man does not measure his distance. Q. But a man who is liable to have his vessel confiscated measures his distance ?—A. O, yes. | Q. And unless he can get a large haul of mackerel 122 F by doing so be is 1938 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. not willing to ran that risk ?—A. He is willing to run the risk if he can catch fish by doing so. Q. And you did run that risk?—A. I think it is likely I did. @. Then you were mistaken when you said you ran no risk when you had no license?—A. I think so. Q. Did you take licenses out during the years you fished in the bay? —A. 1 took outa license at first. What was the price the second year? Do you recollect; was it $1 a ton? Q. I think so.—A. Then I think that I took out a license the second year; but when the price rose to $2 and $2.50 a ton I would not take out one. Q. In point of fact you thought that you did not run a great deal of risk, as you could see a cutter when she was a long distance off?—A. No. The cutters never bothered me any. I was not a bit scared of them. Q. You say that you first transshipped a cargo during the Reciprocity i Treaty ?—A. I shipped one trip the first year I was master of a vessel. — I think that we made three trips that year. Q. And then you have transshipped under the provisions of the Washington Treaty 7—A. Yes. @. Did you transship afterward?—A. No, I never shipped cargoes save twice. Q. And you did so under the Reciprocity and Washington Treaty ?— A. Yes. Q. And you transshipped the last year you were in the bay?—A. No; but the year before that, and the year before that. @. What is the ordinary rate of freight per barrel for transshipping ? —A. I thiuvk that it cost somewhere about $1.50 between the payment of freight and expenses. . Q. ee is the charge for freight ?—A. I think that they paid $l a arrel. @. From the Gut of Canso to Boston 7—A. Yes. Q. Will you swear that this was the case ?—A. No, but I think it Q. In what steamer did you ship the fish ?—A. I could not say. Q. Who was your agent there?—A. John Maguire. Q. John Maguire is a very reliable man, is he not ?—A. Yes. Q. He is very truthful and very reliable ?—A. I think that he is. I think that we paid $1 a barrel, but I would not be certain. I may for- get the exact amount. Q. We had Mr. Maguire here the other day—would you be surprised to find that the price paid was 30 cents or 40 cents a barrel ?—A. Yes, but I think it was more than that. ; Q. But you are not sure ?—A. No; I told you so. (. If it was 40 cents a barrel, then the expense you spoke of would be much different ?—A. Yes, it would be somewhere near 90 cents. Q. What other expenses have you to meet ?—A. There is the packing home and the labor to be paid for. Q. But you have to do all that if you take the fish home ?—A. Then, nowever, we are not charged for it. Q. You do it yourselves ?—A, Yes. ee you cannot fish while you are attending to these matters ?— - No. Q. The payment of the freight is the main thing at any rate?—A. Yes, and the expenses home. Q. To that expense you would be put in any case if you took the fish AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1939 | home yourself ?—A. No. They charge for labor done, which when at | home we do for ourselves. | Q. But you have to take time to do it?—A. Yes, Q. And you are catching fish while this is being done _—A. Yes. Q. The expenses are very small at Canso, at Maguire’s ’—A. O, yes; Mr. Maguire is a nice man. Q. And the expenses there are very small !—A. Yes; but we have to buy barrels and things. Q. With whom do you deal at Canso?—A. I have dealt with Maguire for two or three seasons. Q. And that is where you spent the $100? Are you sure of that !— J th to that ?—A. Yes Q. You pledge your sole gene. would be the case am Tt ih oe ee een that such list oe St. John, which would have to send them Seal ae oe nee a only ask you whether that would be the case or not '—A' would not swear that they would starve to death if oe not !{—A. I Q. You said so just a moment ago, and now you ha ae go there, BR ae ee eens WOUld ee pyetiy Banat ieee ad qat go eee Q. Then, I suppose that when we went to fish on the mi pean erel fishing. grounds of the Gulf of St. Lawren prise paneaen Peey be We sinare uatclenty to.cat eas ce you were starved too [— Q. Was it not a profitable. busi i ‘ usiness, and did ake avy handsome thing out of the mackerel-fishin ‘i Ree we caer enough to live on. g business 7—A. I made Q. And you ‘i r ae Tack: nee worth money now ?—A. No. You can tell that from ~, Q. Are you not comfortabl bly off and worth money ?—A. N f grin Oe find a man who goes fishing worth soar hcg ae) a aa au profitable as the mackerel business was, you thought that “at . ae woud be a still more profitable operation, and so you went way —A, I thought I would have a change, and so I went cod-fish- _ Q. You say that you left Gloucester i i ster in the spring of 1875 and 1876 o to Ne de ytd aly eos sot to get your bait for the prosecution of the cod- Boys Cae did not bring any salt bait from Gloucester !—A. No, Q. Suppose that you had brought i : at J eht salt bait from Gloucester, would you have given a barrel for it ?—A. Perhaps from i to ‘a3 or 85. ~ How much bait would you have taken, suppose you had taken ) cient bait to prosecute your whole summer banking operations until your return with the first voyage ?—A. I could not tell you. Q. Would you have taken 100 barrels !—A. No. : eee you have taken 200 ?—A. I tell you what the salt-bait fish- told pak pay Ru and that is about 30 barrels. That is what Lam Q. You do not mean to say that 30 barrels of Say é : salt bait would catch a es codfish 7—A. They also get bait on the Banks. gee As bes bi taaeatd ee about it yourselt !—A. I knew no more on y tell me. now nothing about it, because I never used - Q. Where did you go for the herring which you purchased ia the gp Spring ?_A, For the first baiting this year I have paid $52.90. 1942 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . How many barrels did you then get ?—A. About 27. Then you went to the fishing-grounds ?—A. Yes. . And afterwards came in to rebait?—A. Yes. . Where did you get the bait then ?7—A. At Fortune Bay. And you again obtained herring 7—A. Yes. . What did you pay for it ?—A. Thirty dollars. . Did you then complete your codfish voyage ?—A. No. . You still again came in for bait?—A. Yes. . What did you do afterwards ?—A. I came in again and got cap- LOO LLLLLO lin. . Where did you go then?—A. I went to Torbay, northeast of St. John, and got bait and ice. I obtained ice and caplin there. Q. What did you pay for them?—A. I think $36. Q. Then you again went to the Banks ?—A. Yes. Q. Did you finish the voyage on this occasion ?—A. No; I came back again. Q. For squid ?—A. Yes; to Torbay. Q. What squid did you get ?—A. I bought $110 worth. Q. Where?—A. At Torbay. Q. How much did you pay for it?—A. Thirty cents a hundred; that was for ice and all. Q. At what time of the year was this ?—A. In July. Q. That price included ice?—A. Yes; my bait and ice cost me $110. @. You went out then to the Banks, and did you complete the voyage ?—A. No; I went in again. Q. For what ?—A. Squid. Q. What did you do then ?—A. I obtained the sauid, and paid out about the same sum of money that I did before for ice and bait. Q. Did you now go out and complete the voyage ?—A. Yes; and I am now on my way home. Q. With a full cargo ?—A. My cargo is not quite a full one. een many fish do you think that you now have?—A. About 75,000. Q. And what is the tonnage of your vessel ?—A. 73 tons. Q. I believe that this has been a peculiarly unsuccessful season on the Banks ?—A. Fish have been scarce this year. Q. They have not only been scarce, but they have also been very scarce?—A. Yes. Last year I made two baitings, and I obtained bait— squid—on the Banks. Q. Last year you obtained a full voyage with two baitings?—A. Yes. _Q. Did you then go on a second cod-fishing voyage?—A. Yes, but I did not get a full fare in the fall. Q. What did you get on your second voyage?—A. An average share of the fleet was on the Bank, and I got 60,000. Q. That is about half a voyage?—A. It is about one-third. Q. And for this catch of 60,000 did you have two baitings ?—A. I had oe baiting. This was the fall trip. I made two baitings on my first ip. _Q. And on your last trip you made three baitings on the coast of Newfoundland !—A. Yes. All the bait I took I got in Newfoundland. Q. You obtained 60,000 on your second trip, and what did you get on your first voyage last year ?—A. 140,000. Q. You obtained 200,000 on the two voyages 7A". Vea: Q. You consider salt bait superior to fresh bait, 1 believe?—A. O, no; I think that fresh bait is the best. & - Not because you knew that it was a profitable business w nar - and because you knew that it would be still more profitable with fresh AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1943 Q. You do admit, then, that fresh bait is the best —A. O, certainly when other vessels on the Bank have it. i Q. When codfish see fresh bait they prefer it to salt bait ?—A. Yes. Q. Consequently, you admit that it is of some advantage to you to be able to go to the coast of Newfoundland and get fresh bait?—A. O yes; certainly it is; and our going there is an advantage to your people. Q. Do you not now consider that it is a very great advantage to you : ee able to go there and get ice in which to preserve the fresh bait !—~ - 68 Q. Do you throw overboard any of your small fish at the Banks ?— “~ me saved them all this year. I have thrown some of them over- oard. re Are all the fish you caught large?—A. No; we got some small sh. Q. What did you do this year with the small fish?—A. We have them on board the vessel. Q. What are you going to do with them ?—A. I am carrying them ome. Q. Of what size are the small fish?—A. I think they are 18 or 19 inches long. Q. Are they as small as that ?—A. Yes. Q. Have you sold any of them in Newfoundland ?—A. Yes, Q. What did you get a quintal for them ?—A. $1.40. Q. Have you sold any cod-oil in Newfoundland !—A. No. Q. Do you not think that it would be a very great advantage to you to be able to transship your fish into vessels at Newfoundland and send them to market ?—A. O, no. Q. Would it be no advantage whatever to you?—A. I would not care about it. I would rather lug them home. - Q. You would rather continue to bait your vessels at Newfoundland until you get a full voyage, and then go home with it!—A. Yes. Your experience of the Bank fishery only extends over the period since 1875?—A. Yes; and I do not think that I will trouble it any more, I do not like it. Q. Have you not made a very handsome profit this year !—A. I bave made enough to keep me going. Q. You caught 200,000 last year and 175,000 this year, and [ am sufii- cient of a fisherman to know that these will yield you a handsome profit?—A. Hardly, for a, vessel like ours. ay . Q. Do you ealculate on dried fish ’—A. I have 175,000 green ; this is the way in which I sell them out of the vessel at home. _Q. I believe that the Bank fishing operations have been very profitable to the Americans heretofore—and previous to the Washington Treaty, when they only used salt bait ?—A. Better fares were got on the Grand Banks before they ever commenced running fresh bait than has been the case since. -Q. Were not the American Banking fishing operations a profitable - business prior to the Washington Treaty—you know as well as I do that this was the case ?—A. I cannot tell you about the Banking business. Q. What induced you to go into these Banking opecsnone ae , ith salt Dart, bait?—A. O, no. I did not think anything about tt. I have told you the reason why I went. I lost a friend in the gale, and then | ie nee the employment of Mansfield, who wanted his vessels 0 £0 cod-Ds bre Q. Will you swear that Bank fishing operations were not a profita 1944 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. business prior to the Washington Treaty ?—A. No, I would not swear that. Q. Has this not been a more profitable business since that treaty ?— A. I could not tell you anything about it. Q. You know something about the curing of fish, I believe ?—A. I tried to cure the voyage this summer, but I do not know whether I have done it right or not. Q. But you do know something about it?—A. Yes. Q. How long do you keep the fish exposed to the sun at home in the process of curing ?—A. About four days, I think; but 1 would not be certain on the point. Q. And the fish is then considered fit for your, the American, market? —A. Yes; the time might be a day longer. It all depends on the weather. Ithink that four good days are quite sufficient for the purpose. Q. Is not a profit made by the owner of the vessel, in the difference between the amount at which he pays off the crew and the amount which the fish is naturally worth in the market at the time ?—A. Sometimes he makes something, and more frequently he does not. It all depends on the market. Sometimes he may pay $3 a hundred for the fish and get about $4, and then he loses money; he cannot make anything under such circumstances. Q. But usually does he not pay off the fishermen at a less amount than the fish is naturally worth in the market at the time?7—A. No. He generally pays them all he can afford to, as far as I can see. When you cone to figure up their labor, the cost of the salt, and one thing and another. Q. Are you now in a position to estimate what it will cost per quintal to cure the fish, as you have stated they are cured ?—A. Well, no, I could not; but it will take a good many dollars when the expenses are figured up. 1 forget them. Q. How was it just now that you could arrive so quickly at the esti- mate of $1.50 a barrel as the cost of transshipment ?—A. I thought that was what I paid the first year I transshipped. Q. How did you arrive at it so quickly 7—A. Because I thought it cost us that much. Q. Before you came in here did you not, in conversation with Captain Bradley, agree as to the price you would so pay?’—A. No. I did not Say one word to Captain Bradley, any more than to bid him good day. Q. Then you did not confer with him before you came here ?—A. No. Q. How did you arrive at the amount of $1.50?—A. I think we paid about one dollar freight per barrel one year. Q. You thought so’—A. I think I did so the first year I shipped mackerel. G. And do you mean to say that 50 cents a barrel was paid for the labor of transferring the barrels from one vessel to another?—A. That was for the labor at home, on the wharf and ashore. Q. But the labor at home was the same, whether you transshipped or took the fish home in your own vessel ?—A. It was paid because the work had to be done at home. Q. But the labor would be the same, and it would cost the same who- ever it was done by ?—A. I suppose so. Q. You have said that you only used caplin bait?—A. Yes. Q. And do you not consider that it was good ?—A. It did not suit me for bait, and I will never be bothered with caplin again. Q. Do you not know that American Bankers prefer calpin for bait !— A. O, Yes, % AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1945 Q. It keeps very well in ice, I believe?_—A. What we had did not. Probably 1 did not understand icing it, or sometiging of that kind. Q. But what other American captains have bad has turned out well, according to their report ?—A. I have not heard of any this year with whom it is the case. 7 : Q. According to their reports it bas turned out well?!—A. I have heard of none that has turned out well this year. Q. How many American vessels did you see this year getting bait, herring, &c., on the coast of Newfoundland ?—A. | saw probably six or seven sail. Q. That was when you were in here 7—A. It was during all the year. Q. Did they not consider that it was a great advantage for them to be able to get fresh bait there ?—A. Certainly it was an advantage, else they would not go there. They carry the bait out to the Banks, and those that do not do so get along without it. By Mr. Foster: Q. Your small fish will be sent westward ?—A. Yes. : _ Q. How many squid did you catch on the Banks last year ?—A. I caught one-half of our fare with the squid which I got there last year. By Mr. Whiteway : Q. Had you a herring-seine on board your vessel last year and this year ?—A. No; I never carry one. Q. Do not many of your vessels take herring-seines to Newfoundland and seine herring ?—A. I am not aware of it. : No. 3. FRIDAY, August 31. The conference met. S. F. CHENEY, of Nantucket Island, Grand Manan, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Foster: Question. State your name, residence, and occupation.—Answer. My name is Simon F. Cheney, from Grand Manan Island, and my occupa- tion passes for that of fisherman. : Q. You are a British subject ?—A. Yes. ; . Q. How many years have you been a fisherman 1A. Well, as near as I can judge, I first tried to catch fish when I was 19, and | am now 63 within a few months. Somewhere about 49 years. Q. What have you fished for ?—A. I have tished in boats for the sup- port of my own family; to buy necessaries for my family. have smoked herrings; that is, of late years; 7 ~ + x i Q. What kind of fish ?—A. Codfish and pollock principally, and we we did not at first. Q. What becomes of the fish you catch besides what is eaten in your own family ?—A. We market them, of course, to what we suppose the best advantage. Q. To whom do you se : A John; we used to. We have carried them to Eastport 0! mala provided we could not do better. We have taken some to oS n eked Q. Where is the principal market for your herring 1—A, Our pape al market for herring? Well, smoked herring I have goncan ee y: have never goue into the line of pickling herring but very Hutte. ll them ?—A. We sell them sometimes in St. ate years, 1946 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. But you know, I suppose, where the principal market is for the herring taken in yourgvicinity ?7—A. Well, so far as I have knowledge, I should suppose it would be in the American dominion. Q. What kind of herring go there?—A. We go to Eastport. Of course, if we have pickled herring, we can dispose of them there to the best advantage. Q. How far is it to Eastport ?—A. We call it 20 miles from the side of the island where we live. Q. How large a quantity of smoked herring is produced in your vicin- ity ?—A. About the island of Grand Manan? Q. Yes.—A. It varies. Some years there are more, and some years less. I never have undertaken to make any estimate of it; but it has been talked of among us that two or three hundred thousand boxes have been produced. Q. What proportion of these is sold in the Canadas, and what pro- portion in the United States, as far as your judgment goes ?7—A. I am not prepared to say, because I never go into such markets myself. I sell to nearer markets. Q. You do not know whetber more go to the United States ?—A. No. I never went myself, even so far as Portland. Q. Then your answer is that you don’t know ?—A. Yes. _ Q. What do you know: about frozen herring? What becomes of that?—A. We sell it from our own vessels sometimes. Mr. Gaskill, I think, was the greatest trader of our folks to send them away. Q. To whom do they sell them ?—A. They generally make their count to sell the frozen herrings to the Americans that come there. Q. Well, is the trade with the Americans in frozen herrings, which your people have, a valuable one to your people 7—A. It is considered 80; yes, Sir. Q. If they did not sell them to the Americans, would they have a market for the frozen herrings ?—A. I don’t know of it. I don’t know that they could have. Q. How has the price of smoked herring stood of late years? Has it been high or low ?—A. Well, for the last two or three years it has been quite low. ' (. What is the reason 7—A. Well, our folks talk as if it was the dull- ness of the times. Q. Is there abundance of it?—A. Herrings? There appears to be full more than is made a good use of. _ Q. How much do the Americans fish for herrings in British waters, in your vicinity? Do they buy more than they catch, or catch more than they buy ?—A. They buy more than they catch, as far as my knowledge goes. Q. What do they pay your people in?—A. Well, they bring flour with them, and, if we choose, a man that wants flour takes it, and if not, they give money. Q. Well, when the Americans catch herring to freeze, how do they freeze it? Do they freeze it on shore, or on the vessels 7—A. | could not correctly answer. No, Lnever knew them freeze it on shore. They freeze them on deck. Q. They do not land to do it ?—A. Not to my knowledge. Q. If your people were cut off from the American markets and could not sell their fish there, what would the effect be upon them ?—A. Well, itis looked upon that we should be in poorer circumstances than we are now. I have talked to some on that subject. They think we are in @ better standing than when we were paying the duty. As for myself a | judgment I suppose they could not find - AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1947 and my family, we are poor folks and would not be able to go j i I ‘aaa | , é £9 intoa large branch of the fishing business. [t puts us in a good deal better - position. \ Q. Has the general condition of your fishermen become better or worse since the duty was taken off ?—A. I think they are better off. | I think they would consider themselves in a better condition. Q. Which do you think is more for the interest of your people, to allow the Americans to fish alongside of them and to have the Ameri- can market free of duty, or to exclude the Americans from British waters and be subjected to duty in the American markets ’"—A. I do not know how I could answer that. Probably it would not be an answer suitable to the question, what I would say. Would you ask the ques- tion again ? . Question repeated.—A. I should say it is better not to pay the duty. It is better as it is. ; Q. Then you prefer the condition of things under the Treaty of Wash- ington ?—A. Yes. Q. Now, suppose that American vessels were not allowed to come to your people to buy in their harbors frozen herring, how would you be able to dispose of them? What could you do with them there !—A. As I have said before, [ do not know what they could do with them. If we would have to take them to Eastport, we would run the risk of losing them. We could not take them there in our small boats, and would have to pay somebody freight, and by shipping it about, it would be liable to be lost. Q. In your part of the country who began using the trawls; the Americans or the British ?—A. Well, now, I could not decidedly say that I would be correct, but the first trawls that were used about Grand Manan, to my knowledge, were used by our own people. I never knew of trawls being used inside of our fishing-grounds until our own people bai them. I have spoken against those things, and I never did it in my life. _ Q. Do you find pogies in your waters ?—A. We find them somewhat scattered. We could catch them sometimes, but they are seattered, and sometimes we would not see one in a whole season’s fishing. Q. How many American fishermen have you seen catching fish in your waters this year ?—A. This year I haven’t seen many. This last week, before I left—I was at Eastport on account of sickness. Before I left I heard that the fish had come in there, and that some had caught three quintals to a boat. No vessel had come in so far as [ saw except to get bait. Q. Codfish you are speaking of ?—A. Yes. Q. You smoke herring yourself, don’t you ?—A. I have all along until the last two years. My sons do. : ~ Q. Who takes the herring that you and your sons secure j—A. We used formerly to send them to Eastport. -Q. Do you sell any of them now in Canada ?—A. I never sent any to Canada but once, when Wilson was living at Campobello Island. Q. In the Dominion anywhere, I mean !—A. Well, I bave said that - I sold a few in St. John occasionally. Q. Now, do you think the fish of various kinds taken at Grand Manan ‘would find a market in the Dominion of Canada, or would they over —A. Well, to the best of my supply the market of the Dominion ? lg a satisfa@tory sale for them all here. 1948 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Is there an abundant supply for your fishermen ?—A. Of fish, yes. “ Q. Now, I did not Jike to ask some of the witnesses that we had here the other day from your neighborhood as to their own pecuniary condi- tion, but I would like to know whether Mr. McLaughlin, Mr. McLean, Mr. Lord, and those other gentlemen that have been examined before the Commission here are growing poor or improving their financial con- dition ?—A. I can’t say I am acquainted with Mr. Lord or McLean. I have seen them, but not to have acquaintance with them. Q. How about Mr. McLaughlin ?—A. I have been acquainted with him from a boy. Q. Well, he is prosperous, is he not?—A. Yes; he seems to be. He is not a fisherman. I think he once made an estimation in regard to this subject. Q. Is not he in the fishing business ?—A. I do not know that he ever hove a line. (). You have spoken of smoked fish going to the United States. Where does the herring-oil go?—A. They do send some of that, too. @. What is done with the hake sounds? Is that an important mat- ter ?—A. It is. It is a more paying product than the fish itself.. I saw them sold at Eastport for 50 cents a pound. (). What do they do with those?—A. They manufacture them into different things. (). Do they make gum-drops out of them ?—A. Some do. Q. Isinglass 7—A. Yes. Q. Do you say the hake sound is worth more than the fish ?—A. Well, three weeks ago they would not offer but 75 cents for 262 pounds of green hake, but they would give 50 cents a pound for sound. Then for the livers they would get 40 cents. _ Q. Then the gurry of the hake is worth more than the fish?—A. Well, it is not exactly gurry. et Q. I have one question more to ask. Do the American fishermen ~ down in your neighborhood behave any worse than the British ?—A. I think not. I think I have had worse people in my own boats. Some years ago we did have some from Cape Ann who killed fowls and pulled up potatoes. But we never had any half so bad as some of our own. Some from Deer Island. They killed tame ducks right in the yards. By Mr. Thomson: (. You live in Grand Manan ?—A. Yes. Q. You are not a practical fisherman yourself. You do not fish ?—A. I have not for two years. I just left the smoked herring to theboys. Q. All that fishing is done in weirs?—A. The herring has been. (). You had weirs on the shore? That is the way you chiefly conduct your fisheries 7—A. Mine is an inshore weir. Some are away out in the deep water. Q. Then I understand that you have not ever pursued as a business fishing in boats, but always in weirs ?—A. No, not so. My line-fishing was boat-fishing. Q: To what extent have you ever carried on boat-fishing ?—A. Well, I have said, nothing more than principally to support my family. I fish to get some little necessaries for my family. Q. I suppose every man on Grand Manan who owns a bit of land would, during his leisure time, take his boat and get as much fish as he could for his family ?—A. They ought to, unless they have something to prevent them. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1949 Q. There are many persons there who make a business of lishing alto. gether 7—A. Yes. Q. You are not one of those?—A. No; I never lived solely by it. I always bad a little bit of land to work. . Q. And during your leisure moments, when you did not require to be occupied on your farm, you fished enough to get tish for your family? That is the whole story? You fished to get enough for your family {— A. It was for the support of my family. g , Q. Dol understand that you got more fish than was consumed in your family ?—A. O, yes. < Q. How many herrings would you get in the course of a year !—A, Smoked herrings? I never put up over 3,000 boxes a year; sometimes not over 2,000. Q. What would they be worth a box ?—A. That would be hard to an- swer. Sometimes we have sold them as high as 30 cents, aud sometimes as low as 10 cents. Q. Do you mean that since you have pursued the fisheries you have got an average of 3,000 boxes?—A. No. I never got higher than that. 1 only own a small part of a weir. Q. All those were taken in weirs, were they not 7—A. Yes. Q. Those weirs are on the land, are they not, between high and low water mark 7?—A. Some are built in the tideway. Q. The inshore weirs are what you use 7—A. Yes. Q. Not the tideway weirs 7—A. No. Q. Your weir is between high and low water mark ?—A. It is very near the low-water mark. Q. It was in those weirs that you took the bulk of your herring !—A. Yes. Q. Of those, you say you put up sometimes 3,000, and sometimes not over 2,000 boxes ?—A. Just according as the catch of herring comes. a The catch is a great deal less some years than others. Q. You did not, as a rule, fish in your boats for the purpose of putting up herring ?—A. Not of late years. Not since we built weirs. We used to. ; ; Q. How long was it since you did begin to use the weirs ’—A. The first weirs were built, I should suppose, on Grand Manan, as nearly as I can come at it, about 37 years ago. Q. Since that time you haven't fished in boats at all !—A. We have not fished in boats for herring. Q. What time did you yourself commence to use these weirs !—A. I helped to build the first weir that was built. Q. After that you ceased to fish in boats, and depended upon the weirs ?—A. You understand our weirs do not fish at alJ times. «My weirs seldom or ever fish until September. Q. After you commenced to use these weirs did you depend npon them for your supply of fish ?—A. No, I could not depend upon the weir solely, because they did not always fish. It is only for two or three months. They would not get herring enough to pay expenses and support a family. I had to take a boat. ee ee ey | Q. Would you in September take a boat and fish in each year [—A. _ All along through the summer, before the weirs fished, we would do so. » Ido not mean by that before the weirs were built, but before they began in each season to catch fish. Sentember Q. What time would that be?—A. They would begin about wepen Q. This year have you taken any fish in weirs NO: 1950 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Have you been fishing in boats ?—A. I have not myself; my boys have been. Q. What kind of boats do they generally use?—A. Various sizes. There are a great many large two-sail boats with a jib on them. Q. What kind of boats have you used for the last eight or ten years ?— A. I never used anything but small boats. I did not fish the last two years at all. Q. You don’t go out to take herrings ?—A. Well, we generally have a skiff and a separate boat. Q. Have you a skiff or a boat ?—A. I have a keel-boat for fishing on a flat bottom for the herring fishery. Q. For the herring-fishing you used a skiff?—A. Yes. Q. How far from the shore do you obtain your fish—lI now refer to herring ?—A. We go to our weirs. : Q. Iam not speaking of the weirs. You say you get no fish in your weirs until September?—A. I don’t try to fish in boats until the herring come into the weirs. Q. Then I understand you to say that you do not attempt to catch herring with boats, but you only use boats to take the fish from the weirs 7—A. That is what we do. Q. As regards the herring, you do not take them till September?—A. Yes, the weir herring. Q. Did you ever go out with your skiff and take herring except out of your weirs 7—A. Not in our weir skiff. (. We will dismiss the skiff from our consideration and make the ac- . quaintance of the boat. Did you go out in the boat to catch herring? —A. We went out to the Ripplings to look for herring. @. Have you gone out to the Ripplngs during the last ten years ?— A. No; [have not. (. How long is it since you last went out there ?—A. I cannot tell. Q. Twenty years ago?—A. Probably 12 or 14 years ago. (). Have you got that boat yet ?—A. No. Q. Have you got any boat in place of it?—A. Yes; another which we use for that business. Q. For what do you use the new boat ?—A. Not to go herring-fishing. Q. For what do you use it?—A. For cod-fishing—line-fishing. Q. I understand that all the fish you have taken for the last 14 years are fish taken with your skiff and out of your weirs ?—A. That is her- ring-fishing. I cannot say I have myself taken my boat and gone to catch anything in any other way except out of my weirs. Q. And you do not begin to do that till September ?—A. Yes. Q. How early in spring do the herring strike in at Grand Manan ?— A. It varies a great deal. Q. What time did they strike in this year?—A. This spring they did not strike in until late. _ Q. Where did they strike in?—A. At North Head. You are speak- ing of the weir fish ? Q. I am speaking generally of herring—A. The net herring and small weir herring are different. We look for the herring striking first — at North Head. Q. What is the difference between the North Head herring which strike in in the spring and weir herring ?—A. For spring herring a two and a half inch mesh is used, and for weir herring a two inch mesh. Q. Then I understand that the weir herring is a small and inferior oe compared with the other?—A. At times they are; theyare mixed schools. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1951 Q. Take them as a body, are the herring taken in weirs inferior !—A. The herring are inferior, as they are so very different in size. We get mixed schools. Not oue-half can we string to cure. Our weir herring are small. They are not so large as net herring. Q. As a rule, are not weir herring inferior herring ?—A. They are, because they are mixed. Large and small mixed cannot be as valuable as herring of a regular size. Q. Then herrings taken in nets are large herring ?—A. The meshes of the nets are large enough to allow small herring to go through; but in the weirs we take all kinds. - Q. The boat fishermen don’t care to take the small herring —A. Not while it is netting time. Q. The herrings they generally put up for export are large !—A. Yes, those they barrel, unless they freeze some in the winter season. or The trade in barreling fish is one you have not engaged in '—A. 0. Q. You have applied yourself solely to the trade in small herring put up in boxes?—A. Yes; to the weir fish. : Q. Then, in point of fact, you cannot speak from any experience or knowledge regarding the trade in large herring ?—A. | have had no _ experience in that. | Q. Then the opinions of persons actually engaged in it would be worth { four times as much as your opinion ?—A. I suppose so. I should say the man who had always been in the business would be the man who _ would be the best judge. Q. Take Mr. McLaughlin, the overseer of fisheries there, is he not a man of great experience in all kinds of fishing ?—A. He may have en- | gaged in fish trading, but he does not fish. I do not know that he ever | fished. I would not swear that he has not done so. — «=, Q. How far does he live from you?—A. Fifteen or sixteen miles. Q. What he does you cannot have any credible knowledge of, unless you always keep an eye on him ?—A. He has not attended to fishing since he got the light-house. _Q. Do you undertake to say that he did not fish before he took charge of the light-house 7?—A. Before that time | do not know what he did. Q. Do you know whether he did or did not fish 1—A. I cannot say. Q. He is the officer who went round and got statistics of all the fish caught on the island ?—A. I think I recollect that he took some estimate of the fish. ; Q. He is fishery officer, and that is his business !—A. He did that. Q. He went round to fiud out what your annual catch was i—A. I think so. Q. He went over the island ?—A. I think he did. ; Q. He is a man of good, stroug common seuse, a decent, practical man ?—A. I suppose so. Q. He is county councilor for your county ?—A. I cannot recollect ; I was not at any town meeting. Q. You live on the island and you cannot tell who your county coun- cilor is?—A. I have not inquired this season. I was not able to go to _ the meetings. Se aes 1 Q. Don’t you take sufficient interest In your public affairs, even though - you did not attend the meetings, to know who was elected !—A. I do not think I have seen Mr. McLaughlin since. are Q. Do you not know that the county of Charlotte has canoe to me governed by justices, and has become a municipality, governed ry eae cilors?—A. I have heard it talked of. I heard Mr. Newton and Mr. Ve 1952 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. McLaughlin were the two men elected. I was not able to go to the meetings. I never made inquiries, and I have not seen Mr. McLaughlin since. Q. Are your dealings chiefly with the Americans, and do you take more interest in their affairs?—A. My dealings with them are small; the amount depends on what I catch. Q. You know more what is going on at Eastport than at St. Andrew’s, your own county town. Do you ever send any of your fish to St. Andrew’s for sale?7—A. Sometimes we sell some there. Q. Did you ever sell any of your own there ?—A. I probably sold a few quintals some years ago; I don’t recollect. Q. You sell your fish altogether at home?—A. Not at home. I ship my fish principally to Eastport, some to Boston. Q. Do you ship them on your own account ?—A. I call it shipping when we send them in vessels. Q. In what vessels do you send them ?—A. In the vessels of the two Duttons and Mr. Ingles. @. Do those three gentlemen send their vessels to Boston ?—A. Yes. They get freight from different people who have fish to send. @. Did you send any last year ?7—A. Yes. Q. Did you sell them better at Boston than you could have done at Eastport or St. Andrew’s ?—A. I don’t think it paid better to send them to Boston; it paid about as well as sending them to Eastport. The freight is high to send them there. Q. Did you sell any at St. Andrew’s?—A. No. @. Can you state how many barrels of pickied fish are put up on the island ?—A. No. @. Can you state what is the catch of fish at the island? How many barrels of herring are pickled and put up at the island ?—A. I think scarcely any were caught there last year. Q. Take last year; how many barrels of pickled herring were pnt up at the island 7—A. I could not tell you, because I have not been fishing for some time. Q. Cannot you form any idea?—A. There might be 100 barrels put up somewhere that I would know nothing of. - Q. Have you any idea what your catch of herring might be at the island ?—A. I could not give it; some years they are plentiful and other years they are very scarce. Q. Can you give the catch for any year?—A. No. Q. I will take Campobello ; can you state how many barrels of herring were caught there any year?—A. I could not; I have no means of knowing. (). Take the parish of West Isles; do you know how many were taken there any year?—A. I never fished in Passamaquoddy River. I have known of fish having been taken there. Q. The fish taken there, I believe, are principally herring and had- dock ?—A. I understand pollock. Q. Is pollock taken in great quantities there this year ?7—A. Yes. _ _Q. Can you state how many boats are employed fishing all round your: island ?—A. I cannot. : Q. Do you know anything whatever about the fishing on the main- land, in the parish of St. George and Lepreaux?—A. No. Q. Do you know what is the population of the city of Quebec?—A. L could not say. Q. Can you tell what is the population of the city of Montreal ?—A.'No.. Q. Have you any idea at all ?—A. I have not. Ra AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1953 Q. Can you give the population of Toronto or Ottawa ?—A. No: | never was in those parts. Q. Will you tell me why it\was, in answer to Mr. Foster, that you undertook, on your oath, to say the catch of fish is so great on your shores that if excluded from the American market there would be no market for them in the Dominion, when you did not know the popula. tion of the Dominion cities ?—A. We have tried to sell our fish in the Dominion; we sent some up to Canada—to Quebec; some did not pay for the freight. The fish were smoked herring. We have tried to sel! them in the Dominion, but found they failed to fetch as much in oar markets as in the American markets. If they could not be sold to pay us, they would not pay people to buy them from us at high prices. Q. When was this notable year when you sent some smoked herring to Quebec ?—A. Some years ago. Q. Cannot you give the year?—A. I sent the fish by Mr. Wilson, of Campobello. I suppose it was 15 or 16 years ago. Q. Can you state whether, at that time, there was not a daty levied in Quebec against New Brunswick fish, for that was before coufedera- tion?—A. I don’t know, and cannot say as to the duties. They were No. 1 herring, and did not pay expenses. Q. When you said you sent them by Mr. Wilson, did you mean the late John Wilson, esq.?7—A. I meant Mr. Edward Wilson, who was drowned. Q. Was he an island man?—A. He was a Campobello man. Q. That is the only venture you made in sending fish into Canada. . You sent smoked herring, some so small you could not string them '— A. The herring I sent there were not small. The herring put in boxes must be big enough to string and cure. ; Q. Were they not so small you could barely string them ?!—A. The herring were large enough to string and cure. What I before said was that many herring came into the weirs which are too small to go on the rods. Q. That shipment was made 15 years ago, and you have never tried the experiment since confederation ?—A. Not myself personally. Q. And yet, notwithstanding that you made only one experiment in sending fish to Canada, and that 15 years ago, before confederation, you testified, in answer to Mr. Foster, that you could not find a market in the Dominion if you were shut out of the American market ?—A. When we sell herring at St. John we do not sell them to so good an advantage. Q. When have you sent herring to St. John ?—A. I have not sent any personally. Q. Who did ?—A. The people of Grand Manan take some up. Q. Tell me a single man who has done it.—A. Mr. Morse, of White- head Island. He took up one or two lots of herring during the past winter. Q. What kind of herring ?—A. Smoked No. 1 herring. -Q. You were asked by Mr. Foster how, if the American market was closed, you would go on, and so forth. Do you know anything about what fish can go into the United States free under the W ashington -Treaty? Did you ever hear of the Treaty of Washington at all !—A. No; 1 don’t know I ever did. _. Q. Did you ever hear of the Reciprocity Treaty ?—A. I have heard of it. : Q. Did you ever hear of the Treaty of Washington ?—A. It is what you spoke of, I suppose. ; Ae AV aahine Q. Before I spoke of it, did you ever hear of the Treaty of Washing- oe PS yar L 1954 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, ton or know what it meant ?—A. I suppose the treaty would be the Reciprocity Treaty. : é Q. Do you suppose that would be the old Reciprocity Treaty you spoke of ?—A. Yes. ; ; Q. You heard many years ago of the Reciprocity Treaty 7—A. I have heard of it. Q. Do I understand you to say that is the treaty which you suppose is the Treaty of Washington ?—A. Not at present. Q. Do you say the Reciprocity Treaty and the Washington Treaty are the same, or are they different?—A. The Washington Treaty is what we are now under. Q. Do you believe or understand that the Reciprocity Treaty was a different treaty from the Treaty of Washington, or the same treaty ?—A. The Reciprocity Treaty I suppose to be different from our free trade. Q. Do you understand that the Reciprocity Treaty was a separate treaty from the Washington Treaty ?—A. Yes: Q. Did you ever hear of the Washington Treaty until you entered this room 7—A. I cannot say I knew the real rules of the Washington Treaty. Q. Did you ever hear of the Washington Treaty itself until you came into this room—I don’t ask you about the rules?—A. Yes; I have heard the treaty spoken of—the Treaty of Washington. @. Do you know what any of its provisions are?—A. No. Q. Do you know as to whether your frozen fish from the island go into the United States free by the Treaty of Washington or under some other treaty 7—A. By the Washington Treaty, I suppose. Q. Do you ever do any cod-fishing around the island ?—A. I have done some, which I have spoken of, on a small scale. Q. Do you catch the cod close inshore or far off?—A. We catch them from in 15 to 35 fathoms of water. We catch them inshore at certain times from half a mile of the shore to 4 or 5 miles occasionally. @. Do you catch them from half a mile to 4 or 5 miles of the shore?— A. It depends on where we find the fish. Q. Where do you find most of them ?—A. That is uncertain; some days we find them on one ground and some days on another. Q. They are all taken, you say, from half a mile to five miles of the shore ?—A. I say those I fish. Q. What do you say about the others ?—A, Of course, vessels and large boats go further out, and vessels even go to Grand Manan Bank, which is nearly out of sight of Grand Manan. @. How far from the shore?—A. It is 25 miles to tbe southwst of Grand Manan. You can just see Grand Manan from it on a clear day. There is about as good fishing there as as anywhere for our vessels this year. _Q. How do you know that ?—A. People tell me so, and my own rela- tions tell me so. Q. Do | understand that the boat-fishing is conducted from a half to 4 or 5 miles off ?—A. Yes; the principal boat-fishing. Q. Can you state whether the greater part of the catch is obtained within 2 miles of the shore or 5 miles out ?—A. It varies with different seasons. In summer the greater part is caught out. In early spring the fish come inshore. In the fall and cold weather the fish follow the weir herring and we catch them inshore again. Q. Then the best fishing, taking all the year round, is inshore ?—A. No doubt. ‘ Q. That is for cod ?—A. Yes. a AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1945 Q. Are the herring which are taken in weirs and boats at the island taken very close inshore ?—A. Not far out. There are places with 10 or 11 feet of water between islands, and the fish are all inside of some island. Q. They are all inshore ?—A. Inshore fish we eall them. Q. For what purpose do the Americans buy your froz+n fish !—A. To peddle them; retail them out and dispose of them for cousumption by the people. I understand they sell them in large quantities if they can, and if not in small quantities. Q. Do you know if any Gloucester vessels come down for herring- bait with which to go cod-fishing on the Banks ’—A. Yes. I have known them come there. Last May I saw two American vessels there, and one of our small vessels go out to them. I was told that Judson Richardson sold one 20 barrels of bait, and the other 25 barrels. Q. Those vessels were going out to fish cod 7—A. Yes. They went direct away. I saw the vessels. : Q. Do American vessels come down and fish along the shore for her- ring, 2 your knowledge ?—A. They occasionally have nets; they would ikely do so. Q. Do they do so asa fact 7?—A. Ido not goon board to know whether they fish for herring or not. Q. Do you see them lying at anchor close to the island with nets !— A. Not with nets out. Q. Do you mean to say you have never seen any American vessel for the last seven or eight, or three or four years, fishing for bait close by the island?—A. They set a net occasionally, but they generally buy their bait ; they would rather buy it. Q. Do they often come to buy bait ?—A. Yes. There have been half a dozen during the summer. - Q. What is the average size of vessels which come in for bait _—A. Vessels ranging from 40 to 60 tons. Q. Where do American vessels go to get the bait?—A. Wherever they can find it. They come to North Head, and if it is not to be had there, they come to Long Island. =i Q. You know that the herring spawn at the island, and that it isa breeding-ground for them ?7—A. Yes. . Q. That is, North Head ?—A. South Head is the spawning ground for herring. Q. That is a great spawning-ground ?—A. Yes. Q. Did you ever know American vessels come there {—A. They come in the fall and buy herring, but I never knew them set a net, : Q. Do you know what is the close season for herring ?—A. From 15th July to 25th September, I think. ae, \ Q. Is it not from 15th June to 15th Octover ?—A. It is during three months, I think. ; Q. During that time, you know, it is unlawful to take herring !—A. Yes; that is, during the close season. . ~ Q. Do you know if Americans have come 1n and taken herring off this very ground ?—A. I don’t know it myself. Q. Did you ever hear of it ?—A. I can’t say I did, id Q. Where did you hear that American fishermen came 10 during th close season and took herring ?—A. I did not say I did. Q. Where was it you got the idea ?—A.. I never heard that Amen 3 fishermen came in and set their nets on the spawning ground during the ‘close season. There were 19 sail of Bankers, Gloucester vs _ years ago this fall, which came and anchored between two islands, off rT vessels, two 1956 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Sea Cove. The people sold them herrings. I saw the vessels going out. But I was not told they set any nets, or anything of the kind. Q. How did they get the herring ?—A. They bought them from the eople. : Q. How far do you live from South Head, the breeding-ground for herring ?—A. Fifteen or sixteen miles. Q. Can you see it from where you live ?—A. No. Q. Then you don’t know what is going on there?—A. Vessels might come in and go out and I not see them. I saw the vessels I have men- tioned in the fall getting herring; but I never heard that they went in and caught fish during the three months they are not allowed to take them. Q. Does Mr. McLaughlin live near the breeding-ground ?—A. Quite near. @. He would know, would he not?—A. He would know if the ves- sels were there. Q. You stated that the people of the island were first, to your idea, to set trawls ?—A. The first 1 heard of trawling-fishing. Q. Will you state the names of those on the island who first set trawl-nets ?—A. There are a great many of them. I can tell you the names of some; but a great many people have moved in there during the last five or six years whom I don’t know. Q. How long ago was it that you first heard of trawl-fishing 7—A. The first time I heard of them setting trawls was three summers ago, I think. They might have been trawl-fishing before that. There have been three summers’ trawl-fishing on our coast. Q. That is the first time you ever heard of it?—A. Yes. It is three years ago that the people spoke of it. Q. You never heard of the system of trawl-fishing before you heard that it was followed by some people in your island ?—A. Yes. @. Where ?—A. I have talked with Maine fishermen, and they told me they had used trawls, and they considered it hurt the fishing. Q. Did they tell you that the trawl-fishing had destroyed their fisher- ies ?7—A. They considered it was a wasteful way and destroyed them. Q. Did they tell you their fisheries were destroyed by trawl-fishing ?— A. Five years ago I talked with Mr. Smith and Mr. Wickerton about trawl-fishing. Q. That was the first time you ever heard of trawl-fishing ?—A. Yes; the first time I ever had any conversation about it. Q. And two years after that you heard of your people setting trawls ?— * A. Three summers ago the people of North Head commenced. Q. Do the Americans trawl very much in the waters round the island ?—A. Probably when the fish are there; the fish have not been there so much. Q. Have the Americans been trawling there during the last four or five years?—A. The people say they have had trawls out. Q. And you believe that mode is destructive to fishing ?—A. That is what the people who use trawls tell me. I never use trawls. Q. The reason is because you do not think it a proper mode of fish- ing ?—A. I don’t think it is a proper way to fish. Q. And yet the Americans come in year after year and use trawls. Have you seen them use trawls this year ?—A. I have not been out fish- - inz. Q. Have you heard of it ?—A. They have not comein. Last fall the American fishermen were close inshore when the fish were there, and of course they used trawls the same as our men did. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1957 Q. Did the Americans, when they told you trawling had destroyed the fishing on their coast, tell you the reason why it had destroyed the fishing 7—A. They may not, have named every circumstance. They thought they destroyed the fish ; but they always told me this—that they threw gurry into the water. Most of the people say the trawls will catch the fish lying still at the bottom, old and spawning tish which will not take a line having the motion of the hand. Q. All the mother fish which would keep at the bottom, if properly fished by hand, are caught by trawls?—A. I would not say all. That is what they say. I will tell youan instance which was told me at home a week before I left. It came through two mouths. The man told it to my son and he told it to me. The man said they fished in 19 fathoms of water and caught some of the biggest fish they ever caught, and he told the story that three of them would fill a tub. Some of them hal the spawn ripe enough to come out. Probably you will say it is an American fisa story; I suppose it is. Q. Do Americans stop at your honse during the season!—A. Fisher- men come ashore and get their water-barrels filled, and sometinoies a bushel of cherries. Q. Did you ever hear from anybody that trawling was the proper mode of fishing?—A. I don’t think I did—that it was the proper mode of fish. ing. . Q. They all said trawls were bad for the fishery 7—A. | talked to a man this summer about it, and he thought it was injurious to fishing and did away with the fish, and he was willing to give it up, if they would all do so. 1 don’t remember his name; he was a stranger to me. Q. On the American coast, opposite Grand Manan, there is a large colony of fishing people, I believe?—A. Yes; there are a good many fishermen there. Q. Are you aware that they send boats over to fish in Grand Manan waters ?—A. They come there. I see them there frequently. : Q. About how many American boats frequeat the shores of Grand Manan and fish there ?—A. I don’t know. Only about four last sam- mer came down my way. I saw but four and one big vessel. Q. Five in your neighborhood last summer ?—A. Yes. . Q. How many were round other parts of the island !—A. I did not visit North Head to know what stopped there. Q. It is notorious that American fishermen come from the mainland and fish round the island ?—A. They frequently come and stop a while ‘and go away again. -Q. Of course, after they have got their catch they do not stop any longer ?2—A. If they come to fish and do not find them they go back ; but if they find fish they stop and fish a week and go back. Q. Are you aware that they all fish at Campobello, the Western Isles, -and Deer Island ?—A. No doubt all the Passamaquoddy people fish round Passamaquoddy River. I saw a number of them the other day out in boats. Q. All the fish taken in these places are taken in British rips pal en \. I could not say all; the principal part of them is. Those boats re the other day down at Cherry Island. But I also saw some the other day down at Eastport. are. . tear Q. Don’t you know there is no fishing at Eastport '—-\. of. There are no fish on the anchoring-ground. — T Lubeck Q. Nor any close by Lubeck 7—A. I have seen fish taken v a eh and also east off Fires Head and what is now called Treat's Island ; they were small codfish and haddock. Not to apeak 1958 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. How far is that from Campobello?—A. About half a mile west of it. Q. Campobello is an English island ?7—A. Yes. Q. Then you speak of fish caught within half a mile of Campobello ?— A. Yes; I know that a few fish were taken there, small cod and had- dock; but the fishing-grounds are close to Cherry Island and off that way. Q. Do you know anything about the fishing round Metite?—A. No; I never fished there. I never threw a line in Passamaquoddy River. Q. Have you heard there is good fishing there?—A. Yes; I have seen plenty of boats there. Q. It is close by Cherry Island ?—A. Yes. When there is a slack tide they can go farther into the river. Q. Do you know anything about the boat-fishiug in Black Bay ?—A. I never fished there. @. Have you heard there is good-fishing there ?—A. I have heard they sometimes catch pollock there. I don’t think that pollock run there as they used to do, because the people of Black Bay are mostly at our place. Q. When you say that if you were shut out from the American market you could not get a market in the Dominion, as the matter now stands, you are talking about something you don’t know ?—A. That may be so. Q. Is it not so?—A. When our people send fish by our men to St. John, they come back with less money than if they had sent the fish to Eastport; it does not pay as well. Q. How long ago was that ?—A. My sons and my neighbors put up perhaps 6,000, 7,000, or 8,000 boxes of herring, and I only put up 2,000 boxes last fall. Q. Do you speak only of smoked herring ?—A. They want te dispose of their herring to the best advantage. They send them to New York, Boston, Eastport, and St. John, and when they have sold any at St. John they say it would have paid better to have sold them at Eastport. That is the general talk. Q. How long ago was that?—A. It is every year. The last time was about four weeks ago. _Q. Then in spite of this loss at St. John, they still send smoked her- ring there, though the American market is open and free ?—A. Yes. They have not carried many there since the fire. Q. Did they make money before the fire by selling smoked herring at St. John ?—A. They did not consider they did as well. Q. Why did they send to St. John when the American market was open to them, if they could do better there ?—A. The prices vary. Probably if you go to Eastport and carry in a great many herring, the dealers, finding there are plenty coming in, would not offer a large price; and so a vessel would run over to St. John. Q. When the fishermen could not get the prices they wanted at East- port, they would go to St. John and do better?—A. They would prob- ably not do better, but they would go and try. Q. They could not sell at Eastport ?—A. The people there have a rule that when they find plenty of fish coming in, they don’t care to pay what they would if the fish were scarce. Q. Then they do better, if instead of selling at Eastport, they go to St. John 2—A. They come back and say they have not done so well as if they had sold at Eastport. .A. Yes, sir; I was three or four years in the bay right off at that time. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1959 Q. Sometimes they do better ?—A. Sometimes. They trade in salt sometimes for fish. ; Q. Do you know anything about pickled fish ?—A. No. Q. Do you know anything about the markets for fresh fish '—A. I don’t make inquiries in regard to that matter, By Mr. Foster : Q. How deep is 15 fathoms ?—A. There are 6 feet to a fathom. Q. Some inquiries were put to you about taking herring in the close season; who does the most of that ?—A. Probably I would get blamed for saying anything about that, because I was not there to see. Lt is not a thing a man can speak about. I might get blamed if I was to say that three-fourths of the herring netted in those three months were taken by our own people. I would not say it was so. Q. If Americans come in vessels and large boats, then your people, I suppose, sell them herring ?—A. Yes. Q. How long do you understand cured fish has been going into the States free of duty?—A. Five or six years. hae Q. Did the people pay any duty on it before that 7—A. They had been paying a duty. Q. About how many years before had there been a duty ?—A. [ never gave my mind to think what year it was; I never booked it, and for that reason my memory fails me. Q. Was there any period when cured fish went in free of daty before this last time ?—A. I think there was. Q. Do you remember what was called the Reciprocity Treaty !—A. Yes. No. 4. : ; WEDNESDAY, September 19, 1877. The Conference met. Davip INGERSOLL, of Gloucester, Mass., mariner and fisherman, called on bebalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Foster: Question. You live in Gloucester, Mass. ?—Answer. Yes. Q. What is your age?-—A. Filty-five. ae fed ices _Q You have been a fisherman all your life, I believe 7—A. Yes; ever since I was nine years old. a a Q. At what age and in what year did you first go fishing in the Galf of St. Lawrence ?—A. I was thirteen years old the first tine ever | came. Q. That was in what year ?—A. [I am now fifty tive years oli. : Q. Well, you were in the gulf-tishing as a boy for the first years '— Q. What was the first year you came here as the skipper of a schooner :— A. The first year was 1847. Q. You fished for mackerel altogether ?—A. Yes. Q. During the early years you were here, before you got t Todas per, where were you in the habit of fishing for mackerel free Me sth Bradley and Orphan at those times, abroad otf Gaspe sane seh bere ‘Q. Begin now with 1847, when you were first here as pat ah sais was the name of the schooner and what the tonnage m—A. The sen Mary Eliza. She was, I think, 54 tous. o be skip 1960 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. That would be, in 1847, old tonnage?—A. Yes, that was before the new tonnage. Q. How many mackerel did you catch that year and where were they caught ?—A. That year we got 180 barrels, I think. We caught them at the Magdalens. , Q. All of them ?—A. Yes; all of them at the Magdalens that year. (. Come to 1848; .what vessel were you in then ?—A. The schooner Cape Ann. @. How many mackerel did you take and where?—A. We got, I think, 220 barrels. Q. In the year 1847 you took how many barrels, did you say 7—A. Was that your full catch 7—A. Well, we were fitted out for about Q. Then in 1848 you were in the Cape Ann ?—A. Yes. Q. How many barrels did you take ?—A. 220, I think. Q. Was that a full fare ?—A. No, we were fitted out for 300. Q. Where did you take them ?—A. We caught them at Magdalens and Bradley and around in that direction; mostly at the Magdalens. @. Did you take any of the first two years’ catches witiin three miles, except at the Magdalens?—A. No; not those years. _ Q. Now in 1849 and 1850, were you in the Gulf of St. Lawrence ?—A. No. I was not there. Q. Where were you then ?—A. I was away to sea. Q. In 1851, were you in the gulf ?—A. I was in the schooner Dolphin. Q. As skipper?—A. Yes, sir. ee how many barrels of mackerel did you get ?—A. I think it was 180. Q. And was that a full fare ?—A. No, sir. We fitted for, I think it was, 280. Q. Where did you take those 180 ?—A. We caught them, as near as I can recollect, most of them off what we call Pigeon Hill. Q. How many miles from land?—A. Well, I should say we were twelve or fifteen miles off, and sometimes more than that. Sometimes we would just see the land, and then again we would see quite plainly. Q. Was any portion of that year’s catch taken within three miles? Was any portion taken within three miles of shore in 1851?—A. I don’t think there was. I don’t recollect. I didn’t get over five barrels within the three-mile limit, I don’t think. Five miles we might, because we used sometimes to stand inshore and heave to and see if there was any- thing. Another thing, that year the Canadian cutters where we fished were running backward and forward across the Bay Chaleurs, and where we fished she took no notice of us where we were fishing, aud therefore we must have been over three miles off. (. Point out where Pigeon Hill is?—A. (Witness points on the map to Pigeon Hill, near Shippegan, about the mouth of Bay Chaleurs.) There is high land there, and it is what we call Pigeon Hill. Q. Now, from 1851 to 1865, what were you doing ?—A. Well, sir, I don’t know as I can tell you. I was all over the world. Q. You were not in command of any fishing-vessel?—A. No. For about fourteen years there most of the time I went to sea. I used to go away in the winter, and didn’t get home in time in the summer to take a vessel. I was all over the world almost. Q. In 1865, where were you then ?—A. In 1865 I was in the schooner Martha A. Porter. : Q. In the gulf?—A. Yes; in command of her. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1961 Q. Now, how many barrels of mackerel did you get, where did you fish for them, and where did you get them !—A. I took 180 barrels, or 170 I think it was. We got them at the Magdalens, Q. All of them ?—A. Yes, all of them. Q. In 1866 what were you doing, the next year after the first vou _ were in the Martha Porter ?—A. I think I was not in the bay—I think to the Georges. ; Q. Cod-fishing ?7—A. Yes. Q. In 1867, what were you doing ?—A. I was in the bay, I think. Q. In what vessel ?—A. The Martha Porter. Q. Where did you fish and how many did you take ’—A. In 1867 1 think it was 120 barrels, if I recollect aright. Q. Where were they taken ?—A. Well, we caught some at the Mag. dalens, and some at East Point, and some half way across from East Point to the Magdalens. Q. What proportion of those, if any, were taken within three miles of the shore?—A. I don’t know that we caught any within three miles of the shore. We might; we might possibly have got a barrel or tWo, but we didn’t fish within three miles, because we could get no fish within three miles of the shore. Q. Take the following year, 1868, what vessel were you in then '—A. I was in the Phoenix. Q. How large was she?—A. One hundred and one tons, new meas- urement. _ Q. How many mackerel did you take and where?!—A. We took 180 barrels; I think it was 180 barrels. Q. Whereabouts were they caught ?—A. Well, they were caught at the Magdalens, for I fished there all the time. No; I am mistaken. That 180 barrels were caught off Gaspé, Bonaventure—off Bonaventure, ,you might call it. ; — ~~ Q. What portion of those, if any, the first year in the Phenix, did you take within three miles?—A. We didn’t get any. When we came we ran right to the Magdalens, and didn’t find any mackerel, and we ran right across there and went into the Bay Chaleurs and tried, and didn’t find anything, and went outside. The first time we got outside we struck mackerel, and I believe it was about three weeks we staid there and got 180 barrels. That is all we were fitted for, We calcu lated to go to the Georges, and didn’t fish any more. — Q. In 1869 what were you doing 7—A. I was to the Georges. . Q. In the same vessel ?—A. Yes. Q. Still as captain 7—A. Yes. Q. Cod-fishing, I suppose ?—A. Yes. Q. In 1870 what were you doing ?—A. I was in the bay., Q. In what vessel ?—A. In the Phenix. ; a - Q. How many barrels did you take and where did you take them ae A. I think there was 170—I think 120. I won't be sure whether 120 or 170 barrels were taken. I caught them at the Magidalens. aie Q. In 1871 what were you doing, and 18721—A. In 1871 ant on - was in the Joe Hooker, to the Georges both years—not in the galf. Q. In 1873 where were you?—A. I was in the Carlton. Q. Where did you go?—A. To the bay. | Nee Q. How many trips ?—A. We went two trips that eg re eae - Q. How many barrels did you get the first trip au i uiada bat et them?—A. The first trip we got 300 barrels. We had 310 sea 0 rels and packed 300. . 3 1962 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Where were they taken ?—A. We caught them all at Magdalens— some of them at Bird Rocks. Q. What did you do with those ?—A. We carried them home. Q. You didn’t transship 7—A. No. q. You made a second trip ?—A. Yes. Q. How many did you get then ?—A. I got—think it was 270 the next trip, or thereabouts. Q. Where did you catch those 270 barrels on the second trip ?—A. We got 100 barrels from the Magdalens, and then it got late and we ran down to Sydney. We got from 150 to 170 barrels down at Sydney, be- tween Sydney and Cape North. Q. What portion of those 170 barrels taken between Sydney and Cape North were taken within three miles of the shore?—A. Well, I should say that one-eighth part of what we got was taken within three miles of the land. Q. You mean—— A. I mean one-eighth part of the 170. Q. In 1874, what were you in ?—A. In the Phoenix, the same vessel. | Q. Where did you fish and bow much did you catch 7—A. Well, we fished—I could not tell you—we fished about all over the bay. ; Q. How many did you get in your first trip ?—A. We got 150 barrels, I think it was. Q. This was your second year in the Carlton ?7—A. Yes. Q@. You say you got 150 barrels the first trip ?—A. I think it was from 150 to 170 barrels, somewhere along there. We got them, and went to Canso and landed 100 barrels, and bought 100 empty barrels in Canso, and refitted and went into the bay again, where we got another 100 ee and then we went into Canso and took them all aboard and went ome. Q. Now, of the first 150, where were thoSe caught ?—A. The first 150 we caught at the Magdalens, most of them. We caught some few off East Point. We got one little spurt of mackerel off what we call George- town Bank, 15 or 20 barrels. Q. Show where Georgetown Bank is. Is that the same one called Fisherman’s Bank ?—A. I think so. (Points to the map, southeast of Georgetown, P. E. Island.) Q. Those you caught at Georgetown Bank—how far from shore is that bank?—A. Well, we reckon it twelve or fifteen miles off. Q. From where?—A. Why, from any land. Q. What is the nearest land ?—A. Georgetown. , Q. Now, of your second trip in 1874, which was 100 barrels, what proportion were taken at the Magdalens and what proportion were taken in the vicinity of Georgetown Bank?—A. Well, of the second trip of 100 barrels we caught some off Georgetown Bank, some off East Point, some at Margaree, and some we caught at Magdalens. We only got 100 barrels, anyway ; we could not get many in any one place. Q. Can you estimate what proportion, if any, of this last trip were taken within three miles ?—A. I should say, to be candid about it, as near as I could judge, about one-eighth part inshore—that is, within three miles of land. Q. Then we come to 1875, the next year, where were you then ?—A. In 1875, I was in the B. D. Haskins. Q. What vessel were you in in 1875 ?—A. I was in the same vessel, the Carlton. . Q. Where were you then, and how many barrels did you get ?—A. We fished all over.the bay, and got 120 barrels, I believe. Q. When you say all over the bay, what do you mean?—A. East AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1963 Point, the Magdalens, Margaree, up on the West shore, and we fished anywhere we could get mackerel. Q. How long were you taking 120 barrels ,—A. We came from home the 5th day of July, and got home, I think it was—I would not sav— after the 20th of October. ; Q. That, I suppose, must have been a losing voyage !—A. Well, we didn’t make much on that. Q. What did you make yourself as captain—about what!—A. Well, sir, I made, | think it was, $110, my percentage and all. Q. Did the vessel make anything?—A. No; the vessel could not make anything. Q. In 1876, last year, what were you in?—A. I was in the B. D. Haskins. Q. How many barrels did you get ?—A. 120 barrels. Q. Where did you get them?—A. We got them at the Magdalens, all but 20 barrels. Q. Where were those caught 7—A. The 20 barrels we got abroad off East Point. There is a shoal off East Point, between there and Port Hood. There is a shoal about south or south-southeast from East Point. When it is rough it breaks there. Wecaught most of them about there, about 20 barrels. Q. How far from land is that?—A. We reckon it seven miles off, six or seven miles; but I don’t know whether it is laid down so on the chart or not. Q. Now, you have fished, by your account, a good wany successive seasons at Magdalen Islands; can you tell the Commission whether tt is a dangerous or a safe place to fish, and give your reasons '—A. Well, sir, as far as I know, I always fished there because I thought it was a safer place to fish. We had a better chance to make lee, we could do it So quick. It was just like running around this table. If we were anchored one place we could hoist our jib and go around to another ; so we could go round and round as we required. We always thought it was a safer place to fish. Another thing, we always caught a great deal better mackerel. They were always larger and better than they were over at the island. When I have been catching mackerel at the island, it was none but a parcel of poor trash any way. Q. You have always brought all your bait from home !—A. Always brought it from home or else sent home; telegraphed and bad it come down. Q. What has it been ?—A. Pogies and clams. ; Q. How many times have you telegraphed to have it brought down — A. Year before last, 1873, we telegraphed for 20 barrels of bait and they yey cone -enty-three is not year before last !—A. Q. Eighteen hundred and seventy-three Is not) I say in 1873 we had it sent down. ; is Q. Have you ever had it sent down avy other year !—A. No. _ Q. Have you ever bought any 7—A. No. (tee Q. Then it has all been brought with you except that year when yo had 20 barrels sent ?—A. Yes. ate er Q. Have youtished in company with other American des ant ee A. Yes; I always fished where most of the vessels fished. Se _ ee there would be, where we were fishing, 150 sail. Then again no ae F ~ r = , 1m sometimes; when than 50. Then again 250. We used to count them : hilar tet we saw a big fleet we would come and see how many me pan sail times we would count them. I have seen, in 1573, as high @& - at a time. 1964 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Where ?—A. At Magdalens. I believe that was the most I saw at atime. i think there was about 300 sail in the bay, as near as I can judge; sometimes 250 to 200 odd sail at the Magdalens, Then again there would be a few days there would be no mackerel, and they would run round some to East Point, some to North Cape, some to Cape Bre. ton. and so on. If they didn’t find anything they would come back again. Q. You have made inquiries, more or less, and have a general knowl- edge of the places where the Gloucester fleet has fished for mackerel in the bay?—A. The Gloucester vessels mostly fish at the Magdalens. Q. Are you able to make an estimate of the proportion of the mack- erel caught in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence by the whole of the Ameri- can mackerel fleet which is caught within three miles of the shore?— A. Well, I could make an estimate of what I have done myself. I could make an estimate of what the Gloucester vessels have done, because I have fished with them, and they generally fished mostly where I have fished. I should say the Gloucester vessels, since I have been skipper of a vessel, haven’t caught over one-eighth inshore. Q. By “inshore” what do you mean ?—A. Within three miles. Be- cause they mostly fished at the Magdalens. We have caught them at the Magdalens within three miles of the land, but most of the mackerel we got there is seven or eight miles off. Q. Now, about fishing among the boats that come out from the shore, have you been in the habit of fishing among them 7—A. I have shot up among the boats and tried to get mackerel—yes. Q. How often ?—A. Well, Lnever did very often, until the last year I went, 1876. Then the mackerel were scarce in the bay. We could not find any at Magdalens or to the northward; we could not find them anywhere for the matter of that. Weran over toward the land and spoke to the boats. They would tell us that the day before they had got plenty of mackerel, but that day they were doing nothing. We would then anchor and try. Q. How far off shore have you seen the boats fishing at the far- thest 7?—A. I have seen them on the north side all the way from three to ten miles off (that is, Prince Edward Island). On the southside, pretty near in generally. Q. Have you ever had dealings with them in the way of buying or selling fish or bait?—A. I never bought any fish or sold any bait. I have had them come aboard and have given them bait ; and I have had them grind their bait in our mills. They had no mills and they would have herring, and would want to know if they could grind it. I was, of course, perfectly willing. When we had plenty of bait we would give it to them. We have done that often. (). Now explain the manner in which your vessels catch their mack- erel, and whether there is any difference according to your observation in the mode of catching by boats and by vessels.—A. The difference is Just this, they can catch them in the boats when we caw’t begin to catch them in the vessels. ' Q. Why ?—A. The boats go off and there will be a shoal spot say two or three miles off from the land, or whatever it might be. There are a number of places where there are shoal spots where our vessels can’t get. If we were to anchor there, why the keel would be on bottom. We could not anchor, especially with the wind on shore. Sometimes when the wind was off shore we could anchor or heave to and drift. But asa general thing those boats, there would be places where they would so in where we could not, and get mackerel. When we would Be : AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1965 heave to, it would not be so as to trouble them, unless we would drift down and foul them, which I never did and never saw done. Then again, with acrew of eighteen or twenty men it would be a small busi ness to drift up among the boats to fish with them. We would want more room. Q. Do you catch from bottom or from the surface ’—A. We tole them up to the surface; but those boats fish with long lines, and they fish right on bottom as a general thing. We get them up where we can see them. Q. About what length of line do you fish with?—A. We don’t have three fathoms. It just goes under water. Those boats fish with the whole length. When they begin to fish with the whole length those mackerel we can’t get them, because they would not rise up. That is what we call rock mackerel. Q. Your vessel-fishing depends upon raising the school to the surface by bait?—A. We won’t cut up bait where we can’t see them, and where we can’t catch them; or, if we are drifting, we want to be where we can drift two, three, or four hours and catch. The idea of jigging around among two or three boats—if that was the way it was to be done I would not like to go mackerel fishing. It would be a small business. Q. You have spoken of the number of vessels fishing. I want to know whether the number has continued as great as it was in former years, or whether it has been diminishing; that is, the number of American mack. erellers that you have seen ?—A. They have been falling off every year from coming into the bay. I don’t think myself I will ever go again. Q. Do you know how many there were from Gloucester in the bay last year ?—A. I think about twenty sail; there might be thirty; I don’t think over thirty. I didn’t see over twenty at a time. . Q.. Taking all the American vessels going to the bay the last year for -mackerel, how many would you estimate them to be!—A. There were hardly any fishermen except Cape Ann men. ; Q. Well, that means Gloucester and its immediate vicinity '—A. Yes. I believe there was two or three Boston vessels; I don’t know, perhaps one or two Newburyport vessels. From the south I don’t think there were more than half adozen. I don’t recollect seeing any from the,south shore. I think there were about thirty sail in all of mackerel fishers in the bay last year, although there might have been forty. I should not Say over thirty. ' : Q. Have you fished for halibut from off Cape Sable Island _—A. | never did off Cape Sable Island; yes, I did one year, but off Seal Island and Cape Sable; you might call it all Cape Sable. Q. In what year was that ?—A. Those years that I was speaking to you about that I was all over the world, and was not skipper. Three ot those years I was trawling for halibut in the Samuel Wonson, with a man by the name of James Chambers. | Q. Do you happen to remember which of those years you were at those places?—A. There were three of those years I have spoken of. Q. Which three ?—A. I could not give the dates, : - Q. One of those you say you fished for halibut off Seal Island tA. : went three years to Seal Island. I went to Seal Island altogether, an to La Have Bank. SF ane nu titel § - . Q, Where is La Have Bank ?—A. It is a good ways off; abou : mniles off. , - . ke shorevou Q. Now, what I want to know is, what distance from the whee fished for halibut near Seal Island?—A. We used to run uot Id make | Seal Island Light. When we first came out from home we would rat Fe 1966 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. our first set for that. We would run until we saw that light, which we reckoned to be twelve or fourteen miles off. If it was in the day-time we would run until we saw the tower. That you can see about as far as the light. We would anchor in about thirty fathoms of water. There we would set trawls once, and that is about all you could get—what you would get once. Then from that we would shift off all the way to sixty or eighty fathoms. (). What is the shallowest water that trawling for halibut is practiced in ?—A. Well, at those times we used to think we got most of them in about sixty fathoms—from sixty to ninety fathoms; but now they get most in 350 fathoms—from 320 to 350. Q. Have you ever known trawling for halibut to be pursued in water twenty or twenty-five fathoms depth ?---A. I have caught halibut on George’s in ten fathoms. Q. With trawl or line?—A. With line, accidentally drifting over the bottom when it was calm; nothing of any amount. And I have caught halibut on Seal Island grounds by laying to and drifting where the tide was carrying us. Wedaren’t anchor too near the island, because we could not set trawls; the bottom was rough, and the cable would cut off. Q. What is the nearest to Seal Island?—A. I suppose we have caught halibut within seven or eight miles. Q. Is there any chance of pursuing halibut fishing within three miles ?— A. I could not say. I never saw any one. Q. Why not? Whatis the objection ?—A. The objection is that you could not set a trawl there because the bottom was rough. If they got the trawl stretched they could not get it again, for every hook would catch. If you anchor, you are sure to lose your anchor. By Mr. Dana: Q. Do you use hemp cables ?—A. Yes. By Mr. Thomson : _Q. Do you know Cape Sabie Island, off the coast of Shelburne ?—A. Yes, sir; I am well acquainted all around there. Q. You have fished there, I suppose ?—A. Never bit one fall. One year I went down cod-fishing, what we call off Shelburne. Q. You do know the island that is called Cape Sable Island ?—A. O, yes. (. Did you ever fish up close to shore there ?—A. Never. (). How far off that shore did you ever fish ?—A. I never fished there much. I have told you that one fall I fished off Shelburne. We used to calculate to fish fifteen to twenty miles off, large black fish. We used to get 20,000 weight of them. Q. Then in point of tact you never did fish close inshore at Cape Sable Island ?—A. No. I never was to anchor inshore. Q. And whether halibut were caught there or not you don’t know 7— A. I don't think any halibut. a ee You don’t know of your own knowledge whether they are or not !— . ~ oO. Q. Now 1874 Was the time you first became a skipper of a vessel and went into the gulf?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Had you been fishing there in former years?—A. Well, I was there, yes, backwards and forwards. I used to go most every year or two. I have been there more or less ever sinee L was a boy. Q. How often have you been in the bay before you went in 1847 ?— A. Before I went as skipper ? AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 1967 Q. Yes.—A. I could not tell you how often, but I have been there a number of times. ; Q. Were you in there as one of a crew ?—A. I went inas a hand; yes, sir. Q. How were you paid? Did you go on shares or by the month !— A. I went on shares. Q. Now, do you mean that you were in there every year or nearly every year from the time you were thirteen to the year 1847 !—A. No; not every year. There were about thirteen years I was all over the world. Sometimes I would be home for a year or two. Q. When was that ?—A. I could not give the date. Q. Was it after you were a skipper in 1847 or before it ,—A. It was after I was a skipper that I went away. Q. Now, how often were you in the bay before the year 1847 !—A. I could not state how often I was there. I venture to say I was there two-thirds of the years from the time I began going until I was skipper. Q. You began to go when you were thirteen, and went almost every year ?—A. No; not almost every year. Q. Did you say two-thirds of the years 7—A. I didn’t say just two. thirds ; I might have been there two-thirds of the years. Q. You ought to know.—A. I don’t know because I didn’t keep any record. Q. Is your memory bad ?—A. No; but it will not allow me to recol- lect from the time I was thirteen to fifty-five. Q. You do recollect that you were thirteen years old when you com- menced ?—A. Yes. Q. And you recollect when you began as skipper ?—A. I was nine years old when I began to go fishing. Q. Did you go into the bay then?—A. No; I was thirteen years old when I went into the bay. Q. You went as a hand, and got your share ?—A. Yes. Q. Was it a profitable business ?—A. Well, I don’t know how profit: able it was then. Q. Did dt pay you well ?—A. I don’t know; I was at work for my father, and he took my earnings. Q. Did he tell you it was a good business ’—A. No; he didn’t want me to go, but I wanted to go, and I suppose I will have to keep going now. He only-gave me my victuals and clothes. When I was nineteen ‘was the first time I went for myself. Q. You never took the trouble to inquire how much he made off yout fishing ?—A. I know one year he settled for me, and I earned him #300 by fishing. I recollect that because it was a big sum then. Q. That was fishing in the gulf ?—A. No; I wasin the gulf that year, but I began to go to the Georges in February, and went there until July— after the 4th of July. - ; Q. Then you mean that the bulk was made at the Georges '_—A. I mean that some was made at the Georges and some in the gulf. ~ Q. Where was the greatest portion made ?!—A. The biggest portion on the Georges, because we were a longer time about it. rhea Q. How much did you make there ?—A. About two-thirds of the whole. Q. What year was that ?—.A. I don’t know. De Q. Was that when you were nineteen years old !—A. ) es. =e Q. You settled for yourself —A. No. I said I settled forms self when I was nineteen. 1968 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Was this that year when you were nineteen?—A. No; it was some time before that. Q. You say you made $300 that year for your father. I thought you said you did not know what you made until you settled for yourself ?— A. No. I said I did not know except this one year, because I made a big year’s work. Q. Did he tell you you had made a big year’s work ?—A. He might have told me, or the crew might have said. I know they made $300 a share. Q. How did you, as a matter of fact, get the information?—A. I can- not tell you; I don’t know. Q. Well, as to the other years, you cannot tell whether you made money or lost ?—A. Of course I made money. I had nothing to lose, and could not lose anything. @. Your father did not lose?—A. He had nothing to lose. He had nothing to lose, and I have not either. Q. Did the vessels make money on those trips ?—A. I don’t know what they made. Q. You never asked ?—A. They have always told me when I have been skipper that they never made anything. Whether it is so or not I don’t know. Q. The owners tell you that, and I suppose you contradict them ?— A. I don’t contradict them. I don’t know and don’t care, so long as I get my money. Q. You believe them when they tell you they don’t make any money? - —A. Well, I know just about what mackerel are got, and I can tell a little about it myself. Q. Do you believe them or do you not?—A. Sometimes I do and sometimes I do not. Q. Which is the rule; how often do you believe them ?—A. I can’t tell you how often. It is according to how much money I have stopped. If | have stopped $9,000, and they tell me that they have not made any- thing, I believe they lie; if I have stopped $3,000 or $4,000, and they. tell me they are not making anything, I believe they tell the truth. Q. How often do they lie and how often do they tell the truth ?—A. I can’t tell how often. Q. What is a fair charter per month for a vessel of 70 tons?—A. I don’t know. Q. You have been in the fishing business ever since you were thirteen and don’t know ?—A. I don’t know anything about chartering. I never chartered one. It used to be a good many years ago from $1.80 to $2 a ton. I don’t know what it is now. Q. For how long is that !—A. That would be for the whole season, as long as they chartered for, whether four or five months, so much per wonth. Q. Was that an ordinary figure ?—A. I don’t know what itis now. I suppose a good deal more. Q. Why more ?—A. I don’t know why; because everything is more, I supose. Q. Is it because fish are more plenty, or what is the reason ?—A. Be- cause there are not so many, I should say. Q. But would men hire a vessel at a very large price to catch a few fish ?—A. They don’t hire, because they don’t charter vessels now. Q. Do you mean that the owners run them on their own account ?— A. They do run them on their own account. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1969 Q. They refuse to charter ?—A. They have more vessels than they know what to do with. The owners don’t want to charter. Q. I understand that the owners don’t want to charter for themselves. Don’t they want to charter to outsiders ’—A. No; because they have vessels enough that they own. . Q.:- Don’t the owners of vessels wish to charter their vessels to out- siders ?—A. They won’t charter to outsiders. Q. Why ?—A. Because that is not their business. If you charter a vessel you have to charter her where she was built, a new vessel. Mr. Dana suggests that the witness attaches a different meaning to the word “charter” from that intended by counsel. By Mr. Thomson : Q. What do you mean by chartering a vessel ?—A. I mean, if you have hs vessel and I come and charter her of you and pay you so mach a month. Q. Then I don’t think you and I disagree. You mean that the own. ers do not desire any person to charter a vessel trom them !—A. That is what I mean. Q. Why ?—A. I mean those fish-owners that own vessels, Q. They don’t desire that any person should come and charter vessels from them?—A. No... Q. Why ?—A. I don’t know. Q. Is it because it is more profitable to them to run them them. selves ?—A. I suppose they would rather run them themselves than ran the risk. Q. It is a more paying business for them to run their own vessels than to allow them to be chartered by outsiders ’—A. Well, it is not their business to charter. . Q. Did you not tell me just now that they had more vessels than they ‘knew what to do with ?—A. I said they had enough without chartering them themselves. Q. I understood from you that they had too many vessels ; would they not desire to charter them to anybody ?—A. Well, I should think some of them had too many. Q. Well, say if they have.—A. I don’t know whether they have too many. I say I should think so. Q. Who do you think has ?—A. I don’t think anybody has. — Q. I thought you said they had ?—A. I say, In my own mind, they have. Perhaps they think they have not enough. ~Q. You told me just now you thought there were some that had too many vessels ?—A. That is my own mind. Then I might go to the owner and tell him, and he would tell me to mind my own business. Q. Tell me who you think has too many.—A. I don't think anybody has. Q. Then why did you say so? Now, in 1847—that is the first yene Mr. Foster examined you about—you went 10 the bay in the Mary _ Eliza?—A. Yes, sir. Rn eae . That year you got arrels ?—A. Yes. oe rf How do aa foeonleee the number of barrels !—A. I can append from one minute to another, but I cant recollect eight, ten, fifteen, twenty, or thirty years ago. ; , ; Q. Well, are con sure you cannot recollect thirty years ago '—-\. No I suppose I might recollect some things, and some I sould ear ere Q. But, as a rule, you would not recollect anything i ish aoe thirty years ago?—A. Perhaps some things I would, and some thing not, 4 124 F = 1970 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Do you think it is likely you would, or not?—A. I think it is likely I should. Q. Well, then, what made you say you could recollect from one min- ute to another, but not thirty years ago ?7—A. Because I could recollect from one minute to another better than thirty years ago. Q. I asked you how you recollected the number of barrels, and you said you could recollect from one minute to another, but could not recol- lect thirty years. What was the point of that?—A. You just asked me, and I said I could recollect it. Q. Do you say you can or that you cannot recollect what happened thirty years ago?—A. I can recollect some things. Q. But as a rule you cannot ?—A. Other things I could not recollect. qQ. What things ?—A. I can’t tell you what things. @. Could you recollect the number of barrels you took thirty years ago?—Well, no, I could not. That is too long ago to recollect the num- ber of barrels. Q. Could you recollect the number you took twenty years ago?—A. Well, yes, I think I could. Q. You might recollect the number twenty years ago, but the number . thirty years ago is out of the question. You could not recollect that. Is that so?—A. I could not recollect. I can’t recollect everything twenty or thirty years ago. Q. Would you be able to recollect rightly the number of barrels you took in a vessel twenty years ago ?—A. Yes; I should be likely to, of course. Q@. Could you twenty-five years ago ?—A. I don’t know. Q. Thirty years ago, you say you could not?—A. I did not say that. I said I might, or I might not. Q. Did you not tell me you could not ?—A. I did not tell you so. Q. Did not I ask you, among other things, whether you could recol- Ject the number of barrels you took thirty years ago, and did not you Say no, you could not ?—A. I say there are some things I could recol- lect and some things I could not. Q. You say now there are some things you could not recollect. Did not you tell me you could not recollect the number of barrels you took ae years ago? If you are wrong, say so.—A. I say I cannot recol- ect. Q. Now, you say you can’t recollect what took place thirty years ago, and you have some doubts whether you can recollect what took place twenty years ago. Among other things, you have stated that you took 180 barrels in 1847, which happens to be thirty years ago, just the period as to which you swear now that you cannot recollect. You see, that is very curious.—A. Well, I told you there might be some things I could recollect and some I could not. Q. You have outrun your memory ten years. In point of fact, this must have been 1857 you refer to, as your memory does not run back beyond twenty years. You still stick to the statement that in 1847, thirty years ago the very time as to which you say you cannot recol- lect, you got 180 barrels?—A. Yes. Well, there are a good many things, as I told you, that happened thirty years ago that I could not recollect. Q. 1 asked you distinctly to tell me whether you could remember the number of barrels you took thirty years ago, and to correct yourself, if you were wrong, aud you persisted in saying that you could not recol- lect how many barrels you took thirty years ago, although you would AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1971 swear as to what took place twenty years a , ‘ake statement that you got these 180 barrels 1A. Of cua ere Q. When did you recollect it? Where did you get the figures from ? ae eet it in your memory all the time, or has your memory been weirs —A. I] know what vessel I was in, and what mackerel I Q. You just remember it all along? Had you any ide: 7 thirty years ago 7—A. I don’t mind of noticing meetin Scot a isn ee ee sonnet en at sae irats Islands, and your ful! fare been 220, if I understood you right. I: 0t—A. Yes: somewheres about that. ‘ St on teerees Ain eee Q. What was the tonnage of the Mary Eliza ’—A. Fifty- Q. Would not a fifty-ton vessel take a good deal Bk Re 230 Sar. rels? Would she not take nearer 400; would not she take 300, at any ne mee ae pecanse there was not room enough. ; . Two hundred and twenty, then, would be pretty nearly fare ?—A. No; about 220 to 250. PE DOME eae Q. Now, you got these 180 barrels at Magdalen Islands '—A. Yes. Q. And you fished nowhere else ?— A. No. Bon ic ate Q. That is a curious thing. It is an expensive thing to run a vessel hee ee is it not? You went straight to the Magdalen Isl. heare . es. Q. Through the Gut of Canseau, of course ’—A. Yes. Q. You did not attempt to fish anywhere else, and came home with very little better than half a cargo ?—A,. Yes. Q. You did not attempt to fish anywhere else ’—A. There was no mackerel anywhere else. q. You did not try anywhere else ?—A. I did not say we did not try ee eter else; we might have tried in running across to Magdalen slands. Q. I am not asking you whether you might have tried, but whether you did try—A. We did try in running across to Magdalen Islands. Q. Did you not say you ran straight to Magdalen Islands, and that you did not try because it would be no use ?—A. I say now we ran straight to Magdalen Islands. Q. Did you not say you did not try because it would be no use !—A. We did not fish anywhere else. Q. You are positive you did not fish anywhere else !—A. We did not fish anywhere else than at Magdalen Islands. We might have hove to to see if there was any mackerel, and if we did not raise any we kept going along. We ran straight to Magdalen Islands, but we hove to morning and night. Q. Did you try anywhere else ?—A. We tried on running across; we tried when we hove to at night. Q. Why did you say you did not try?—A. We did not catch mack- erel anywhere else except at Magdalen Islands. - Q. If you say that throwing a line overboard when going across the - bay is trying, what did you mean by saying you did not try because it would be no use ?—A. We were scudding ; we hove to night and morn: ing, and we tried for fish. Q. Is it true or not that you did try elsewhere than at the Magdalen -Islands?—A. We caught our mackerel at the Magdalen Islands. * . Q. My question is this: Did you try to catch fish anywhere else than at the Magdalen Islands, on that occasion ?_A. We tried only when running across; we might have hove to ouce. Q. You ran straight from Gloucester, through Canso, across to Mag- 1972 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. dalen Islands, never trying to fish anywhere except at the Magdalen Islands, unless when you hove to once or twice crossing the bay ?7—A. That is what I have stated. Q. Why did you not try down on the coast of Prince Edward Island, instead of running home with a partial cargo 7—A. Because there were no mackerel there. Q. You did not go to try ?—A. We saw vessels which did try. We did not want to go there because vessels coming from there to the Mag- dalen Islands said there were no mackerel. Q. Can you give the names of the vessels?—A. No; I cannot tell you the names. Q. Tell me the name of any one of the vessels which gave you that information.—A. I cannot tell you. Q. Where did the vessels come and give you that information ?—A. They came to the Magdalen Islands. q. They told you there were no fish off Prince Edward Island ?—A. Certainly. When we saw a vessel which came from Prince Edward Island we asked if there were any mackerel there, and they told us whether there were or not. Q. Did all the vessels which you spoke with comé from Prince Ed- ward Island ?—A. I don’t mean all. Q. Did all which gave you that information ?—A. I cannot tell where they had been fishing, because I did not see them fishing. (. Did they tell you where they had been fishing ?—A. I asked them if there were any mackerel at Prince Edward Island, and they said no. Q. Did you not inquire if they had been fishing there ?—A. Of course nee because I supposed they had been fishing there if they came from there. (. How did you know they had come from there ?—A. Because they said they came from there. (. My question is: Did all the vessels which came there and gave you that information say they had come from Prince Edward Island ?— A. They did not all come from Prince Edward Island. Q. From where else did they come?—A. Some from Margaree, some from North Cape, the West Shore, and all round the bay... They don’t all come to one place or stay in one place. Q. And there were no mackerel at any of these places?—A. There might have been at times. Q. Did they say so?—A. When they came to the Magdalen Islands they did not find any elsewhere, or they would not have come. Q. Did you ask if there were any mackerel at Prince Edward Island ?— A. I asked “Have you got any mackerel over there at the island?” and they answered “No.” If I saw a vessel come from the nor’ard, I asked if there was any mackerel there, and they said no. If mack- erel had been there I would have gone. (). Why did you not go to Gaspé and Bay Chaleurs and try, instead of going back without a full fare?—A. Did I say I did not go there and try? I said we caught our mackerel at Magdalen Islands. Q. You stated you tried at no places, except, when going across the bay, you hove to, but you can alter the statement if you wish.—A. I am not going to alter the statement. _Q. What did you mean by putting to me the question, “Did I say I did not go into Bay Chaleurs?” Did you mean the Commission to understand that you had gone into Bay Chaleurs?—A. I was not in Bay Chaleurs that year. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1973 Q. Then why did you say, “Did I say I did not go into Bay Cha- leurs?”—A. I did not put it to you. ’ Q. I asked you why you did not try Bay Chaleurs, and you put the question, “Did I say I did not go into Bay Chaleurs?”—A. I did pot understand you said Bay Chaleurs. Q. I said Bay Chaleurs.—A. I never was in Bay Chaleurs except once. Q. Why did you put the question to me?—A. I never was in Bay Chaleurs but once. : Q. Will you not answer that question ?—A. I do not know what you mean. I cannot answer if I do not know what you mean. ; Q. You did not go into Bay Chaleurs that year ?’—A. No. Q. Ry did you not?—A. Because I found mackerel enough without going there. Q. You are sure about that?—A. Of course, I am sure about that. Q. You think you won’t deviate from that statement? I have asked you why you did not go into Bay Chaleurs when you only got 180 barrels at Magdalen Islands, which is not a full fare, and you have given to me the extraordinary answer that it was because you had mack- rel enough where you were.—A. We got enough. Q. How do you reconcile that with the fact that you did not get a full fare?—A. I don’t know what you mean. Q. I asked you why, instead of going home with 180 barrels, which, you say, was not a full fare, you did not go to Bay Chaleurs, and you gave as a reason ‘that you got plenty of mackerel where you were !—A. Did I not tell you we spoke vessels which came from there, and they Said there was no mackerel. Q. So far from that, you gave as areason for not trying there, that you had plenty of mackerel where you were ?—A. If I did not, lam ‘mistaken. I told you we spoke vessels coming from Prince Edward Island and nor’ard. Q. Then some of the vessels came from Bay Chaleurs ?—A. I told you they came from all over the bay. Q. Did they come from Bay Chaleurs ?—A. I don’t say from Bay Chaleurs, but from the nor’ard. Vessels seldom go to Bay Chaleurs. Q. As you were going to Magdalen Islands you would pass Prince Edward Island, after going through the Gut of Canso?’—A. We ma - about half-way from Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton. Q. After you went through Canso, you ran right by Prince E Iward Island ?—A. Yes; by the island, but a good way off. Q. As you were going by, why did you not try Prince Edward Island before you went to Magdalen Islands ?—A. Because there are better fish at Magdalen Islands. I would not take the mackerel at Prince Edward Island, because they are poor, nasty trash you get. I never saw any good mackerel caught there in my life. tee eee Q. Then, really, the reason why you did not try at Prince Edwarc Island was that you were well acquainted with the fish caught there, - and they were poor trash ?—A. 1 am well acquainted with the fish aught there. I have seen them and caught them. Lae Q. You are sure you would not catch Prince Edward Island mackere! at all ?—A. I would not if I could get any anywhere else. Q. They are poor, miserable Lae es They are genera ou get there—small, poor mackerel. 3 O. How are have Eee fished in Prince Edward Island waters withio three miles of the shore ?—A. I have not fished there much. | Q. Then you were talking about something you know nothing about. lly poor trash 1974 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Why do you slander the poor fish if you have not gone and made their acquaintance ?—A. I guess the fish don’t know what I am saying. Q. Unless you were down and saw them why should you slander the fish ?—A. As a general thing the mackerel caught off Prince Edward Island are hardly worth carrying home. Another thing is, that the boat fishermen which catch the mackerel there did not know what mackerel was before we went there. Q. Was it because they did not know what mackerel was that a poor class of fish came in there ?—A. They did not know what mackerel was when I first went into the bay, or whether they should take them by the head or tail. Q. They were such a poor class of fish ?7—A. They did not know mackerel from cod when I first fished there. @. Did you stay sufficiently long to instruct them in the different methods of taking fish ?—A. I did not; but our people have instructed them how to catch the fish and dress them. Q. Consequently a better class of fish are {now on the shores ?—A. | There has been a poor class of fish there. Q. What has the intelligence of the islanders to do with the charac- ter of the fish ?—A. They did not know anything about fishing before we went there. That has nothing to do, of course, with the character of the fish. @. Has the character of the fish improved as the people have im- proved in knowledge ?—A. They don’t know whether they are catching poor or fat fish. @. Are no good mackerel taken at the island at all ?—A. I don’t say there never were any good mackerel taken there, but that as a general thing the mackerel are poor, miserable trash. That is the idea about it. (. Are the mackerel taken at Prince Edward Island as late as Sep- tember and October poor trash also ?—A. They are not so bad as in the summer time. Q. Are they poor or good mackerel ?—A. Not generally so poor, be- cause they come from the north and strike there, and thcse which come from the north are better mackerel. Q. Spring mackerel are poorer than fall mackerel 2?—A. I am talking about summer mackerel. One mackerel caught at Magdalen Islands is worth three of those caught at Prince Edward Island. Q. You say that mackerel caught in September and October off the coast of Prince Edward Island are poor trash ?—A. I say not always, not every year. Some years they are poor trash and some years they are not so. Q. Is that not the case on all coasts ?—A. No. (. Are Magdalen Island mackerel never poor trash ?—A. Mackerel have been poor in the bay for the last five or six years—all over the bay. (). They are poor mackerel ?—A. Poor to what they were a number ot years ago. . Q. Do you mean poor in quality or few in number ?—A. Poor in quality. Q. I understand you that spring mackerel coming into Magdalen Islands are equal to October mackerel at Prince Edward Island ?—A. No, I don’t say any such thing. Q. I asked you if spring mackerel were always poor, and I understood you to say that the mackerel at Magdalen Islands were not.—A. Spring mackerel are poor everywhere. Q. Are not the fall mackerel at Prince Edward Island just as good as the fall mackerel at Magdalen Islands ?—A. They are not. a AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1975 Q. Do you know that of your own knowledge ?—A. Yes, Q. From having fished ?—A. Yes. They are better and bigger mack. erel at Magdalen Islands. \ Q. Where did you fish in Prince Edward Island waters !—A. I fished all round the island. Q. Close inshore 7—A. No. Q. You don’t know anything about the inshore fishery !—A. I never saw any mackerel inshore. j Q. Have you gone in and tried ?—A. Yes. Q. When did you try 7?—A. I tried the last year I was in the bay; I tried close inshore and everywhere. : Q. That was in 1876 ?—A. Yes. Q. During any other year did you fish inshore at Prince Edward Island ?—A. I would have taken them anywhere, because we could not get them. Q. In.1876 you did go inshore and try ?—A. Yes; we were inshore _and tried. Q. At what part of the island?—A. We tried on the south side and north side of the island. Q. Tell me the places.—A. One place we tried was off Souris Head. Q. That is near the north of the island ?—A. It is at the south part of the island. Q. How far from the shore ?—A. Perhaps a couple of miles out. Q. And you could not get any 7—A. We never caught any. Q. Did you try round the bight of the island ?—A. We did not. Q. Did you ever try there?—A. Yes. Q. What year ?—A. I cannot tell you what year; I tried a number of times. I never got any to speak of. Q. Did you see boats fishing there?—A. Yes. . . Were they catching fish when you could not get any '—A. Some- times they would be catching a few, and sometimes not. Q. Off Souris Head last year, did you see many boats fishing !—A. Yes; we ran from East Point to Malpeque, and we saw boats all the way up and down the shore, from three to ten miles out. | Q. Were they catching any fish ?—A. Some were catching a few and some were not catching any. Q. Asa rule, the fishing was a failure ?—A. As a rule, they were not eatching many. We hove to, but caught none, and we went on to Mal. peque. : Q. Was that the time you were told there had been plenty there the day before ?—A. They told me that one year. That was on the south side of the island. Q. But when you went there you could not get any 1—A. We coald not get any. : : - Q. You did not hear that last year there were great numbers of mack- erel round Prince Edward Island coast ?—A. We did not hear it, nor see them anywhere. sees lee Q. Did you get any out in the gulf beyond three miles from shore ast year?—A. What we got were got at Magdalen Islands, all but 20 bar- rels. ee a Q. Where did you get those 20 barrels ?—A. Off East I oint. oa Q. Close inshore ?—A. No; they were taken on a shallow place, which we call 6 or 8 miles out. ; yaceee cee ele Q. Within three miles of the shore did you get any last years. Nothing to speak of; one or two barrels altogether. 1976 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. About how much of the whole catch did you get inshore last year ?—A. I should say one-eighth part. Q. Don’t you think that is too high an average?—A. I think it is fully high enough. Q. Did you catch your fish inshore at Magdalen Islands?—A. Some inshore and some out. “= Q. How many inshore ?—A. Perhaps one-third we caught inshore, within three miles. os Q. Of the 20 barrels what proportion did you catch inshore »=" Ut ~ the 20 barrels we caught the whole of them at a shallow plac% waich we call 6 or 8 miles out. Whether it is so I don’t know. i. ¥ Q. You did not catch one barrel of those 20 barrels within t sree miles of the shore ?—A. No. ff Q. You caught one-third of the 120 barrels inshore at the Magdalen Islands ?—A. About one-eighth. (. You said one-third?—A. I might have said one-third—I meant one-eighth. ; Q. Were you correct in saying you caught one-third inshore ?—A. If I said one-third let it go so. It does not make any difference whether we got one-third, one-half, or the whole inshore there. Q. How many of the 120 barrels did you catch inshore at the Magda- len Islands ?—A. If I told you one-third it is all right. Q. Although you said just now it was a mistake, and it was one-eighth and not one-third. Don’t you think you caught more than one-third in- shore ?—A. I don’t think anything about it. Q. Why ?—A. Because I don’t care whether I caught them inshore or out. At the Magdalen Islands it does not make any difference whether — I got one-third inshore or one-third offshore. Q. But it may make a good deal of difference in regard to telling the truth ?—A. I am telling the truth as near as I can. Q. Which is the trath, one-eighth or one-third?—A. You may call it one-third. (. Do you say one-eighth or one-third ?—A. I tell you one-third. (). Is that correct ?—A. It is correct. Q. Why did you say one-third was a mistake?—A. I thought I said one-eighth at the time; but you said that I said one-third. Q. Because you said one-third you are going to stick to it?—A. Yes. Q. Speaking of one-eighth, will you tell me, supposé you got 100 bar- rels of fish, how many barrels one-eighth would be?—A. It would be one-eighth of 100 barrels. Q. How many would that be ?—A. Eight barrels out of 100, of course. €. When you went down to Prince Edward Island, once in a while, you gave them some bait out of pure philanthropy. At all events you gave away bait?—A. Yes; I gave away all I had to them; I never sold any. _Q. You kept clear of the inshore because the cutters were there at times ‘—A. While I was a skipper I never saw any cutters except one year. @. What year was that ?—A. The year I was on the Pheenix, 1865 or 1866. They were Canadian cutters. That was the only time I saw them while I was skipper. I saw cutters there while I was a hand. é Q. You are sure you were in the Phonix?—A. I am pretty certain I yas. Q. In 1866 and 1867 I understood you were in the Martha A. Porter? —A. I cannot be sure about the cutters; I only saw one cutter there while I was skipper. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1977 Q. Can you tell the Commission what was the vessel on which vou were when you saw the cutters?—A. I was thinking I was on the Phenix. While skipper, I never saw any except a Canadian cutter, and she was up to the nor’ard where we caught our mackerel. Q. Did you take out no license the year yon saw the cutters !—A. I never took out a license. Q. Having no license, did you keep clear of the inshore fishing !—A. We caught mackerel off Bonaventure and Gaspé. | Q. You said “ broad out.,.—A. I mean from 12 to 15 miles off. Q. You did not attempt to go inshore 7—A. No, because the Canadian ers would not let us go inshore if we had wanted to do so. In 1867, what vessel did you command ?—A. The Martha A. Porter. | -Q.\ Were you in the gulf that vear ?—A, Yes. . Q. You are sure of that?—A. Yes. | Q. How many barrels did you take that season ?—A. 120 barrels, Q. Did you see any of the cutters that season ?—A. No, I did not; I don’t recollect that I did. I don’t know that there were cutters that year. I think there were licenses that year. t (). In 1865, you commanded the Martha A. Porter and were in the / gulf fishing ?—A. I was in the Martha A. Porter three vears. Q. Did you state you were in 1865 fishing in the guif!—A. I think I did. Q. Is it correct ?—A. I think it is. Q. Have you any doubt about it ?—A. No. Q. Then you swear positively that in 1865 you were in the,gulf com- manding the Martha A. Porter ?—A. Yes, I am positive in 1560. Q. How many barrels did you catch that season ?—A. | think it was 120 barrels I stated. ; Q. Was the quantity 120 barrels ?—A. I might have said 120 or 170 -barreis; I have forgotten. Q. State now what is the fact—A. One hundred and seventy barrels. Q. Why did you think it was 120 barrels ?—A. I had kind of forgot- ten, for you have got me mixed. It was 170 barrels. Q. Are you sure it was 170 barrels ?—A. Yes, [ am sure. Q. Have you had figures put down on paper by which you are guid- ing yourself ?7—A. No. Q. Why did you say you had forgotten whether you had stated 120 or 170 barrels?—A. You have been bothering me so. Q. In 1866, where were you?—A. I was in the Martha A. Porter. Q. Where; in the gulf ?—A. I was at the George's that year. Q. In 1867, you were in the gulf in the Martha A. Porter !—A. In 1865, 1866, and 1867 I was in the Martha A, Porter. Q. In 1866, you were at the George’s !—A. | think I was, ‘. Q. By saying that you think, do you wish the Commission to ander- stand you are not quite sure about it, or do you swear that it is the fact ?—A. I say I was on the George's. — zh ae ~- Q. How many years were you on the Georges ?—A. Two years. Q. After being in the bay in 1860, you were at the George’s the two following years 7?—A. Yes. E ; Q. PHAR plaoek you on the George’s in 1866 and 1867 !—A. Yes. Q. Are you sure about that ?—A. I am pretty sure about it. Q. You are sure about it?—A. Yes. Mr Q. What made you swear just now to me, and one hour ago 2 Mr. - Foster, that in 1867 you were in the gulfi—aA. I don’t think I did. - Q. If you did, it is all wrong, I suppose. You have no acc aye idea about dates or figures?—A. Why, I give you It as straight as I can. a 1978 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Then it is all wrong, that in 1867 you were in the gulf and caught 170 barrels of fish ?—A. I don’t say it is all wrong. In 1865 I was in the gulf. Qo How many did you get then ?—A. I have stated 120 or 170 barrels. Q. I don’t care what you have stated; I want to know what you caught in 1865.—A. I think 120 barrels. (. Think it over whether in 1865 you caught 120 barrels ?—A. I tell you 120 barrels. @. You are sure about that ?—A. I am pretty sure. (. Then if, in answer to Mr. Foster, you swore you took 170 barrels, it was an entire mistake. You have no doubt now it was 120 barrels 7— A. That is what I thought we got in 1865, 120 barrels. Q. Why did you say you did not know whether the quantity was 120 or 170 barrels?—A. You are getting me mixed. Q. During the time you commanded the Martha A. Porte, did you not take out a license?—A. No. I never took out a license in my life. @. Was any person else besides yourself captain of her at any time during the years 1865, 1866, and 1867?—A. No. Q. Do I understand that no license could be taken out for her with- out your knowledge ?—A. I don’t think it could. @. You would be the party to pay the money ?—A. Certainly. @. Do you know how the licenses were taken out ?—A. I do not. Q. Do you know how much was paid per ton?—A. No. It is some- thing I had nothing to do with. 7 Q. You never took out a license at all?—A. No. I never took out a icense. Q. During 1866 and 1867, when in the bay, as you had no license, you would take care that you did not go within the three-mile limit ?—A. We could fish as well as ever we could if there were any fish to catch. Q. You were not afraid ?—A. We were not afraid of the cutters. Q. Why did you not take out a license ?—A. Because I did not want to take one out. I went to fish at Magdalen Islands. -Q. You did not intend to fisk around Prince Edward Island ?—A. I did not see any cutters. 1 could not say positively whether there were cutters in the bay that year or not. I don’t recollect seeing any. Q. You swear positively that no license was taken out by you ?—A. No license was taken out by me. Q. You swear positively that in 1867 you were not in the bay at all, and you were on the Georges ?—A. Yes. Q. About that you cannot be mistaken. You recollect being in the gulf in 1865 and taking 120 barrels. You swear positively that the next two years you were on the Georges ?—A. Yes; I was on the Georges. r You swear positively you were not in the gulf at all those years ?— < MOR, Q. Can you be mistaken about that ?—A. I don’t think I can. Q. How do you account for swearing, in answer to Mr. Foster, that you were in the gulf in 1867, and that you took, I think, 120 barrels ?— A. I don’t think I did say that. Q. Now, that I tell you you did, are you going to stick to it?—A. I think I was on the Georges those two years. Q. Have you any doubt about it ?—A. I have no doubt but that I was. Q. If there is any mistake about that, your memory is all gone ?—A. ed memory 1s not all gone yet; I guess I can stand it a little while onger. Q. I understand you that in 1865 you are sure you were in the bay ’ AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1979 and got 120 or 170 barrels, and the next two years, when commanding the Martha A. Porter, you were on the Georges !—A. Yes. ‘ Q. Were you more than two years on the Georges Banks in the Mar- tha A. Porter?—A. When in the Martha A. Porter, in 1865, I was on the Georges, because I did not go to the bay until July. I was on the Georges in 1866 and 1867. : Q. You were not in the bay at all in 1866 ?—A. No. Q. Nor in 1867 ?—No. Q. You are sure about that ?—A. Yes. Q. Then there were three years, one after the other, you were on the Georges in the Martha A. Porter, that is the early part of 1865 and 1866 and 1867 7—A. Yes. Q. It is then an entire blunder if you told Mr. Foster you were in the bay in 1867 in the Martha A. Porter ?—A. It is a mistake if I told bim So. Q. In 1869 you were on the Georges. In 1870 you were on the Phu: nix in the gulf, and got 120 barrels. Is that right ?—A. Yes. Q. How did it happen that you said, when Mr. Foster was examining you, that in 1865 you caught 180 barrels, and then you put it at 170, and now in answer to me you swear positively you caught 120 barrels !— A. I got mixed. I knew there were 120 barrels somewhere. Q. Nobody mixed you about 1865; it was your own deliberate state- ' ment.—A. Well, I know; I was thinking of the Phenix when you were asking me about the Martha A. Porter. Q. In 1865 how many barrels did you catch 7—A. 170 barrels. Q. Of that you are quite sure ?—A. That I am sure of. Q. Why was it you told me the quantity was 120 barrels !—A. | tell you I got mixed up about the Pheenix and the Martha A. Porter because the year afterward I wasin the Phenix. I wasin the Martha A. Porter three years and in the Phenix three years. 1 took the Phonix trip for one of the Martha A. Porter trips. Q. There is a difference of ideas ?—A. I know that. . Q. Have you any explanation to offer as to your swearing at oue lime that in 1867 you were in the gulf and now swearing you were not !—A. I said I was not. Q. You have no explanation to offer for swearing you were !—A. I think I was two years at the Georges. Q. You have no explanation to offer 7—A. No. Q. In 1870, when you took 120 barrels or 170 barrels off Magdalen Islands, did you fish anywhere else; and if so, where?) That was in the Phenix.—A. Yes; we fished up West Cape, I mean on the west shore, off Bonaventure and Gaspé. : Q. What did you get there ?—A. We got mackerel there—part of them. Q. How many did you get ?—A. At the time we fished there, I think 180 barrels. ee ' Q. Was that in 1870 ?—A. I think it was. | Q. You got those up at Gaspé and Bonaventure 1—A. Gaspé, caer venture, Pigeon Hill, and along on that coast. I don't say we caug it them all off Gaspé. on Q. Pigeon Hill ison the New Brunswick shore, on the southern shu of Bay Chaleurs?—A. It is on the southern shore of Bay Chaleurs on the western side. It is a few miles this side of Point Miscou. Q. That would be on the shore of New Brunswick, not 10 the A. I was not in Bay Chaleurs except once in my life. bay [— 1980 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Off Gaspé, how near the shore did you get them ?—A. From 12 to 15 miles off. : Q. Not inshore at all?—A. We did not catch any mackerel inshore that year. The Canadian cutters were round there and were cruising up and down at the time, and if there had been any mackerel there we could not have gone inshore. . That is the reason why you did not try inshore ?—A. Of course, it was one reason, because the cutters were cruising up and down and we could not try. Q. In fact, you did not attémpt to go inshore to fish that year ?— A. We did not catch any inshore. Q. Did you try ?—A. I don’t think we did. We might have hove to inshore and tried. I cannot be positive that we did not heave to inshore and try for mackerel, but we never caught any inshore. The mackerel were off shore that year. Q. Do you mean that was unusual ?—A. I don’t mean it is unusual. The mackerel were off shore and went out of the bay early. None were caught there after 1st October. . Q. Do mackerel ever go_inshore there ?—A. I suppose they do, and go up Bay Chaleurs sometimes. Q. Do they ever go within three miles of land ?—A. Yes. (. Is there good fishing as a rule within three miles of shore?—A. I don’t know. I think it is likely that there is sometimes good fishing within three miles of the shore. Q. Are you sure what vessel you commanded in 1870 ?—A. It was the Carleton. Q. You are sure of that ?—A. Yes. Q. Did you not state that you commanded the Pheenix in 1870?7—A. I mean the Pheenix. Q. Now, will you swear positively that in 1870 you commanded the Phoenix 7—A. Yes, sir, I will. Q. Will you swear positively that you got 180 barrels of mackerel off Bonaventure, as you call it?—A. Yes. Q. Did you say that you sailed from the Strait of Canso to Bonaven- ture ?—A. Weran up the island and tried there. ae And you did not go to the Magdalen Islands ?—A. O, yes; we did. Q. Did you go to the Magdalen Islands, and fail, and then go on to Bonaventure ?—A. We tried off the island and North Cape, and then ran across to the Magdalen Islands. We did not find mackerel there, and we then ran across to Bonaventure from the Magdalen Islands. (. And did you get the fish there ?—A. The most of them we did. (2. Did you not, in answer to Mr. Foster, state that on that trip you got either 120 barrels or 170 barrels off the Magdalen Islands? And now you swear positively that you caught about 180 barrels, and that you did not get any at the Magdalen Islands, but that you got them somewhere off Bonaventure—A. No; I do not think that I did. (Statement of witness on this point during examination-in-chief was here read.) Q. How do you reconcile those two statements ?—A. I told him that we caught some at the Magdalen Islands and some at Bonaventure. (). So that the statement which you made to Mr. Foster, according to your present statement, is utterly untrue; and, instead of catching 120 or 170 barrels at the Magdalen Islands, as you told Mr. Foster, you caught absolutely none at the Magdalen Islands, but all at Bonaventure. x A. The next year, 1835. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1981 You are all astray about this evidence, are you not? Did you ever he: of the Reciprocity Treaty 7?—A. What is that ? pudeebil as Q. Did you ever hear of that treaty ?—A. I do not know as I under. stand what you mean. Q. ae yO Over hear of sg Washington Treaty? You have no idea as to when the Reciprocity Treaty began or ended, or of anything of that sort ?—A. No; I have not. lies are By Mr. Foster: Q. During how many years were you in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in command of the Martha A. Porter !—A, Three. ; Q. Do you mean in the Gulf of St. Lawrence !—A. No. It was one year that I was in the gulf in her, *Q. You were only one year in command of the Martha A. Porter pre- vious to the years when you went cod-fishing ?—A. Yes. No.5: Capt. NATHANIEL E. ATWoop, manufacturer of cod-liver oil, and formerly a fisherman, of Provincetown, Mass., was called on bebalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Foster: Question. You told me, I think, that you were 70 years old last Satur- day ?—Answer. This was the case last Thursday. Q. Have you been for a large part of your life a fisherman!—A. Yea. Q. And also a naturalist; you have studied the habits of fishes !—A. I have to some extent; I hoped to do something for the advantage of science in that direction. Q. You have been a member of the house of representatives of Massa- chusetts ?-A. Yes; in 1857 and 1858. Q. And also a member of the senate of the same State!—A. Yes; in 1869, 1870, and 1871. Q. I think that you gave a course of lectures, 12 in number, before the Lowell Institute in Boston, some years ago, on the habits of fishes !— A. Yes. Q. When did you first come to the Gulf of St. Lawrence to fish !—A. I came to this gulf in 1824, in the schooner Independence, for the pur- pose of catching codfish. Q. And for what purpose did you then catch mackerel !—A. Wholly for bait. -Q. During what years were you cod-fishing in the Gulf of St. Law- rence?—A. I went there again in 1825 in the schooner Independence, and in 1828 I was there in the schooner Missouri. ‘ Q. When did the mackerel fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence begin, -as faras you know?—A. I have no knowledge of any vessel having come to the gulf for mackerel, although I have been told that probably some did come previously, until 1834, when I was fishing for mackerel on ourown coast. Three vessels then went from our place, and three also from another place in the States, I am informed, to the gulf for mack- erel. They met with good success, got full cargoes, and returved ina very short time. Paneer ae Q. When did you first fish for mackerel in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Q. And during how many years have you been fishing for mackerel in the Gulf of St. Lawrence ?—A. I made six trips during as many sea- Sons, 1982 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. What years were these 7—A. I was there in 1835 and 1836, and again in 1838, 1841, 1842, and 1851. (. When did you go there first as captain ?—A. I was captain—that is, my name was so mentioned in the papers—first in 1842. My brother acted as captain other years. We were together, and together we owned the vessel. Q. You and your brother were the owners?—A. Yes; sometimes he and sometimes I was master. Q. During the years when you fished for mackerel in the gulf, where did you fish for them ?—A. In 1842 1 was first master, and in 1835 I first came to the gulf for mackerel. When we arrived there we could hear of no mackerel anywhere. We went toward the Magdalen Islands, and about eight miles off from them to the southwest we got a large number of mackerel the first day we were there. This induced us to fish in that vicinity, and we fished between that and the West Head of the Islands, as we call it, or Deadman’s Island, as it is sometimes ealled. Q. Is that part of the Magdalen Islands?—A. Yes; it is the west end of them. We fished there all that trip, and the result was that we got about 180 barrels, speaking in round numbers. The crew received a large share, and did much better than those who fished to the westward that season. Q. Where did you fish during the remainder of the six years 7?—A. The next year, 1836, was my second year there at the Magdalen Islands, i having done so well there the years previous. I want it to be under- stood that I was in a small vessel with a small crew. Q. Perhaps you will give the tonnage and the number of the crew ?— A. Her tonnage was 59, with the then reckoning, but now it would be called less than 40. We went direct that year to the Magdalen Islands, and we found that there had been some mackerel caught there, but none within a few days of that period; and as we had heard that mackerel were sometimes taken at Newfoundland, we bore up and went over there. The next day after our arrival we tried near Cape St. George, but though we tried all day, we never saw one, and so we returned to the Magdalen Islands, and remained there during the fishing term until we obtained a full cargo—225 barrels. Weafterward proceeded westward, and found that vessels which had been fishing about Prince Edward Island, and further up on Bradley Bank and elsewhere, had done better than that; but we were satisfied ; our voyage suited us, and we had got all we wanted. Q. What did you do the next year ?—A. The next year my brother and I bought a little vessel and fished around home, and we finally con- cluded to go to the Bay of St. Lawrence. We did so, and stopped there some six weeks. Q. When was that?—A. In 1838. We stopped only six weeks, and we got only about twenty barrels. : @. Where?—A. We were at the Magdalen Islands all the time. We had poor sails and a poor vessel, and we found it much safer about the Magdalen Islands. We always considered it safer than in the bight of Prince Edward Island. Q. And twenty barrels were all that you got that year?—A. Yes. We came home about the 2Uth of September. We went to the bay in August, and we remained there, I think, about six weeks. Q. What did you do the next year?—A. The next year, when I went to the bay, was in 1841. ‘ Q. Where were you during the intervening years?—A. In 1839 I , SS a ae AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1983 went in my own vessel, the Lue arv—whi first went to the bay—to the ea Wah the oleae which! the prospect was discouragi aks Mackerel were acaroe : s ging, so I went cod-tishi Bee nue myself. I then hauled the vessel ; on fishing, curing the fish 1840. I did not then go to the Grand PU noe Be tow mackerel aati) I had to go mackereling Pee tee ce and having no fish to cure a to fish for mackerel, either ou At : = " ae Vue Gaiterne awrence, and as people had told me stories ai Bry toe oa or ee at the Azores, I was induced to fit out aa 5 he Ripple Aak eoa ns he oe mackerel at the Mista = - No Re Pad s?—A. No. Bt eeraras iio) eens poe ae I went again to the Gulf of hat epone eee of very excellent usbesah They acc cf ere Si: Bee Ae . »y were about all I also went in the oe race ania ee rales twos. The next year off the Magdalen Islands. I was in the be ralf of St. Lawrence, fishing SeEACRAD ENG oad GF tL bay in 1841 and 1842. We staid ; eé season, but secured only 60 barre then master—that is, my brother wa i : feak bigeye SWELL eke re § not with me, and I was master of eer ae : ome with 60 barrels. This was my e i ulf of St. Lawrence up to 1842. I was there sisGe- i 1854s whet en 1 a ‘ite called the William Gray 5: tou8;, SNE ae al d'dull-sailing vessel. I thought we would be much a a the Mac cwet ae ends, ee on hte pe ate I iad done ser basse Reena! ; e of September, but was Mecpcror ai peas glint so 1 spaphided to go wer to Pelues Ealws a 1 e. id so, and the next day after my arrival I fou that gis sea aaa meee vane 1) after my arrival | found for I was that day peers Fee yee eRe ie es Q. When was this?—A. In 1851. I was cast Away Fi ,at the entrance to Malpeque Harbor. ee ee cree Mies this in the great gale, or previously ?—A. It was two weeks saps eee aie la ; a haat up my wreck, saved what I could, took sel. I was off the mouth of St. Pati Harber separ narod : arbor when the great gale came on, and we were then cast away again ; So : al cast : nisa é : y again. * 8 cast away twice at arene: This seemed to prove, to my mind, that Prince Sdwaed a ae more dangerous than the Magdalen Islands. oe ou speak of fishing at the Magdalen Islands being safer than at eee Edward Island; explain why it is that you think so.—aA. Sup teed were at the Magdalen Islands and it looks stormy. If the wind is nea ng on shore where we are, we just run round to the other side of e islands and anchor under the lee. If the wind blows up and it be comes stormy, we are there very comfortable, and night or day we hold ourselves in readiness to get under way and get to the other side again ‘in case the wind should happen to change. Thus I have been round and round the islands, time and time again. ; Q. Are the Magdalen Islands regarded by the American mackerel shermen as a safe place?—A. Yes, I think so. Q. And as safe as any in the guif?—A. 1 think so; to a person well acquainted with them, they are considered as safe as any part of the per, and I consider them, for my part, safer. I do not know that every: ody is of the same opinion, but I think this would be the case if they are thoroughly acquainted with the matter. . Q. Did you ever catch mackerel, and, if so, miles of the shore in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence, around the Magdalen Islands?—A. Yes. bow many, within three elsewhere than Pare 1984 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. How many did you so catch?—A. During my first year in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, when we got 180 barrels, we fished at the west end of the Magdalen Islands, and when we set out to go home, the wind freshened from the southward, and we struck in somewhere near St. Peter’s Sandhills, as we called the place, and while reefing the foresail, we hove the vessel to, and I threw out a few shovels full of bait. Mack- erel came up, and seemed to be very abundant, but we only caught about half a barrel. Night came on just as soon as the foresail was reefed, and hoisting it up, we hauled in the hand-lines instead of an- choring there, and went about along shore, hove to and let the vessel - drift off. Next day we got back to Pleasant Bay, Magdalen Islands. That was all we got there that voyage, and we never fished anywhere, or caught any mackerel on the Prince Edward Island side, or anywhere within the restricted limits, until 1842. During that year I was pass- ing Port Hood late in the afternoon—it was just nightfall—when I hove to and tried the school, and I do not think that I was at the time three miles offshore. I did not fish there over a day, and we obtained a few mackerel, perhaps six or seven barrels. When I came to talk with the crew, some said we were six miles offshore, and some four miles, and so on; but I will tell you what I thought about it: This was, that if a cut- ter came along he would take me, so I considered that I did not need to stay there. Soon after dark I discovered a vessel running down ap- parenty towards the Strait of Canso, and hauling up for us. I was afraid she was a cutter, and I was then very sorry that 1 had obtained any mackerel there. She happened, however, not to be a cutter, and I got away the next day. This was all the mackerel I ever caught within the three-mile line. (. Since you ceased fishing for mackerel in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, have you fished for mackerel anywhere 7—A. O, yes; some, though not a great deal. I fished some on our coast. Q. Before I make any general inquiries on that subject, I wish you to make a statement, if you have prepared such a one, as to the whole number of mackerel-fishing vessels which have gone from Province- town, where you reside, to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and their catch since 1870.—A. Going back to 1870, we had that year 41 vessels en- gaged in mackerel-fishing, not one of which went into the gulf. They all fished on our coast. The aggregate quantity of mackerel which they all packed was 37,552 barrels. In 1871, we had still 41 vessels, which still continued to fish on our coast, having done pretty well there the year before. None went to the gulf. The aggregate catch which these vessels packed amounted to 24,918 barrels. In 1872 we had 36 vessels, of which 3 went to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, leaving 33 fishing on our own coast. These 36 vessels packed out 16,303 bbls., and the 3 vessels which went to the gulf packed out 785 barrels, making an average, per vessel, of 2613 barrels. In 1873, when the Washington Treaty went into effect, as we intended going to the bay, having now no fear of the cutters, we enlarged our bay fleet, and so 6 went there that year instead of 3. Two of these 6, or one-third of them, were lost in the gale in which so many vessels were lost. The vessels lost were the schooner Helen M. Woodward, oft the Magdalen Islands—the vessel was a total loss—and the Carrie P. Rich, off North Cape, Prince Edward Island, vessel and crew total loss. The latter went to the bay early in the year, and she had shipped some mackerel home before the gale took place. She was lost with all . | she had on board. The whole catch of these six vessels that year was 845 barrels. In 1873 we had 38 vessels, and their total catch was AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 1985 15,772 barrels, including the 845 barrels mentioned. In 1874 we had 35 vessels engaged in the mackerel fishery, and they packed out 23,008 barrels. Three vessels went to the gulf, bringing home 590 barrels, which are included in the total catch of the 35 vessels, 23,098. In 1875 we had 37 vessels, which packed out 10,613 barrels. Two of them went to the gulf, and they brought home 270 barrels, which are included in the gross amount stated. In 1876 we had 32 vessels, whose total catch was 16,150 barrels. Two of them went to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, bringing home 202 barrels, which are included in the 16,150. These totals make a grand total of 144,406 barrels, of which 2,692 were caught in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in 16 voyages, during the several years I have named. The average catch of these vessels since 1872, and since the fishery clause of the Washington Treaty went into effect, was 1464 barrels per vessel ; and prior to that the average was 2614 barrels per vessel, iu the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Q. What becomes of the mackerel in the winter? Does anybody know ?—A. I can answer that very quickly as far as we know: they go away; but this does not answer the question, 1 am fully aware. The mackerel are a very curious species of fish. They come on our coast in the early part of the season, and remain there throughout the summer ; and when the water becomes chilly they go off into deeper water; but it is impossible for me or for anybody to tell where they go. In my opinion, however, they go off until they find the right temperature of water, and there I presume they remain until the following year, when they return in their annual migration. 2 . Q. When and where do they first make their appearance in the spring off the cuast of the United States ?—A. I have had _ no practical expe- rience in fishing for mackerel south of Cape Cod. My mackerel-fishing was carried on in the region of Cape Cod and in the Gulf of St. Law- rence. I know, however, from my own experience, that the farther south you are, the earlier in the year dothe mackerel make their appear: ance. They appear, for instance, earlier off Cape Cod than in the Galf of St. Lawrence; but I have never heard of any vessel going south for mackerel on our coast farther than Chincoteague Shoals, on the east coast of Virginia. mee Q. How far is this point north or south of Norfolk '—A. It isa consid. erable distance north of Norfolk. I have heard of men going down off this point, but it is the most southern point where, to my know tours: the mackerel fishery is prosecuted early in the season. Any number ’ vessels fish off Cape May early in the year, because the mackerel s¢ ate at the mouth of Delaware Bay; and afterward the fish arrive off Sandy Hook at the entrance to the port of New York, which is avother great mackerel-fishing place. They are taken off Long Island and afterware off Block Island. Mackerel fishers do not like to fish a great was from a harbor for fear of storm. Later the mackerel reach our bay north of Cape Cod, and in this manner they make their course northward. Q. About what time do they reach Provincetown 1—A. A ys rie 5 gling specimens are sometimes taken with gill-nets, not with the hook, about the 10thof May. I have known them to be caught there as earls as that or about the middle of May. Then we expect their number to - inerease before a great while, and [ have seen them there tn large quan: tities as early as the 20th of May. I have then gone out in iny vas _with a boy 14 years of age and caught with my nets over 2,000 danng “er one night, and the next night we took, I think, 3,0°" 125 F 1986 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: Q. When was that ?—A. In 1856, I think. By Mr. Foster : Q. Has there been good mackerel fishing at various points off the coast of the United States, say during the last ten years ?—A. Oh, yes. It has been twenty years, however, since I participated in the mackerel fishery. During the last ten years the mode of fishing has changed, being entirely different from that formerly pursued. The mode of catch- ing mackerel has changed more than once since I first went fishing. Q. Explain.—A. In my boyhood when I caught my first mackerel no- body thoughtofjiggingthem. Wethentook them in the same way blue- fish arecaught. My first experience in mackerel fishing took place when I was a little boy. I went out with two old men. One of them fished in the stern of the boat, and when it did not sail fast enough the other and myself—I was eight years old at the time—had to row, in order, by the more rapid motion of the boat, to induce the fish to bite. They would not bite unless the line was towed. Two great long poles were run out, one just forward in such a manner that our vessel had the ap- pearance of a long armed spider. The poles were straight and one line was fastened at one part and another line on the end of the pole, in order to have them separated. This style of fishing continued until about the time when I began to go to sea. Jigging for mackerel then commenced, bait being thrown overboard and the fish being thus attracted along- side of the vessels, and it came into general use. The first year that I fished for mackerel on this coast was in 1826, and having changed from the laborious and exposed business of cod-fishing on the Labrador coast, I took a good deal of notice of what passed, and consequently I still re- member a good deal about the voyage. We sailed from Provincetown on the 28th of June, aud went down toa point some twenty leagues north- east of Cape Cod. On the day following we saw one school of mackerel, and, getting into it, we threw out bait, and caught, well, some three or four barrels. That was the first school which we met with; and this happened on the 29th of June. Itwas the last school we saw until the 13th of September, my birth- day; this was avery largeschool. In five weeks we caught 238 barrels of mackerel, and, although it was early in the season, still they packed very well. After they were packed we went out again and secured 250 barrels where we saw the school of mackerel on the 13th of September. Q. What is the present mode of catching mackerel 7—A. Now they carry a Jarge seine, worth ¥1,000 or more, and have very large crews. Men go out from the seining-vessel in a boat, and shoot the seine—these seines are from 200 to 300 fathoms in length and from 20 to 25 fathoms in depth—around the school, and thus catch from 100 to 150 barrels at «time; this is the present mode of fishing. We have 30 mackerel- fishing vessels which left Provineetown this year, being two less than last year, and one of them went to the Gulf of St..Lawrence. All of them carry seines. Q. Do you know what success the one which came to the gulf bas had 1—A. No. I have not heard from her, though I ealled on her owners. I obtain wy statistics personally from the owners and agents of the vessels. Q. With purse-seines, of course it makes no difference whether the mackerel will take the bait or not ?—A. No. (). A good many opinions have been expressed with regard to the throwing overboard of gurry, or the offal of mackerel. Does this, in FE ats rete ty: — nn we AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1987 your opinion, injure the fishing-grounds ?—A, We now use me ; for bait, bat when I first went fishing we did not do so. Oa cee then was to grind up small mackerel for the purpose. Any quantity of these mackerel were at that time to be found along the coast, and plenty of them are there to be met with now. These fish were of no great account then, and so we ground them up for bait; and when we could not obtain any of them, we ground up for bait what you call gurry, the inwards of fish with the gills attached; wedid not like to ase large fish for the purpose. Itis my opinion that the throwing overboard of the offal which comes from mackerel, and which, in the aggregate, is com- paratively small in quantity, does no damage whatever to the fishing: grounds. This may not be the case, but | fail to discover that this prac. tice does any such damage whatever. Q. When any substance of that sort goes to the bottom of the sea, what provision of nature is there for getting rid of it?—A. I know of places in the sea where you can put down any animal matter, and it will be eaten up by marine animals, which we call sea-fleas. I have seen this happen on the Banks of Newfoundland. I was carrying menhaden for bait at the time, and, having cut off a piece, i lowered it ov a hook, and in a remarkably short space of time I hauled it up and found nothing left save the skeleton. Every particle of flesh was eaten off. Clams, however, were not touched. Q. What bait do the American fishermen almost exclusively use for mackerel ?—A. Menhaden, when they fish with hooks. The superiority of this bait over other kinds is such that when the fish can get menha- den they won’t take any other. At first mackerel fishermen were afraid of this bait. It is a very bony fish, and they then thought that if it was cut up for bait the mackerel would soon get sick of it, owing to the num- ber of the bones. There is a species of fish belonging to this family found on our coast which is exceedingly fat, we call them blue-backed herrings, and some preferred this fish for bait, as it was not so bony as the men- haden; but when the poorer mackerel got to be worth having, about everybody adopted menhaden for bait. Q. When did bait-mills begin to be used ?—A. About 1824 or 1825, I think. In 1826, when I first fished on this coast, we had bait-mills; _ previously they cut up bait with hatchets. Sometimes a double wate - euted with the hook and by jigging in the old way, was set, and two men chopped bait all night. : Q. Those who fish now with bait use these bait-mills!—A. Yes; and menhaden if they can get them. This is the cheapest bait, and it is con- sidered a good bait. Q. What has been the effect of seining for mackerel in reference to the diminishing of the quantity of fish, in your opinion !—A. I think, though I do not know that I am right, that fishing in any locality with seines has a tendency, to a large extent, to increase the diminution and to inake the fish scarcer. It disarranges them and drives them away prob- ably to some extent. I think that, on the whole, seining is in a measure injurious to the fisheries, which will be better and stand better if prose- without seining. There is a diminution in the number of mackerel in certain places, though it is not seining that has made them scarce in the gulf, ; Q. Why do ee say that it is not seining which has made them scaree %, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence ?—A. I understood that I had a right to . I never found a man who was successful with $ and people who go to communicate information that comes from others, Ta thle the Gulf of St. Lawrence to fish tell me that they cannot m Seines work there. : j shallow and the bottom too _ Q. Why ?—A. Because the water 1s too sh De ee Laie 1988 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. What is the food of mackerel, and where is it found ?—A. We find small fish in mackerel, and sometimes they do not seem to have any food in their stomachs. Onespecies of food found in mackerel is a small fish, ‘very much elongated, which is called variously the sand-eelor lantz. I have found them 20 miles off shore in Massachusetts Bay, and they are also to be found around our coast in the offings. About all our fishing folks there call them the sand-eel, but down on the coast of Labrador just such a looking animal is called the lantz, and on the Grand Bank, where they are to be met with in vast abundance, they are also called the lantz. Q. Then this lantz or sand-eel is not the exclusive property of inshore places?—A. We find the same inshore in Provincetown harbor some- times. They go down into the sand very rapidly, and by cutting along ithe sand-bars with a knife they can be made to jump out. Q. You say that they are enormously abundant on the Grand Banks ?— _A. A fish that looks like them is to be seen there, but whether it is the Jantz or sand-eel, or whether it is a distinct and different species, I would mot pretend to say. Scientific men will, perhaps, be able to settle that point. That is one kind of bait. Another kind is young herring. We find them in the mackerel, which also feed on the young of their own species, which they devour so long as they are small enough to be swal- lowed. I bave seen a mackerel with young mackerel in its stomach, and the caudal fin or tail sticking out of the large fish some little distance. Even then these mackerel would bite at the hook, for they seem to have good appetites. Everywhere I have fished there is also to be found in the mackerel what I believe to be, and what I think scientific men have told me, is a species of crustacean, belonging to the class of lobsters, -«rabs, &c.,—our fishermen sometimes call them Cayenne, but I do not pretend to know just what they are. Q. Does it go by the name of brit?—A. No. What we eall brit isa small fish, and what is called brit in other places is not a fish at all, but another sort of an animal. What we sometimes term brit is the little ee which the mackerel eat. This is the young of what we call sea- erring. This has been described by some naturalists as a distinct species of fish. Professor Peak, of New Hampshire, many years ago called it the Clapea minima, a distinct species, but I consider them to be the young of the herring. Besides these kinds of bait, the stomachs of mackerel are found filled with a very small red substance. In a load of mackerel this is sometimes the only food found in them. It seems to be a great favorite as food amongst these fish. Q. Are any of these species of food which mackerel eat to be found away off in the ocean ?—A. I have found the little crustaceans, which I mentioned, everywhere that I have fished for mackerel, in considerable abundance. Though voracious feeders, they will sometimes not bite . when they have nothing in their stomachs; it would, however, be too Jong a story to tell you about their habits as to the minor details. Q. Is the food of mackerel to be found miles and miles off shore ?—A. Yes. There are herrings which spawn in certain localities along our _ coast about this time. The same species spawned around the Magdalen Islands last spring. They spawn up here outside of Boston light and away down along the coast of Maine in October; and probably the young of this species are wore plentiful inshore than at any great distance from the land; but the young of these fish do wander away from the shore. One thing I do know in this relation is this—that the young produced from this spawn deposited this fall is found next spring eS ea ee eo Sl AWARD 0 FT HE FISHERY COMMISSION ° 1989 and all next summ am unable to er around 0 : say. : ur coast; b miles from gh Still I do not st; but as to ho as in think th: w far they Q sho th th . Where do m re, | lat they ar ey go out F make in from the eae spawn on the A O10 Prensatal Kam a : meri ee ; their ie cake ites come north erican coast 1—A. T 0. A eee ey are always peur ; and when a first ° is is q wi - 1ey > Ven, Cates ane on their first a th having their rb come in poor and erel, like some ppearance on the Ameri to the M nd destitut other speci merican co: assachus bute of fat. bei ies of fish I ast !— town those th etts inspection 1. ing only itisbee could name place hat have come i aw; and w rt threes according purpose. I have ans ave found about outh have, rckink. a Province. vouch for that: b ever fished south of the right depth of , Spawned at ar nel do not matin fish that Rae ioe Cod, and nek pide foovs ack of Cape C n with land east of N could ne Oo or Nantuck rt Massachusetts A and, winding so ste channel on end Soete great many ie . In that locality Th, ome into the rhea strike the bluefish mak S, at the time of thei ave fished with gi vern part of meee tho thers: ae ee Bie aa a pil rigor and ruins o in the macket ing considerab beks of with regard ur fishery, I erel leave, as able at it; bat to their ti watche , as that driv ; wih regard te ine af Seni ih 185, oi more pattcala Beatin : of three Siueoncnitoats feelers it seas that cia : ers to make i authorizi Haale i SR of fish, had aon favestigaioneihn the ap- Bay, where it is ctiaanapea Leaks ee to be ae to mackerel ut twenty mi he upper part of of the _ since ide ed the LA Baas dae and I Saal rime Sap ere esa rena tae sin fell oie ta eateh them I gan to catch , because the ti size, though it ‘ June we f ch the mackerel ab ime for this h gh it was not H out th 9 a ad pot vet ¢ it ne, I thi them were d of May, and by tl _ took speci J ink, the spaw depositing spa y the Ist of mens and spawn was comit y spawn, and about over. By th put them inal ig freely from tl the then hee: e 10th of June tl cohol, and fished unti em. | then ceeded they had all until the se food, i to the all deposite re ason Was OO tow. ie grounds here the expete to meet © aud they ve ver how . rult. eet with be iA school of dane eral oo days does the spawni phi not believe th: extend 7?—A. Witt awning season for a p : first begin to at on the expiration te : the school that comes erties Q. Then pestle a spawning Hust tl: from the time orlahigse ten days?—A Y the spawning period fo eft. ; y mnatter. . Yes. I had previc ace particular sel -Q. Ho previous experience with 1 any about : WwW soon regard to this fat enough to Beale they have ceased to spaw 118 ea the time they en: We catch them splint cia begin to get n, howe : spawning and af i s we can. We last of J ver, by the 10tt Goakehr ta terwards. Cape C e de ; uly we tak 1 or middle of J ape Cod mackere? _ years they b ake mackerel witl Me une. Then along: I ey become fat : 1 considerable fi g about the ness until S ‘at earlier than oth e fat on then > become eptember, and : ler years and thev i Loos 8 co , and pretty well oy ley increase in fi known the te baat begin to get poor ee October, but when the i te ast school which | I again and go off haces ater 1 has gone off the coast ecoast. | bave ‘ to be quite poor 5 1990 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. although packed as number ones, they n evertheless did not have much fat on them. Q. When are mackerel in the finest condition off the coast of the United States—say from Cape Cod down ?—A. I should say, taking one year with another—years differ a little—say from the middle of September to the middle of October, I could get as nice mackerel as could be procured at any time during the year, and then good mackerel, some years, can be obtained as early as the middle of August. Q. Is it your opinion that some of the schools of mackerel found on the coast of the United States remain there during the entire season, or do they all go north of the coast of Maine?—A. I think that the mackerel which come in south of us, and then strike into Cape Cod and Massachusetts Bay, and north of that, and some of them farther east- ward, come in from the deep water, where they have wintered, and strike on and back of George’s Bank. This is my opinion. I consider that they come from their winter quarters all along the coast, from away down as far as Chincoteague Shoals to Newfoundland. I have no idea that the mackerel which are on our coast in the region of Cape Cod and south of that, or anywhere near that, ever come down the coast here and pass Halifax. I have never thought that they did so; but then I cannot bring evidence to prove that they did. I never saw mackerel between Cape Sable and Cape Canso, though I have seen some at Louisburg, on the south shore of Cape Breton Island, when I was there once. I never saw these mackerel, but I fully believe that mackerel do come in the spring northward by Halifax, and again pass this way in the fall. But then I think that after the mackerel which pass Halifax get to Cape Sable they pass off the coast. Q. I wish you to state how late in the season you have successfully fished at the Magdalen Islands.—A. I could not remember the date exactly; but I should think that we never staid at these islands later than about the 1st of October, though it may have been the 10th of that month; but that is about the latest period. Q. Have you found mackerel good in quantity and quality at the Magdalen Islands as late as the 1st of October?—A. I think that is the case. I believe that it was October before we left these islands the first year I was there; and we caught mackerel just before we left them. Q. How young are mackerel good for anything to eat, and how long does it take them to attain maturity ?—A. Permit me to go back to the time when I put the spawn I mentioned in alcohol, when I was expect- ing @ commission to arrive from the government. _ Q. It came after a while, did it not?—A. Yes; and just when the fishing was done. We had succeeded very well, and it worked in as nice as could be. I was then investigating the mackerel spawning time, and the growth and development of their young, as far as this was pos- sible for me todo. And 25 days afterward I went out into the bay and found any quantity of schools of little mackerel, which, I should think, were about two inches long, though their length might have been a little less. However, I know that they were very small, and I put some of them in alcohol, marking the dates. Twenty-five days afterward, when I went out again, I procured a quantity of them which had grown double that size. I do not mean to imply that they were twice as long, but twice as heavy. I took some of them out and marked the date, and the first time I subsequently went to Boston I called on Professor Agassiz, as I had been with him for a considerable time, and gave him these several specimens. He said that he had never been previously able to ascertain these facts so clearly and so well, and was very much pleased AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1991 with them. I watched the growth of these young mackerel all along and I saw them grow considerably from month to month, so much ao that the same fall, in the latter part of October, I caught some of them with a very small meshed net on shore and split them. Mackerel were then very scarce and very high in price, and I sold them for as much as $6 a barrel. We do not find them to be very good food, but, in the absence of other and better mackerel, and in consequence of their very high price, some people will buy them. By Mr. Davies: Q. How long were they ?—A. I think they might have been seven inches long. By Mr. Foster: Q. What do you call them ?—A. They are sometimes called spikes, but I do not know their proper name. I consider that they were hatched in the previous spring. By Mr. Dana: ‘ Q. They were about four months old ?—A. Yes; four or five months, By Mr. Foster : Q. How old is a tinker ?—A. Two years. These were the little ones which go off with the big ones to their winter home. The first mack- erel that come in are always large, and spawners; and the last that go off the coast are also large; but these do not bite at the hook, and you do not catch them with the seine, because they do not show themselves. You would not know of their presence if you did not set nets for them ; and when they are taken in nets set auywhere along the coast, at Prov- incetown, &c., a good many people imagine that they are the remnant _of the mackerel which were there the year before, and which have been imbedded in the mud, and when they taste these fish they fancy that they taste mad. Q. The mnd taste is all due to their imaginations?—A. Yes; they are taken in nets all along the shore, and they do not bite the hook any- where. When the next school arrives there appears a mixture of mackerel of different sizes, which take the hook, and are being caught in schools now. They are carried to Boston market, where they are culled and denominated “large ones,” “ second size,” “ tinkers,” and “blinks.” Any man who is well acquainted with them will make the same culling, as there seems to be a line of demarkation drawn between the different kinds, and it stands out prominently. Admitting this to be the fact, those that come on as blinks are from the spawn of the year before, while those which are called tinkers are from the bliuks of the year previous, being then two years old, and those that are called see- ond size are from'the tinkers of the year before; when they grow up and mix with the bigger ones I do not know how they live or mach about them; thisis my opinion about these matters. You will find fish. ermen who will tell you they think that mackerel are six or seve years in getting their growth. Q. Will you give us your opinion abo ik adetball _ ones, twos, and threes ?—A. The law of Massachusetts, which tA od _ the inspection and packing of mackerel, defines them. ; The large z 6 ‘the fattest of the mackerel, provided that they are 15 inches long = the anterior portion of the head to the fork of the tail or caudal gine large enough for number ones; also, all mackere! from 15 fe “a gana inches in length, and the very largest mackerel, are number ones r about mess-mackerel, and number 1992 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the Massachusetts inspection law. In regard to mess-mackerel, there is a peculiar way of dressing them. If I have an order for mess-mackerel I take number ones and cut off their heads and the tails or caudal fins and put them into kits. They are then sent off as mess-mackerel. Thevery largest and fattest number opes which are more than 13 inches long are selected for mess-mackerel. Now, when you come to number twos you still want mackerel which are somewhat fat, and mackerel may be longer than 13 inches and still not be good enough for number ones—because these would be number twos— that is, their size will make them reckon pretty well, while the little fat on them will bring them in as twos, but these fish must be, I think, 11 inches long from the nose to the foot of the tail. If the fish are smaller than this they cannot be considered number twos. Now, when you come to number threes, if the mackerel are poor and snch as I have been telling you of as having been caught in nets at their spawning time, they are all number threes according to our inspection law. Being poor they cannot be called anything but number threes, but if they are 13 inches long, like number ones, they will pack for long threes. This law has been altered in Massachusetts several times, and at one time the big ones which were large enough for threes were branded threes south, while those which were shorter than 13 inches, and yet poor, were branded threes north, but such mackerel cannot be threes if less than 10 inches” long. If poor and 10 inches long, and fat but less than 11 inches long, they can be twos, and if poor and 10 inches long they may be threes, while if they are smaller than this they are classed as number fours. This is the Massachusetts inspection law, which I think is now in force. Q. Are the inspection laws of Maine in substance like those of Massa- chusetts ?—A. I think that they are very muchthe same. I may remark that some change may have taken place in these laws, in view of the fact that we tinker at and modify our laws every year. Q. Are mackerel which are not inspected in the United States sold to any considerable extent for consumption in the United States market ? Do the mackerel which come from the Canadian provinces, and which are branded here, not being repacked and inspected in the States, find a market in the United States ?—A. I think that most of the mackerel which comes from Nova Scotia or other British provinces is reinspected when it arrives in the States. A good many fish dealers are appointed deputy inspectors, under the general inspection act, and when this mackerel comes in they repack it. They buy the mackerel in large bar- rels, and if large and fat they take these mackerel out and make of them ees putting them into kits and placing their own brand on em. Q. Is there a well-known distinction made among fish-dealers and con- aids between what is called bay mackerel and shore mackerel ?—A. y yes. Q. When a United States vessel comes up here and catches mackerel off British waters, are these mackerel termed bay or shore mackerel !— A. They are called bay mackerel, but those caught on our coast are called shore mackerel. Q. Which, fora series of years, has commanded the highest price ?—A. Our shore mackerel has commanded a good deal the highest price for quite a number of years; but when I first went to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in 1835, and obtained good trips of mackerel, bay mackerel brought the most; I should think that there was then more than $1 a barrel differ- ence in favor of the latter. Q. And what has been the difference between the best shore and best et es eee AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. * 1993 bay mackerel during the past few years ?!—A. The bay mackerel were very large when I first went to the bay to fish, and that was their recom. mendation ; they were also in good condition physically, that is, fat ; but of late years, the bay mackerel which our vessels have caught there have been very poor. The sixteen voyages I mentioned as having been made to the Gulf of St. Lawrence from Provincetown have all been fail. ures, on account of the inferiority of the mackerel, and the small quan- tity that has been taken by these vessels. Q. I notice that the collector at Port Mulgrave, David Murray, says that most of the mackerel caught about Prince Edward Island are small, and that the best and largest mackerel are taken about the Magdalen Line i this was in 1874.—A. The catch was biggest at the Magdalen slands. Q. This corresponds with your statement '—A. Yes; I think that better mackerel are taken around the Magdalen Islands than to the westward of them. Up to the present time we always find a vast num- ber of small mackerel, tinkers and blinks, on the fishing grounds; bat when I first went to the gulf, in 1835, and during the three years when I was cod-fishing there, in 1824, 1825, and 1828, we depended wholly on mackerel for bait, and I never at that time saw a small mackerel ; they were all large, and this was afterward the case. Q. How large is mackerel spawn ?—A. They are about as large as the head of a common pin. Q. Did you ever happen to know of Canadian vessels coming into American waters to fish ?—A. Yes; I saw avessel in Provincetown Har- bor which I was told belonged to some place in the British provinces, but I did not go to her. Q. When was that ?—A. I could not tell. I dare not go as far as that. Q. I have your statement made in 1873 with which I can refresh your -memory. You then stated, ‘Inthe autumn of 1871 a Canadian schooner of some 70 tons anchored in this port several times in company with the American fleet. She is the only instance of a colonial fishing-vessel of which I have any knowledge here.”—A. That is my statement. I had for- gotten the fact of having made it. I still remember that people told me about the schooner, and I made inquiry about her. ar Q. You and Mr. Gifford, the collector, made a joint statementin 1873 t— A. I remember it, and I have no doubt but what there was a schooner there belonging to the provinces. a Q. We find that mackerel are in abundance at a given place one . = and then very scarce there the next year; I want to know bi er yon attribute such appearance and disappearance to ov erfishing or to the migratory habits of the fisi.—A. O, fish do not aimaye rele to the same place every year. Some years you may get them greg ully in a locality, while they may not come there another year. It is cog ‘sible for me to know the cause of their not coming to any place, tr sometimes attribute it to the fact that their bait may have taken a di ferent course. The mackerel come to Provincetown every year 2 att si ing time, but they do not want any bait then; and the febermen t on know just where to go to catch them, though they do predate s - these fish are during other parts of the year; bat w hen they a _ shoal, they go there for bait. 1994 * AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. THURSDAY, September 20, 1877, The Commission met. The examination of Mr. ATTWOOD was resumed. By Mr. Foster: Question. Have you been engaged in the cod fishery ?—Answer. Yes. Q. How early and how extensively was this the case?—A. My first voyage was made when I went to sea in 1820. I then proceeded to the Labrador coast. I have been there a good many years since—I might say from year to year. In 1820 and 1821 I fished on that coast; in 1822 I made a trip in the North Atlantic; in 1823 I was again on the Lab- rador coast; in 1824 I was in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and I was also there in 1825 and 1828. I suppose I might go on in this manner until 1866. Q. Have you been cod-fishing on the Newfoundland Banks ?—A. Yes; [I was during four seasons on the Grand Banks. (. When was this ?—A. I do not know as I could tell you that just now, but I think that I first went there in 1833. Q. How extensively is the cod-fishing business carried on from and in the neighborhood of Provincetown 7?—A. We have a fleet of vessels 48 in number this year from Provincetown on the Grand Banks, and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence we have 17 vessels, which numbers together will give the total number so employed coming from Provincetown this year. Q. Whereabouts in the Gulf of St. Lawrence do your cod fishermen fish ?—A. Now, I am told they go to the Magdalen Islands for the pur- pose of procuring herring on their first coming into the bay, and after- ward they go to Bank Bradley, fishing mostly there and also sometimes over toward the west shore. They go down sometimes to Bank Orphan, but they depend more particularly on Bank Bradley for their catch. Q. Is there any cod-fishing, to your knowledge, pursued by American vessels anywhere within three miles of the shore?—A. Not in the Gulf of St. Lawrence; but on the coast of Labrador, of course, all the cod are taken inshore. Q. How is that done?—A. My first voyages were made to that coast. The vessels anchor in a harbor, and when the caplin come in the cod < in after them, and boats are sent out from the vessels to catch the cod. _ Q. They are also caught there now by seining?—A. Yes; some sein- ing for cod was done when I was there, but I went in vessels which caught the fish with the hook. Q. That was north of Mount Joly?—A. North of Mount Joly we fished early in the spring, in a few harbors, to the westward of Blanc Sablon. Every year we went there we passed through the Strait of Belleisle, and by Cape Charles, going up to what we call Grosse Water, although I do not now find that name on the chart. Q. Excepting up there, do American vessels fish for cod anywhere within three miles of the shore, to your knowledge?—A. No. Q. Is fresh bait essential to the prosecution of the cod fishery, and what bait was in former years used in cod-fishing?—A. We have been extensively engaged in cod-fishing for a good many years in Province- town; I suppose that this has been the case ever since it was a settled - place. About 1819 or 1820, we had no vessels on the Grand Banks; and when I first went to sea in 1820, 1822, and 1823, my first three voy- ages were made to the Labrador coast, because we did not then have a single vessel on the Grand Bank; but afterward we began to send ves- AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1995 sels there. In 1852 we had 63 vessels Which prosecuted the cod flabery on the Grand Bank; in 1853, we had 81 vessels; in 1854,87 vessels, and in 1855, 83 vessels, and so it went along for years; but in 1866 we had the largest fleet of which I have any remembrance, for we then bad 91 vessels in all, of which 19 were fishing with trawling-lines in the Galf of St. Lawrence, and the rest were on the Grand Banks. These vessels which went cod-fishing that year carried with them 4,098 barrels of salt clams, and “brought home 93,663 quintals of fish. By Mr. Davies: Q. This relates to Provincetown?—A. Yes; to our town alone. That bait was sufficient to catch 93,663 quintals in 1866. We had 87 cod. fishing vessels ten years before. The year when I went on the Banks we carried and used clams altogether. Sometimes when vessels would get short of bait, or their clams would not prove very good, one vease! would help another; some would secure their cargoes before they bad used all their bait, and if there was any prospect of bait getting short we would catch what birds we could, and sometimes cut bait out of -the stomachs of the fish, this being a species of what we call bank clams; they are mussels of considerable size, and they made very good bait on certain grounds. By Mr. Foster: Q. You, then, had no fresh bait except that which was obtained on the Banks themselves ?—A. Nu. From year to year we carried clams for bait. Q. Is there an abundant supply of clams to be found about Massa- chusetts ?—A. Along our New England coast there are any quantity of them. A great many are found from the State of Maine down the coast ; there are a great many about Portland and Cape Cod, and on Essex County coast. Q. Then there is an ample supply of clams on the American coast !— A. Yes; provided that our banking fleet want clams for bait another year they can get just as many as they desire. Q. What other bait do the cod-fishers take from home; are any squid found on our coast?—A. Squid are very uncertain on our coast; say about Barnstable County, or north of Cape Cod, where I reside, some years they are quite plentiful. In the days of my boyhood, for a goo! many years, they were so plentiful that they ran ashore in such vast abundance that they became a perfect nuisance. It was impoasible, over so large an area of flats, to bury and take care of them, and so we had to put up with the inconvenience; but when the blue tish in 1S47 made their appearance on the coast the squid became scarcer and scarcer. In 1867 I spent the summer investigating our fisheries along the coast, and I remember very well that I did not see a single sqaid during the whole summer in or about Provincetown Harbor or Bay. About five or six years ago, however, the squid came there in great abundance, and they were as plentiful as I ever knew them to be. 1 here were vast quantities of them on the coast ; but since then they have become scarcer and scarcer until this year, when there are not many of them there. I am told that one vessel which went from our port to the Grand Banks this year obtained some ten barrels of squid on the: rest 2 side of us, near Chatham, and, putting them in ice, took them {to the Grand Banks; but the squid are scarce on our side. ‘ hehe Q. That took place on the south side of Cape ¢ od 1—A. Tes; the; catch a good many there in weirs. ‘Q. Are squid to be found on the Grand Banks '—A. Well, ubout five A 1996 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. or six years ago, about the time when squid were plentiful on our coast, they also became plentiful and vastly abundant on the Grand Banks. Almost anywhere there I was told vessels could heave to, come to an anchor, and catch as many squid as they had a mind to; for two or three years they carried a full quota of clam bait to these Banks as usual, but when they caught these fish in such a great abundance they hoisted up the clam bait which had cost them some $6 or $7 a barrel and threw it overboard. Those vessels which were light enough to bring this bait home, however, did so, and the next year they only car- ried one-half or two-thirds of their usual quota of clam bait. By Mr. Thomson : Q. When was this ?—A. I could not exactly say; I think that it was. about six years ago. Then perhaps about five years ago the vessels carried about one-half of their usual quota of bait, and finding squid plentiful again, they had either to throw their other bait away or fetch it homeagain. Theyear following they went to the Banks without clams, and then there were no squid to be found. Having no bait, for the first time, to my knowledge, vessels went for bait to Newfoundland. Since that they have carried some clams to the Grand Banks; the eighteen vessels which are there with hand-lines on the Banks, carry a full quota of bait, and do not go to Newfoundland for it, and have not done so. Those vessels that carry trawls have gone to Newfoundland for bait. By Mr. Foster: Q. How has the catch of the hand-line fishermen compared, with re- gard to profit, with the results of the voyages made by the trawlers ?— A. The catch has been better in their regard; some trawlers and some hand-liners had arrived before I came away. A larger class of vessels is used among hand-liners; the average tonnage of the hand-liners would be, I think, larger than that of the trawlers. About one-half of those that have come in are hand-liners. Q. Have you ascertained the opinion of the owners of vessels engaged in the cod-fishery upon the Grand Banks, as to the profit accruing from and the desirability of their captains going to Newfoundland for bait ? —A. Before coming away, I had an interview with the agent of every vessel that belongs to Provincetown ; and I never heard one of them say that they wanted their vessels to go in there for bait, while a great many were opposed to it. One of them informed me he had told his captains that if they went to Newfoundland after bait, they would be no more in his employ ; draughts had been drawn on him to considerable amounts, and he was wholly unwilling to allow his vessels to go there. Two of his vessels had been in at Newfoundland for bait. The most of them considered that they would discontinue the practice, owing to the cost of the bait in Newfoundland and their long detention there in procuring it. This ran away with their time, and for that reason they came short in their voyages. @. Do you know whether the halibut-fishery is exclusively a deep-sea fishery '—A. It is exclusively a deep-sea fishery. I have been engaged in it for several years along our coast, and I have also fished at Cape Sable, off Seal Island, Nova Scotia, and on the Western Banks. I was on Sable Island Bank one trip, and have been a good deal on our owncoast in this relation. This is a fishery which is prosecuted in the deep sea. When I fished off Seal Island, I was perhaps eight or nine miles off shore in 25 fathoms of water. I got two trips there, but vessels outside of me —I could just see their masts on a clear day—got three times as many fish as I did. They fished so much for halibut on all the banks, even Oe ° AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1997 including the Grand Bank, that these fish became scarce, and then the fishermen conceived the idea of going to Greenland for them ; and they did so. Within a year or two back they have been fishing for halibut away off in deep water, where previously no one thought of trying for them. I have no doubt but that they now fish for halibut in water as ‘deep as 200 fathoms. Q. Whereabouts ?—A. Anywhere in the gullies between the chain of Banks which extends from George’s to Grand Bank, on La Have and Western Banks, &c. Q. Is the cod-fishery, as pursued by the Americans, exclusively a deep- sea fishery 7—A. Well, we will call it a deep-sea fishery; this is the case—the Labrador coast excepted, where it is prosecuted close in shore— in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, on the Grand Bank, and on all the banks between that place and Cape Cod, and away out to sea in other parts. It is true that some codfish come inshore, but they do not do so to such an extent as to enable the catching of them to be made a business of. Q. Is there any haddock fishery pursued by Americans distinet from the cod-fishery ?—A. When the fishermen go for haddock they proceed to fishing grounds where they do not expect to catch many fish bat had- dock, but they always like to catch cod, which are more valuable than haddock as a general thing. Haddock in the fresh state are brought in immense quantities into the Boston market. Nobody thinks much of salting haddock. They are a very cheap fish when salted, and it would hardly pay to salt them. Q. Do they catch them anywhere within three miles of the shore, as far as you are aware?—A. They are caught up our way about Cape Cod, both inside and outside of the three-mile limit. Q. In boats or vessels ?—A. In boats. It is mostly carried on in mar- ket boats—small vessels. In 1867, as near as I could find it, about 75 vessels attended the market, and their business was almost always had dock fishing. They were almost all manned by men who were born in Ireland. A great many of them came from Galway; they had been brought up to the fisheries there, and had been accustomed to use trawls, and this was the way in which the practice of trawling with long lines was introduced on the coast of Massachusetts. They pursued the had. dock fishery, and they have done a good business at it, selling them fresh. Q. What about hake and pollock ?—A. These fish are caught to some extent along our coast. They are both very cheap fish, and our people do not make voyages to any distance forthem, -Q. Do you regard the use of trawls as diminishing, In the long run, the catch of fish ?—A. I think that their use in any given locality will decrease the supply of fish. Along our coast between Cape Cod and Cape Ann, where trawling has been prosecuted to any great extent, it has thinned the fish off pretty well. This is in the bays near my home. The fishing is thus overdone. * Q. Sometimes I suppose that the use of trawls destroys the predacious fishes and thus increases the number of small fish '—A. Yes. Q. To what extent do the Americans use the coasts of the British Dominion to cure fish and dry nets, as far as you are aware i—A. | only know of one man who made arrangements to cure fish on provin- - cial territory. He went down to the south side of Cape Breton, to St. i nd 5 vessels to Peter’s Harbor, I believe, and made arrangements to se aaa the Grand Bank, intending to have their cargoes landed tbere send them back to the Banks. emi -Q. He set up a fishing establishment on the shore !—A. les. 1998 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. his vessels were unsuccessful, and he never cured a fish there. He lost money in the venture, and having collected his traps, he came home. This is the only instance I know of, with respect to the curing of fish on Dominion territory by any person from our part of Massachusetts, inter- ested in the fisheries. Q. Do the cod-fishermen who go to the Banks or anywhere else, make a practice of landing to dry their fish on the rocks ?—A. No; our fish- ermen do not. Q. This practice has passed away ?—A. I do not know of it being done by any of our American fishermen. Q. Was that done in the earliest days of your youth ?—A. Then those. that went to Labrador when done fishing, washed their fish and dried them on the rocks, bringing them home in that state; this was the case during one voyage I made there, but in my other two voyages there, we brought our fish home green. Q. Has the mackerel-fishery, say from 1870 to the present time, been a prosperous and profitable business ?—A. It has not been so profitable as the cod-fishery, and it has declined somewhat. Two of the principal firms in Provincetown fit out over one-half of the mackerel-fishing ves- sels which go from our place; they fit out over 15, and there are 30 of them, and they are in such a position that they cannot get out of this business very well. This fishery has been very unprofitable, while our neighbors who have prosecuted the Bank-fishery have done a fair busi- ness. Q. Which has been the better during the last few years, the mackerel- fishery pursued on the coasts of the United States, or the mackerel-fish- ery prosecuted in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence ?—A. Our vessels have made only 16 voyages to the Gulf of Saint Lawrence for mackerel since 1870, and I think, I may safely say, that their voyages were failures. They made little or no money at it. During this period, almost all our mackerel-fishing was done on our own coast. Q. Which would you prefer, and deem most beneficial, to have the former duties on British fish imposed at the United States custom-houses and to be excluded from fishing within the three-mile belt on the British shore, or to have free admission to the inshore-fisheries in British waters, and to have the fish caught by Canadians enter the American markets free of duty ?—A. I think that it would be more profitable to us, owing to the way in which we are situated, and the manner in which we fish, to have duties levied on Canadian fish, and to be ourselves excluded from fishing in British waters, inside of the three-mile line. Our conduct certainly shows that we believe our own fisheries to be the best, because since 1873 we have had only thirteen vessels out of all our fleet go to the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. Still we pursued the Bank-fisheries. Our mackerel fleet has diminished in number, and this year we have only one vessel in the gulf. Two of our vessels went there last year, but they did not do anything. I do not know what the single vessel I men- tioned has done. She has not been gone a great while. Q. Are you aware of any place from which the mackerel fishery in British waters has been pursued profitably since 1873, and the going into effect of the Washington Treaty ?—A. I do not know of any place where our people could profitably prosecute the mackerel fishery in British waters. Our people have gone to what they consider the best fishing places, and I gave the result of their voyages yesterday. By Mr. Thomson : Q. How then do you account for American vessels coming into British waters at all, if they lose by their voyages here ?—A. I do so in this way: a ee AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1999 when I was fishing, I sometimes went out, expecting and hoping to do something, though in a faithless kind of way; and when I was through I would find that I had done nothing. ais Q. Did you follow that plan from year to year?—A. Itis not the same vessels which so follow it up. The vessel which went to the gulf this year, did so because the fish were scarce ; last year two vessels went to the gulf, and I was interested in oue of them. Q. You are now, of course, speaking of your own place, Provinee- town ?—A. Yes; I know that Gloucester sends out more vessels, because they own a great many more there; particularly as concerns the mack- erel-fishing business, than in Provincetown. Q. Had the Gloucester vessels failed in the same way, in their trips to the gulf?—A. [ suppose so. Iam not now engaged in this fishery. Q. You talk of the pains you took in collecting statistics before you came here, in Provincetown; and you conelude that your Provincetown weer failed to make any money mackerel fishing ’—A. Yes—in the gulf, Q. But did you not take any pains to ascertain whether your Gloa. cester brethren were in the same predicament !—A. I intended to in- quire after all the vessels, but being unwell at the time, and fully believ- ing that some one as capable as myself would be able to give the required information respecting other places, and Gloucester iu partica- lar, I did not go there; but I collected all possible local infor:nation oa the subject. Q. Do you mean to imply that since the Treaty of Washinton, the mackerel fishery has failed, and not been a money-making business, on your own coast as well as in British waters?—A. The mackerel fishery has been a failure since 1873. My object in collecting statistics with relation to the mackerel fishery was to show how many vessels were em. -ployed in it on our own coast, and how many in the Galf of St. Law. rence, from our place, back to 1870, inclusive; this covers the groand since the Washington Treaty came into force. . Q. Did the mackerel fishers make money in our waters during the Reciprocity Treaty ?—A. Well, I should not like to express an opinion on that point. I had nothing to do with it, and did not go there during the Reciprocity Treaty. : : Q. And none of your statistics will enable you to tell that !—.A. No. Q. Do Lunderstand you to say that your statistics which regard the mackerel fishing from Provincetown since 1873, imply that your people have failed to profitably prosecute the mackerel fishery [—A. Yes, in the gulf; and this fishery has not been very profitable on our coast. Our mackerel-fishing fleet has diminished in pumber; and | think that if they could get out of the business without loss, the tleet would be still less in number a year from now. — ar Q. Do you include your own mackerel fishery tn that statement 1—A. Yes. I do not know that any of our mackerel fishermen will make any money this year. There is no prospect, unless a good school comes in, _ of their making anything like fair voyages. Q. On your own coast ?—A. Yes. take Sel ee - Q. During the last four or five years, have not very few sagt veh tatea | eaught on your coast 1A. Wel, yes and daring the years before, com paratively few also. The catch, | think, be se eee 300,000 barrels ever been since. If my memory serves me TIght, : that qaentity of were then packed in the State of Massachusetts, jar _ Saas hire mackerel, nor anything near it, has never been packe _ one exception. A 2000 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. By Mr. Dana: Q. What is the exception ?—A. This occurred in 1831, when 383,559 barrels of mackerel were inspected in the State of Massachusetts. By Mr. Thomson: Q. Is packing and inspection the same thing?—A. Yes. They were chiefly the catch of our vessels. Another matter deserves remark: if mackerel imported from the British provinces fall into the hands of our inspectors, and they reinspect them, they put the American brand on them; and such fish would be included in the number of the catch. This, I think, is an important fact. : Q. I was going to ask you whether or not these fish were branded, irrespective of the nationality of the bottoms in which they were taken 7—A. Yes. I think that the fish which are now being sent from Halifax to Boston will be inspected. We have general inspectors. Q. Would not these fish, so inspected, appear in your returns as American-caught fish 7—A. I think that would be the case; they would appear in the whole product of the State. Q. Then the finest fish that would come there from British waters would be inspected and marked either number one or mess mackerel, as coming from American waters?—A. Yes; if they were fat and big enough. Q. And they would appear to be American-caught when in fact they were British-caught 7—A. I do not think that any distinction would be made when mackerel are sold in large quantities; they are sold more particularly by their quality than by their brand. Q. It is not the brand that then sells them ?—A. The brand does not determine the quality of the fish when they first change hands. Mack- erel coming from the Gulf of St. Lawrence, when 13 inches long, and fat, are put in as number ones; and the fish caught on our own coast 13 inches long or over, are similarly branded. Mackerel that run between 13 and 14 inches in length, according to the Massachusetts inspection law, are number ones; and mackerel which are from 16 to 17 inches long are also branded as number ones, this being the highest brand. But when a purchaser comes along, the heads of the barrels are taken out and the quality of the fish is examined without regard to the brand Q. But, in every case, fish that come down from British waters would appear as American-caught fish ?—A. This would be the case, I think, after they were packed. . Q. This being so, your returns would not be at all conclusive as to the quantity of the British catch which comes into your ports ?—A. I do not think that they would. Q. Boston, I think, is your great shipping center 7—A. Yes; itis a great shipping market. ; ‘ . Does not the fish trade of New England center there ?—A. Yes. Q. And itis one of the largest centers of the fish trade in the United States 7—A. Yes, Q. Is thereany larger fish-trade center anywhere ?—A. I do notknow so much about New York as Boston, but I think that the latter is the greatest fish-trade center in the United States. Q. This is one of the most important elementsof the trade of Boston ?—- P.O |r 1S an lmportant element in it. Q. What office did you hold as a commissioner under the government of Massachusetts ?—A. I was appointed a issi i i ; ; ; : commissioner to investi g@te into the question relating to the artificial propagation of fish 6 find out whether such propagation was pr ne) Oe =| AWARD OF THE FISHERY CUMMISSION. 2001 commission terminated in the course of six months, and subsequently a State commission was appointed in the same connection. This wase done, I think, in 1864. My appointment took place in 1856, Q. Some, at all events, of the duties of that commission were to fill with fish rivers which had been depleted of them !—A. That is the ob. ject of these commissioners. Q. Are they succeeding 7—A. It is said that they are. When first appointed, the chairman wanted me to go to the Merrimac and Connec- ticut Rivers in our States and collect what information I could on the subject. Ispent a month at this work and I then made my report. Q. Are they really increasing the number of the fish !—A. I have no personal knowledge as to this being the case. I do not know so much about our inland as about our sea fisheries. Q. Have your inland fisheries, in your judgment, no effect on your off-shore fisheries ?—A. Well, they have a little effect on the latter. Q. Do not bait-fishes come down from the rivers ?—A. Some do— auch as shad and alewives. They are used to some extent as bait for cod. Q. Have not the States of Maine and Massachusetts of late years en- deavored to protect, as much as possible, the shad-tishery 1—A. Yes; and their artificial propagation has been attempted. Q. Are they succeeding in this respect in the State of Massachu. setts ?—A. The commissioners report favorably, and say that they are making headway; but I have no personal knowledge regarding this matter. Q. Has this commission no power over the sea fisheries along the coast ?—A. No such power has been delegated to them to my knowledge. A law passed the legislature last year, i believe, instructing the com- mission to issue circulars to those who had pounds, weirs, traps, purse- seines, nets, and gill-nets along the coast inshore. These were required to keep a daily count of the different kinds of fish which were thus pro- cured. These circulars were issued this year, and some were sent to me at Provincetown, where I distributed them. Q. So that the object which the commission had in view was to}pre- vent the destruction of fish in these traps, pounds, purse-seines, and gill-nets, &c.?—A. So much had been said about them that the com. missioners wished to ascertain as nearly as possible the quantity of the different kinds-of fish taken from year to year in their traps, nets, Xe. Q. So much had been said, I presume, against this mode of fishing '— A. Some were against it and some were in its favor. People are not apt to talk in favor of a different mode of fishing if it makes others suc cessful. Q. But there had been a good deal of talk against this way of fish- ing ?—A. Yes. : 0. And the attention of the commission was directed to it !—A. Yes; and they desired to discover what its effect was. : Q. Have they made their report on this matter ?—A. No; not to my knowledge. , Q. Have they made any report with regard to the evil effects of purse ‘seining?—A. No. They have not investigated this question fo my _ knowledge. ; ".» Q. Have they done so with respect to traps 1—A. Yes. Q. In your judgment are these traps injurious to you ies ?—A. I think that they are. : +5 a Q. How long have they been in operation '—A. O, for quite a number - 126F i r shore fisher 2002 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. of years to some extent; I could not exactly say how long. In arough guess, I would say, for twenty-five or thirty years. Q. During this time if they are really so injurious, they have had ample opportunity for doing a great deal of damage ?—A. They were somewhat few in number at first, but their number has been increased. Q. And in other words, the evil they do has been increased ?—A. I think so. I will tell you what I think the evil is more particularly— those who are able to build weirs, do so, and the hook fishermen, per- haps, will not then do so well as has been the case with them pre- viously. Q. In your judgment, they injure the fishing ?—A. I think that they do, along the coast. Q. Has this not had the effect of making your inshore fisheries, say during the last ten years, very much worse than they were formerly ?— A. Well, our inshore fisheries are not so good as they have been in some times past; but again, when you look at the fish, you will find that they have changed their course from time to time. They may be abundant in one place one year, and the year following they may not be found there. Q. Do you wish the Commission to understand that these traps do not injure the inshore fisheries at all ?—A. I think that they do injure these fisheries. Q. Then this injurious process has been in operation for twenty-five years ?—A. Yes; to some extent. There were only a few of them at first. Q. And are your fisheries not getting worse every year, owing to this bad and destructive mode of fishing ?—A. If we admit that it is a de- structive mode of fishing, certainly, that would be the effect from year to year; but I may fish for a certain kind of fish this year, and next year I may do better in the same fishery, owing to the greater abundance of the fish. (). Do you wish the Commission to understand that a destructive mode of fishing does in reality no injury to the catch of fish?—A. I did not say so. (). Do you wish the Commission to understand that if a destructive mode of fishing is pursued this year, the chances are that there will be a superabundant supply of fish next year?—A. There is a possibility of this being the case. Q. I want to deal with facts. Is it not probable that this kind of fishing will destroy the fisheries entirely ?—A. I do not believe that it will do so entirely ; but I think that it does injure the fisheries. Q. But would it not destroy the fishery, as a fishery, and so far as a profitable fishing business is concerned?—A. O, I do not know about that; but I wish to be understood to say that, so far as pounds and aos are concerned, they certainly diminish the supply of fish along the shore. Q. And if this is done from year to year the supply will become more aud more diminished ?—A. Well, that is a fair way of stating it, pro- vided the fish came in trom year to year in the same quantities. Q. You have no guarantee that they will come in from year to year in greater quantities ’—A. But we know that this is the case sometimes. Q. But this would be out of the ordinary run of things?—A. Yes. Q. And you would not attribute it to the destruction of the fish the year previous ?’—A. No. Q. During the last four or five years has not the greater quantity of the mackerel caught on the American shore been taken from 5 to 6 miles, ee ee See PUL AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, or 10 miles, or even more than that, out from your shore '—A. I think so; I have not been fishing of late years, nor have I seen the fishermen fishing, but I have an impression that they take the mackerel with purse-seines, and that they take them off shore—10 miles off sometimes, and sometimes a great deal more. Q. Practically, your mackerel fishery within 3 miles of the shore, for a number of years back, has not been of much value !—A. Our inshore fishery has been of very little value, so far as I know. Q. You stated yesterday, if I understood you rightly, that you had taken some pains in watching the’ spawning of mackerel !—A. Yes, Q. And that 30 days after spawning you found the little fishes !—A. Yes; they were then two inches long, more or less; aud 25 days after- ward again they had doubled in size. Q. Do you think it possible that in this period the eggs would develop into young fish of the size you speak of {—A. I had uo idea that this would occur so quickly; but I found that it was the case, and then I could not help believing it. F Q. You would not undertake to say positively that these little fish came from the eggs deposited some thirty days previously [—A. I think what I saw was proof positive to that effect forme. It was satisfactory to my mind. I found the eggs coming from the adult fish on a certain date, and then I saw the young fish in schools, two inches long, more or less, thirty days afterwards; they were as thick as they could be. I then said that these fish had come from those eggs, which were de- posited there a month previous. I know that they did-not proceed from eggs swawned the year previous. Now when I came to watch these schools 25 days afterwards, I found that the fish had doubled in size, and this was another proof of the circumstance of which I speak. I was at the time interested in this matter, not only because I expected to be appointed on the commission mentioned, but also because I wanted to investigate this question ; this had been the case for years, and | pat everything possible in this relation into the hands of Professor Agassiz, desiring to do what I could in the cause of science. Q. How long ago was this ?—A. It was in 1556. ; Q. Have you ever observed such a phenomenon since !—A. No; bat this occurs every year. These fish yearly deposit their spawn there. Q. In what depth of water have you found this mackerel spawn !— A. In all the way from 15 to, I should think, 5 fathoms of water, Q. The eggs were deposited on the bottgm !—A. Yes. The fish go down in the day-time, when we see nothing of them, One would not know that they were there; but at night they come up. We suppose that these eggs are cast over the area of the bottom. — : Q. There is only one year when you recollect of having seen t “ oe culiarity ?—A. I saw enough to convince me that this was a sample © ~ other years. I had never before watched them so minutely. hich Q. Is it not a rule known to scientists, in this regard, that fish w vie ‘spawn on a particular shore, return to it from their deep-sea cgay ere A. I believe that this is a well-established fact with regard to fresh salmon, and alewives, Xc. m0. That is re inference to draw with regard vee ai plage ue practice and habits of river-fish {—A. Well, perhap jas ne on your Q. Then it would follow that the mackerel whic i ga ey Eee Shores would return there again, ané not frequent other waters '—- That would follow if that is a fact. Q. And as far as theory is worth an is rather in favor of this view 7—A. I think so. anything, the weight of opinion 2004 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Suppose a school of mackerel appeared on your shore at a partic- ular time, and that a day or two afterwards, a large school should ap- pear on the Nova Scotian shore, or in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, then these must be different schools ?—A. Yes, certainly. ~Q. Are there not among mackerel not only different schools, but also different species ’—A. What I understand by species is the same kind of fish. Q. Yes; but still different species, or varieties, if you will?—A. There are a great many species which belong to the mackerel family, but they are not mackerel. We say that fish are divided into two grand depart- ments, and then into orders, families, and genera, and lastly into species; and besides these there are varieties of fish. Q. Are there not different varieties of mackerel?—A. Yes. The mackerel found in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are different from the mack- erel on our coast. You can tell them apart. Q. Do you say that there is any difference in the mackerel caught off the American coast, and the mackerel caught, say, off Prince Edward Island or elsewhere in the Gulf of St. Lawrence ?—A. I think that these fish are of one species ; but they do not seem to be the same with regard to their size and condition. The gulf mackerel are not in as good condition as ours. I have, however, known the time when the mackerel in the Gulf of St. Lawrence would sell higher by $2 a barrel than those caught on our own coast. This was in 1835, when I went into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. When we came home our mackerel fetched the highest price, and a higher price than the mackerel caught off our own coast. Q. Why ?—A. Because they were larger, and fat. They were caught off the Magdalen Islands; but now the gulf mackerel are not as large as those which are taken on our own coast, while they are dark colored and not in so good condition physically as ours. Q. Then they are of a different variety ?—A. You may call it so. Q. When in the Gulf of St. Lawrence did you not fish off Prince Edward Island ?—A. I went there once, but while there, during a fort- night, I was cast away twice. Q. That was in 1851?—A. That was my experience with regard to fishing in the Bight of Prince Edward Island. I considered that the part between East Point and North Cape was a dangerous place for a vessel; and therefore, I kept away from there. Q. And this was the only experience you had with respect to the fish- ing off Prince Edward Islaitd?—A. One night while reefing a foresail, I fished over there and caught half a barrel or so of mackerel; we were on our way home and not full; at the time I was within three miles or one mile of the shore, but I would have caught them if the weather had been favorable. Q. But mackerel were there?—A. Yes; and the weather was bad. Q. What were the size and quality of these mackerel ?—A. They were large and of good quality. Q. Some American witnesses have sworn that Prince Edward Island mackerel were trash ?—A. I have seen good mackerel caught in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Q. Have you ever known any American fishermen to have been wrecked off Prince Edward Island since the great gale of 1851, between 1851 and 1876 IA. O, yes; the schooner Carrie P. Rich was lost near North Cape, Prince Edward Island, in 1873, in the great gale of that _ year. This was the year when the fishery clause of the Washington Treaty went into effect. Another of our vessels—we sent to the bay AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 2005 el year—was wrecked in 1873 off the Magdalen Islands, in Pleasant ay. | Q. I thought you said that the Magdalen Islands was a very safe place for vessels 7—A. I can clear that up. Pleasant Bay is a risky place to anchor in when an easterly or northeast wind is blowing. 1 made it a point when there not to do so under such circumstances. It is then a sort of trap; but if the wind is coming from any other quarter, Pleasant Bay is a good harbor. With an easterly wind, however, ves- sels are very much exposed there. I did not mean in anything I said regarding the safety of the Magdalen Islands to convey the idea that a vessel could not be cast away there. Q. Is the sea not very tempestuous around the Magdalen Islands !— A. The sea is tempestuous anywhere at sea when it blows. Q. Does it not blow harder around the Magdalen Islands than it does anywhere else ?—A. I do not know about that. I could not be at the same time in two places. Q. Are gales not more frequent around these places than elsewhere !— A. I believe that the weather in the gulf generally is much the same. I have heard it said, I will acknowledge, that it is more squally down about the east end of the Magdalen Islands, and Cape North, and St. Paul’s Island than at other places in the gulf. Q. Is it not a fact that vessels leave the Magdalen Islands as early in the season as possible?—A. I know that they go there as early as possible. Q. And do they not go away as early as possible ?—A. I suppose that the reason why some vessels leave there so quickly is that they go there for ice. Our cod-fishers go there for that purpose. Q. Do not mackerel-fishers leave these islands at an early date? Is it not a fact that they do not like to remain on this coast later than September, or the middle of September at the farthest !—A. I believe that I never staid there later than the 5th or 6th or the 10th of October. Q. Is it not a rule for vessels to leave there in the middle of Septem. ber ?—A. I left there in 1851 about the 15th of September; but if I had staid there I would have probably saved my vessel. Q. Is it not a fact that the American vessels, as a body, and the British vessels which go there to fish, get away by the middle of Sep- tember at the latest ?—A. I do not think the vessels remain there as late as they do at Margaree, on the Cape Breton shore. , Q. And along Prince Edward Island !{—A. There are Malpeque, ne cumpeque and some other harbors about this place; and consequently some think that it is a safer fishing place, owing to that fact. = Q. And yet you think that the Magdalen Islands is the safest place '— A. I cannot help saying that now. If you were to go into ' ascumpe- que harbor and stay there all me time, it would be a safe place. i arbor 7—A. Yes. rs ree A esene aia benefit tothose who fish around the island '— " A. Malpeque is not so reliable. The water of Cascumpeqae is shoal, and the entrance is not very broad; a bar is there besides, eto pe thought some danger was to be feared in going in there, althoug Ae clear weather, and with very smooth water, you can go in there satet) enough ee a Q. Is it or is it not a good harbor of refuge ‘—A. It Is 48 xxl 0 for the small class of vessels. Q. I Low many V essels may be t her a 1 Ss f arty ? ~ was never there c e Dn § a et . A. I . . b ] ‘al € th 5 wring it Uw ae 2006 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. modate 50 or 100 vessels. I do not know but that a whole fleet could lie there. Q. You would be surprised to hear a man swear that there was not room enough in it for five or ten vessels?—A. O, Lord, that won’t do. There were more than ten in it when I was there. Q. Is Souris Harbor also a good one ?—A. I did not think much of it when I was there. I have heard, however, that a breakwater has been built there since. I do not know how secure they have now made it. Q. Do you recollect that 8 American vessels were lost at the Magda- len Islands so recently as in 1874?—A. No. I was not aware of that. We had no vessels there in 1874 from Provincetown. Q. During the last 26 years—since the great American gale of 1851— has there been any American vessel lost at Prince Edward Island, the Carrie P. Rich excepted 7—A. Well, I do not think or know of any other having been lost there. Several Cape Ann vessels might, however, have been lost there and I know nothing of it. Q. But you are unaware of this having been the case ?—A. I am not. I could not place any other vessel as having been lost there. Still I do not know but what a great many were lost there during this period. I know that a great many Cape Ann vessels were lost that year. Q. What earthly reason have you for supposing that the mackerel go far from the coast at all ?—A. All I want to say positively on this sub- ject is that they do go away. When the cold weather comes on, and the water becomes so cold that they begin to grow poor, they go off to parts unknown, and we can only conjecture as to the places where they do go. One opinion is as good as another in this respect. Q. Is there anything incredible in the theory that they only go out a tew miles from the coast in deep water and stay there?—A. I have no idea that they make very long migrations. , Q. Did you not say yesterday that mackerel caught in the spring are sometimes supposed to have a muddy taste ?—A. I said that in former years we used to catch large mackerel in gill-nets very early in the season, and that at no other place except Provincetown; men whose business it was to take them could not then catch any elsewhere along the coast or with hooks, and people conceived the idea that these were the remnant of the mackerel which had visited the coast the year pre- one and which had remained during the winter imbedded in the mud. Q. Did not that look very much as if the theory I mention is true ?— A. It did; but since then we find that, by putting nets outside, we can catch them anywhere along the coast south of that as well as in Prov- incetown Harbor. Q. Have you never heard propounded the theory that mackerel go out into water deep enough to preserve them from the action of storms, and there hybernate all winter in the mud ?—A. I do not know about that. People tell me that they have seen mackerel a little north of the Gulf Stream, and we all know where that is; but I believe that they go off into deep water which is of ‘he temperature they require, and remain there ; but I do not know what they do during the winter. I only know that they go off in the fall and return in the spring. Q. They could come back poor even if they remained a few miles off shore ?—A. Certainly; but they are gone beyond our reach, and we do not know where they go for the winter. : Q. This is pure matter of conjecture, and the theory that they keep in their native waters all the year round would be just as plausible as + AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2007 your theory 7—A. We know where they are taken in the we see them go away. Q. But you do not go down, to the bottom to see this?—A. I am qui j se Si—aA. 1 am quite sure that they do so, and that the mackerel off Provincetown ae the coast of Massachusetts and along other parts of our coast. go south, and head off somewhere near Nantucket. We know, at all events, that they are gone, and we do not see them again until early in the following spring. Q. I want to obtain from you a distinct answer with reference to trawl. summer, and ing; is it not a most destructive mode of fishing ?—A. The first trawling we knew of on our coast was done by an Irish crew, who came in a little schooner from Boston, and afterward our people began to practice it one after another until about the whole fishery was so carried on. They abolished hand-line fishing and began to trawl all along our bay, it being the most expeditious mode of fishing ; owing to this practice fish began to be scarcer and scarcer around our shores. Even in Barnstable Bay, and at Provincetown, where I live, we used to catch fish during the winter; but now, owing to trawling, no fish are to be found there dating the winter, as formerly was the case. Thus trawling has injured that fisbing-ground. Q. Then I understand vou to say that this mode of fishing with trawls is injurious?—A. Yes; to the inshore fisheries. Q. And is it not injurious to the fisheries at large, and are not the mother fish, which will not bite under ordinary circumstances, thus taken ?—A. Well, I suppose that trawls do catch the mother fish—tfish with as well as fish without spawn. If the mother fish were not taken, this would increase the number of fish, but we cannot fish in any possi- ble way successfully without diminishing their number; and when we look at the fecundity of the fish and see how wonderful it is—— Q. If they were not wonderfully plenty, they would not be caught on " your coast at all. Is it not a very injurious mode of fishing, in your judgment ?—A. Trawls take up the fish from the ground more readily and more rapidly than is the case with hand-lines. Q. Do you really say that, in your judgment, trawling is a proper mode of fishing? Speaking asa practical man and as one acquainted with these fisheries, would you recommend the United States Government to permit it?—A. Well, I do not say but what it would be best to abandon trawl-fishing all round the shore, and purse-seining, and go back to the hook-and-line business again. I think that this would be the better plan, on the whole. . Q. You say that squid in former years were very plentiful on your coast ?—A. Yes; they were scarce and afterward plentiful agaio. I think that about 1872 or 1873, for two or three years, the squid were very abundant in our waters, and more plentiful than I ever knew them _to be at any previous time. In 18671 investigated into the habits aig particularly of fishes, to prepare myself for the delivery of a COUrse 0 lectures at the Lowell Institute; but during the whole of that season I could not see a single squid anywhere about Cape ¢ od. — Q. Did they ever come back again ?—A. Yes; in 1873 they were mor abundant than I ever knew them to be. oy Q. Then did they disappear ?—A. Now they have got sear seaba sie Q. Have you any idea what has driven them away i—A, No, fo not form any idea. wane: Q. Haven't you got a fish there that they call th i : rae very destructive ?—A. Yes; they came north of Cape Cor disarranged our fisheries. es ae _ Q. And they have come every year since 7?—A. Yes. which is 47 and 2008 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. You never knew them before 18472—A. Never north of Cape Cod. Q. Don’t they destroy the squid ?—A. They were very destructive to the squid. They depopulated the bay of almost all the fish there was there. Not only that, but they drove the people off away from the vil- lages and from their homes, if I may say so. I was living at Long Point, Povincetown, engaged in the mackerel fisheries, as I stated yesterday. We prosecuted that fishery and supported our families, and we lived in what was considered comfortable circumstances, according to a fisher- mawu’s idea, but in 1847 this bluefish made its appearance. I went out one night with a boy and got 1,000 mackerel, which was considered a very good night’s work. Next night when I came to haul in the nets I sup- posed I was going to get a good haul, and to my suprise and disappoint- ment I found two great, long, savage-looking bluefish and some dozen or so of mackerel. Now, the mackerel all went away, and that drove them off. We had 270 of a population on that point, and we moved away family after family. ; Q. That was the result of the destruction of the fishery. Now they have come there every year since?—A. Yes. The squid have gradually disappeared year after year. Q. Is it not your opinion—— A. I was going on to say that the squid diminished and became less and less year after year until 1867. I did not see a single specimen for the whole summer that I investigated more particularly than any other year. Q. And the squid have come back?—A. Yes; but they are now going away again. Q. Have the bluefish not driven them away again?—A. I do not know about driving them away. The bluefish eat them as quick as they can get hold of them. ‘They will probably drive them away. (J. Is it not likely that the squid would be very plentiful ?—A. They would be more so than they are if there were no bluefish; there was always squid in my boyhood. . Q. In your opinion it necessarily follows that the bluefish have driven them away ?—A. They have had a great effect upon them. Q. Haven’t you stated so in some of your lectures or in addresses in the Massachusetts legislature ?—A. Probably I did. It was true. Q. You used these words—I am now quoting from some remarks I think you made in relation to this matter in the senate chamber on the 19th April, 1870. You say this: But the great change that has taken place in our fisheries has been caused by the return of the bluefish. This species was abundant on our coast many years ago. We are informed that in a journal of the first settlement of the island of Nantucket, written by Zacheus Macy, 1792, and contained in the Massachusetts Historical Collection, he says a great pestilence attacked the Indians of that island in 1763 and 1765, and that of 358, the whole number, 222 died. In that year, he says, the bluefish disappeared, and I have no knowledge of a specimen being seen here for more than 70 years. We are informed that they are found in other localities. They are said to occur on the western coast of Africa, around the island of Madagascar, and also at Australia. If so, they are found over a wider geographical range than any other species with which I am acquainted, inhabiting the waters in both the torrid and temperate zones. After an absence of so many years they returned, as appeared in evidence before the com- mittee, about 1532, along the shores south of Cape Cod. They did not come north of the cape so as to affect our fisheries until 1847, when they appeared in vast abundance and drove away from our bay nearly all other species. I was at that time engaged in fishing for mackerel with nets. This was the last of our catch; and every year since, when our fishermen are engaged in this fishery, they appear. I have known them to appear as early as the second day of June, but usually they do not come until a few days later—from the 5th to the 15th. When they first appeared in our bay I was liv- ing at Long Point, Provincetown, in a little village containing some 270 population, engaged in the net fishery. The bluefish affected our fishery so much that the people were obliged to leave the place. Family after family moved away, until every one left, leaving that locality, which is now a desolate, barren, and sandy waste. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2009 I suppose you still indorse this?—A. That is what I said, and I indorse it word for word. Q. That exists to the present day ?—A. To some extent. The blue. fish are not so plenty of late as in former years. Q. Well, the bluefish is a fish that preys not merely upon the squid and other fish used for bait, but upon the mackerel also'—A. Yes: the mackerel, menhaden, and others. Q. Talking of menhaden, that is carried on at a very considerable distance from shore at your place ?—A. Yes. Q. How far off ?—A. I don’t know. They say it is carried on wide off shore, but how far that means I don’t know. I should think six, eight, or ten miles they might go. But this is guess-work. Q. Menhaden is an inshore fishery, is it not ?—A. They don’t come on shore, as a general thing. They used to come into Provincetown and stay all summer before the bluefish appeared. Now they drive them off, and we only have them when they are passing in and ont. Q. Then, so far as menhaden is a valuable fishery, it is really a bigh- sea fishery at present ?7—A. Well, they have gone up into the mouth of the rivers—they have always been in the habit of doing that—going up where the sea-water is impregnated with fresh water, to some extent. This year they have gone into the Merrimac, at Newburyport. They have gone up the river, and a Newburyport man asked me yesterday what was the cause of so many dying there. It became a perfect nai- sance at Salisbury Point, which is opposite Newburyport. Vessels after vessels have been there to get bait—Cape Ann vessels. The fish have died and drifted off along to Salisbury Point. Q. That is something very unusual ?—A. My impression is that they were driven up by the bluefish. I asked him what there was following them. He said there were bluefish off the coast. Besides that there ts ~,a horse-mackerel, which is a great enemy of the menhaden. They kept the menhaden in, and the fresh water killed them. Q. Your own opinion was that this was an extraordinary incursion of menhaden in consequence of their being pressed by the blaefish !—A. I say they were kept up by the bluefish and horse-mackerel, aud 80 they have been kept up in other places in the same way. I think the reason they died was because the water was fresh. Q. All I want to know is, whether the menhaden has not become a deep-sea fishery apparently, and whether the fish are not drivea away from their proper haunt by the bluefish into waters where they caunot live ?—A. It has been the case this summer, ; ; Q. Otherwise you agree that this is a deep-sea fishery !—A. That is, outside of three miles. ; 2h Q. And it has been so for some years !—A. They have been going r off. ‘ aie the fishermen allege that the purse-seine destroys the ses haden too ?—A. It is just the same as the mackerel fishery. They ose these purse-seines, and have steamers, and carry on the business to an ' enormous extent. ; Q. It is used as well for oil as for bait?—A. Yes. See Q. Have you an oil-mill?—A. No; not of that kind. Mine! _ liver-oil. Q. All the fish I think bave very much decreased along the aug : Massachusetts of late years ?—A. I do not think the fish taken, Nauata whole, are so plentiful as they used to be. I think there has beet - diminution. within eight years in almost every kind. ' = b ; > f, > ~“ - of the Q. You delivered an address, didn’t you, before the senate 0 i 2010 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Rhode Island legislature in the January session of 1872?—A. Yes, I think so. Q. You used this language, I think—I read from an “Abstract of an address by Capt. Nathaniel E. Atwood in opposition to legislation, be- fore the senate committee of Rhode Island legislature, January session, 1Si237 We find upon examination that changes take place in a series of years in the great category of fishes for which we can assign no reason. In Massachusetts Bay and along the coast of our State the kinds of fish are not the same to-day that they were in the days of our boyhood. Those that were most abundant then have suffered great dimi- nution and sometimes have totally disappeared perhaps never to return ; while other varieties have perhaps after gradually diminishing more and more for a series of years, increased again and become as abundant as before. Other species have come among us that were utterly unknown in our youthful years. (. These statements vou still indorse 7—A. [think so. Yes. Changes are constantly taking place. Q. When you fished in the Bay St. Lawrence for mackerel it was an inshore fishery, was it not ?—A. The Bay St. Lawrence? Some fished inshore, I think. We fished within three miles at Magdalen Islands— the greatest part of our fishing. (). You don’t wish us to understand that Magdalen Islands is the only place where they came within three miles?—A. No. _ Q. I suppose the habits that fish exhibit there they exhibit elsewhere as well?—A. I suppose so. I think the mackerel come inshore at Prince Edward Island and down the northern part of Cape Breton Island, and in the Strait of Canso—they pass through that in migrating off the coast—that is, part of them do. (). At Sydney is not that an inshore fishery too ?—A. I suppose they come inshore there. The other side of Scatarie, at Louisburg, I have harbored there. They had some nets, the people that belonged there, and they caught some very fine mackerel in September. QQ. Did you ever pursue the mackerel fishing at any time in your life oe American coast in boats?—A. No, not to any great extent besides netting. : Q. Did you take them within three miles ?—A. Yes, some, and some farther off. We havea bay from our town to Barnstable and Plymouth, twenty-one miles broad. If we are half way across we are ten miles off. Well, we fish very close to the shore there, and we drift anywhere and everywhere that we can catch mackerel. - Q. In those days it was an inshore fishery ?—A. It was so far as that netting was concerned, and then around in Provincetown Harbor. Q. Those that were taken with hook and line were taken within three miles in those days ?—A. We used to catch some also outside, and most of our mackerel-fishing in vessels we caught outside of three miles. Q. That is of late years?—A. O! it used to besotoo. Sometimes we ‘ would go very close inshore, or sometimes we would be half way off to Cape Ann; that is twenty-five miles, and we would fish away out to Mount Desert and Cashes Ledges. I have been for mackerel one sum- mer in a small vessel, and we took where we could not see the land even on a clear day. I did see Mount Desert, that was very high, and you could see it a good way off. Q. You are aware, of course, of the years over which the Reciprocity Treaty run ?—A. I am pretty well aware of it; I know when it termi- nated, and I think it lasted eleven years ; it terminated in 1866. I was sent as a delegate to Washington when it was abrogated. Q. To get it renewed again ?—A. No; I went there because we weré & fishing place, and they thought it their duty to send a delegate there. at AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMM ISSLON 20 . ll Q. Did the fish all ?— ermen consider tl eee views pes caren Biot euew ay ties ae rere ® Deposit: et Q. What did ae of these things. that time. Different didn’t participate y say about it in Boston ?—A the treaty was th very much in the bay fishery ee CO nob know; We pened to the fish een the BUGEL Pe aYg Gigi we tel oor cane fish coming i e British Province we had our marke sentation arty seemed to affect neko Seal Labret daldlbeeceg the Sd Gait Heat nse cane Sanat obsbiahl ai at you went as a d e duty on. many words I w | elegate for ?— Q. Didn't ene have before I come to that ey. Co rae SRO Ron No, sir. What go down to use your influence t ; I will answer ibaa down for, now that sap oa cee DNC oe tensively engag 1 . We, as fishermen in Provir te to that question, three-mile eee au ee cumsuel and had bat littl y" sae. aries bay, and we were i e had no vessels of any le to do with any ere in favor of having j 1y consequence going in th: we could possibly get. W aving just as high a tariff g in the the committee of ie . Welearned that men had be ayaa elie seer toes = : z é en and stated bef the committee of Congress that if they could have ar saprlicunse : t Lawrence they , have aright to fish inshore i provinces to be im y would be willing for ; = ported free of duty. W g for the codfish from tl certainly must feel it w of duty. Well, we as a cod-fishi acing they sent me to it was for our interest to have 2s Ol ‘o see if 1 co U veaduty onthem. The at mugs: the Treaty of sig. get any higher duty on codtish sant ae ery Silesia acu tpavihese persons engaged in the mackerel fis! ares the land ?7—A. Yes ing the right to fish in the bay within ikea a Peas es were willing, if they could do so, that the cod peo iz. th your people were engaged more i oki fish should go 0. Then ne not have any cod-fishing? nN a shee ears if th e mackerelers did wa neo sesiae Bticy cong co eo, that the eee Cus irineh atsovinees ehonet ee ree?—A. They asked me there hoe eis Pa paar nar committee—what I wanted. I said T did not se dlgre Sraee gh toys Q. T pay De the privileges accorded to mee hh : one set of fisher- Tet ems to be reasonable—A. Allo : ap that committee that we nue acy How ene merce Wea rel fi eater engaged in the Bank fisher vate Ta take Plymouth, with ae sher; take Wellfleet with just ee one wie sua Ob SNe ee and was ready to rush into the gulf and fi sy same number of vessels, a make Plemouth payor it ish within the three-mile limit _ ®. Brom ‘your standpoin : i Ing that the eeriean Dee Usberaiehan man, you were not will- pile limit at the expense of your co aaah ould go in within the three- re d-fishery —A. We did pot want to . That is the whol E e ‘a nted-a hi Ber pitas tut ncaa teaeaa da high daty on codfish to to ae nd the result was to the general consumers that they an y more for their codfish 1—A. Yes, sir ee bs ey hey would have Dugg tae rae are—swayed by selfish Rpts codfish. We . ou ? ‘a vorab i: ' a . We are not : t eae ae Esvoraule eye on the consumers '—.\. Well, has fi pt to. I don’t know of anybody but we 3 mothe most he can get. ) J ants to sell what he _Q. Were there no x -fis . ( oy eee There ane be Reo 0 of Provincetown running into _ Q. They were in a great minority, as regar u 1s the cod-fishers, at the 2012 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. time you went on the delegation?—A. In a very small minority. We were mostly cod-fishers. Q. Now, during the Reciprocity Treaty ?—A. I was going to say one word. In 1866, that was when the Reciprocity Treaty was abrogated, and that was the very year we had the biggest fleet of cod-fishing vessels that we ever had. So that our mackerel fleet was comparatively small. @. How many had you mackerel fishing in the bay?—A. I don’t know. I could tell you, probably, if I was home. Q. You knew you were going to be a witness?—A. Yes; but I did - know what you were going to ask me. Q. Why did you take pains to show that in ’66 you had ninety-one vessels in the cod fishery, and keep us in the dark as to how many mack- erellers you had 7?—A. I didn’t know but they would ask me something about the codfish, as it was an old cod-fishing town. Q. But didn’t it strike you that they might put a number of questions about the mackerel, too?—A. I supposed I should take my own local statistics from ’70 down to the present time, and let the Cape Ann folks answer questions as to their own fisheries. We didn’t have much to do with it. It is a secondary thing with us, fishing for mackerel in the bay. Q. Then, at that time it is obvious, is it not, that those who were practically engaged in the mackerel fishery—you yourself were not one of those engaged or having any personal interest—but those who were personally interested in it were willing at all hazards and were desirous of getting the liberty of fishing within three miles?—A. O, I think it was desirable to a certain portion of the mackerel fishers. Don’t you see, if the mackerel fisherman could fish inshore it was an advantage to him, and if the cod-fishermen had to pay for it that was nothing to him. We are made of such material. Q. The mackerelmen are of the opinion that it is a great advantage ?— A. I didn’t say a “great advantage.” They would like to fish inshore. Q. Didn’t they think it was a great advantage ?—A. I do not know. We didn’t have anything much to do with them. I think those that went before the Committee of Congress thought it was a great advan- tage; but I don’t know. Q. Didn’t they put it themselves that they couldn’t successfully carry on the fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the mackerel fishery, unless they had that right ?— A. I do not know what they did. Q. You were there before the committee?—A. I was. At the same time, I am here before the Commission; but when they were before the committee, I was not there. Q. Didn’t you know what they stated?—A. No. I have heard, by the way, that they said that. . Q. You have heard that they said they could not prosecute it success- fully?—A. I heard by the way it was so. Q. You heard they said that they could not prosecute it successfully? i —A. I heard that they said they would be willing to have the codfish | in free. Q. Didn’t they say they couldn’t carry on the mackerel fishery sue | e e cessfully ?—A. No, sir; not to my knowledge. Q. You did not hear that said at all?—A. No. Q. They never put that forward ?—A. Never to my knowledge. Q. You never heard anything of that kind?—A. No, sir. Q. Did they really think it was any great practical use at all ?—A. I suppose they thought it was of use. ; Q. Did they think it was much use?—A. I could not say for that - 4 Ce AWARD OF THE FISHERY CUMMISSION. 2013 One other thing I will say. It was asked of me by tha itte Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, inquired, “ Would your posals ee satiafied if they would allow you to fish where you have a mind to and havea license?” I said that would depend a great deal upon the cost of the license. “‘ Well,” he said, “fifty cents a ton.” I said I believed they would be satisfied to pay fifty cents a ton for a license to fish. On a vessel of 70 or 80 tons that would not amount to a great deal. Well he did not tell me such would be brought about, but it finally was, and our vessels went down and paid fifty cents. But that charge was in- creased in after years, and it got so big it seemed to take too much money. Q. Then they trespassed ?—A. I suppose they trespassed after that. Q. Well, these mackerel people went down to induce the legislatare to continue the Reciprocity Treaty. You didn’t want that, bat you wanted a duty on codfish ?—A. Yes; Town up tothat. I gave my rea- sons before that committee. By Mr. Whiteway: Q. I think you said you were engaged in fishing on the Labrador. How many years were you there ?—A. I was there in 1820, 1821, 1823, That was all that I was in Labrador really fishing. I went in 1849 and 750 down there. I went in ’49 and took three gentlemen with me in pur- suit of objects of natural history, and I manufactured cod-liver oil. _Q. I think you said you went down in a schooner, that the schooner went into harbor, and the small boats fished outside close to the shore? —A. Yes; during the caplin season they made something like four or five trips a day. When I first went down there I was a small boy 12 years old. I went as cook and cooked for ten men. We arrived in the harbor before the caplin. We lay in Wood Harbor, and before the cap- lin came to our place, we sent down southward along the coast and got what caplin we could before they reached us. After the caplin reached us we could catch them anywhere in the little coves and arms and es- tuaries. . Q. The caplin were then as plentiful as on the coast of Newfound. land ?—A. They were immensely plentiful. I have seen them come in as thickly as you could draw fish in a seine. Then the boats went out § with two men; our boats were not very large ; they would carry about § 500 Labrador fish. We would go out before breakfast and get a big load before breakfast-time. Those that had the best luck would get the first cut at breakfast. Then they would go again and expect to be in before dinner, then again in the afternoon, and perhaps they would go the fourth time, and so take three or four boat-loads and part of anot her. That is the way we carried on the fishing while the caplin lasted. They passed by us and went north. After the caplin deposited their spawn they became unfit to use. eee | Q. Well, that lasted about five weeks !—A. No, sir; my experience ) was, in all those years, the height of the caplin only lasted a little over | three weeks. ‘ “FR >. Q. That was during your experience of three years i—A. Yes. | Q. Beyond the years that you have mentioned here that you backs 1 ) the gulf or at the Banks you have had no practical experience !—A. have on our own coasts. On the Grand Bank I have been four voyages * Three codfish voyages at Labrador, three codfish voyages in the apy | of Saint Lawrence, and six mackerel voyages In the Gulf of Saint law: rence. That is all I have been in these waters. The rest is domestic }) fishing off the coasts of Maine and Massachusetts. 2014 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Then, I understand you made your last voyage, with the ex- ception of your own immediate locality, in 1851?—A. I have never been in the waters east of Cape Sable since that. I lost my vessel then, and we went home and built a new vessel, in which I took part and went halibut fishing in the spring, and for mackerel in the first summer. Next season we went for halibut we were all the spring and all the sum- mer on the Nantucket Shoals and George’s, and one time we came down and fished off Seal Island ground, just westward of Seal Island, and got two trips, that we carried to New York. On that occasion we saw the tower of the light-house of Seal Island, but, if 1 remember right, I could not see the light when it was lit. Then I went on our own coast ever since. Q. All I want to know is this, whether you had any practical expe- rience or knowledge in reference to the fisheries, except in your imme- diate neighborhood, since 1851; that is a simple question. In other words, have you carried on fishing yourself personally since 1851, except in the immediate neighborhood of your own residence ?—A. Well, never, except in those two trips to Seal Island. The rest I have been on the coast of Massachusetts. For ten years, from 1856 to 1866, [ had a little smack with a well in her, and my boys made a crew, and we fished around Cape Cod and my own home. I have fished and bought fish. Q. Then all the evidence you have been giving relative to the cod- fishery and the mackerel since 1851 has been simply what you have heard from others ?—A. What I have heard and known from others. @. What you have heard from others; that is the case, is it not ?— A. Well, when I relate anything Q. I certainly wish you to answer yes or no.—A. Well, we say we don’t know anything unless we see it. Is that so? Q. I should say—A. You say so. If you mean to take it in that light you understand that I don’t know that the royal mail-steamers go to England. I have never been there; but I have a désire to go, and I hope I may, for I want to see the Eastern World. But I consider I know just about as much of what I have stated about the Grand Bank fishery here as I know about the royal mail. Q. [have no doubt you believe what you have stated ?—A. I do; and I have been trying in my own humble way to do something in the inter- est of the fisheries in the lectures I have given from time to time. I have collected statistics, and got a good deal together that I consider perfectly reliable. Q. You have perfect confidence in what has been told yon?—A. When I see a vessel fit out with 200 hogsheads of salt and everything necessary to prosecute a cod-fishing voyage, and she comes home with fish instead of salt, 1 believe she has been on the Grand Banks, and I state that such a vessel went to the Grand Banks. ‘ Q. Well, in your day, when you went to the Banks, there was nothing but salt clam bait used 7—A. That is all. _ Q. Well, is salt clam bait used now, or is it frozen bait !—A. Salt bait is still used. | Q. Do you know no bait except that used by your fishermen ?—A. | They use squid when they go into Newfoundland. Q. Have you been informed of any other bait they use?—A. They | Laan the birds they can get, and Bank clams taken from the stomach | of fish. Q. Clams, birds, and squid. Is there any other bait?—A. Well, I | feel confident our fishermen don’t use any other. When I went to the } Bank the Marblehead fishermen (that was the great fishing port then), ¢ AW OF THE F ISHERY C OMM . ON 201 5 the y tol car d ©: ¥ at. ey carri : ~ e m on . Hav = is 1 quid e ithe any u No. 1 f the é you no ot , and re 18 racke or bai own Vi o:NG Y. aes qua : f That A t used for b didn’ I Q. D essels es: | and ntitie is all by y mit. t -kn o) you . ? kno brou sof fi I eV A our fi to the Bae che ne frozen eee eae ing bein pee G th to I m ” 4 Q rand eG th rerri uch ports obtai . W B lo peal seoae lag al pastes kn hy di ank uces ank gw yout and ned ick Mee didn’t = ter nesple Saale Frcs A that feger in gene w 70 e@ 5 t— a sale ab ea athe reme buy th cr atthe Just boat rant t out by mber em by yagh the Pie rile Aion ae is th y tons 2 lade cat as 3 y ‘ t ete ese herring a se eee ae siete herri ii eaies uae th a whil ‘ Behege are tak to an d hav ssels. ng were y them I tated 2250 ot sal en ou enort e menti If yo used ! am u had that ted? t, Ib mous e ntionec u had ae en not i menti I did —A elieve, 1 xten d th aske I orld f igorant of he sete oe ier gy ete Hocgh = eo he vee Rae are 5 ees a n not there aD Adee ineatown to re enti baie ‘neg and used A, were u Sa take i o take’ use it Ben s bei answeri mM @ TE e plenty of ‘ik, th hes holes Gee . vse ‘pat squid e ne where quid u Se aout e I siderabl ae Bice thane on th xt yea about pon th ut six did no ple tir ut the Ase ) t ne ere “bie we your peo ao ihe it prepare wd acco : Jan ing Bie eae Y le to iO. »Gra you we it. unt f you’ yea es ok les nd B re t someti fo ua rth ess ank Id t A etl - r th * ecou ey to salt sra hat bor increa rease or th 10 salt ams, at — ae ale g of and beliny pane 1A. oe and nd they aot = four sie eRe aoe pol ee ae a raged fou y found ined went into Xe laos Focal lo pends ig Vv w : d * ot is y a Did | aa Pandland eA ee Bometimes th bn Aye * 1sap id it e e incr ued to nd ak the tirs 1€ on fc 8 they a squid ington ‘rea ae restive go there = ae year Bd some sive ne ‘ac ‘re m yo ver Si abo en y 188. . n VWF ‘ "ery yo = a e a . squid ?—A N same A rat tl n: Q a pevenes d knew an o; I time re squi g ll d to w any ; [nev e th: quid eonsequet ao nteacaps go at t No; Teer thon We Was posted pps of think e Washin hat time? g about xt ar ash- Q. W out t the W: ne! cam as ets O Vashing In h th since fe ell, th at. ashingt e in upo aty. rer thi 5 gtop think toa tea ay ee on es Fs comet nge transpired (8) a e ty i—z peer a a eae ee haa pee! edie the N think a e ‘ ate yea y previ eel Newf ey we Q ene mo so. I ar tha evious 1, mo ound! sas er 8 re think n th is ye re 0 and ¢ . sed nae of aot han ae fi ling? er since der year th ve been A. I thi on't wat ere is an i oe ae 80 it to m < iw 2 . mense a ee aca tere? aber. A. 2016 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Did you see a paragraph in the paper that the American fleet was blocking up St. John Harbor?—A. I didn’t see it. Q. They want considerable bait ?—A. Our vessels have clams and do not want anything from Newfoundland. Q. The Grand Bank is a very short distance, I think, about 35 miles; is it not a very great convenience for them to run into Newfoundland and get this bait?—A. Well, if they didn’t have to lose too much time. I know there is an inducement where a vessel is out on the Banks, ex- posed to the buffeting of the storms, to go into a snug harbor. I know it is very comfortable. Then again they all find things on shore that they don’t carry in their vessels. They have all kinds of men in our vessels; they are not all temperate men, though some of them are very good men. Q. Do you mean to say that the captains of all your vessels are dis- honest men; that they would leave their lawful vocations and go into harbor in the way you speak of?—A. No,sir; buttheirauxiliaries. There are a good many things that influence them. Where you have a vessel out on the Banks, exposed to fogs and storms, it is a great rest to them to come in. They can come ashore and go around. Q. Well, I put the question to you straightly on your oath. Mr. DANA remarks that the last expression is uncalled for. Mr. WHITEWAY. I put the question to youstraightly. Isitnotavery great advantage for these vessels to get their bait upon the coast of Newfoundland, the Grand Banks being in such close proximity ?—A. I think these vessels, if they took the other mode, would do better on the whole than now. I think they have learned a lesson by which you will have less vessels in there in future than you have now. (. You mean that it is more advantageous for a vessel to go from the Grand Banks to the coast of the United States than to go to the coast of Newfoundland ?—A. No; by no means. I mean to say that they will carry bait with them sufficient to catch their cargo without going in anywhere. Q. You think it would be better for them to take all the bait they re- quire 7—A. Yes. Q. To make their voyage and return ?—A. Our vessels prove to have done best that have done so. . Q. That would be salted bait?—A. Salted clams. In going in they lose their time, whereas the other way they get fish all the time. Q. Then you think the salt bait is preferable ?7—A. No. Q. You think the fresh is best ?—A. I think the fresh squid is best, but they lose a great deal of time going in. Q. Notwithstanding that the fresh bait is best, you think it would be far better for them to use salt clams ?—A. I think if they would use the salt bait, and stay there and fish every day that the weather permits— and it permits most every day—it would be better. Q. But if they were fishing with fresh bait, as that is better than the Salt bait, could not they make more trips during the season? They would catch fish quicker ?—A. Our folks only go for one trip. Q. Your vessels only make one trip ?—A. Only one. Q. Have you ever heard of none that go a second time?—A. I have known them going, but make a failure. The first vessel that comes back this season is laid alongside of the wharf and not sent back. I have known them go twice and make a good fair voyage on the second trip, but I have known a good many bad voyages. : Q. Have you ever known of three trips ?—A. I have never known @ third trip to be made since I arrived at manhood. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2017 Q. Do you think it impossible that, with the facility of obtaining fresh bait on the coast of Newfoundland—do you think your bankers could not make three trips, considering the facility of getting the fresh bait, and the superiority of that to the salt bait !—A. The fresh is bet- ter than the salt, but I think they could not make three trips, or even two, with any degree of assurance. Those vessels that carried salt bait enough to get a full fare, and staid there and got a full fare, would be satisfied. I know a man, my own neighbor, who has two large vessels that ‘he fitted with hand-lines, and the other he sent with trawls, de. pending upon going to Newfoundland for fresh bait. Q. Don’t all those vessels on the Grand Bank fish with trawls !—A. No. We have forty-eight bankers engaged in that business this year. Thirty of them are engaged in trawl-fishing, and eighteen are hand-line fishing. Q. You know that of your own knowledge ?—A. I know that. Q. Do you know it of your own knowledge ?—A. I didn’t watch them to see that there were no trawls, but I am just as well satisfied. ; Q. Well, it is a novelty to me to hear that there is a single vessel car. rying on fishing on the Grand Banks unless by trawls.—A. Such is the fact that eighteen of these vessels go without trawls. This man own- ing these vessels expects two large ones to come home with full fares. He expects the trawling-vessel that has been twice to Newfoundland for bait to come home with a short fare. She was in at St. Peters on the 11th August and the 27th August, and on the 27th he wrote home that he hadn’t any squid yet, but hoped to have some. Q. Do I understand you to say that when an owner sends bis vessel to the Grand Bank, with the privilege of going to the coast of New- foundland for bait, he looks forward to her coming back with a short catch ?—A. With trawl? , Q. Well, that, as a matter of fact, when an owner sends his vessel to the Banks, with the privilege of calling in at Newfoundland for bait, he expects her to come back with a short catch !—A. No; I do not wish to be so understood. I wish to say that this man expects bis hand-line vessels to do the best. Q. Well, then, hand-line fishing is the most productive !—A. Taking _ them together as a whole, from the whole effect this year and last year, it has been the best. The hand-line has proved better than the traw! on an average. Pits Q. Well, how is it, then, that this trawling is so generally adopted if the other is more productive ?—A. If you will ask me why these 30 vee. sels are engaged for trawl-fishing, and why they do not altogether hook fish, I will tell you the reason. The vessel is owned by a certain man or a certain number of men. They ship a captain to go in her. May be he is going torun the whole voyage and hire the crew, with, at the most, one or two sharesmen or one anda half. Now, then, if he goes hand-lining, he has got to have perhaps ten dory-boats. You aor what they are, and he has got to have every man capable of ta ‘img _ charge of that boat. When he anchors his vessel these boats zo seh is this, that, and every direction. But if he goes trawling, he only ta ie "five boats. Those five boats are larger, and are capable iE oid a two men. Now, if he gets five men that are qualified as sett A ie . those boats, able to handle them, he might put cheap green hands nee _ same boats. He gets a crew at a cheaper rate, and that is an ine ment. The captain ships a cheaper crew. ~ _ Q. What is fre nidemies between the wages poids ‘ yitehes, Spb and a hand_line crew, in a vessel of fourteen hands ‘—A. ’ 2018 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. siderable difference. I don’t know what they pay the men. Perhaps some of them pay by the run. Q. I don’t want “ perhaps.”—A. Then I will say I don’t know. Be- cause I don’t know what they give their men; I never inquired. Q. Is it not extraordinary that you will state positively that the crews of those ditferent vessels—one is cheaper than the other—when you really don’t know what wages are paid ?—A. I don’t know what wages are paid, but I know if you have men qualified for dories you will pay higher wages than when you can take a number of green hands. I know they take some green hands at a cheaper rate. Q. At all events you admit that trawl-fishing is very much more pro- ductive than hook and line fishing ?—A. Well, it is productive—— Q. Is it, or is it not, more productive? Mr. DANA. Let the witness answer. Mr. WHITEWAY. Is it more productive generally than hook and line?—A. Well, I should say yes, in some localities.’ But I have been talking about our vessels going to Newfoundland. I have stated, and so I believe, that it is no advantage to go there with trawls, and I have given my reasons. I have said also that on the coast of Massachusetts, when the trawl was introduced, those who used them made more suc- cessful fishing. ' Q. Is the quantity of fish taken by means of the trawl greater—or, in other words, is the traw] more successfal in taking fish than the hook and line?—A. I think it would be, with the same time of fishing. Q. It is the same on the Banks, of course, as in Massachusetts Bay ?— A. Well,-I have stated that the schooner Emma Linwood has been there from the 11th to the 27th of August, aud we do not know how much longer she is going to be there before getting bait. Q. How do you know that 7—A. I know when he was there, on the 11th, because I have got the captain’s letter of the 11th. I have not got his letter of the 27th, in which he says he has not yet got bait, but I could have got it. @. You have taken a deep interest in this fishery question now before the Commission ?—A. Well, I do not know. Q. You went to all the owners, you say, of the vessels in Province- town who were carrying on the fishery on the Grand Banks?—A. Yes, sir. Q. To ascertain as to the advantage of going to the coast of New- foundland to obtain bait?—A. Well, | don’t know that I can say just that, because 1 knew just as much about that before going to them. I went to the owners to see whether they preferred their going in, and how they felt about all these things. @. When did you go ?—A. The date ? Q. About what date?—A. All along August. Not every day, but several times. I went in the month of August and interviewed the owners of our vessels, Q. Preparatory to coming here and giving evidence ?—A. Yes. @. You saw them all ?—A, Every one. , Q. Have you a list of the names of the vessels ?—A. I have brought a list of the names of the vessels that can be produced. Q. Have you a list of the names of the owners ?—A. No; I have not a list of the names of the owners. Q. Can you give it?—A. You take the names of the vessels and I will give you the names of the owners. Q. [ want a list of the owners of the vessels. Would you favor me with it ?—~A. I haven’t it in my possession. -* posed to the vessels going into Newfoundland for bait? AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2019 Q. Can you make it up from memory !—A. J could, Q. I should like to have the names of these owners. By Mr. Foster : \ _Q. Haven't La list of the vessels and captains !—A. You haven't a list of the captains. You have a list of the vesse!s and their tonnage. oe ade that went to Newfoundland that we kuow of up to Septen - T . ; By Mr. Whiteway : Q. I simply wanted to geta list of the vessels from Provincetown. ae are only, [ think—how many on the Banks [—A. There are forty- eight. : By Mr. Foster: Q. Those vessels are owned, some of them, in thirty-second parts !— A. In sixteenths and eighths. Q. A good many men own them ?—A. In the first place, here is an outfitter. He keeps a store. ‘ By Mr. Whiteway : : Q. Confine yourself to the simple facts. These vessels you say are owned by several parties. They vary between what nainbers of owners? —A. Many of those are owned in part by Boston owners. Q. Each of those vessels is owned by a great number of parties —A. Not all of them; some haven’t many owners. Q. Others have a great many ?7—A. Others quite a number, Q. Varying between how many? Between sixteen and thirty-two !— No; I won’t say that. They vary between balf a dozen and sixteen, and some more than sixteen. ; ; Q. Well, now, have you been toall those owners? You said you had * been to the owners of those vessels. Have you been to all those owners! —A. No. ‘Now I was careless when I made that statement. I shoald not have made that statement. I should have said the agents, There might be a hundred and fifty owners, some in Boston and some in New Orleans. If you will have the kindness to pardon me, we get aceas- tomed to speaking of the agents as the owners. : Q. You went down to the ships’ husbands !—A. Yes. Q. Give the names of the agents—A. What ship shall I give you! (It is agreed, to save time, witness shall furnish a list.) Q. Now, do I understand you to say this, that all these agents ex pressed themselves opposed to the Grand Bank fishing- vessels going to the coast of Newfoundland for bait ?—A. I do not wish to be understood to say that they all had conversation on that subject. Several of them did oppose it, and nobody, that I heard, approved of it as ageots of the vessels. They appeared to think there was no advantage. f hey mgt ~ all express themselves; several did. They talked to me and said we hb rather our vessels did not goin. . ’ Q. How many agents are there, in pene numbers ?—A, any agents as vessels. Dar ile mate i are ae 48; half of that woald be 24. That is guess-work, however. It may not be more than 23. any of » 24 agents expressed themselves as op- Q. Now, how many of these 24 age I aries ee I suppose, rightly remember the number. I cannot say. — | vd Q. You cannot answer. Can you tell approximately! I will ask you ssed himself as opposed this: Can you name one individual who expre 2020 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. to those Bank-fishing vessels going into Newfoundland ?—A. ‘ Henry Cook ; he was one. Q. How many vessels is he agent for ?—A. I think five. Q. You don’t remember the name of any other?—A. Yes, 1 do; Philip A. Waugh. Q. Who else ?—A. L. N. Payne. Q. Is he here?—A. No; his brother is. When I speak of different persons as agents, I refer to those who act as such, and who gave me information. I do not know whose name may appear: in the paper at the custom-house. Mr. Payne is one of a firm who are agents. Q. Is he here ?—A. No. Q. Do you know of any other ?—A. Francis Joseph. Q. He told you the same thing?—A. Yes. He is not here. Q. Is there any other ?—A. I don’t think of any others—I don’t think of any others I had any long conversation with. Q. No, but I mean any others who told you this?—A. Wel, I won’t State any other names. Q. You don’t remember any other names than those four out of twenty-four ?—A. I don’t know about the twenty-four. Q. Well, you say twenty-three or twenty-four ?—A. I don’t want to contine myself to twenty-three or twenty-four, and I guess at that. Q. Well, out of all the agents. Some have four or five vessels ?—A. Some. @. Those are the only ones you can remember as having so expressed themselves ?—A. I don’t remember any others that I had conversation with about that. Q. In your conversation with them, you being strongly impressed with the objection to these vessels going into the coast of Newfound- land for bait, did you not, in the first instanve, tell them that such was the case, and impress them that such was the case ?—A. I was not op- posed to their going into Newfoundland for bait at all; nota bit of it. Q. But were you strongly impressed that going into tbe coast of Newfoundland was disadvantageous to them ?—A. I thought it was, on the whole, with their mode of fishing. , (. And you were strongly of that opinion?—A. That was my opin- ion; 1 don’t wish to deny it. Q. You are looked upon in Provincetown as a very high authority in regard to fisheries 7—A. I don’t know about that. Q. You hold a high position there in connection with questions con- cerning the fisheries 7—A. I have had some experience in fishing, and I don’t know but that they give me a fair amount of respect. Q. You are looked upon as a high authority there as regards fish- eries 7—A. Well, I suppose so. (). What you state upon any point concerning the fisheries is almost conclusive in the minds of those to whom you are speaking ?—A. Fishing from an industrial and commercial point of view is one thing, and from a natural history point of view is another thing. Q. Has not your opinion great influence among the common people concerning the fisheries ?—A. I guess I should have as much influence in those matters as almost anybody. I don’t hold myself up to be more than other men. Men who own vessels and carry on fishing—I don’t own vessels and don’t carry on tishing—know more about the business commercially and practically than I do. Q. What you say as regards questions concerning the fisheries is entitled to be received as the fact ?—A. You have asked me a question that I could not answer--[ believe 1 did not answer it—as to how much a ae ee i AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2021 owners give their crews as wages. Now, there are men coming here who are owners of vessels at Provincetown, and who know how much they give the men. \ F I suppose you are not prepared to say that your opinion on any question connected with the fisheries is not looked upon in Province. town with great respect ?—A. I don’t want to give it out to the people that I know a great deal. Q. But as a fact you do?—A. If they accord that to me I feel they have paid a compliment. . Q. They do accord it to you, and you feel it a compliment !—A. If they accord it to me they exalt me. Q. You are aware, from information, that a large number of American vessels fishing on the Grand Banks do go into the coast of Newfound- land to obtain bait?—A. Yes; I believe they do. I have had no per- sonal participation in it. Q. Did it never appear to you as singular that, if it was disadvan- tageous to the conduct of the fishery for them to do so, they should do so, and go on increasing in numbers ?—A. [| know when those vessels go away they leave with the hope of finding squid on the Banks. In the event of their not finding them they necessarily go to Newfoundland for bait. It is only a few years since they began to go there. . Q. But is it not singular that they should, in such large numbers, go there, if it is disadvantageous for them to go there !—A. They won't prosecute it very long if it is so. Q. You say the number has been increasing and the greatest number was there last year; if it was disadvantageous, was it not singular that they should so go there ?—A. Looked at in that way it would be; bat I have given the reasons why they go. Q. You have given the reasons for forming your opinion !—A. I have said that they get a cheaper crew, and hope to find bait ou the Banks. Q. You have given reasons for your opinion ?—A. Yes. re. Q. But the practical effect is different from your theory or opinion, Is that the case ?—A. It would seem so in that respect. I have stated what I conscientiously believe to be the cause of their going to Newfound. land—a cheaper crew and hope of getting squid on the Banks. Q. You state that as your candid belief ?!—A. It is my candid belief that there lies the inducement. Q. You have stated that you knew of only one man who had refitted his vessels off the coast of the Dominion aud carried on the Bank fish- ery from thence. You referred toa man at St. Peters !—A. Yes, lo acted at St. Peter’s. : Q. Who made an arrangement to send five vessels to the Grand Banks? Will you name the individual 7—A. Henry Cook. Q. In what year was that ?—A. In 1874, [ think. I am not post- tive. - Q. Are you not aware of any others !—A. I know of no others who have attempted that locating to carry on the Bank fishery. ; Q. Have you heard of the American who has established a esas business at St. Mary’s, on the south coast of Newfoundland, to carry oa the Bank fishery ?—A. No; I don’t know who he is. . ale Q. There may be a great many so established without FORE Knowing of them ?—A. There may be a great number. It is a large — oy Q. Have you ever heard of three so established at Magialen Is ste 2s rm No; I don’t know who they are. I[ know this much i» dear Pag Magdalen Islands, that last year some persons went there an 2022 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. little shanty and set mackerel-nets, and are now prosecuting the net- fishing there. They went last year and did not do anything, and hav- ing the fishing-gear they went this year, but I don’t know what the result will be. I want to state this because they belong to my own town. Q. Is it not singular that they should follow an unprofitable busiaess a second year ?—A. No; notin fishing. Q. Would you do so?—A. Here is the inducement: A man goes into the fishery business, and gets apparatus to work with, which costs mouey, and he prosecutes the fishery, but makes a failure that year. He has all the gear left on which he spent hundreds of dollars, and only needs to spend a little to replace some articles, so be tries again and hopes for better luck. That is the way with fishermen. Q. Would they go three, four, five, or six years if unsuccessful ?—A. If they don’t do anything this year they may wind up. Half a dozen went Jast year and have gone again this year. What the future will be with them I don’t know. Q. Is it not a fair conclusion to arrive at, that their business was profitable last year,as they have gone again this year?—A. No. I know it was not profitable last year from tbe quantity of fish they caught and brought in; they wonld hardly pay their expenses. Q. Is it in accord with the American acuteness and keenness in busi- ness to follow up a business that is unprofitable ?—A. Men are not ac- customed to follow a business that is unprofitable, but a second year might be tried. These men went with good faith last year, and they said mackerel did not come. I will give you the reason why the mack- erel did not come. The ice remained in the gulf last year very late, hence the water was colder than it would have been under ordinary cir- cumstances. When the ice went away the mackerel did not come in, as was expected. The ice went away earlier this season, and men have done better. Q. That is another result from what you have heard ?—A. I heard all about that. I did not go there. Q. Did I understand you correctly that your people had not carried on orm lamuel profitably since 1873; is that the case ?—A. On our coasts ? Q. In the gulf?—A. They have not made any profit in fishing in the gulf for mackerel since 1873. All the fishing there has been poor. Q. Nor on your own coasts ?—A. On our own coasts it has not been a sis tepiaia. and Jucrative business. Our fleet has been gradually dimin- ishing. Q: Do you consider it strange that from the commencement of the operation of the Washington Treaty the mackerel tishery should have been unsuccessful ?—A. I don’t think the mackerel know anything about the Washington Treaty, but those who went there years before the Washington Treaty went into effect caught 261 barrels on an aver- age—those were three vessels which went there—and since we have had the right to fish inshore they have not averaged anywhere near as many. That statement I gave in on paper in my remarks yesterday. By Mr. Thomson: Q. I was speaking to you about mackerel; are you aware that in the openipg of the year, as they come on the coast they are blind ?—A. I know the fishermen have got the notion that they are blind, that they have scales over the eyes. " Q. Do you agree with that idea?—A. They compute it to be becauge they don’t bite; but [ don’t think that is the reason they don’t bite. ey Oe ee Teporting what I said they put instead of bluefish horse-mackere AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2023 Q. Did you ever examine the fish ?—A. I have examined the fish and seen a membrane partly over the eyes, but I did not think that was the reason why they did not bite. Q. I only want to know whether they are blind in that manner !—A. I don’t believe they are blind. Q. Would you undertake to swear they are not blind !—A. I would not swear so, but the evidence of what I have seen convinces me that they are not blind. If you will allow me to explain: We put nets out and drift with them in the bay. A vessel may try with hook and line and may not catch any, and therefore sas the mackerel are blind because of a membrane partially over their eyes. I have cast nets out, and by and by we have seen mackerel rise tothe top of the water, and have not got any; but after it begins to grow dark they run right into the nets. By Mr. Foster: Q. Is it a gill-net?—A. Yes. It looks to meas if at first they saw the net. By Mr. Thomson : Q. Then you swear that the film does uot blind the fish 7?—A. I don’t think it makes them blind. Q. It moves off in course of time ?—A. It moves off some. I never noticed how much. Q. If you have not examined them closely you would not pat your opinion against the opinions of those who have examined them !—A,. No. If any one has examined them closely, and I presim> some have, and been convinced that such is the fact, that the membrane goes off, I would say nothing against it. Q. In speaking of the bluefish before the senate committee of the Rhode Island legislature, at its January session in 1872, you are reported to have said: ‘In Provincetown Harbor, from a very early period until the horse-mackerel made its appearance, the fish called “ whiting” was immensely abandant. Since the horse - mackerel has appeared they have been gradually driven out, and now a specimen ts hardly ever seen. The horse-mackerel has driven out a great many kinds of fish, for it is the avowed enemy of every species it can master. These fish first appeared south of Cape Cod about the year 1832. I was thirty years old before I saw a specimen. Finally they found their way into our harbor, and completely destroyed the mackere! fishery for a time, and even now render it nearly unprofitable. Q. Did you not make that statement ?—A. I did not make any su ch statement. The fish called bluefish in 1764 disappeared from there after the Indians all died. We call it bluefish at Provincetown; It formerly had little or no marketable value. It is known by different local names in different places. It is called bDluefish in Massachusetts and ~ along Connecticut shore. It is known as horse-mackerel on the shores of Rhode Island, and the bluefish is horse-mackerel. soreses - never said horse-mackerel drove the whitiag away. If you go down to Chesapeake Bay you will find they call it tailor. ; | Q. Iam not asking you about the nature of the fish, but whether : on made use of the language reported.—A. I said bluefish drove them away, and they have reported me as saying horse mackerel, they gall bluefish horse-mackerel there; it is the same fish preets 2 Q. Then the only trouble is that the reporter bas put youdows . saying that horse-mackerel drove the whiting away, wheres : = you said it was bluefish ?—A. I said it was bluetish, and bluetish dud tt. because wisely. 2024 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. If the reporter had said that bluefish had driven the whiting away, it would have been all right?—A. It would have been all right. Q. And practically horse-mackerel is the same fish ?—A. The bluefish of our place and horse mackerel of the shores of Rhode Island is the same fish precisely. Q. You don’t like horse-mackerel to be put into your mouth instead of bluefish 7—A. When I say bluefish I mean Temnodon saltata, but they put down horse-mackerel, and I did not say that. Q. That term is not sufficiently scientific—A. I used the term blue- fish, which is our local name; at Rhode Island they call it horse-mack- erel. Q. Did this fish, whether called horse-mackerel or bluefish, or by whatever name it is known to tiaturalists,.drive of the whiting and be an enemy to all fish?—A. Yes; it not only drove the fish away, but it drove me off. Q. And you are also reported to have said on the same occasion— When I was a boy, great quantities of Spanish mackerel came into Provincetown Harbor. They afterwards began to diminish in numbers, and I have not seen a speci- men now for twenty years. They went away before the bluefish came, and before a weir, trap, pound, or anything of the kind was set in New England waters. I think the great enemy of the fish of our waters is the bluefish. They are ready to eat almost every fish that they can take. We know that they drive almost everything. A. I said all that, and I indorse it; but I want to be permitted to make an explanation, because it may be construed that I had made a misstatement. When I said Spanish mackerel I meant fully-grown mackerel, which grow two-thirds of the size of our common fully-grown mackerel, and are known to us as Spanish mackerel, but are called great-eyed chub on the coast of Connecticut. That has totally disap- peared. The Spanish mackerel now in the markets of Boston and New York is not the Spanish mackerel of the days of my boyhood. It is another fish belonging to the same family. By Mr. Foster: Q. There was in your younger days a kind of mackerel very similar to the common mackerel, which went locally by the name of Spanish mack- erel, and which looked so nearly like the common mackerel that ordi- nary fishermen could hardly tell them apart. That fish has disappeared » oe an extent that Professor Baird would give $20 for a specimen,— . Yes. Q. That is what you referred to?—A. That is the Spanish mackerel I referred to. Q. There is another Spanish mackerel which is a very choice food- fish, and which is found to some extent on the southern New England coast, but none are taken north of Cape Cod ?—A. We have caught rare specimens. A = The horse-mackerel you were speaking of is a species of tunny ?— Re eS Q. How large have you seen them ?—A. Eight feet long, and I should think weighing five or six hundred weight. Q. It is very coarse food ?—A. I eall it so; we don’t make use of it for food as a general thing. Q. Then you come to bluefish. What is generally spoken of in New England as bluefish, sometimes called horse-mackerel and referred to there (printed extract from Captain Alwood’s speech) under the name of horse-mackerel, is a fish very fine for food when fresh ?—A. It is called very good. pearance and reappearance of squid {—A. No; it cannot. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2025 Q. That disappeared for a generation, for sixty years and more, from the New England shores ?— Q. About half the time?—A. I think so, or more. Q. And the other half?—A. You understand, part of those I took from other sources. Q. Did you enter half the places from memory !—A. I could not tell exactly. Q. When you caught fish did you enter the name of the place!—A. Yes, in a book which I had with me on my vessel. Q. You generally entered the name of the place where you caught your fish 7—A. Not always. Q. Did you sometimes ?—A. Yes. Q. How often did you do so?—A. I could not tell you exactly. Q. Can you give me any idea how often !—A. Probably one-half or | more. | Q. Will you swear to one-half? Are you able to say that yoa entered } half the names of the places where you caught your fish !—A. I think | ‘I did. Q. Then how are you able to state with regard to other places which you did not enter ?—A. I got that by following my years dowa—! recol- lected. ; Q. You got them from your memory alone 1—A. Some. Q. 1 am speaking of the places not entered in your account book, and | which you got from your memory alone. Did you go and ask somebody | » else about them ?—A. No. Q. You got them from your memory alone 7A. I got them from my | ‘memory. Q. From memory alone ?—A. I think so. mes -Q. From memory alone, is that correct !—A. I think so. 2040 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. I will take the year 1855, where did you catch your fish in 1855, and where in 1856? Iam trying your memory now. I observe you are looking at the book.—A. I think I eaught them on Bradley. Q. In 1855 and 1856 ?—A. I think so. Q. Do you state that from your memory alone, or do you find it in the book ?—A. I get it from my memory alone. Q. Can you speak respecting 1856 from your memory alone ?—A. Ido not know as I could. Q. Can you do so respecting 1857, 1858, 1859, and 1860 7?—A. In 1860 ~ I was at the Magdalen Islands. Q. Can you speak concerning the other years, between 1856 and 1860, from your memory alone?—A. Well, we were some on Bradley Bank, and some at the Magdalen Islands; these islands were generally my fishing ground. ; Q. You said a moment ago that in 1860 you were at the Magdalen Islands ?—A. I think that I did say so. Q. And you state that from your memory alone ?7—A. I think so. Q. I understood you to say in direct examination that in 1860 you caught your fish on Bank Bradley—not at the Magdalen Islands; how do you account for that? Can you state from your memory alone where, during any one year, you caught your fish 7—A. Yes. Q. Give one year.—A. 1869. Q. Where did you catch them then ?—A. On Bank Orphan. Q. Can you give me any other year ?—A. Yes. Q. Which ?—A. 1845. (. Where did you then catch them ?—A. On Bank Bradley. (). Had you that fact entered in your book ?—A. In this book ? Q. Yes.--A. Yes, I think so. Q. Did you have it entered in your other book ?—A. It might have been in some of the books. Q. Do you know whether it was so entered or not? Are these the only two years you remember ?—A. No. Q. Give one, another year.—A. 1862. (. Where were you then ?—A. At the Magdalen Islands. {). In direct examination, you said that in 1862 you caught your fish all over the bay 7—A. Perhaps I am wrong respecting all over the bay, but I do not think that I gave it so. Q. If you did, then you were wrong ?—A. Yes. Q. Did you so give it in from your book ?—A. I think I gave it in that we then caught our fish at the Magdalen Islands. ‘ Q. You are giving that from the book ?—A. I gave it from the book at rst. Q. And now also, are you not ?—A. Well, no. I did not give it from the book at first, but I have looked at it since. I told you the Magda- Jen Islands, when I looked at the book. Q. And when you first made your statement on the point to Mr. Fos- ter you did not give it trom the book ; is that correct or not ?—A. Yes— no, no. Q. When you gave it to Mr. Foster, did you give it from the book ? When you made your statement to Mr. Foster in direct examination as to where you caught your fish in 1872, did you give it from the book? I have taken your statement down, that you caught them all over the bay that year; am I incorrect ?—A. I could not say for a certainty. Q. Whether you did so or not, where do you now say that you caught them !—A. In 1862, I said, we caught them at the Magdalen Islands. Q. You are positive about that ?—A. Iam not positive, but I think so. = | horn AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2041 Q. Look at the book, and see what you have there respecting 1862 !— A. In 1862, it says, we caught our fish at the Magdalen Islands. Q. Where did you get that statement—from your memory or from some other book 7—A. I told you that I could not tell just now. Per- haps I partly took it from my old books, and partly from my memory. Q. You do not know whether you took it from another book or from your memory ?—A. I think that [ took it from another book. Q. Did you say a moment ago that you did not know whether you took it from another book ?—A. I said, I am not certain aboutit. — Q. Are you certain now? Can you recollect ?—A. Ido not know that T can be positive about it. Q. How much of your fish would you estimate that you caught within three miles of the shore in British waters during the whole period in question ?—A. I do not know as I can make that out exactly to a frac- oe part, because in some trips I have not caught any within this imit. Q. Can you give me any idea as to how much you so caught ?—A,. In all my fishing? Q. Yes.—A. Well, perhaps 150 barrels. I mean in the course of all these trips. Q. Did you ever hear of the practice of lee-bowing 7—A. I have; and I have seen it. Q. Have you ever seen it done in the Bay of St. Lawrence?—A. Yes; but very little. Q. But you have seen it ?—A. I have seen some of it there. Q. Where ?—A. When fishing off Entry Island, at the Magdalen Islands. Q. Have you seen it anywhere else 7—A. Yes; between Amherst Island, of the Magdalen Islands, and East Point, Prince Edward - Island. Q. Have you seen it anywhere else save at the Magdalen Islands t— A. I said I had seen lee-bowing off Entry Island and between Amherst Island and East Point. Q. Where is Entry Island ?—A. On the south side of the Magdalen Islands. Q. Have you ever seen it anywhere else besides at the Magdalen Islands ?—A. Yes; between Amherst Island and East Point, Prince Edward Island, when fishing just in the lay of the Magdalen Islanis. Q. Out in the open sea ?—A. Yes. Q. I do not refer to that; I never heard of it myself; I allude to the lee-bowing of boats; did you ever hear of that being done inshore ‘—A. No; I never heard of the lee-bowing of boats. Q. Never in your life ?—A. I do not know as I ever dich Q. The lee-bowing of which you have heard was the lee bowing of ‘vessels ?7—A. Yes; of the lee-bowing of boats I know nothing. Q. Do mackerel fishing-vessels usually carry apparatus for catching codfish ?—A. No; with the exception of a line or two to catch fresh ones. I speak now of my vessels and where I sailed from. : Q. And you have been in about fifty-two vessels !—A. Yes; I only speak of those. ifish : Q. Do not mackerel fishing-vessels usually carry home some codfish 5 5 . , > » i _ . does not the master of every mackerel fishing-vessel carry home some ! A. Not every one; those I have been in have never carried home codfish. Q. Does not almost every such vessel do so?—A. I could not say. Q. Does the master of every mackerel fishing-vessel carry herring-nets on board ?—No. A. I do not know of any that do so. 2042 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Do cod fishing-vessels do so ?—A. I do not know anything about the cod-fishery ; I never went cod-fishing. Q. You have no knowledge of the cod-fishing business at all ?—A. No. Q. You have spent your life in the mackerel-fishing business 7—A. No; I have been in the marine service and in different businesses; I have been coasting. Q. You have been fishing a great many years ?—A. Yes. Q. From 1852 up to the present time; first you fished, and then you owned vessels ?—A. Yes; I was fishing, and I have owned vessels. Q. From 1852 up to the present time, you have been engaged in the mackerel fishery, either fishing yourself or owning vessels ?—A. Yes. Q. And youhave no knowledgeof cod-fishing?—A. Cod-fishing I know nothing about. Q. Have not very great catches of mackerel been made in the Bay of St. Lawrence ?—A. Some few years they have. Q. And during some years, the mackerel fishery has been bad ?—A. Yes. Q. And during the whole period in question, have there not been taken enormous catches of mackerel ?—A. I do not know that fishermen have done any better in the Gulf of St. Lawrence than on our own coast. Vessels that have followed up our fishery have done so right along. Q. Has not the mackerel fishery on your own coast failed to a great extent ?—A. It was very good last season. Q. I will just read a passage from Professor Baird’s report, and see if it is correct in your opinion. Do you know Professor Baird ?—A. I have no acquaintance with him, but I have seen him here. Q. You are acquainted with him by reputation ?—A. Yes. Q. The passage is as follows: Bearing in mind that the present report has more particular reference to the south side of New England, and especially to that portion of it extending from Point Judith on the west to Monomoy Point on the east, including Narragansett Bay, Vineyard Sound, Buzzard’s Bay, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket, I have no hesitation in stat- ing that the fact of an alarming decrease of the shore fisheries has been thoroughly established by my own investigations, as well as by evidence of those whose testimony was taken upon the subject. : Is that correct in your view ?—A. I should think so. Q. Here is another passage: We may also refer to the testimony of the Rhode Island committee, on page 104, in reference to the increase of the cost of living on the coast of that State, in consequence of the diminution of the fisheries. “One very intelligent man thought it made $100 difference in the cost of living on the shore and in the small towns on the bay, and, from his own experience, he had no doubt that there are one thousand persons livin near the shore to whom it made this difference, amounting to a loss to them of $100, each “ba that of the high price of fish in Providence market not being taken into account.’ Is that correct? The report continues: _Many persons are in the habit of considering that the fish supply of the sea is prac? tically inexhaustible; and, therefore, that a scarcity of any particular location is to be referred rather to the movements of the fish, in changing their feeding-grounds capri- ciously, or else in following the migration, from place to place, of the food upon which they live. This may be true to a certain extent, as we shall hereafcer show, but it is difficult to point out any locality where, near the shores in the New England States, at least, under the most favorable view of the case, the fish are quite as plentifal as they were some years ago; and still more so where, by their overlapping the original colonists of the sea-bottom, they tend to render the abundance appreciably greater than usual. And, furthermore, if the scarcity of the fish be due to their going off into the deep waters of the ocean, it is, of course, of very little moment to the fisherman that they are as abundant in the sea as ever, if they do not come upon such grounds as will permit their being taken by his lines or nets. - a Se ee AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2043 Is that correct ?—A. The fish are going away off shore ; but they cau be caught off shore as well as inshore. Q. He says: And furthermore, if the scarcity of fish be due to their going off into the deep waters of the ocean, it is, of course, of very little moment to the fisherman that they are as abundant in the sea as ever, if they do not come on such grounds as will permit their being taken by his lines or nets. Is that correct?—A. I think so. You can cateh fish off shore as well as inshore. : Q. Did you say that fish that cannot be caught are of no value to any one ?—A. | take it that fish which cannot be caught are of nd value to any one. Q. Is the report I have read substantially correct ?—A. I do not know as I understand it particularly. Q. The report also states: At the present time this resource is cut off to a great degree from this class of people in many places on the Massachusetts coast, where, as on Nantucket, Martha's Vioe- yard, and elsewhere, the deprivation from the loss of profits by fishing is being most seriously felt. The result, of course, of the inability to make a living in this manoer is to drive the line-fishermen to other occupations, and especially to induces them to leave the State for other fields of industry. Is that correct ?—A. I do not understand this driving off of the tish. If anything drives the fish off shore, it is the weirs and pounds, aud not the fishermen. Q. You think that something does drive them off?—A. I think that the weirs and pounds drive the fish off shore. Q. Has this decrease in shore fisheries driven fishermen to other oc- cupations, and do they leave the State to seek other fields of industry !— A. I think so. : Q. Is it a fact that they do leave the State for other fields of indus- try 7?—A. Very few do so. Q. Is it the fact or not?—A. I think not. : Q. You think that they do not leave the State ?—A. Yes. Q. The report further states: In consequence the population is reduced, and the community feels this drain of some of its best material in many ways. Furthermore, property on Jona ty in value, farms and houses are abandoned, the average of taxation is increased, and many other evils, readily suggesting themselves, are developed. _ ; Again, an important stimulus to the building of ships and boats is lost in the de- creasing demand for vessels of various grades; and, what is more important to the country at large, the training of skilled seamen with which to supply our national and our merchant marine generally is stopped, or more or less interfered with. It is well known that the line-fisheries, in their different manifestations, have always been looked upon as of the utmost importance in a politico-economical "ean of view, for which reason bounties were paid by the general government; and, although these _ have been lately withheld, it may be necessary to restore them in order to regain oar lost ground. Do you approve, generally, of these remarks which I have read —_ Professor Baird’s report to Congress ?—A. Well, ny opinion about fish is, that there are as many fish in the sea as ever there were. There are 7 if coast. years when they are very plentiful on our . oe Q. Have your fisheries so decreased as to produce any of the ue mentioned in the extracts which I have read to you, or not !—A. Fer- haps this is so in some cases. Our fishing was uever bette on our coast last season at our place. : eee Oe eee Q. But that was an exceptional case ?—A. Well, it was the case the year before. r thau it was 2044 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, Q. Were those two years exceptional ?—A. No, because we have had good fishing generally. Q. Is the mackerel fishery a fishery that may suddenly revive ?—A., Yes. There are years when the fish are scarce, and then years when they will be very plentiful. @. You are perfectly certain of that in your own mind ?—A. That is so,.so far as my experience goes. Q. It is a fishery that may suddenly revive ?—A. Yes. Q. I will read a few extracts from the Fisherman’s Memorial and Record Book, published at Gloucester by Proctor Brothers.—A. I know the firm. Q. You are thoroughly acquainted with this book; it is used very much by mackerel fishermen ?—A. I have read it. Q. It is pretty reliable, is it not ?—A. Yes. Q. It is considered reliable in its statistics ?—A. I know nothing to the contrary. I suppose so. Q. It states: The largest stock made in the Bay of St. Lawrence mackerel fishery was that of the schooner Col. Ellsworth, Capt. George Robinson, in 1865. She was absent about five months, her net stock amounting to $13,728. The high-liner’s share was $558 ; cook’s share, $582. Schooner Gen. Grant, Captain Coes, in 1864 stocked, in two trips to the Bay of St. Lawrence, $11,254.94 clear of all expenses. The high-liners made $502.24; cook’s share, $638.17. Schooner Norwester, Capt. Daniel Hillier, the same year stocked $9,721.74, net in one bay trip; the high-liners making $308.60, and the cook $486.61. Schooner General Sherman, Capt. George W. Miner, in 1864, in a three-months’ trip to the bay, packed 612 barrels of mackerel, her net stock amounting to.$6,696. High- liner’s share, $575.06. Schooner Kit Carson, Capt. Horace Merry, in 1865 brought in 591 barrels of mackerel, having been absent about ten ost Her net stock amounted to $6,542. High-liner’s share, $260. : You did as well as that in one case ?—A. Yes—very nearly. Q. Did you do better ?—A. What was the high-liner’s share ? Q. $260 ?—A. I have done as well as that. . (). Have you not done better ?—A. We sail our vessels a little differ- ent from the way in which they do. Q. The take in question amounted to 591 barrels in ten weeks ?—A. I know of vessels that have made a good deal larger stock on our coast. Q. Than those I mentioned last?—A. Those were for Gloucester ap- parently. Q. Yes. Have you known vessels do better than the last did I have pane) ?—A. I say I have known vessels fishing on our coast that have one so. Q. And better than the last one I read, or better than the first one?— A. Better than the best one. Fi ee Will you name the vessel ?—A. She was the J. H. Orton, of Well- eet. Q. What did she do?—A. I think she stocked to the value of $16,000 odd. It was somewhere in that neighborhood, but I am not certain as to the exact amount. Q. How long was she fishing ?—A. From May to the last of October. Q. Who owned her?—A. Darius Newcombe, the captain, and others. Q. This must be mentioned in this book ?—A. No. She is owned at Wellfleet. By Mr. Foster: Q. Whereabouts is Wellfleet ?—A. It is between the east end of Cape Cod and Truro, which adjoins Provincetown. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2045 By Mr. Weatherbe : Q. You Say that the mackerel fishery is one which is very likely sad denly to revive?—A. Yes. So, You have heard of many large catches like this in the bay !—A. es. Q. You have mentioned several years in which your vessels have not done very well; what years were these ?—A. This was the case during some 3, 4, or 5 years. Q. On other occasions previously, the catch in the mackerel fishery was diminished ?—A. Yes. There have been ups and downs in it. ‘ -Q. How long did this last?—A. Not more than a year or so. Are you alluding to the fisheries on our coast ? . Q. No; but to the fisheries ix the bay ?—A. The best I ever did in the bay was during 2 or 3 years. Q. How long was the catch from year to year diminished on any pre- vious occasion 7—A. Take the period from 1865 down. Q. That year I have given and other years since ?—A. I am speaking from my own observation. Q. 1 was asking you to state generally your opinion on the subject ; are you only speaking of your own vessels in this relation !—A. 1 was speaking of my own vessels; yes. Q. Your evidence generally relates to your own vessels !—A. Yes. Q. You are confining your evidence to your own vessels !—A. I am doing so, chiefly. I do not know anything more than what I have beard about other vessels which I have spoken with. 1 have given evidence chiefly regarding our own vessels. By Mr. Foster : Q. You never saw, I suppose, this report of Professor Baird’s, from which extracts were read to you ?—A. No. Q. You were not aware that it was a report with reference to the shore fisheries? Professor Baird says: ‘“ Other species more capricious in their appearance, and belonging essentially to the division of outside fishes, were the mackerel, the bluefish, and so forth..—A. I know that this season there were—on the coast—so they tell me. Q. What do Cape Cod mackerelmen mean by the west shore with re- gard to mackerel-fishing ?—A. The west shore extends from Point Es- cuminac down to about Miramichi Bay. Q. I understood you to say that you fished no farther than from 10 to 15 miles above Gaspé and off Bonaventure 7—A. Yes. _Q. And north of the Magdalen Islands ?—A. Yes. Q. When you were asked in reference to passing from Bank Bradley to the Magdalen Islands, you spoke of fishing in the gt ly3 explain what you meant by that term.—A. I referred to the gully formed in the - deeper water between Bradley and the Magdalen Islands. Q. This was when you were going right across from Bank Bradley to -the Magdalen Islands ?—A. Yes. Q. When you are going in a direct course do you fish from time to time between those two places 7?—A. Yes. Q. When you were passing from Bank Bradley to the Magdalen Is- lands did you fish on the way ?—A. Yes; often. : Q. At the end of a mackerel voyage your duty as captain was to make up the account of what had been caught ?—A. Yes. Q. And the account of what each of the crew had ¢ , this at Wellfleet? Did you make a separate account +— aught; did you do A. We do not 2046 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. make it separate. The captain will perhaps have two or three shares and the rest will be on half-lines. Q. What do you mean by that—did each man get one-half of his own catch ?—A. When his fish are sold and we have paid for the inspection we give each man one-half. Q. One-half of his own fish ?—A. Yes; and we take the rest. q. And a report is made respecting the fish which each sharesman has caught ?—A. Yes. Q. And is it your duty as captain to see that a just division of the fish is made at the end of the voyage?—A. In our place the captain - settles the voyage with his crew. Q. And then you have to make out an account for the whole voyage, showing how much has been caught in all, how much each man has caught, and how much each man’s share is?—A. Yes. Q. And these old accounts you have, to some extent, preserved up to this time ?—A. Yes. Q. Where did you find them ?—A. In my attic. Q. In preparation for your coming here you went up to the attic and examined your accounts, and some, you say, were account-books ?— A. Yes. Q. To what extent had you put down memoranda as to the places where the principal catch was made in those account-books?—A. I think one-half or more. Q. Then, from those copies of accounts rendered, and from those old account-books, you were able to make up and write down in your memo- randum-book a list of the voyages you have made and the catch of each year 7?—A. Yes, . Q. And with the help of those old. account-books and of accounts rendered, you have refreshed your memory and given as good an ac- count as you could of the particular localities where you fished ?— A. Yes. Q. Have you looked at this schedule of fishing licenses issued to United States fishermen ?—A. Yes. Q. There is no doubt but what you paid for those two licenses, is there ?—A. Why, no. Mr. Foster. I call the attention of our brethren on the other side to this matter. Here are the two licenses, and in our inspection of the list we have not been able to discover the name of the captain or the fact of the issue of these licenses. By Mr. Davies: Q. What years do you speak of ?—A. 1866 and 1868. By Mr. Foster: Q. You bought them in the gulf?—A. I bought them at Port Mal- grave. Vincent Wallace was then collector of customs there. 3y Mr. Weatherbe: _Q. When you were in the Ruth S. Atwood you did not take out a license ?—A. No. Q. You were in this vessel and you had no license in 1867?—A. Yes; 1866 and 1868 were the years when I had licenses. By Sir Alexander Galt: Q. I would like to ask you if you ever took advantage of these licenses to tish inshore? Where did you fish when you had these licenses ?—A. I got the licenses to fish inshore, but I could not find any fish there. 4 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2047 Q. Where did you try to fish inshore? Did you make any use ot them ?—A. I tried there, but I could not find any tish inshore, and so I went off. \ Q. Where was this?—A. About Prince Edward Island. Q. Both years ?—A. Yes. By Mr. Weatherbe: Q. Mr. Whitcher has called my attention to the H. W. Pieree—you gave evidence respecting that vessel?—A. Yes. : Q. You say she was employed on the United States coast in 1873 !— A. No; not if my memory serves me rightly. Q. During what years did you say that she was employed on the United States coast ?—A. That was in 1874 and 1875. I think it was in 1873, when she was cast away at the time of the gale on the Magda- len Islands. Q. During what years was the John Somes employed on the United States coast ?—A. During the same years—1874 and 1875. Q. You have just stated that when you had these licenses you fished off the coast of Prince Edward Island ?—A. I said I tried there bat could not find any fish. Q. On what part of the coast were you ?—A. [ was all along it, from East Point to North Cape. Q. How long did you try there ?—A. I tried off and on at different times. Q. About how many times did you try ?—A. Probably 40 or 50. Q. I understand that you previously mentioned all the places where you had fished or tried to fish, but you did not mention this fact. Did you ever try to fish there during other years ?—A. No. Q. What then induced you to take out a license and try there these years?—A. I thought I would get a license so that I would not be dis- turbed. Q. But you say that you had never gone there before?’—A. But I thought I would go. Q. I understood that you had previously named all the places where you had tried totish. You told me that you had gone to Bank Bradley and to the Magdalen Islands, but you did not require a license for this !— A. You never asked me about those years. a *Q. Lasked you about all the years when you were fishing in the bay.— - A. You did not ask me about 1866 and 1568. Q. I questioned you generally.—A. I did not understand you, then. Q. Your previous answer was that you had never fished at any other places, and that you had only goue to Bank Bradley and the Magdalen Islands. Is that correct?—A. | also said that I had been at Bouaven- ture. : Q. Previous to this you never fished except at the places which you - have mentioned?—A. Yes. Q. And you have never tried anywhere else 7—A. I think 80. Q. And though you had never tried to fish off Prince Edward Island, you thought that you would go and get a license and try there '—.\. | thought that I would try there. ¥ No. 5. Capt. NATHANIEL ATWOOD was recalled and examined. By Mr. Foster: Question. Will you produce the list 0 els y y understand that you cannot give the names of their captal I cannot give all of them. ° f vessels you have prepared! I ns ‘—Auswer. ~ 2048 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. And so you have not put the names of the captains down ?—A. No. The list is as follows: List of vessels belonging to Provincetown, Mass., engaged in the cod-fishery on the Banks of Newfoundland in 1877. Tonnage. | Names. Agents. Dee AiGrbe Dye. an asasceemis san sos eam 622 cst oo cas ccee on sec cacisceeseues one sane 65.14 | Thomas R. Wharf. $8.16 cM WialtOn cones coos cess fo nceat tess sacaenw cess aceeote coset 52. 23 | F. T. Doggett. 49> GhantiGleer: (ooo. cececcnesscwsere ct eanebacceascecensameseses 60. 84 | Henry Cook. 20s Sa Davinde esc oe odes ele cee chan eee en ee wee aeee 72. 40 "Ds. 2b -Artnor Ollord> sssessecee. cose oe cent se eanelocnaes soe eeee 84.55 Do. O2. Belle Bartlett; 22: - =. corso ssc c ceases cocaesse sss scctecowe sacaen 75. 62 | Angus McIntire. 23., Lotte: Bells. cdoddecececeeeuc tes Sulseceeedesdadeseececasees 96. 10 Do. 24: “Buceplalus) sci dose wes oak cance ccs cou ee enact ouseeatemcce Se 69.91 | E. K. Cook. Qos OSCPNVLANGHAY seco eo ote esha w aoe stnwc sec ewaces nace ene 64.79 | Samuel Rich. 20. (POMONA Soc cssccacnscusca ceacek cocness sec aceccceuseee cs weoees 66. 33 | David Conwell. WH. Alico RayVMONnG 522 scsss-caces csc Sasa ccece cde ceeens ceuceeenee 69. 37 Do. 28:, Kmima-Lin Wood a2) -asscous- ot cee eeacecesedacaseee = aeeasneee 73.49 | L. N. Paine. 20-7 A DDIGSHe BEOWI sore cine eae ce ae ease ec ebeeeeee 95.12 | Thomas Hilliard. DO: BAIRIG i. Sos eae c ee eck sous cuss oeead faas fee bn Waker aoa ee enceases 80. 85 | Charles Nickerson. OL. dolla May osc sco asco csc cclteca oe coe c cece cuss ee wee ineees 96.44 | E. K. Cook. 32. iZ716) Wo MatnhGsOn isc 2. sees ce cakeccteet sebencceneseeesescece. 193.52 | Henry Cook. BS: GOPEEUNG! saacco a opececece ec duke Gonieces care Guna aeace aeons 2,2 fi) Ke ie OECTA 1) Meee ee ee is meee ee rates US eoag gem SPE et SAS at ih 97.20 | David Conwell Jo... Mary Mathesonns a: is << Sone scacacecenasaacoee stccenseseaceens 114.75 | Angus McIntire. 30: Williams Matheson <2 52225502 =o seas! race re ere ece tonnes me LLOe Do. Diccrl CLOBH D. BAK OMS s.scecess ecu cals occ bceb scan enc esneeenecs 87.23 | Henry Cook. 38: ‘Spring Bird: .2.5.5.. soectsesencnak ec ssec ees os suena eee ees 80. 02 | F. T. Doggett. SOF ER TOAIG, Wit AIUOM:. cos en coe aac eese ue cee coed one a eee eea tees 86. 21 Do. 40° Lottae Byram i. csaccecsowanccce caus seueue bese ee dee e ee 97.03 | Philip A. Wharf. LEW ANG Sul tbe one sao oce ese es ee asec eee om eee 100.68 | S. S. Swift. 42° (Charles 'Abstrams - Q. You were there forty years ago; did you see any fogi—A. Plenty of it. 2072 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Don’t you know, as a matter of fact, that the fog exists on the Banks but not immediately upon the coast ?—A. That doctrine woun’t sit on me. Q. What doctrine do you believe in?—A. I have got a different doc- trine by experience from that. Q. Were you ever on the eastern coast ?—A. I have been down on the Grand Bank fishing seven years. Q. You have been on the Grand Bank for seven years; you said just now you were never fishing at all?—A. I didn’t say so. I said I never went to Newfoundland for bait. Q. I know you said that, and I understood you to say you never went fishing —A. You never heard me say so. I was, seven years. Q. How long ago was that?—A. Forty years ago; forty or forty-five. Q. You were there seven years preceding forty years ago ?—A. Yes. Q. Seven years consecutively ?—A. Somewhere in the neighborhood of forty years ago. I have no record unless I overhaul my old books of voyages. Q. What bait did you use in those days ?—A. Clams altogether. Q. When was it you issued these instructions you spoke of to your cap- tains, and why?—A. When? Last spring before they went away. Q. Just before they sailed?—A. Yes; last spring. Q. Did you give them in writing?—A. No, sir, they were verbal. Q. This was the first year you gave these instructions ?—A. Yes; I will tell you the reason why. Q. Never mind the reason. You told them not to go into Newfound- land for bait?—A. Yes; that is not all. I told them it would be the last voyage they would sail for me. Q. Did you tell Mr. Atwood this?—A. Not that I know of; I don’t know that I ever said anything to him. Q. Had you any conversation with Mr. Atwood about it?—A. Not especially ; I never said anything to him that I know of; I don’t know as [ ever did. Q. Did he ever come and ask you your opinion as to vessels going into the Newfoundland coast for bait?—A. He did; he asked me if I agreed to their going in, if I recommended it. I told him no, not by any means. Q. When was this ?—A. Ever since the drafts came. . Q. The drafts were what you disapproved of ?—A. No; but I didn’t know that they were there until the drafts came. Q. It was the drafts that you disapproved of ?—A. The drafts would not have come if they had not gone in. Q. And it was because of that you did not approve of it ?—A. They caused the drafts to come. . Q. You spoke of a draft for $147 gold that the captain of the Arthur Clifford drew on you ?—A. Yes. Q. Well, now, have you any bill of parcels of the articles he pur- chased ?—A. No, I haven’t got anything but just the draft; I never had a single thing. Q. He has not returned, and you have not seen the bill ?—A. No. Q. You don’t know what it may be for?—A. No. Q. But you have a strong objection to paying out money ?—A. No, I haven’t.. I have paid hundreds of dollars there for that and other ves- sels; I cared nothing about that; that has nothing to do with the cargo of fish ; but when they last year spent that much money and brought home a half or two-thirds of a fare of fish. Q. You object to their going there and drawing drafts and not bring- | AWARD CF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2078 ing home full fares ?—A. Yes; certainly, because they might have staid and got their fares. Q. Then you consider the salt bait preferable ?—A. No, I never said so. Q. The fresh bait you consider preferable !—A. Uertainly. Q. Why ?—A. Because it is contrary to the element of the fish. Of | salt bait there is nothing but clams—salt clams—that you can catch fish with. I have shipped them down here from your people, which is right in the fresh bait. Q. Then the fresh bait is no good at all?!—A. It is good; it is first rate, better than salt clams; but salt clams is the best salt bait you can et. Q. But surely you don’t mean to say that fresh bait is better than salt bait?—A. Yes. Q. rat you mean to say that you can catch more fish with fresh bait !— A. Always. Q. You can catch them faster?—A. Yes. Q. You are certain of it?—A. Yes. ' Q. It is no great advantage to have salt bait ?—A. Not much at all, if you can get fresh bait—if you can get it on the ground where you are fishing, and get it every day. Q. Well, if you must have it so?—A. I will have it so until I am older than I am now. Q. Then you would use exertions to get fresh bait?!—A. They do use a good deal of exertions. They get a good deal of squid on the Bank. | - Q. Suppose you had not squid on the Bank, you would try to get it elsewhere ?—A. No; you would not go that distance. | Q. What distance ?—A. One hundred miles. Q. I was not speaking of any distance.—A. I mean the distance to | St. John’s from the Banks. Q. Then you think it would be prejudicial to go 100 miles to get that | bait, although the fresh.is so much better ?—A. I want my vessels to stay there. 0. And you think it would be prejudicial to the vessels to go into Newfoundland to get fresh bait ?—A. It would be an advantage to the vessel and the crew to stay where they were and fish. Q. Then it would be injurious to them to go in !—A. It would not be injurious if they could get it without spending hulf the time looking for it. If the Newfoundland people will employ a steamer to get bait and run out, we will buy it and pay that much money for it. | would do that, and pay a good deal more money for it than I do now. Oaly let them fetch it out. are Q. But if you can go in and out in four days, don’t you think it would be better to use it?—A. That was an extra trip. They will never do it _ again. °Q. Do you mean to say no vessel can do it in four days 1—A. I mean to say that to run in from Virginia Rocks to St. John’s and get fresh bait and return again. - bocthe Q. St. John’s is not the only port ?—A. They will have to go further for them if they don’t go to St. John’s. : Q. Don’t yon know there are abundance of harbors between Cape Race and St. Jobn’s?—A. There are abundance, but are they any - nearer? eee Q. Is not the bait very prolific in those harbors 7—A. It is sev ape five miles up the bay. But you cannot catch bait at all at the moath o the harbors. pani 2074 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Between Cape Race and Conception Bay there are a number of harbors full of bait; are there not a number of harbors for that bait between Cape Race and St. John’s?—A. You bring an angle of forty- five degrees on one side and fifty-five degrees on the other, and you will find it is the same distance to the harbors you speak of that it is to St. John’s. Q. Have you never heard of any vessels going in and out in less than three days ?—A. Never. Q. Is it impossible to do it ?—A. I should say so. No. 9. SATURDAY, September 22, 1877. The Conference met. JOSHUA PAINE, of Provincetown, Mass., merchant, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Dana: Question. Your age is 58 ?—Answer. Yes. Q. You are now president of an insurance company ?—A. Yes; of the Atlantic Mutual Fire and Marine Insurance Company. Q. When did you first go fishing ?—A. I went fishing in 1835. Q. In the bay ?—A. Yes. Q. What fishing ?—A. Cod-fishing. Q. How long did you continue cod-fishing in the bay 7—A. Four years. Q. Where did you catch codfish—I mean, was it within the three- mile limit ?—A. No; it was deep-sea fishing on Bradley, and Orphan, and the Banks on the west coast, off Miramichi Bay and Point Miscou, and down that way. Q. In 1840 you went into the bay again; what for?—A. Mackerel. @. How much did you catch ?—A. About 200 barrels. Q. Where did you get them ?—A. I caught about 100 barrels at the Magdalen Islands, and 100 at Prince Edward Island. Q. On the north side ?—A. Yes; on the bend of the island. @. Have you any notion how far off these 100 barrels at Prince Ed- ward Island werecaught. Did you catch them within the three miles ?— A. Well, from recollection, I should judge that most of them were within three miles of the shore. Q. In ’41 you went into the bay again ?—A. Yes; in another schooner. Q. How much did you catch ?—A. Fifty-four barrels. @. What was the reason you caught so few?—A. We thought we could do better on the American coast, and went home. Q. Did you go fishing at home after that 7—A. Yes. Q. How did you do in the home fishing ?—A. I do not recollect that we did anything extra. Q. I suppose if you had done very well or very poorly you would have recollected it ?—A. I do not recollect anything particular. Q. After 1841 you left the fishing business?—A. Well, I went in mer- chant vessels, and then after that I stopped home and started a grocery store. I carried on the Bank fisheries in a small way up to 1869. Q. You mean you engaged, or that you went yourself ?—A. I had two vessels. Q. You didn’t go?—A. No. Q. In 1869 what did you do?—A. In 1869 I sent a small schooner into the Bay St. Lawrence for mackerel. Sbe was the Emma Linwood. di . AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2075 Q. Were you agent or owner ?— W Q. What was hen tonnage 7—A. 2 iin Re Dee Senet: Q How did she do?—A. Very small. . Do you rem ; AoE A Ny sae the catch ?—A. 120 barrels. She didn’t go at _Q. Do you mean you think she was too 0; time to get a full fare, but the fish were a mea rt ba . nS as you know where she went?—A. No. | i tates . Have you since that time been fishin —A. N Q. You fit out both codfish and SAOR AGEL tbo “iss N Yee Q. Your cod-fishing vessels are fitted out in the sprin eae Q. What time do they go off ?—A. Early in May. Sere Q. To the Grand Bank ?—A. Yes; and the Bay St. Lawrence Q. Where do the mackerel vessels go!—A. They go down 0 coast in the fall. After the cod-fishing voyage is done they land their codfish and go mackereling. Part of them do that. The small ones d Q. The bigger ones are laid up ?—A. They go for oysters septs ‘ Q. a do these vessels do that fish off the American coast ! How ahh ey succeeded for some years past ?—A. They do a very fair bus- eee do you send many vessels into the bay mackereling now !— Q. How long since you gave up ?—A. J have sent none since 1869 Q. Do you tind they do better off the American coast than in the bay fishing ?—A. I think they do. That is the reason I send them. : ween. far does that opinion prevail in your town —A. It is pretty ay Is that shown by their action?—A. Yes; very few go into the > Q. Now, you have had of laté years how many cod-fisherman in your own employ ; vessels I mean ?—A. I had three at the Grand Bank, and, one part of the time, two in the bay and two that fished shore-fishing on our own coast. Q. For the last how many years ?—A. Two years. Q. You have had three on the Grand Bank, two cod-fishing in the bay, and one or two fishing on the American coast !—A. Yes. Q. Now, take your two cod-fishermen in the bay, where do they get their bait? Do they take it from home?—A. No; they carry nets— herring nets. Q. Are they fastened to the vessel or let out ?—A. Both. They carry @ quantity, more than they can let out. Q. They fasten them to the stern of the vessel !—A. Yes; some of them, and some they anchor off. : Q. They catch their own bait ?—A. Yes. ~ Q. They catch it where they catch the codfish !—A. Yes. Q. Now, speaking of the two you send in the bay, their fish are caught off shore ?—A. Yes; on Bradley and Orphan, and at the Magde- Jens early in the year. Q. Now, what bait do they catch 7—A. Herring. Q. Is that bait sufficient for them !—A. Yes; formerly they canght . *mackerel ; of late years they could not get much mackerel. Q. Do these cod-fishermen in the bay, of late years, fish with hook and line, or trawls ?—A. Trawls altogether. Q. They don’t run in to buy any bait !—A. No. | they bait at the Magdalen Islands. After that they catch it ob Early in the spring the ‘grounds where they are fishing. z is a 3 2076 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Do you find any complaints of want of bait?—A. No; not par- ticularly. Q. Have any of them run in to buy bait ?—A. Not that I know. Q. Now, as to your three on the Banks, would you state to the Com- mission how they are fitted out as to bait?—A. We furnish them with salt clams for bait. Q. How is it as to the supply of clams on the American coast at the time you fit out ?—A. Any quantity of clams. Q. At the time you fit out your Bank fishermen can you get what clams you want 7—A. Yes. Q. Is there a business springing up of furnishing clams to vessels there along the coast of Cape Cod ?—A. O, yes; quite a business, from Cape Cod to Maine. . Q. Now, you say you fit with salt-clams ?—A. Yes. Q. I suppose their voyages are something like three months 7—A. * We usually fit them out for five months. In the case of the largest ves- sels we provide for five months. Q. Is there any difficulty in furnishing all the salt clams they want for that time ?—A. No. Q. These voyages, have they been with hook and line ?—A. Two with hook and line and one with trawl—the present year. Q. Now state to the Commissioners how these vessels have compared with one another, as to the commercial results of their fishing.—A. Well, the Emma Linwood went to the Banks last year, 1876. She was a vessel of 73 tons, and we fitted her out for trawl-fishing with some salt bait, about 40 barrels. Last year she used the salt bait in addition to what other bait she procured on the Banks; and finally she got about 1,000 quintals and ran into Newfoundland for fresh bait. She got some fresh bait and went out and finished the voyage and arrived powe: I don’t know the exact time, but it was the very last of Septem- er. Q. How much did he bring home ?—A. One thousand two hundred and fifty quintals. Q. Then he only made 250 quintals after he went in?—A. That is all. My other schooner, the Kreddie Walter, sailed at the same time. She was 84 tons. She had fitted with hand-lines. We put 60 barrels of clams in her. She went down and arrived home the first day of Sep- tember with 1,350 quintals. Q. He didn’t go in?—A. No. Q. Did he use up all his bait?—A. No. He had a few barrels left. He fished a large portion of the time on the Virgin Rocks and caught fresh bait there. He told me he got caplin most of the time on the rocks. Hedidn’t use it all, but brought some home. My other schooner, the Allie F. Long, was 97 tons. She took 75 barrels of bait. She went down fishing on the banks and arrived home the 18th September with 1,800 quintals. She was hand-lining. Q. He returned the 1st September with 1,800 quintals ?—A. Yes. Q. Had he used up all his clams?—A. No; he had a few barrels left. He also got some caplin at the Virgin Rocks, so he told me. Q. Now can you give us your experience this year ?—A. From report? Q. Yes.—A. I have the same three vessels out. One is trawling, and” two are fishing with lines. The trawling schooner is the same, and the same two are hand-lining. Q. What is the result so far?—A. The Emma Linwood went into Newfoundland in July. She had 800 quintals and she got squid and went out, and reported back to Newfoundland the second time 1,000 - Oe AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. -2077 quintals. I had a draft from her just be the 10th August. She was ect Pac tiapsatatg rope Ryder rg ro poe on me was for $192 gold. 7 Rey ce Bee _ Q. That is, he got 800 with the bai ay ep abet pee for fresh bait pa aye oe t ay ves aaldaat . Then he went i hive ee ea: Be ee t in a second time and his draft on you was for $192 Q. Have you heard from him since ?—A. N ice j sablerancad Lanai that ci Freddie Walter Fyne gente ears quintals. She had never be N + heat ) en to Newfoundland. 5800 eg other schooner on the Banks the 5th September, with Q. One of your hand-liners made 1,600 Banks with 1,800. They used only the apg et nclatbey rege oo ces ae pot ee into Newfoundland. ere . Now me what bait they take on th <3.— x the Virgin Rocks caplin, and bate they oe fae Pega we Q. Do they take birds with hooks ?—A. With shot guns and with hooks. They use also some of the refuse of the fish, the spawn Ke : the pea, that is, of the codfish. They catch some squid ou the Haake” Q. Well, there have been times when the squid are very abundant pa the he In ’73 I had a schooner that went three trips, and never os acs nay Bea nee it was a very few barrels. That was in 73 or ’72, Q. Supposing a vessel to be fishing where the Bank Provincetown usually do, and to go ined one of the eee prp teeth land, one of the usual ports, suppose her not to have any extraordinary delay, but to be able to buy bait at once and return to her ground, mak- ing allowance for all the difficulties in the way of navigation what do you think would be the average time for the passage to Newfoundland and back to her ground ?—A. I should think seven to ten days. Q. Now as to the certainty of being able to buy as soon as she arrives, or within twenty-four hours after, what bait she wants, do you know anything about that? How is that?—A. Well, it is uncertain. Q. Well, if these vessels could not buy bait, but had to ran to New- foundland and catch bait within three miles of the coast, then you could not tell at all, of course, how long it would take them !—A. No. Q. But taking the most favorable view, that they have to go 100 miles or so into a harbor, and occupy one or two days, say two on an average, or three, to buy bait, and return. By the way, you consider that simply as bait the fresh bait is better than the salt?—A. Yes. — Q. Now, allowing for that, and taking into consideration all that makes up the commercial proposition, which would you rather your ves- sel would do, fit out with salt clams and take their chance of fresh bait on the Banks, or go to Newfoundland to get fresh bait ?1—A. I should Eee they would take their chance with salt clams, and not go in at Q. You consider the loss of time in fishing, and the expense and every: thing that enters into the problem?—A. My experience in the two years I tell you of is in favor of that. Q. This business of going into Newfoundland from the Banks is very recent ?—A. It is with my vessels. Q. You know as an underwriter and as president of an underwriting company, and also as an outfitter, you must know the opinion of the Masters of vessels, agents, and owners in Provincetown about that. 2078 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. What do you say the opinion is there on that subject ?—A. 1 think the opinion is that the vessels had better not go in. Q. But the majority of your vessels year before last perhaps went in ?—A. I think they did. Q. How is it this year ?—A. I could not say for certain; perhaps more. _ @. But not so many in proportion as went in before ?—A. I think not. _ Q. Do you think the opinion against going in for baitis increasing ?— _ A. I think it is. | Q. Where do you sell your codfish ?—A. In the Boston market mostly and in Philadelphia. Q. It is all sold in the United States ?—A. Yes. Q. Have your vessels ever sold any fish in Newfoundland ?—A. Not to my knowledge. : Q. Now, with reference to the Magdalen Islands, as an underwriter and an outfitter and fisherman, what do you say with reference to the safety of that place ?—A. Well, the Magdalen Islands is a pretty windy place, but the surroundings are such that it is considered there is a bet- ter chance to make leesthan any other place in the bay. Q. Allowing for it being a boisterous place, as there is this oppor- tunity of circling round .the island and finding a lee, do you think it is a safer place from shipwreck, although, perhaps, not so agreeable 7—A. Yes, unless it is the south side of Prince Edward Island and up abou Georgetown. They may be preferable. ; (. Take the bend of the island between North Cape and East Cape. What is the most dangerous wind, by the way, in that region ?—A. The northeast. Q. You can look at that map (pointing to the chart). You see the bend of the island there ?—A. The northeast wind blows right into that. Q. Now, if a vessel is in there, within three miles of the shore, and a northeaster comes up, what chance has she ?—A. I had experience of that one night myself. In 1840 we were fishing one trip and went in the bay. There came a northeaster and we had a very severe time. We had to carry sail and go out by East Point. (. How far off were you ?—A. It was thick sort of weather. I could not say very well. Q. Yon managed to weather the point ?—A. Yes, sir; wedid. The © wind in the latter part of the night veered more northerly. Q. If the wind had continued northeast, would you have made it ?— A. I don’t know. It is doubtful. ° Q. Of course it does not need much nautical skill to know that a bight into which the wind blows directly is no safe place?—A. Unless there are good harbors. @. Do you know any good harbors in the bight of the bay ?—A. I haven’t been there for quite a number of years. But when I was there we considered Malpeque Harbor in the day-time, if it was not very rough, quite a good one, and Cascumpeque. The schoonerI wasin went | “to New London. Q. You know from information from others that have been there | whether there are in the bight any harbors large enough and safe | enough to furnish refuge for a considerable fleet of vessels ?—A. Mal- | | peque Harbor is a pretty good Harbor if you are in. Q. Is there any trouble about getting in?—A. The water is pretty oe on the bars. We would expect it to be shoal and rough on the ars. Q. Do you know whether the bar is diminishing in depth?—A.I don’t know. | a | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2079 Q. Do you know anything of those Americans who have gone to Magdalen Islands to establish themselves !—A. I do know a company of young men that went there from Provincetown. I am personally ac- quainted with them. They were neighbors of mine. Q. They were capable men ?—A. Yes; there were five young men, as good fishermen as we have out of our place. They are natives of the place, and have followed fishing from boyhood. Q. How did they get on the first year?—A. They made a sinking voyage; they lost money. Q. Have any of them gone back ?—A. Yes; two of them. Q. What do you know about that ?—A. I don’t know much about it. Q. What have you heard about it 7—A. I have heard that they were doing a small business. Q. What are your rules as underwriters in Boston as to the rates charged for the season for fishermen in the bay ’—A. We charge fish. ing-rates for the season, three-fourths per cent. a month—a half per cent. a month extra in the Bay St. Lawrence after October 1. : Q. What is the rule about herring fishers!—A. We issue a yearly policy for a vessel, and if she wants to go fishing after October Ist she pays extra. We prohibit vessels from going east of Canso October Ist to May Ist. . Q. You won’t insure on any terms ?—A. No, unless we get a special premium. In our policies it is prohibited. She must have a special policy. We had a vessel that went to Cow Bay and was lost, and we never paid for her because it was prohibited. By Mr. Davies: Q. Do I understand you that you charge three-quarters per cent. to October 1 to a vessel, with a right to frequent the bay after that by paying half per cent. extra?—A. The fishing rates are three-quarters per cent. per month, and if they are in the bay after October 1, they have to pay half per cent. extra per month. Q. That is in your policy ?—A. Yes; it is printed. Q. What rates do you charge when a vessel goas to the George's !— A. We do not insure. Q. You won’t insure them at all?—A. We do not carry on that basi- ness. Q. But would you insure vessels to the George’s Banks for anything like those rates at all?—A. I think not. Q. What rates would you, us an underwriter, require for a vessel to the George’s Banks?—A. It is according to the season. After Febru- ary ‘we would charge them higher than in June. ; Q. But they go in February, don’t they, and fish all winter 1—A. Yes. Q. Would you as an insurer insure them at all for those months f— A. Yes. Q. Name the premium you would require !—A. Ido not know what we would charge. If I had an application I would consider it, | Q. Asa matter of fact they go without insurance ?—A. I think that they carry on a mutual office in Gloucester, and insure their own vessels. £ Q. In your evidence you have spoken altogether of Provincetown !— A. Yes. - Q. You do not wish to extend your evidence beyond vessels sailing from th —A. I confineit to that. — — Q. I Ot aeneada that you never did prosecute the fishing in oh bay to any extent from that port. Am I right? Did I anderstao you aright?—A. I wish to say that I never prosecuted it to any exten myself. 4 2080 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Have any of your merchants from Provincetown prosecuted it to any extent? I only ask for information, as I have been given to under- stand that you never did.—A. I think there is quite a number of cod- fishing vessels there this year. The mackerel has been nearly aban- doned. Q. I want to know whether at any time the mackerel fishers have prosecuted the business in the bay from Provincetown ?—A. They have to some extent. Q. I know, but kindly give us some information as to what extent.— A. I don’t know that I[ bave any statistics. Q. I am instructed that you never did.—A. We never have; it is mostly cod-fishing. Q. When you say that you have abandoned it, you mean that you had very little to abandon ?—A. Not very many. Q. How many vessels have you prosecating the mackerel fishery from Provincetown altogether ?—A. I don’t know. Q. Are there as many as ten or twelve?—A. I think there is. Q. Would you say as many as that ?—A. I should think so. I think more. Q. Many more ?—A. I think there is. Q. I want to have an idea?—A. I don’t know. I don’t carry on the mackerel business myself, and don’t pay much attention to it. Q. You never have carried it on much yourself ?—A. No; my small vessels go fishing around the shores in the fall for mackerel. Q. You haven’t given much attention to that branch of the business? —A. No; very little. QoI believe you are not what we call a practical fisherman? You are a merchant and remain at home ?—A. Yes. Q. You don’t go yourself, and haven’t for many years ?—A. No. Q. Just explain about the navigation of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the bight of the island? How many years is it since you have been there ?—A. Since 741 I have not been there. Q. That is somewhere about thirty-five years ago?—A. Yes. Q. You can hardly say from practical experience whether it is a safe place or not ?—A. No; only the time I was there. Q. I have been a little surprised to hear about this dangerous coast, as I have lived there. I am anxious to know from somebody where these dangerous places are. You know the harbor of Cascumpeque ?— A. Yes. Q. Now, as a practical man, I ask you, is there the slightest difficulty in a vessel, with a northeast wind, sailing directly to Cascumpeque Har- bor ?—A. I consider it a shoal-water harbor. Q. That is not the question. Is there the clightest difficulty in a ves- sel in the bight, with a northeast wind, making Cascumpeque ?—A. I think there is. Q. Show why.—A. I think it is a shoal- water harbor. That is my experience. It is very rough. QQ. You give your reason because of the harbor, not because a vessel could not make it with the wind ?—A. The wind would be fair, of course. - Q. The only objection you would have would be the harbor ?—A. es. Q. Would you have the same objection to Malpeque ?—A. Yes. Q. How many ee have sheltered there at one time ?—-A. I don’t know. re Would you be surprised to learn that as many as 250 have 7— . oO. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2081 Q. Constantly week in and week out for as many as 15 years !—A. I should be a little surprised. | : ’ Q. With respect to the number ?—A. Yes; because, to the best of my knowledge, I should not think there would be so many going there for so many years. _Q. You know Souris Harbor on the map ?—A. Yes. Q. Now, if the wind is northeast, or north, is there any difficulty in making Souris ?—A. I think not. . Q. Has it not been the invariable custom for all the fleet to make for the harbors at night, and remain there during the night !—A. I don’t know. It was not when [ was one. Q. If it was so (it was in point of fact from 1851 to 1867 or 1877)—if they remained in the harbors during the night, and went out at day- break, would you consider there was any difficulty 7—A. I don't know. Q. You don’t know what improvements have been made by the gov- ernment in these harbors ?7—A. No. ; Q. And, therefore, your information upon that point as to the respect- ive dangers of the navigation of Prince Edward Island and Magdalen Islands refers to a period of 35 years ago? Mr. DANA. You mean his personal experience. The WITNESS. Yes. Q. You would hardly hazard an opinion on that point against the opinion of men accustomed to sail there year after year !—A. No. ‘ Q. You have never been personally fishing on the Banks for codfish f —A. Never. _Q. It is only of late years that the practice has been made of using fresh bait ?—A. So I understand. : Q. Has it been prosecuted to any extent since it has first been taken -up?—A. To quite an extent. We had fresh bait on the Banks for a t . number of years. Q. You said, I think, in answer to Mr. Dana, that a very large pro- #ortion went in one year, about half of them last year, and that you were not able to say how many of them went in this year to Newfound. land ?—A. I don’t know. : , Q. You can’t tell whether those two vessels, the Emma Linwood and , the Freddie Walter, went into the bay this year or not? You have no knowledge one way or the other? You were not there, and haven't heard directly from your captains? Not being there yourself, as a mat- ter of fact, you have neither personal knowledge nor the means of infor- mation ?—A. I am satisfied in my own mind. —_ Q. You have a shrewd suspicion they did not !—A. I didn t fit them to goin. I sent them hand lining, and I heard from them on the 10th of August. The hand-liners had not been in, and I don’t believe they have been in since. 7 ae ae ee Q. I thought you said you did not hear from those two vessel: a sth you heard direct from the captain ?—A. I saw the Advertiser. 1ea4re from them direct on the 10th August. — aoe Q. Do you believe or have you certain knowledge to ena ie soe " express any opinion as to whether of two vessels fishing tel PIN one another, one with salt bait and the other with fresh—whet ‘ r ihe vessel furnished with salt bait would be able to compete ith the one furnished with fresh bait ?—A. I sone ane eae i herman were to asser Se cine alongside of the other, you would not be prepared to dispute it?—A. No. x ah Q. A gentleman called by the American Governmen 131 F hat a vessel with salt bait t, Mr. Stapleton, 2082 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. from Gloucester, was asked the question if one vessel had fresh bait whether the others didn’t want it too, and he said yes; and, further, he said that if a vessel alongside had fresh bait you could not catch your share with salt bait.—A. I don’t know anything about it. Q. You do not wish to be understood as expressing any opinion upon this fresh or salt bait ?—A. No; not to compare them; but I say that my vessels that started from home with salt bait and continued fishing with it have succeeded better than those that went in for fresh bait. The loss of time and expense overbalanced the advantage of having fresh bait. : Q. You are not aware of the fact yourself, nor of the reasons that en- abled one vessel to take a large catch and another a small one; there are other reasons besides the quality of the bait that contribute to one ves- sel taking a large catch as against another ?—A. I don’t know. Q. Take the reasons you have given. Can you tell what the cost of procuring bait is? $1901 think you said ?—A. That is the draft; I do not know what it was for. Q. Supposing that it cost $100, would you consider that an element of any moment at all in considering whether she should go in or not ?— _ A. Would that be a material element ?—A. It would be something. Q. With a catch such as your vessels take? $100 would not be much on a catch of 2,000 quintals?—A. If he had staid there and got his whole catch without going in there and paying $100 it would be better forme. The others staid there and fished and finished their cargoes, and got home without sending any draft. Q. But Iam reading you the evidence of a fisherman called by the American Government. He says the Vessel fishing with salt bait has no chance where the other has fresh bait. Mr. DANA. Don’t you think it is a little dangerous reading from mem- ory? He didn’t say there was no chance. Dr. DAviss. I think that will be recollected as the substance of his testimony. I have a'very strong recollection. Q. Now as to the number of days it takes a vessel to go into port and © come back. Have you any practical or personal knowledge ?—A. No. Q. What induced you to hazard an estimate of seven to ten days. *Was it a mere guess?—A. No. From talking with the captains and talking the thing over I arrive at that. I had letters from captains that had been in a few weeks and hadn’t any bait. They were about ready to go back but hadn’t any bait. @. You have no means of knowing what the cause of the detention was ?—A. She was detained by calms and by a scarcity of bait. Q. And other reasons, possibly 7—A. I don’t know any others. «. And you give these reasons simply from his own statement ?—A. From that statement to the best of my knowledge. Q. If we had evidence that it required only twenty-four hours it would not surprise you ?—A. It would as to that vessel. Q. I am speaking generally as to the time required by a vessel. Have you sufficient knowledge to enable you to be surprised ?—A. No. Q. Then upon that point you don’t wish your evidence to be taken for any weight ?—A. No. Q. Have you any knowledge of that portion of the cod-fishing fleet which goes to the Gulf of St. Lawrence from Provincetown ?—A. I have two there myself. Q. Do they fish with trawls?—A. Yes. Q. Do you know whether they use fish bait or not 7—A. Yes. Q. Do you know where they get it ?—A. They catch it in nets. ' ‘little. ~ AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2083 Q- are ue sure ?—A. I furnish the nets. . Don’t they catch bait in those nets at the Magdalen Islands | the spring ?—A. They do catch some herri ye a WE the wivins. ng near Magdalen Islands GU ceees crits plicilign iiayrudsarg cusonsee ot ork oe ~~ y i 1€ Coa Nova Scoti ice and bait ?—A. They do not. nee Q. Do any of the fleet coming down to the gulf ; fish ?—A. Not of mine. se ree oe Q. Any of the fleet ?—A. I don’t know; it is very large. Q. You are just confining this evidence to your own vessels'—A. Yea. Q. How many years have they been there ?—A. One since 1870, and for the other, this is the second trip. Q. Are you of the opinion that they have never been in for fresh bait ?—A. Iam except as to the Magdalen Islands; but I don’t speak positively, not being there. [ furnish the vessels with nets; and the captains told me they set netson the Banks Bradley and Orphan, and catch their herring and use it for bait. He says the herring are plenty there all through the summer season. Q. In justice to you, I may say it is in evidence that some of the American codfishing fleet do come in and procure fresh bait.—A. Per- haps so; I do not know. Q. I see you have had a little to do with the mackerel '—A. Very ittle. Q. You were down yourself in 18835?—A. I was cod-fishing that time. Q. In 1840 you were down cod-fishing and for mackerel too! How many did you get ?—A. Two hundred barrels. Q: You got 100 at the Magdalens and 100 at Prince Edward Island !— -A. That is as near as [ can judge. Q. Were there any cruisers about there in 1841, protecting the fish- eries 7?—A. I did not see any. ; Q. These 100 barrels taken at Prince Edward Island were caught in the bight ?—A. Yes. Q. Did you catch them early or late ?—A. In September and October. Q. What kind of fish were they ?—A. Very nice. : «. What would you class them ?—A. They were mostly No. 1 and No. 2. = Q. You never went fishing in Bay Chaleurs, or on the west coast !— A. No. No,.:10. NatTHAN D. FREEMAN, of Provincetown, merchant, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Foster: - Question. You are a merchant ?— Answer. Yes. Q. What kind ?—A. I am connected with the vessel business as an outfitter. Q. You are of the firm of Freeman & Hillyard !—A. Yes. an Q. Well, you have not yourself fished much, I suppose '—A. No, very Q. During the last ten or twelve years your firm has had two or three mackerel vessels ?—A. At times, yes. Q. Have any of them been to the ba 1867. y !—A. [had 01€ in the bay in i] 2084 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Did she have a license ?—A. She did. Q. What was her name ?—A. The Benjamin F’. Rich. Q. Her captain’s name ?—A. John B : Q. You paid for the license?—A. Yes. Q. How many fish did she catch?—A. One hundred and seventy barrels. (). Have you had a mackerel-vessel in the gulf since ?—A. I think not; not of my remembrance. Q. How many vessels have you on the Grand Banks for cod?—A. This season ? . 3 Q. Yes, generally, for the past few years ?—A. A fleet of five or seven usually. Q. For what number of years have-you had them 7—A. Well, I should think I have averaged that number for the last fifteen years. Q. Now, how long is it since any of your vessels began to go to New- foundland to obtain bait ?—A. I think perhaps two or three years. Q. Take the year 1875; did any of them go then ?—A. That is year before last. I have noremembrance of any then. Possibly they might. Q. When first ?—A. I remember 1876, and also this year. Q. How many of your vessels wentin 1876 ?7—A. Three. Q. How many did you have in 1876 codfishing on the Banks ?—A. Five. Q. Then three went for bait, and two did not. What was the average cost to you for bait?—A. The average cost last year, if I remember right, was $125 a vessel. Q. How many vessels have you this year on the Banks ?—A. I have five. Q. Have any of them been in for bait ?—A. All have been in this year. Q. What has it cost you ?—A. Those that have been in but once, if I remember right, the drafts have been $125 a vessel. Those that have been twice, the drafts I think have been $170 or $180. Q. Now take last year, the year three of your vessels went in, and two did not; which made the most profitable trips, those that went to buy bait, or those that did not?—A. It is rather difficult to tel! last year. They didn’t any of them do very much. I think we hadn’t a vessel, or we had but one that got a full fare. There was one that didn’t go in and didn’t get a full fare. Q. Those that went in didn’t get full fares ?—A. No. Q. Do you regard it as beneficial for your vessels to go to Newfound- land to get bait?—A. No; I do not. Q. Now, suppose that instead of buying bait there they had to catch it themselves, would it then be any benefit ?—A. My impression is it would not. Q. Well, explain your reasons for thinking so in addition to your own experience ?—A, I think it would require too much time to get it. Q. Do you know the opinion of the vessel owners of Provincetown, and the outfitters, in regard to this?—A. I think I do. The general opinion is that it is not well for our vessels to go in for that bait. Q. You have have given one reason that too much time is lost. Is there any other?—A. There is the expense to be taken into considera- tion, also, and the risk. Q. Do you insure your vessels ?—A. No; our concern does not. . You underwrite for yourselves ?—A. Yes. Q. You say that within the last ten years you have had but one ves- sel go into the Gulf of Saint Lawrence for mackerel. During that time AWARD OF [HE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2085 how many mackerel vessels have you vsually _ ‘fe usually had from two to three, ; eee Q. Where have they fished ?—A. They are just the same fishermen who have made a voyage to the Banks. If they have succeeded in get- ting in early enough they can go mackerel fishing in the fall. Q. Your vessels only make autumn trips’—A. Yes. Q. On those trips they have resorted to your own shores!—A. Yes. Q. Have they done fairly well ?—A. Generally so. Q. This year, I suppose, they have not begun to fish!—A. No. Q. How many boats, manned by a couple of men each, are there from Provincetown, eugaged in the inshore fishery ’—A. I am unable to state definitely. I should judge from fifty to seventy-five. ' Q. What do they do with their fish ?—A. They sell them principally resh. Q. Do you know about the fishing in weirs along the coast !—A. I have very little information with regard to that about our town. (. Have you an opinion whether the right to use the inshore fisheries, have . those within three miles of British territory, coupled with the free im- portation of British fish, is a benefit to our fishermen or not!—A. My opinion is that it is not a benefit to the fishermen. Q. So far as you know the opinions of others, would it be the prefer- ence of the people of Provincetown to have the provisions of the Wash- ington Treaty as they are now, or to have the old daty on the fish re- stored and be excluded from the three-mile limit ?—A. We should pre- fer to have the duty restored and be excluded. By Mr. Weatherbe: Q. Were you among those who opposed or favored the continuance of the Reciprocity Treaty ?—A. Was I among those that opposed it? Q. There were some that opposed it, or rather required the duty to be maintained upon codfish ?—A. I was one who preferred to have the duty retained upon codfish. Q. Upon codfish ?7—A. Yes. Q. You didn’t care about other fish? Did Captain Atwood represent you? He went on a delegation from the people of your town.—A. I went myself as one. Q. To Washington ?—A. Yes. Q. You were one of the delegation with him ?—A. Mr. Atwood at that time was not with us. Perhaps he went. Q. Iam speaking now of the delegation of which he gave evidence. Have you seen his statement ?—A. No. I went as a delegation to pre vent the ratification of the Washington Treaty. Q. I am speaking of the Reciprocity Treaty.—\. I was not on that delegation. Q. Did he represent. you on that?—A. He was supposed to represent the town. .? ‘ as _ Q. You were one of those that sent him !—A. I don’t know. | have not much remembrance about it. ; ae Q. Your people wished, in fact, to keep the duty on codfish Sear phy Q. Why? Be kind enough to state why.—A. Because we felt it would be better for us, as a cod-fishing town, to exclude, as far as poss! _ble, the fish from the provinces. It would give us a better chance, as we supposed, to dispose of our fish at higher rates. a eat Q. And the effect of the treaty you considered would be ie bes o ae price?—A. We supposed that the effect of the treaty W ould be a fr in-codfish from these provinces into our port, and of course necessarily it was presumed that it would reduce the price of fish. 2086 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. There was a good deal of excitement in your town about it at that time, was there not?—A. Excitement? Well, we expressed our views. I do not know that there was any undue excitement. Q. If I am correctly informed, you went up to oppose a delegation, perhaps part of it from your own place—a delegation in favor of the treaty—in consequence of the advantage to the mackerel fishery 7—A. I went up as I said. I was sent to Washington as one of the delegates to oppose the ratification of the treaty, or that portion of it which re- lated to this fishing question. Q. I want to see whether I am correctly informed. Would you have gone up at all if it had not been there was a delegation in favor of it?— A. In favor of what? Q. Of the treaty ?—A. I was not aware that there was a delegation in favor of it. . Q. Did you never bear that?—A. No, Q. Fhis last treaty ?—A. No; I was not aware of it from our town. @. From Gloucester ?—A. There was a delegation from Gloucester that was opposed to it, as we were. I was not aware there was any in: favor of it. Q. You do not know anything about it ?—A. No. Q. Were not those interested in the mackerel fishery in favor of it ?— A. Certainly, 1 saw none. Q. But generally those that were altogether interested in the mackerel fishery ?—A. I saw no one there that was in favor of that treaty. Q. Iam asking you generally whether the people interested in the mackerel-fishing were not in favor of it—A. I think I can safely say they were not, so far as my information extends. Q. Whom did you communicate with from any other place than Provincetown ?—A. I saw a delegation from Gloucester. Q. Mackerel-fishers?—A. Yes. Q. They combined with you then ?—A. They did. (). What was their object ? Mr. DANA. He has not quite answered your question. WITNEss. There were delegations from the town of Plymouth and Wellfleet. I think, perhaps, there were others, although I cannot call them to mind just now. Q. Were they mackerel. fishers ?—A. The Wellfleet delegation repre- sented mackerel-fishermen entirely. The Plymouth delegation repre- sented, perhaps, cod-fishers. I think they are mostly engaged in cod- fishing. Our town was engaged in both branches, and our delegation represented both interests. Q. I suppose the mackerel-fishers have the same object, to keep up tLe price of fish 7—A. I presume they have. Q. Then, of course, you think your views are correct. You think now, I presume, that your opinion was correct ?—A. Yes. Q. And you still continue fo think that is correct, and that the effect of the provisions of the treaty is to bring down the price of fish ?—A. Yes; I think that is the tendency. I am not aware whether it has brought the prices down. Q. I mean to say you have not changed your opinion ?—A. No. Q. Of course there might be other causes operating, but that is the general tendency of the treaty 7—A. Yes. Q. To make the fish cheaper for the consumer?—A. We have so regarded it. Well, perhaps it would have that tendency. We have thought that it would. Q. That is precisely what your opinion was?—A. Yes. eis ct AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2087 Q. You have not altered your opinion ?—A. No, Q. Your opinion, if you will allow me to put it in my words, is that it makes fish cheaper to the consumers in the United States ?—A. My opinion is that it will have that tendeney. : _ Q. You have never been a practical fisherman !—A. Very little. By Mr. Foster: Q. You refer to the petition you and other fishermen went to advo- cate at the time of the Treaty of Washington. Is that it! (Copy of petition produced.)—A. I think, from looking it over, it is the memo- rial presented. Q. Do you know if this is the petition prepared by the committee of fishermen at the time you were there ?—A. A committee was appointed. i oe are the names of the committee and this was the petition? —A. Yes. i Mr. FostTEr. I will put in copy of the petition now or at some future ime. By Mr. Weatherbe: Q. You did not sign the petition ?—A. No. Q. You have not looked it over?—A. That was the committee ap- pointed to draught a petition. Q. That is all you can state, that Messrs Loring, Baker, and Proctor were appointed to draft a petition ?—A. That is all. SiR ALEXANDER GALT said he doubted whether it would be in order to put in the petition at that stage. Mr. FostTER. I will put in the petition as substantive evidence itself, not as anything connected with the testimony of the witness, and I only called attention to it because in cross-examination he said he was at Washington about that time. Having the petition, I asked him if that was the petition. Mr. WEATHERBE. I take it for granted that such a petition was pre- sented. You have not proved it. Mr. Foster. Not at all. Mr. DAvies. As a matter of fact, was it presented ? Mr. FostTer. Yes. No. 11. Banes A. Lewis, residing at Provincetown, Mass., merchant and outfitter of vessels, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Foster: Question. You are thirty-seven years of age !—Answer. Lam in my _ thirty-eighth year. Q. Were you ever a fisherman yourself ?—A. Yes. Q. When ?—A. First in 1806. Q. For mackerel ?—A. Yes. Q. Where ?—A. On the coast of Maine. Q. How long, and what did you catch !—.\. Only one trip, Six Weeks, and we caught 150 barrels. : Q. Did you ever fish in the gulf ?—A. Yes. Q. For mackerel ?—A. No. Q. For what 7—A. Gee. ots . r was that ;—aA. Ldov. ; a Wher vid you begin to be connected with fitting out vessels t—A. 2088 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. You have been in that business more or less since ?—A. Yes. Q. In 1867 you were interested, I believe, in a vessel which was in the Gulf of St. Lawrence; if so, what was it ?—A. I was interested in the schooner Marshal Ney. Q. What was the captain’s name?—A. E. W. Lumley. Q. Was the vessel licensed ?—A. Yes. _ Q. What was her tonnage?—A. About forty tons. @. How many mackerel did she get that year?—A. Seventy-five barrels, as near as I can remember. I am quite positive not over 80 barrels. Q. Did you succeed in finding the vessel in the list of those licensed 7— A. Yes, Q. Have you been interested in a few mackerel-fishing vessels fishing on the Massachusetts coast since then?—A. Yes. Q. How many each year?—A. Some years two, some three, some four. Q. When did you have any last 7—A. 1875 was the last year we had anything to do with the fish. We had one engaged in that business in 1876, but she was chartered by other parties. Q. From 1869 to 1875 you were interested in from one to four vessels a year engaged in fishing for mackerel on the United States coast, but in regard to vessels coming to the Gulf of St. Lawrence you were never interested in any except one, which took out a license in 1867, and caught 75 barrels ?—A. Yes. Q. Have you fished yourself for cod?—A. Yes. (). Where ?—A. On the Grand Banks and in the Bay St. Lawrence. Q. When ?—A. My first year on the Grand Banks was 1857. Q. Were you there before you went to the gulf?—A. Yes. @. What years were you on the Grand Banks?—A. 1857, 1858, and 1860. Q. Did you purchase any bait from the British Dominions in those days for Bank cod-fishing ?—A. No. - Q. How did you supply yourselves with bait those years on the Grand Banks ?—A. By taking salt bait with us from home and then replenish- ing with what we could get in the way of bait on the Banks. Q. What did you get on the Banks in the way of bait ?—A. We used to get birds and cut out some portions of the entrails of fish, and some- times we could cut up a piece of haddock to fish with in case of neces- sity. Q. When you fished in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, how did you get your bait 7—A. By nets. Q. Set where ?—A. Set from the vessels. Q. On the fishing grounds?—A. Yes. Q. Describe the nets?—A. The nets are what are called herring nets. Q. Put out from the vessel itself or from boats?—A. Put out from the vessel itself and then moored to moorings. Q. Out in deep water ?—A. Yes. Q@. And the herring you caught in that way you found sufficient with the bait you took from home ?—A. We did not take any bait with us. We did not find the bait we took in our nets sufficient to supply us. Q. How did you make out ?—A. We did not get a fare of fish in con- sequence of it. Q. Now, what experience have you in the voyaging of cod-fishermen where the vessels have gone from the Banks to Newfoundland to pro- cure bait?7—A. We have had vessels go in there two different years. Q. What years ?—A. 1875 and 1876, AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2089 Q. Did all the vessels go there in 1875 for bait ?—A. No. Q. How many did you have ?—A. Four. Q. How many went in for bait ?—A. Three. FF sl it ee ise ; do you remember !—A. I should say, every Sika y went in, the drafts amounted to $100. They would average Q. How did this vessel do which did not go in at all for bait : vessel was it?—A. Sarah R. Smith. : So ee Q. If she did better than the other vessels, how much better; please beg oar tan She brought in more fish and realized more money from . yage. : ' Q. That was in 1875 ?—A. Yes. Q. Did that same schooner fish on the Banks in 1876 ?!—A. She did. Q. Did she go to Newfoundland then for bait !—A. No. Q. How did she do then?—A. Better than any other of our vessels, of which we had five that year. Four of them went in for bait. Q. From the experience you have had, is it or is it not profitable, to go to Newfoundland to get bait ?—A. I should say, decidedly, not profit. able to our fishermen to go there. __Q. In regard to buying bait, if the vessels are obliged to hang round es Me prea get it, how then ?—A. I do not consider it any privi- ege ata o it. Q. What is the opinion of the people in Provincetown engaged in this business, so far as known to you, on that subject?’—A. Their opinion ae with mine in that respect, I think; the opinion of those I have ad conversations with. Q. Is squid found oft the shores of Massachusetts !—A. They are. Q. Where?—A. At Sandy Point and Cape Cod. | Q. Where is Sandy Point ?—A. The right name is Cape Malabar. . Bess Whereaboats is it?—A. About half-way trom Buzzard’s Bay to . ace Point. . , Q. On the south side of the cape, Princetown being at the north end ?—A. Yes. Q. You say squid is found abundantly there; at what time !—A. It commences there in May. Q. Is it got there by your vessels, to some extent, for bait!—A. None of our vessels ever went there after the bait; but we have had it come over the railway toour place. 1 cannot say whether any vessels ever went there for it; I should say sowe vessels have, but I would not take an oath on it. Q. How far is it by land?—A. Between 30 and 40 miles. Q. How many boats are fishiug from your town to get fresh fish for the markets ?—A. I should judge from 60 to 70. : Q. How many men to each boat ?—A. Generally two; there are some exceptions. Q. What do they do with the fresh fish 7—A. They sell them there at the place. - Q. To go to what market?—A. Dealers buy them there to send off to Boston and New York markets. , Q. And for local consumption, of course !—A. Yes. Q. As to weirs and pounds; what quantity of fish is taken in weirs - and pounds within the circle of your acquaintance 1—A. | could ouls oy from hearsay. I never was down at one of the weirs, 1 fave hear vast quantities. Q. Does the Treaty of Washington, by its fi efits on your fishermen which they value, or would they pre < shery clauses, confer ben- fer the res- 2 & ca 2090 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. toration of the old duty on fish ?—A. They would prefer the duty being reimposed. Q. What was the opinicn of the people of Provincetown about the Treaty of Washington (its fishery clauses) at the time it was made ?— A. They thought it was decidedly adverse to their interests. (. I believe you were one of the deputy inspectors of fish for your town from 1870 to 1876 ?—A. Yes. Q. Did you give Captain Atwood some of the statistics in regard to mackerel? Did he inquire of you?—A. Think he did. Q. There is no mackerel reinspected in your town now as having come from the gulf—none that is taken by British fisnermen and rein- spected ?—A. I never knew of a barrel. Q. None that came from the gulf at all?—-A. Very few, indeed. Q. Do you happen to know whether the mackerel that does come from the gulf is branded or stenciled ‘‘Bay.mackerel”?—A. They are branded bay. Our inspector places a stencil mark on the head of the barrel, ‘ Bay.” Q. Where they reinspect and put into new barrels mackerel which has once been inspected here, do you happen to know if it is marked re- inspected 7?—A. I do not know. By Mr. Davies: Q. The mackerel fishery is not prosecuted much in Provincetown ?— A. Not so much as at some other towns in the States. Q. Do you consider it an appreciable part of your busmess at all ?— A. We do. Q. I have been looking over the returns. I see out of 295 American vessels which took out license in 1867 only 12 were from Provinetown ; out of 61 vessels in 1868 only 2. Out of 254 reported by the inspector at Port Mulgrave in 1873 only 5, were from Provincetown, and out of 164 reported in 1874 only 4. So, judging from the returns, your town must be one of the smallest on the coast engaged in mackerel fishing in the bay 7—A. I think so. Q. Your great interest is the cod fishery ?—A. Yes, more largely cod than mackerel (. And codfish, we all know, are taken chiefly outside of the limits; it is a deep-sea fishery as a rule?—A. Yes. Q. When you say your people you mean to limit it to the people of Provincetown?—A. Yes. Q. You say advisedly that your people thought the Washington Treaty was adverse to their interests ?—A. Yes. Q. You preferred the duty which was levied on fish ?—A. Yes. Q. Why ?—A. Because we thought its abolition hurt the sale of our mackerel, for more mackerel were thrown into the market. (). What was the consequence ?—A. They lowered the price. Q. And naturally from your own stand-point you want to get as high a price as you can ?—A., Certainly. Q. You wanted the consumer to pay more than he wanted to pay ?— A. We are all very selfish in regard to that. . Q. That was the motive which prompted you to oppose the treaty, I suppose?—A. Well, I think it was. . Q. You spoke with regard to bait-fishing in Newfoundland and gave a very strong opinion in respect to it. Over what years have you had personal experience of going into Newfoundland to purchase or catch bait? Have you gone in more than once ?—A. I never was in there < Se Q. When did you get to the gulf ?—A. Somewhere about the very last of June or the Istof July. I was not captain at the time, and I cannot be very exact on the point. Q. What was your catch ?—A. Three hundred and twenty barrels ; we filled the vessel. Q. Where did you get them ?—A. As well as my memory serves me, we caught 100 barrels on Bank Bradley. We procured the balance in the Bight of Prince Edward Island, from North Cape down to St. Peter’s and New London. — Q. Was this within the three-mile limit?—A. No, not all; part of them were taken within it, and part of them without. Q. What proportion of the 220 were taken within the three-mile limit ?—A. Well, I should think, likely one-half. Q. That would be 110?—A. Yes; that is the case as near asI can judge. Q. What did you then do?—A. We went home and fished on our shore. Q. What did you catch there ?—A. About 200 barrels. Q. And where did you fish the next year, 1853 ?—A. On our shore. Q. What did you get ?—A. About 700 barrels, I think. Q. And in 1854?—A. I was then in the GeorgeChaddock. Wecaught somewhere between 800 and 1,000 barrels on our shore. Q. And in 1855?—A. I was then in the bay on the George Chaddock, Captain Deguire. I was in this schooner during these three years. Q. In 1855, what did you get in the bay?—A. 240 barrels. Q. Within the limits ?—A. To the best of my recollection, we caught nothing within the limits. We fished over at the Magdalen Islands and off Banks Bradley and Orphan. Q. What did you do in 1856 ?—A. I was in the George Chaddock, on our shore. Q. Entirely ?—A. Yes; as far as the catch is concerned I could not specify. ee In 1857, what did you do ?—A. I was im the John S. Eagan, Captain emp. Q. Whereabouts did you fish?—A. We first went to the bay and got 325 barrels. Q. Where ?—A. Some of them back of Prince Edward Island, and others on Bank Bradley and at the Magdalen‘Islands. I do not think that we caught any during that trip within the three-mile limit, but we might possibly have so taken a few; still, I cannot say;-I cannot. be positive on the point. Q. What did you do then ?—A. We went home, landed our fish, and came into the bay for another trip, when we caught twenty barrels at the Magdalen Islands. Q. Did you go right home again ?—A. Yes; and we caught 250 bar- rels after we arrived home. Q. What did you do in 1858?—A. I was in the schooner Benjamin Baker, Captain Kemp. We went to the bay two trips, and on our first trip we caught 225 barrels. Q. Where 7—A. Off North Cape, and on Banks Bradley and Orphan. Q. And whereabouts the second trip ?—A. We only then took 35 bar- rels at the Magdalen Islands. Q. Where did you go from them ?—A. Home, and fished on our shore, catching about 225 barrels. . - jnto the bay and fished anywhere back of Pr AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2097 Q. Where were you in 1860 ?—A. In the schooner Empire. Capta’ Newcomb. We were in the bay during the first part si the sees taking 140 barrels off the Magdalen Islands and Bryon Island. We afterward went home and caught 430 barrels on our shore. In 18501 was not fishing, but coasting. Q. Where were you in 1861 ?—A. I was in the Empire, Captain New. comb, on our shore. We only fished part of the year. We did not do much iu the fall, when I was on a trading voyage. Q. What did you do in 1862 ?—A. I was in the Mary B. Dyer, Cap- tain Purvere. : Q. What did you catch ?—A. I could not say exactly; but we took from 500 to 600 or 700 barrels. Q. And in 186327—A. I was then in the Mary B. Dyer, Captain Par. vere, in the bay and on our shore. We caught 230 barrels in the bay. Q. Where?—A. Over at the Magdalen Islands and on Banks Bradley ae Sc We afterwards fished on our shore and took about 300 arre Ss. bd Q. What did you do in 1864?—A. I was in the schooner Maria Web- ster, Captain Newcombe. We went to the bay and got 320 barrela. We landed 200 in Bouche Bay, and returning into the bay, caught 210 barrels more; in all we carried 530 barrels out of the bay that year. We did not transship any. Q. What proportion of these did you take within the limits!—A. We so caught a few on our first trip; that is a hard question to answer; but I could not say that we so obtained more than from 20 to 40 barrels that : } at year. Q. What did you do in 1865?—A. I was in the Mary B. Dyer, on our shore. Q. What did you do?—A. I cannot remember; that year is almost a ‘blank to me. Q. And iw 1866?—A. I was then on the C. W. Dyer, in the bay, on two trips as master. Q. What was her size?—A. About 160 tons. Q. What did you do?—A. On our first trip we only got 150 barrels. Q. Where ?—A. Principally at the Magdalen Islands. ; Q. What did you get on the second trip ?—A. About 120 barrels. We did not fish within the limits. We caught that trip principally off North Cape. ’ Q. And in 1867?—A. I was then in the schooner Finback, two trips in the bay. ; Q. What did you get at your first trip ?—A. About 180 barrels. Q. Where?—A. Principally on Bank Bradley and over at the Mag- dalen Islands. ; - Q. How about the second trip?—A. We took then number—180, . Q. Where?—A. Part of them down towards East Point, and part right off North Cape. vA Q. Did you obtain any within the 3-mile limit?—A. No. Q. Had you then a liceuse?—A. Yes. ree Q. What was your object in buying a peers was it to ce af yak CRP ee -easons for doing it; one was tha 3-mile limit 7—A. I had two rea 0 See Edward Island, 1 con- sidered from what I had seen in former years that I was at any time just as liable to be seized 10 miles off shore as 3 miles off; and es reason was, that as fish were to be caught sometimes inshore, Pipe to have the chance of so securing them if any were so to be had. about the same 2 132 F 2098 AWARD OF TH& FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. When you say that at any time, according to your experience, you were as liable to be seized within 10 miles as 3 miles of the shore, you mean that you had seen American vessels liable to seizure when they were not within the limits ?—A. I have seen American vessels bothered by cutters and driven off, when I will take my oath that they were more than 3 or 6 miles from the shore. The distance was in question at the time from headland to headland, drawing a line between them, and I did not like to take my chances; that was my idea in taking out a license. Q. Where were you in 1868?—A. I was running with fruit between the West Indies and Boston. Q. And in 1869?—A. I then gave up my vessel and went in the schooner E. L. Rich, Captain Jenkins. Q. Where ?—A. On our shore. Q. Entirely ?—A. Yes; we landed 1,250 barrels. Q. Where were you in 1870?—A. I was in the schooner Finback; we caught 250 barrels on our shore, and then went to the bay, where we took 180 barrels. Q. Where ?—A. All to the nor’ward, on Banks Bradley and Orphan, &e. Q. And in 1876?—A. I was then in the schooner I command now; and we took 390 barrels on our shore. [ built her, however, for the fruit trade. Lona you have had considerable experience mackerel-fishing ?— A. Yes. Q. Taking into consideration your whole experience in this respect, and that of the people with whom you are aceustomed to live and con- duct your industry, what is your opinion concerning the privilege of fishing within three miles of the coast in British waters; which privi- lege is the greater, that of being able so to fish in these waters, or that of having the old duty put back on colonial-caught fish, with exclusion from British waters within the limits ?—A. If I were now engaged in the fisheries, as I used to be, I would prefer a good deal to have the duties on, and take my chances about going in. , Q. With your experience of your town, which is a fishing town en- tirely, what is your opinion of the value of the American shore fishery as being sufficient to keep your fishing industry afloat ?—A. As far as the experience of my town goes—I have no statistics from any other— the Gulf of St. Lawrence fisheries are of no account to us at all, as far as I have looked into the question during the last few years. I have not made a business of studying it up for any number of years, but taking the last three or four years, during which I have studied it up, I find that the bay fisheries are of no account to us at all; and I think that I can prove it. Q. During the last 6 or 8 years you would say that the majority of the Wellfleet vessels have prosecuted the fisheries on the American shore ?—A. Yes, decidedly. Q. Do you know anything of the habits of the mackerel, and, if so, do you believe that the testimony given as to their spawning on the Amer-: ican shore is correct ?—A. I am convinced that the mackerel spawn on the American shore; this is the case with any amount of them. Q. Why ?—A. I have seen there young mackerel which could not have been produced from spawn deposited anywhere else; they were very small. Q. How large were they ?—A. I saw them this spring around home when coming to New York; and the last of July I saw them on a calm | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2099 day back of Long Island, and midway between this island and home. I then saw any amount of schools of mackerel, small and fine. I tried half a dozen times, desiring to procure a fresh mess, and I coald not catch any longer than one of my fingers; these must have come from spawn deposited this year; this is the idea which I have formed as to these fish, and it is an idea which I have heard scientific men advance. We would see thousands of barrels of these mackerel: and any man knows what a school of fish is. These schools extended as far as the eye could reach. Q. With your experience of fishing in the gulf, do you consider that there is any very much greater danger incurred in fishing about the Magdalen Islands than in any other portion of the gulff—A. No; I consider them the safest fishing grounds to be found anywhere in the gulf inshore. Of course, if you are in the middle of the galf you are safe. Q. Do you consider them safer than the bight of the island for fishing purposes 7—A. Yes; if a man is a practical seaman, he understands that the outermost part of the island is safer than the bight of it, for then you can carry sail and go anywhere, while in the bight you are jammed in. The gale of 1851 proved that; and I do not see the use of arguing it. 0. re to the harbors, Malpeque and Cascumpeque, do you think that they afford security against danger ?—A. Malpeque is a comparatively safe harbor when you are in it, although [ have seen vessels lost there by drifting on shore; this was in 1867, I think. I was in there when sev- eral vessel went adrift. It is a bad harbor to enter during a gale of wind. The ©. W. Dyer, in which I was, was nearly lost while going in there. I do not consider Cascumpeque a safe harbor to enter at any time; a vessel is liableto go ashore if au east wind blows up. By Mr. Davies: Q. You have fished at or sailed from Wellfleet all the time!—A. Yes; I have sailed from there; it is my home. Q. Are there many vessels which come from that port to the Bay of Saint Lawrence?—A. No; not within the past three or four years; bat formerly quite a little fleet did so; say one-third of our vessels came to the bay some years, but I could not give the years. ; : Q. One-third of the Wellfleet fleet did so some years !—A. Yes. Q. Give me an idea as to how many vessels came from Wellfleet to the Bay of Saint Lawrence to fish, say ten years ago, In 1867 f—A. There possibly might then have been eight or ten; [ wou't be sure about Cran eata few—a very smnall proportion, considering the whole nom “Wer of the American ficet, came to the bay !—A. Our fleet has for years princi n our own shore. Bret vou tid cat Basse the gulf fisheries very mach, I judge from —A. We did not. ; Sten as a pete much over the bay tn fishing!—A. I have sailed ‘ Saint Lawrence fron the Gut of Canso fo Cape George over the Bay of Saint Nite dvd ap tue land ta Palate as far as Georgetown around ap 5 he ie 2 A the Banks; across Escuminac and Miscou, up to peuay OU a Iuka bad over . to the Magdalen Islands and down as far as Ape end : Apafiec Cape North. I have been all over that ground, but neve’, the northward of Bonaventure. — Q. Have you ever fished off th Gaspé; nor anywhere on that ground. . e Seven Islands !—A. No; nor of 2100 AWARD OF* THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Have you ever fished on the Bay of Chaleurs?—A. No; I was never in there but once—to make a harbor at Port Daniel. Q. Have you ever fished around the west shore, from Point Escuminac to Richibucto ?—A. I have never been up as far as Richibucto. I have been as far as Point Escuminac, but I never fished inshore there. (). You never followed the mackerel down there at all?—A. Never close in; but I have fished a little off there. Q. You have fished around Prince Edward Island ?—A. Yes; all the way from North Cape to East Point. (. Down to Miminegash?—A. I was never there. Q. You were fishing in the bight of the island chiefly?—A. Yes; between North Cape and East Point. Q. I suppose past New London and Malpeque?—A. Yes. Q. Did you ever go into the harbor along there at night?—A. I was in Malpeque a great many times. Q. Was it the custom of the American vessels to go in there about dark?—A. Well, some of the small vessels make a practice of going in every night, but I was never in a vessel that did so; we went in for wood and water. In Wellfleet we never fish Sundays, and generally Saturday night we used to goin and stay over Sunday; I do not profess goodness, but Wellfleet vessels, as a class, never fish on Sunday. Q. Were you accustomed to take shelter at night in the harbors?—A. No. ‘ Q. You did not fear to fish off the coast of the island outside the lim- its?—A. Not in the early part of the summer; I was never fishing elose enough in to be afraid of fishing there at any season of the year; I do not consider any place dangerous in July, because anybody knows that easterly winds are not prevalent during July back of the island or any- where else. _Q. What winds are prevalent on the north shore of the island in July? —A. South and southwest winds, I think. , Q. Blowing off shore?—A. Yes; but after August 10th they are liable to be caught. Q. The winds are almost invariably off shore in July 7—A. Yes. Q. ee you mean to say that there is a change in the wind in August ? —A. Yes. . Q. How does it then blow ?—A. The prevailing wind is still west and southwest. Q. And that prevailing wind renders the north side of Prince Edward Island practically as safe as possible ?—A. Yes, while it lasts; but after the 10th of August I think you are liable at any time to be caught by an easterly wind, and when the wind is from the eastward that is a dan- gerous place, owing to the bars. It is not safe then for vessels drawing over eight feet of water, unless the captain is very well acquainted with the coast. Q. After the 10th of August or 10th of September, which would’ you say 7—A. I think from the 10th of August out this is the case. Q. Have you been there very much about the 10th of August ?—A. I have fished in the bay during several falls as far as into October and as late as the 10th of that month about the island. " Q. Do you think that an easterly wind is very dangerous there 7—A. les. Q. Why ?—A. Because, if it comes on to blow, it gets up a sea in shoal water; and, naturally, with an easterly wind the weather thick- ens up, and you cannot see where you are going; and there will be such a sea on the bar that it will not be safe to go into a harbor. could drift off to sea. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 2101 Q. You do not think that it thickens up about the 10th of August !— A. I was in the greatest scrape I was ever in off Malpeqae Bar. Q. And that scrape frightened you _—A. No. Q. When was that ?—A. In 1866 or 1867; I was in the schooner C. W. Dyer ; I was fishing then just in the lay of the land off Malpeqae and of the high land off New London. Q. How far off ?—A. Probably 12 or 15 miles. Q. That would take you well clear of the bight altogether !—A. Yea. Q. What possible danger could you be in 12 or 15 miles off {—A. We hove to as usual under foresail—a Vessel makes leeway under foresall — and I was not called to until 12 o’clock at night, when, perhaps, we were 7 or 8 miles off the land ; a good breeze was blowing from the east ward, and we raised our sails to carry us out, because I did not consider that we would be safe in going into Malpeque harbor at night, for there was not half a light at the place; it never was otherwise. We were going sialon out when the wind blew away my foresail and left the mainsail yd. ; Q. Was not all that liable to happen not only in the bight of the isl- and, but almost anywhere ?—A. There would have been no danger if we had not been in the bight and back of the island; under other eir- umstances we would have had no trouble in getting off with our jtb. Q. If the wind was blowing east?—A. I do not say that the wind there is direct east, but it is an easterly wind. Q. What possible difficulty could there have been in your getting clear off around North Cape?—A. My schooner is of 160-tons, Baltimore built, drawing 12 feet of water; I consider her as smart as any vessel in our fleet, and when I went over by North Cape I did not find over 44 fathoms of water, which was not near enough for the purpose. Q. You were 12 miles off the bight of the island?—A. Yes. Q. And you drifted within seven miles of the shore —A. Yes. Q. Now, with an easterly wind blowing, what possible difficulty were you in?—A. The wind blew away my sails. When I speak of the wind being easterly there, I mean that the prevailing wind ts from the north- east and southeast. Q. You were seven miles off New London; and can you not ran off without the slightest difficulty there ?—A. No. — : Q. Drawing a straight line from North Cape to East Point, how far will it run off New London ?—A. Twenty-odd miles. Q. Have you measured the distance 7—A. Ido not know that I have. Q. Is it on that supposition that you base your statement t—A. No. When I went across the bar there were only 44 fathoms of water. Q. If the wind is as you state, is there any difficulty to be experienced with respect to a vessel being seven miles off shore!—A. Yes, in a gale f wind. - : Q. What would be the case with a westerly wind 1—A. You could not go ashore in a westerly gale if you tried to, if off shore at — I am speaking of; but, at the same time, you could not get around bas ‘Point. Q. If a westerly wind was blowing, avd you were in the bight of the i ily é 1 East Point f—A. No; but you island, could you not easily run aroun Q. No danger is to be apprehended, as far as the island coast is con- cerned, in such a wind ?—A. No. ane ae Q. But with an east wind danger is to be feared ![—A. Yes; whea the wind is northeast and southeast. 2102 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Is a southeast wind an off-shore wind?—A. No; it then blows straight up the shore. Q. A southeast wind at Prince Edward Island is not an off-shore wind ?—A. No; it blows up the bight of the island. Q. Is not that blowing off the island shore?—A. No. @. But when you had reference to a northeast wind, to what part did you allude?—A. I speak of where I was. 1do not know about East Point; we were talking about the bight of the island. Q. You say that a southeast and an easterly wind are dangerous there?—A. I say that it is dangerous there in a northeast and southeast gale; and 1 will leave that for corroboration to any practical seaman either of the United States or Canada, if he speaks the truth. Q. Did you ever lose a vessel there?—A. No; not back of Prince Edward Island. @. Have you yourself seen any vessels wrecked there?—A. No. Q. Have you seen any American fishing-vessels wrecked there since 1851?—A. In Malpeque, yes; but never back of the island. I was never near enough to the beach in a gale of wind to see a vessel wrecked there. Q. Did you ever see a vessel wrecked there?—A. I have seen the remains of any amount of wrecks there. Q. Since 1851, have you seen one vessel wrecked there?—A. I saw one wrecked on New London Head. Q. When ?—A. I could not say exactly, but I think it was 1867. I was in the Finback at the time. This vessel was’ going in when she struck the bar and went ashore. Q. Was she an American vessel 7?—A. Yes. Q. Was she lost?—A. She was got off after a good deal of expense had been incurred. Her name I think was the Julia Franklin. She touched on the bar and drifted ashore. Q. When you were fishing along the bight of the island did you ever run in, throw out bait, and drift off?—A. I have tried in there. Q. How would you get in if the wind blew off shore ?—A. If I thought that there was a prospect of catching fish inshore I would stand in as near as possible. ; Q. How near ?—A. That would depend on the vessel I wasin. If she was small, I would drift in to within perhaps one mile of the shore, if I was fishing there, heave to, and drift off. Q. And commence throwing out bait?—A. Yes; if I raised the fish I would certainly catch them if I had a license. Q. But some yeays you did not require a license?—A. Yes. Q. During the Reciprocity Treaty, when you had full right to go in- shore, what was your practice with reference to fishing off the north shore of Prince Edward Island ?—A. I have given the history of my fishing there during two years. I never made a business of fishing in- shore save in 1852, when I was with Curtis. We then caught, I think, over 100 barrels out of 320 within the three-mile limit. We would stand in to perhaps one mile of the land, heave to, and drift off; and if we raised mackerel, we would catch all we could. Q. When you say that you caught one-half within the limits, you mean that you caught the other half when you had drifted beyond the limits ?—A. I mean that this was all we got within the limits; the rest we caught on what we call Malpeque, or the New London Head ground. We would fish, say, 12 miles off New London and Kildare, in the lay of the land, and the other half we took on this ground. We fished there considerably that year. 4 : e > ¢ . a . AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2108 Q. When you make the esti its, do you mean to include the fel oo pees See Tagg Q. Whether within three or five miles of te ae wen Dee one ie arte ran _ being caught while oaaibe ik ma saine cen . How far off di > bai teacgos Sheree aoe id you drift ?—A. Perhaps three or four miles the Q. And do you include i ‘ avited seat iC carta aa cule one-half the fish you took when you . What makes you sa u y one-half ; , ’ exactly ?—A. No; but I think to the be aft phd pte rans 4 oath, that one-half of the fish which we th o ees ahha itor ar were taken Shan the heads: en caught back of the island Q. Are you speaking fro 4 tain NTE Secon) ae ri he memory alone !—A. Yes; I was not cap- . Might the proportio -thi was one-half, as Hone as De umes Hie ay pe 2 swear that it wa -third « irds es esd ere bear aca S$ one-third as two-thirds. It was not over one-half or Q. And where did you obtain the others? | ers 7—A. ° ih Aa a 100 ee this trip on Bank Bradley il a ae - Do you distinctly remember that all of h taken off Bank Bradley ?—A. The number war paths 100. We shee wards came over to and fished at the island. ‘i ne you fish ae year towards Margaree ?—A. No. . you ever fish along the C 20a8 A. Yes; i my fs sear, 1851, 1 did. g the Cape Breton coast ?—A. Yes; during f en you fished along the Cape Breton coast between Margaree a8 Cheticamp, did you ever catch a fish outside of the regs ae ?—A. I never caught any within the three-mile limit off the Cape reton coast. We caught all our fish in that quarter outside of Mar- are probably from 5 to 6 or 7 miles off the Cape Breton shore; but Ww H eats off Margaree—which lays 2} or 3 miles from the coast— sth ale by Margaree Island perhaps we caught from 20 to 40 or ww Q. And not more ?—A. Yes. Q. Is it not the fact that nearly all the fish taken along the Cape Breton shore, between Margaree and Cheticamp, are caught within one, one anda half, and two wiles of the shore !—A. My experience about Margaree was confined to that fall; we only fished there for three or four or five days, late in the fall of 1851, so that Iam not a com- petent judge in this matter. Q. And how many fish did you take there !—A. Two bundred and twenty barrels. It was then late in October. ; Q. And your impression is that you were four or five miles off Mar- -garee?—A. Yes; we drifted down and fisbed. Probably while passing the island we might have got some fish within the three-mile limit, but not over fifty barrels during the trip. Q. How far from Margaree were the balance taken 1—A. Anywhere from four to eight miles off, as near as I cau judge. Q. You are quite sure that the balance was caught beyond the three- mile limit ?—A. Yes. Med many would that be —A. Taking 90 from 220 leaves 170, I ink. Q. And you took them all within three or four days '—A. Yes Q. Have you aclear and distinct recollection of that!—A. Yes. I 2104 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. was in the Josephine at the time. I know we went through the Gut of Canso that fall after the 13th of October. Q. And you took all with the exception of 50 barrels from four to five or six miles off shore ?—A. Yes. Q. How close inshore were you when you caught the 50 barrels 7— A. Perhaps within two miles of it; we were drifting down by the island at the time. Q. In 1851 you were in the George Chaddock in the bight of the island, and in 1853 on the American coast ?—A. In 1853 I was in the George Chaddock on our shore. Q. Have you had anything to assist you in making your estimates save your memory ?—A. No; I remember the facts concerning 1851 very distinctly, owing to the occurrence of the great gale that year, and 1852 was a peculiar year; and 1 remember the facts. distinctly. I never fished right along the island. Q. That was the only time when you fished at the island ?—A. To any extent—yes. Q. In 1851 you fished off Cape Breton ?—A. Yes. Q. And in 1852 at the island ?—A. Yes. These were the only two seasons when I made a business of fishing in these particular localities. Q. Have you had any other means of recollecting or refreshing your memory ?—A. No; save that I have consulted some of the men with whom I fished. We talked matters over, and I have made my esti- mates as near aS I could. I have stated the facts on oath, to the best of my recollection. Q. Had you any Nova Scotians or Prince Edward Islanders with you ?—A. Yes. The fall that we fished near Margaree we shipped a bumber of Cape Breton fellows at the Gut. @. Can you give any of their names ?—A. No. Q. In 1853 you fished on,the American coast ?—A. Yes. Q. At what distance from the shore there do you generally catch your fish 7?—A. From Cape Henry ap to Long Is!and and down to Martha’s Vineyard and Cape Cod, and along the shore to the Bay of Fundy. We are liable to fish anywhere, from 2 or 3 miles off shore to 30 miles off, save when the mackerel come into the rivers and harbors. I have some- times made as good trips in the harbors on the eastern shore as I ever made in my life. Q. Would I be correct in saying that the American fishing-fleet, as a rule, fish from 2 or 3 to 30 miles off the American coast ?—A. Yes; I do not know but what you would. Q. And the bulk of the fish is taken within those limits ?—A. Yes; I think so. ~_ Q. Can you recollect what you did in 1857—suppose that you did not look at your book, and trusted to your memory ?—A. I do not know that I could. Q. Now, don’t look at your book, and tell me what vessel you were in during 1857 ?—A. I do not know that I could tell you. I do not believe that you could tell me what case you had in 1857, who was the plaintiff, and who the defendant, and how much you got for it. Q. Certainly not; but bring it down ten years later—1867—and I coukd do so.—A. So can I. Then I was in the schooner Finback, and OS Ady iegtatiore I bought a license that year. : a8 As a matter of fact,can you recollect the vessel in which you were in 1857 1—A. I have looked at the book, and I see that she was the J.S. Eagan. I now remember the circumstances a little. ce F a AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2105 Ma rela barrels did you take ?—A. Three hundred and twenty tte bet ?—A. Along the island, off on Bank Bradley, and all Q. In 1857, did you fish, as in 1852, coming within a mile of the shore Par i 2 ea amas No; the fish were not there; at least we did not Q. Did you try?—A. Yes. Sometimes we came in and made Mal- peque Harbor, to get wood and water. We have to come in for water once in ten days or a fortnight, unless we make up our minds to take a big stock with us. Q. You did not drift off shore and fish in 1857 ’—A. No; I do not remember of doing so, or of making a business of it. Sometimes, in going out of Malpeque Harbor, we would heave to and drift off, but we never made a business of fishing inshore that year. Q. And you could not tell what proportion of the 320 barrels was taken in the bight of the island ?—A. No. : Q. It might be one-half or two-thirds of the trip !—A. I do not think that we caught any such amount as that there, Q. Does your memory enable you to state any proportion ’—A. We did not catch any within the three-mile limit. Q. Can you say what proportion of the 320 barrels was caught in the bight of the island?—A. I could not tell you exactly. Q. Your meniory does not enable you to do sqi—A. Without statis- tics, I could not tell you. Q. How do you know that you did not catch any within the three-mile limit; you must have taken some while drifting off shore !—A. And we might not. I have fished many times for half a day and never caught a fish; and I have been fishing a week without taking a fish. ‘+ Q. But how was it on that particular trip?—A. I do not say that I remember the incidents of that trip. Q. And, therefore, you would not like to swear that you did not cateh any fish within the three-mile limit ?—A. I say I do not think that we so caught any. Q. You do not think so, but you do not remember precisely !—A. I do not remember of so catching any. Q. But it may be otherwise; is not your memory pretty blank on that point ?—A. If we had then caught any close inshore, I would have been apt to have remembered it, more so than as respects fish caught while traveling around the bay and heaving to here and there and every where ; catching them close inshore is a peculiarity. - Q. Then, from your experience in this fishery, if a large number of men caught fish within 3 miles of the shore, you think that they would be sure to remember it?—A. I think they would remember such a fact better than their catching them anywhere else. You can locate fishing close inshore, but when you are drifting round all over the gulf, you can- not locate fishing places. . ; Q. And you would be inclined to place a good deal of weight on the statements of men who testified specifically that they caught fish within ‘three miles or one mile of the shore?!—A. Yes; if I thought there was any truth in it. ; dere - Q. But that one fact in itself would have weight in your mind !—A. Yes; I think it would. 7 Q. When did you sit down to consider this matter over and make up these figures?—A. When I found that I was coming to give evidence here. 2106 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Had you an opportunity to consult many of your crew ?—A. I saw some of the men who went with me on some of my voyages; and for some facts, I had to depend on my own memory. In some cases I went to the inspector were we packed and learned the amount of fish our vessel packed on a certain year. q. Did you consult any of these men as to whether any proportion of your catch was taken in 1857, within the limits?—A. No. I did not see any of the men who were with us that year. - Q. You have harbored a good deal at Malpeque, and you used to drift oft from there; but your impression is that you caught no fish within the 3-mile limit while doing so ?—A. I do not say that I harbored a good _ deal there ; but I was there perhaps 3 or 4 times during the season. Q. You went to Bank Bradley that year?—A. Yes. Q. When you fished on Bank Bradley, how lorg would you remain there ?—A. I have been there for a fortnight or 3 weeks at a time. Q. Would that be an exceptional circumstance ?—A. It might be so in my case, because I never made a business of fishing altogether on Bank Bradley. I fished there and at the Magdalen Islands. Q. You mentioned Bank Bradley very often in your evidence ?—A. Yes. Q. Taking the general average, how long did you remain there ?—A. If I was in a large schooner fitted out strong, aud had plenty of water and everything, and found fish, I would lay there until I got a trip. Q. And if you did not find fish there, you would run over to the is- land coast and the Magdalen Islands ?—A. I think that I would prefer the Magdalen Islands. I always did so when I was captain. Q. How often were you captain ?—A. I have been captain of the C. W. Dyer, and for two years of the Finback, and that was all, in the bay. Q. Do you think that around the .Magdalen Islands is a pretty good fishing ground ?—A. I do. Q. Did you catch your fish close inshore there, or from 10 to 15 or 20 miles off shore ?—A. When we speak of fishing at the Magdalen Islands, we generally mean that we do so about them, within ten or twelve or perhaps five miles of the land. Q. Do you catch the fish pretty close inshore there ?—A. I never did so. Q. Where did you take them?—A. Anywhere from five to ten or fifteen miles off the land, just in the lay of it. Q. When you speak of fishing at the Magdalen Islands, you mean that you did so 15 or 20 miles off shore?—A. I mean anywhere from two or three to 15 or 20 miles off. Q. Did you fish all over that distance ?—A. At certain times I did; sometimes I would be in one place, and sometimes in another. Q. Is it not a pretty boisterous place ?—A. I never saw it so. Q. The water, then, is calm and quiet around these islands ?—A. It is about the same as in other places. _ Q. We have evidence stating that it is very much windier there than in other places ; do you agree with that view ?—A. I do not think that this is the case, and I am giving you my candid opinion. In July, I think that it is more windy there than at the island, but I think that this is a benefit to fishermen, because in calm weather you cannot drift, or make sail, or change ground. Q. Do you not leave these islands much earlier than the shores of | Cape Breton or Prince Edward Island ?—A. Prince Edward Island, no; _ Cape Breton, yes. Q. Then the fleet does not fish any later along Prince Edward Island than at the Magdalen Islands ?—A. I do not think that they fish as late. = 4 ee AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2107 Q. You think that the fishing-vessels leave Prince Edw j before they leave the Magdalen LiMePee va ee . Give me the dates.—A. I, never saw fishing i » Bight o Prince Edward Island after the 1st of October. nee ee Q. And you never fished but once in the bight of the island !—A. I beg your pardon; I said I never fished there but once within three miles of the land. Q. I understood you differently; in 1851 you were in the Josephine !~ A. And in 1852 I was in the Josephine. Q. The only times you mention of being at the island at all were dur- ing the years 1851 and 1852, as I have it?—A. You were asking about fishing within the three-mile limit; and those were the only years when I ever made a business of doing so. oo Q. And you think that vessels fish later around the Magdalen Islands than off Prince Edward Island ?—A. Yes; as far as my experience goes. Q. Whatever that is worth ?—A. Yes. Q. Do you know Captain Chivari?—A. No. Q. You seem to have fished every year at the Magdalen Islands !—A, I did so almost every year, and about every trip. Q. I understand that your evidence amounts to this: that the bulk of your fish was caught at Bank Bradley, around the Magdalen Islands, and in the bight of the island; that a very small proportion was taken within the three-mile limit; that you never fished on the west coast, or in the Bay of Chaleurs, or at Seven Islands; and that you never but once were fishing off the Cape Breton coast—in 1852—and that was off Margaree; and that you then caught about 50 barrels within the three-mile limit, and the balance from four to five or six miles off shore !— A. I believe that is correct. Q. And you have no experience of fishing-grounds in the gulf save -those at the Magdalen Islands and off the bight of Prince Edward Island ?—A. I have also fished on Banks Bradley and Orphan, and off North Cape, and so across, wide off over towards Points Miscou and Escuminac. We caught some fish in those places. Q. As far as the fishing-fleets are concerned, these are accustomed to frequent and fish in the Bay of Chaleurs, off the Cape Breton coast, at Margaree and Cheticamp, off Cascumpeque, and around to East Point, and to drift off the island shore; but you had nothing to do with that !— A. I never knew that any vessels made that a custom, as a general thing. Some few scattered vessels fished there. Q. And if large fleets do so, you were not among them !—A, No; and what is more, if they did it I would have been able to have seen them, though they were 10 or 15 miles from me. Q. But if a number of men came and stated that they saw 200 or J00 vessels fishing in these places, would you dispute the accuracy of such a statement ?_-A. If there were 200 or 300 vessels at Bunk Bradley | would have been apt to have known of it. -Q. But 200 or 300 vessels might be there one day and the next day be in the Bay of Chaleurs ?—A. Yes; if they had a good breeze. Q. Is it not the practice of many American vessels to follow the schools of fish from one place to another !—A. That would be the case ._ if the fish so moved ; but, as a general thing, the fish about July locate ie themselves on some ground, and there you will generally find them. There are different schools; and one school, for instance, will agentes self at the Magdalen Islands, where you will generally find A | * will not catch them every day; but as a general thing you wil — them; and other schools will locate themselves at Banks Orphao an 2108 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Bradley, or about the island, &c. These schools do not change their locations; but the vessels go from one place to another to fish. Q. Your idea is that the schools remain moreor less in distinct places where they have located themselves ?—A. Yes. (). And adopting that idea when fishing you followed the school at the Magdalen Islands around them ?—A. I think that was the best fish- ing-ground in the gulf during the years when I was in it. @. Your fishing has been moderately successful here; you took 240 and 325 barrels. Was this during two trips or two seasons ?—A. Those are trips. Q. I see that for a number of years your returns for the American shore were small?—A. Yes, and I will tell you why: I never fished there all the year; I was not captain then. Q. Is that the only reason why they were small, say from 1865 to 1875? Iam asking you generally.—A. Yes; I was not fishing at all in 1865, but from 1870 to 1875 they were small some years. Q. Were the catches on the American coast from 1865 to 1870 small or large ?—A. Some were small and some large. Q. What was the general catch ?—A. Years differed; some years be- tween 1865 and 1870 the average was fair on our coast. Q. And how was it from 1870 to 1875 ?—A. They were very fair. _ Q. A little above the ordinary average ?—A. No; last year, however, this was the case. Q. Your opinion is that the fishery on the American coast has been very good all along, and that it has never shown any decrease to speak of ?—A. Not for a number of years; there have been poor years and good years. The average has been good. @. You have not had a number of poor years back following each other ?—A. Not within my recollection. @. There have. been no consecutive poor years ?—A. Not more than is ordinarily the case. Q. If there has been such a run of good fishing along the American coast, how is it that so many hundreds of American vessels have annu- ally frequented bay ?—A. I have already said that our vessels never did make a practice of coming to the bay, because our crews were all home men—Cape Cod men. I have heard a good many Cape Ann men say, that because their crews are made up of Prince Edward Islanders and Nova Scotians, they prefer the bay; and another thing—a good many ship crews that it don’t do to put on our coast. You cannot handle them in our harbors and large places. They get drunk, &c., and they prefer to send these crews to the bay where they can be kept clear of rum, Wc. Q. These men are a very lawless lot ?—A. Yes. (. You think there are two reasons for this: First, the men belong to Prince Edward Island, Cape Breton, and Nova Scotia; and, secondly, they are a very lawless lot, whom it won’t do to let into your harbors. Are you sincere in making this statement?—A. Yes; I would rather have fished on our shore, but having had to ship a crew in Boston, I have had to come to the bay, when if I had had a home crew from Cape eee I would never have thought of it; that is my candid testimony on oath. Q. And you would extend that testimony, I undérstand, to the 500, 600, 700, or 800 American vessels that come into the bay 7—A. I never saw that many American vessels in the bay. «. If you never were in the Bay of Chaleurs to fish, how on earth can you tell how many were there; if you were never at Seven Islands, how can you tell how many were there; and if you were never along between ' AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2109 Margaree and Cheticamp, on the Cape Breton coast, bow in the world - can you tell how many were there ?—A. I have pot told. Q. You deny that 600 or 700\ American vessels come to the bay '—A. I will tell you my reasons for doing so. If we have on our shore only about 1,000 vessels, and if 600 or 700 of them are fishing there, | know that they are not in the bay, and that there are only about 400 left. Q. This is, of course, a matter of opinion ?—A. There is no opinion about it. These are the statistics, and figures won’t lie. .Q. oy yond not yield to 10 or 20 or 40 men who swore to the con- trary 7—A. No. ; Q. Will you swear that there never were 700 American vessels in the bay ?—A. Yes; I will take oath that there were never 600 which passed the Gut of Canso into the bay. Q. Were there 500?—A. There might have been, but I do not think it, As to the outside limit I would swear to, I would not go below 600, bat still I say, I will take oath to 600, though I won't dare go any further. Q. When a man takes an oath it is a serious thing.—A. I know what an oath is. Q. One, then, requires pretty good data to go on ?—A. I know that. Q. Do you know James Bradley, who was called ov behalf of the American Government ?—A. Yes; I am well acquainted with him. Q. He is from Newburyport ?—A. I was with him in the fruit basi- ness. Q. Is he a truthful man ?—A. I consider him to be so. Q. When in the same position in which you now are—under oath —he deposed : Q. In those days what was the average number of the fleet that did very much as you did ?—A. I don’t know that I could make a very good average. 4 , Q. Give an approximate amount, to the best of your judgment.—A. 600 oF 700 gail cet tainly. Ihave been in the bar with 900 sail of American vessels, but the number rather diminished along the last years I went there. A. He was not read up in statistics. I can prove that that is not so, Q. Are you a statistician ?—A. I have statistics enough to show, in the first place, that we have only 1,300 registered fishing vessels in the United States, and taking out 300—a low estimate as cod fishers—this leaves 1,000 other vessels, as nigh as I can judge, Well, then, there are 200 vessels under American register on our shore, which are not ft to go into the bay. ' sh tag -Q. Why ?—A. Because they are not big enough or good enough. : : Tnited S 3 ‘n to the Bay of Chaleurs, be a man is going from the United States down Piss Ange eats wants a good vessel; and then there are 200 more W hich have no xg oe sition or dare not go down, ani that leaves 600; and so ietgeta le ae bay every vessel which is capable of going there at one time, this lea rpose. eet aca statistics on aye you base your snr where pee av vot them with me save in my mind. oo aae dia ahr er e 7—A. From hearing the statistics paths of. Isay there are about the numbers I mentioned. I am ase . ) 300 ing with the most minute exactness. I say that ae me Seas _ registered vessels, and I suppose pug igh hati should be preferred ., Q. You say that the reason why your evidence sholl™ Adi drs Xe is the i an who is not acquainted Wi over Mr. Bradley’s is that he is a man Der coud’ pron ie tistics $A. I did not say preferred. [ told you that 4 cou “angel read the evidence in which he stated that he bad been in 2110 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the bay with 900 American vessels, and you answer that he must be wrong ?—A. Yes. Q. Because he had no statistics to go by ?—A. I said that he did not speak from statistics; that is what I meant, any way. Q. But he states that he had been in the bay with them ?—A. He never saw 900 American vessels in the bay; and if he was here I would just tell him so. Q. You have never examined the statistics yourself, and you are speaking from what others have said ?—A. I have heard gentlemen say how many registered vessels we have. I never examined the statistics myself. Probably you know; you may have the statistics. Q. Yes; and if you are wrong in your statistics, or rather in your recollection or presumption of what the statistics are, your evidence on this point would be valueless, would it not?—A. I do not know but it then might be. Q. Who gave the statistics to you?—A. I could not tell you, but I heard them spoken of. Q. You base your statement on information obtained from persons whose names you cannot remember, and you never examined the sta- tistics yourself?—A. Yes. . Ry Mr. Trestot: Q. You state it from general intelligence received by you ?—A. Yes. By Mr. Davies: Q. Will you undertake to contradict Mr. Bradley on that?—A. Yes. Q. You will?—A. Yes; my common sense tells me that there were never 900 American vessels in the bay at one time. Ido not think that Captain Bradley meant to lie, and I would not say that he would lie in any way or shape. ; Q. Then you say that the statement of Mr. Bradley is false ?—A. I have nothing to do with Mr. Bradley’s statement. I said I never be- lieved that there were 900 American vessels in the bay at one time. Q. But Il ask you that question now.—A. Has he any right to bring me to oath on Captain Bradley’s statement ? Mr. DANA. No. WITNESS. You want me to say that Mr. Bradley is a liar, and I will not say so. By Mr. Davies: Q. What do you say?—A. I state that there never were 900 Amer- ican vessels in the bay at one time. Q. And if Captain Bradley says so, he is wrong 7—A. I am not saying so. You cannot make me commit myself. Q. I do not desire to do so.—A. You want me to say that Captain Bradley is telling a lie, and I won’t do anything of the kind. Q. You will not swear either that he is telling the truth or a lie; you refuse to answer.—A. I refuse to implicate Captain Bradley as a liar. Q. Will you venture to assert that Captain Bradley’s statement is in- coirect ?—A. I say that in my opinion and to the best of my ability, I do not believe it, and I know that there never were 900 American ves- sels in the bay at one time, and that I guess is all that is required of me on that question. Q. You came to the bay in 1867?—A. Yes. ; Q. In the Finback ?—A. Yes. Q. And you took out a license ?—A. Yes. Q. And you did this, you say, for two reasons—first, because you AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2111 would not then be liable to be taken 10 miles off shore by the cutters and secondly because you wished to fish within the 3-mile limit if any. such chance presented itself ?—A. I considered that I was as liable to be taken within 10 as within 3 miles of the shore. Q. You stated that you considered so, from what you had seen !—A. I have seen American vessels bothered when outside of the limits. a That is a serious statement.—A. This happened some time before at. Q. I wish you to name one vessel which was captared or taken by the cutters outside of three-mile limit—A. I could not tell you the year, bat it occurred under the old treaty, when they used to take vessels. ‘ Q. Under what old treaty ?—A. I do not exactly know how long this was ago. I have seen 7 or 8 vessels lying below North Cape, when eat- ters would come down and bother some of them, and the rest would all make sail and go off; and this happened when they were fishing without the bounds. Q. Give the names of the cutters.—A. There were the Daring, Cap. tain Laybold, and the Telegraph—I do not know the name of her eap- tain. These cutters were in the bay in 1851 and 1852, and along there. I have been fishing when cutters would come down along the island and. fire guns, no matter though the American vessels were seven or eight mniles off shore. This bothered the tish, and the American vessels would then scatter. Seven or eight miles is my estimate, but I will not swear to the exact distance. I will not swear to the cutter that did it; there were several of them in the bay at the time. ; Q. Can you give me the name of a cutter which interfered with an American vessel when seven or eight miles off shore!—A. I do not know that Icould. I remember that when American vessels were laying there, one of the cutters came down and fired guns, but I coald not tell "you which one did it. I think that at the time it was not clearly under- stood whether the live was to be drawn from headland to headland, or whether the distance was to be measured from the shore invariably. Q. Whereabouts did this happen ?—A. Between North Cape and Kil- dare, seven or eight miles off North Cape, to the best of my judgment. It was that distance, I think, off the land between North Cape and Kil: dare. Q. And in 1867 you remembered that this outrage or act took place f— A. Yes. : Q. And you state that your remembering this 16 years after its oceur- rence was one of the reasous why you took out a license [—A. That was one of the reasons. ? Q. And you seriously give it as such ?—A. Yes; I do. . Q. Do you seriously aftirm before this Commission that this motive ‘influenced you?—A. That was one thing with others; I say | was anxious; I did not know how far the cutters would bother me. . Q. Name the other vessels.—A. I know that fish bad been canght in- Shore. I had caught some there in 1851, and I wanted to be prepared to take advantage of any such opportunity. ; ; Q. How much did you pay for your license !—A. $96—81 a ton. obtained it of Vincent Wallace at Port Mulgrave. ; Q. You had then been sixteen years without catching any fish within - ‘the three-mile limit in British waters, and you never then canght re ‘there of any moment at all during all the years you were fishing in the bay 7—A. Yes; 1852 excepted. -Q. And nevertheless you paid 896 for a license to fish withia the \% : 3 2112 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. limits ?—A. I had not been captain when I was there before, and I did not know but that I would do better there than some others. Q. Had you not a very shrewd suspicion that a large portion of the fish would be caught within the 3-mile limit that year?—A. I had not, honest ; but I was liable to go inshore for water. G: You could do that without a license ?—A. Yes; and sometimes I would want to put into Malpeque for letters, &c. Q. And you could have done that without a license ?—A. One had to pay light money in those times on going in. @. Letters had nothing to do with it. The people were not so in- hospitable as to refuse you your letters ?—A. No; I always found them very obliging at Malpeque. Q. Were the fish which you caught within the three-mile limit poor affairs ?—A. I cannot tell you how they looked; I have not thought that.up. Q. You say that you would prefer a duty on Canadian fish entering the American market, to the privilege of fishing within three miles of the shore in the bay 7—A. Yes; I should if I went fishing. Q. Why?—A. Because I do not think that the privilege amounts to as much as the duties to us. Q. Why do you want the duty kept on ?—A. Because, in the first place, we would get more for our fish in the United States. Q. And when the duty is abolished the price naturally comes down ?— A. The fish might then be a little cheaper. Q. That is your opinion ?—A. I do not think that the-price would come down much. Q. Then why do you want the duty kept on? Do you not think that you gave a rather hasty answer? You say you would prefer the duty to the privilege of fishing in the Bay of St. Lawrence, within the limits?—A. Yes. Q. Why, I understood you to say it was because this would keep the price up.—A. That was a little erroneous, I think. Let me think the matter over. Q. Why would you rather prefer the duty to the privilege men- tioned 7—A. Because that would keep the price up, and we would then get more for our fish. I thought you had me a little. Q. I merely want your statement on the point.—A. Thatis my candid opinion. Q. You now speak as a fisherman ?7—A. Yes; if I was fishing, that would be my idea. Q. All classes of men have selfish motives ?—A. I want to get all I can for what I have to sell, and to buy as cheaply as possible. (). And in order to get a high price for your fish, you want the duties on ar Yes. (. You wound up by telling Mr. Trescot that the Gulf of St. Law- rence fisheries were of no account to you at all, and that you could prove it?—A. I meant as respects Wellfleet. I am speaking with ref- erence to the last three or four years—I do not say never. I will say at all events, within the last seven or eight years, as far as I can re- member, and for the last three or four years. I can give you some idea why I think so. Q. You will extend the period to seven or eight years?—A. Yes; during this time they have been of no account to us at all. es What do you mean by that?—A. That we never get any fish there. Q. Was no quantity of fish taken by American vessels in our waters. : : = ee? AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2118 during the last seven or eight years?—A. No amount of fish were ro et voe am ee with respect to Wellfleet. _ Q. You would not like to extend that statement to other fishi in the United States, would you?—A. I have no statistics Neaine those ports, and I do not know anything about that. I am referring to my own native place. Q. And Wellfleet possesses but a very small proportion of the Ameri- can fishing fleet?—A. It has a small proportion of it as to namber, bat we all have large vessels. Q. Give me the number of your vessels that frequented the bay dar- ing the last six, seven, or eight years.—A. I cannot do so save for the two years and this season. One vessel has goue each year to the bay from our port during this time. Q. It was beeause very few vessels came down here that you said the gulf fisheries were of no account to you?—A. Of course. Q. Has any great number of vessels ever come from Wellfleet to the bay ?—A. I stated previously that within the last seven, eight, or ten years I thought that perhaps 8 or 10 vessels had come over here; and that is as near as I can remember. Q. Your vessels that came here never really amounted to anything in number?—A. Not during that time. Q. Did they do so at any time?—A. Perhaps the number really amounted to something some years, but I could neither tell you the years nor the numbers. Q. Over the years to which your information extends there never was atime when the Wellfleet fishermen sent any uamber of vessels to our bay ?7—A. No more than what I have stated, to the best of my recollection. Q. Do you think the Gulf of St. Lawrence fisheries are of any value -to the Americans, as a whole?—A. If a mau goes to any place and gets a trip of mackerel, that is of some value to him, perhaps; bat I do not say but that he might have staid at home and done as well or a little better. Q. What brings the Americans to our waters, then'—A. I have stated my reasons as to the mackerel-fisuermen, and | do not know anything about the cod-fishermen. : Q. Have you heard any statement made by any person respecting the bay fishery, or about the fisheries anywhere, as being valuable to you?—A. No; never. Sogane Q. And you would be en much surprised if that turned out to be a fact ?—A. Yes; I should. Q. You do not think that they are of any value at all yourself T—A. I say that they are of no account at all to my place. tr ane if Q. Can you give me the name of any person of Prince E abel Island or Nova Scotia or New Brunswick who was among the crews 0 any one of your vessels ?—A. I do not know as I could. Last year about one-half of the crews belonged to these provinces, but I could not tell their names. . Are you fishing this year ?—A. No. ms Devon know fe result of the fishing this year in the bay '—A. Only one vessel of our fleet is there this year, , Q. What is her name ?—A. The Ruth E. Newcombe. ae Q. With regard to the statistics you mentioned, did pte Kg pe specting the number of vessels engaged in the fisheries as cai Tae chusetts alone or from all the States—Rhode Island, etre iss ind York. and Pennsylvania, &c.!—A. I was speaking with reve wobaaiy : mS | a ish do not come to the bay the mackerel and cod fisheries; all kinds of fish ¢ eg 133 F ‘7 2114 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q.. Do you mean to embrace in your statistics the vessels which go to the Banks ?—A. Yes; I include the mackerel and cod fishers. Q. In the 1,3v0 you included the Bank fishers?—A. Yes; from the United States. Q. The figures given in the annual report of the Chief Bureau of Sta- tistics for the commerce and navigation of the United States make your figures 1,300 about 1,000 vessels astray. Thenumber of American and cod-fishing vessels under and over 20 tons down to June 30, 1876, is given as 2,311.—A. I meant registered vessels. I did not refer to boats. I included vessels over 20 tons, and those under that figure are not registered. Q. But out of the 1,300 you deducted 200 or 300 small vessels.—A. Yes; such as were not fit to come to the bay. It would not be either profitable or prudent to come here in a vessel of less than 50 or 60 tons. Q. What is the tonnage of these 200 or 300 vessels which remain on the coast ?—A. It varies from 20 to the figures just mentioned. Q. You do not embrace in your gross number any vessels under 20 tons ?—A. No; I meant registered vessels, and they are not registered when under 20 tons. Q. I cannot conceive how it is that you cannot remember the names of some of the persons from Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, or Nova Scotia who were with you during some of the years you men- tion.—A. I cannot remember their surnames; I can only recollect that they were called Peter, John, and Bill, &c. Q. You surely can remember one name.—A. I cannot. I have not thought of it before, and that being so, this is a poor place to do so in. Honestly, I could not now state the name of one solitary man. No,- 13, DANIEL C. NEwcomp, of Wellfleet, Massachusetts, master-mariner and fisherman, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Dana: - Question. You belong to Wellfleet, and are 53 years of age ?—Answer. es. Q. That is your native place, by the way ?—A. Yes. (). How long have you been a fisherman ?—A. 38 seasons. Q. You are now in commerce ?—A. No, I am working on a wharf, packing. Q. When did you first go into the Bay of St. Lawrence ?—A. In 1838. Q. Did you catch anything then ?—A. We got in late in the summer and the catch was small. We only got eight barrels. We were there a month and returned. Q. Then waat did you do the rest of the season?—A. We fished around Cape Cod. Q. You got how much ?—A. 300 barrels. Q. That was between Cape Ann and Cape Cod ?—A. Yes. That was what we supposed to be the catch. I was very young and didn’t know much about it. Q. Now, in ’39, did you go into the bay ?—A. I did. Q. Did you do much ?—A. We had about the same success as in the preceding. year. ae That was rather poor. Did you do any shore-fishing ?7—A. We - Q. Where did you get them? Did you catch the sec AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2115 Q. How much ?—A. I don’t know. N ot a very large catch. Q. After 39 what did you do !—A. I went shore fishing. Soe that about six years, or what was it!—A. It was from "39 Q. What luck did you have those five or six years '—A. Well, we had sei ioe that we proposed to keep on that shore-fishing for that nam- r of years. Q. You went in often into port ?—A. Yes; we made short trips, I sie tell the amounts that we caught, not well. We went in every month. Q. Now, in 1845 where were you ?—To the Bay of St. Lawrence. Q. What did you get ?—A. 130 barrels. Q. Where did you catch them ?—A. All over the bay. Q. Did you catch any of them within the three-mile limit !—A. Not to my recollection. We might have caught a few scattered mackerel, not anything so that I could tell you any number of barrels. Q. What places did you go on?—A. Bradley and Orphan and the West Shore. -Q. Did you go into the Banks again for a few years? Whatdid you do in 746 and 747 7—A. I think there were two or three years that | fished on our shores. Q. Then after ’48 did you gointo the bay again ’—A. (Consults mem- orandum.) Iam not sure of the dates. I can tell you if I get the year in my mind. In ’48 I went into the bay. We caught 350 barrels. Q. Where did you catch them ?—A. The first 40 barrels we canght off Cape Mabou. Q. Any other place?—A. We caught quite a quantity around the Magdalens, and some off Bradley. We fished anywhere in the bay. We went from place to place to find better fish. They were very poor. Q. The mackerel were scarce?—A. No; there were plenty of fish in the bay, but they were poor, and we went to different places to find better fish. We found the largest at the Magdalens. Q. Are you sure you caught that number in 1858? Look at your memorandum.—A. No. Q. ’59, was it not ?—A. It was ’48. Ree Q. I was thinking of ’58.—A. I went again in "5S. ; Q. Now, from ’48 to ’58, what were you doing !—A. Shore fishing again, ten years. ; Q. Did you find it lucrativet—A. Idid. eee Q. Then you began the bay fishing again in ‘08 '—A. I went into the bay again; yes. - 0. What a the result ?—A. The result was very poor. We got only 30 barrels. . Q. Were you all over the bay 7—A. Yes. _ : ' tri Q. In 59 did you go into the bay !—A. Yes. ve made two trips. The first trip we got 150 barrels, and the second, 100. oad! tin at the Magdalens altogether 7—A. Yes. ; @. Wier aoa get the 150 barrels '—A. We caught them on the West Shore partly—Bradley Bank, West Shore, and down the island. Q. When did you next go into the bay !—A. In 1873. Q. That is fourteen years after 7—A. Yes. : a eaieet Q. What were you doing during these 14 years ?—A. Si ; we call it so. It was on the George’s and on our coust. 4 ves includes all the mack- - Q. That includes the George’s’—A. Yes. It ineludes a 2116 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. erel-fishing we do from Block Island down along Cape Cod, Cape Ann, and along our shores down the Bay of Fundy. Q. Then you began in ’73 to go into the bay? How much did you catch that year ?—A. 250 barrels. Q. Where did you catch them ?—A. We caught 50 barrels up at the island—the first 50. Q. What part of the island ?7—A. St. Peter's. Q. Have you any notion whether you caught them all within three miles?—A. No; I don’t mean that. Q. How was that?—A. I should think we might have caught half of them. Q. Where were the rest of the 250 barrels taken ?—A. 100 barrels off Georgetown Bank. Q. That is more than three miles off?—A. Yes; that is all outside. Q. Where did you catch the rest?—A. At the Magdalens. Q. The next year, 1874, what did you do?—A. I went fishing on our coast next year. Q. How much did you take?—A. I don’t know rightly. I was with euanee man. I lost my vessel the year before. I think it was 600 bar- rels. Q. Off the American coast ?—A. Yes. Q. What were you doing in ’75?—A. I have not since been to sea as a fisherman. Q. You have been putting up fish ?—A. Yes. Q. You have a wharf?—A. Yes. Q. Do you know how many barrels you put up in 187523—A. 5,500 barrels, I think. Q. N ow, of these 5,500 barrels how many were from the bay ?—A. 155 headed barrels; 140 packed barrels. Q. Now, in ’76 how many did you pack ?—A. 11,000. Q. How many of these were from the bay ?—A. 45 barrels. Q. Do you think that the proportion you put up—45 from the bay out of 11,000, and 140 out of 5,500—is a fair sample of the proportion put up in Wellfleet 7—A. I think that was all the vessels we had from our place. I think there was only one vessel in the bay. Q. What is the greatest number of vessels you have ever had in the bay ?—A. I would not like to state the number. We had one year al- most all our fishing-fleet there. Q. What is your whole fleet 7—A. It is now 52 sail. Then, perhaps, it was 80 or 90 sail. The majority went into the bay one year. Q. You had as many as 40 or 50 in the bay ?—A. I think so. Q. Has the bay fishing diminished ?—A. Yes, it has, until our folks have become disgusted with it. Q. Do you think it is of any practical commercial consequence to your people 7—A. Our people never set much store by the privileges of the bay. I never did. Q. They show that by their actions. Now, do you think that the coast. fishery, as you call it—that is, the Georges Banks, off Block Island, Cape Cod, Cape Ann, Massachusetts Bay, and down as far as Eastport—do you "think that the fishing there of all kinds—I mean hook and line, Seines, nets, pounds—what do you think of that fishery as a means of supplying the American market ?—A. I don’t know hardly how to an- swer. Q. Then I will put it more distinctly. Do you think that fishery,’well prosecuted, will supply the American market without the necessity of 2 re AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2117 resorting tothe bay ?—A. Last year it seemed to m as i but this year the fish are very ise seat a ae, Q. Do you find that you are much helped by what comes from the bay this year ?—A. We haven’t had anything come in. Only one vessel has come from the bay. Q. From all you have heard is it promising or not !—A. There seems to be a report since I have been here that it is brighter. Similar reports come from our own coast. Everything was dark when I came away. Some vessels hadn’t landed a fish this season. ; By Mr. Weatherbe: Q. You say that your own fisheries are not equal to supplying the United States market last year?—A. This year. I said last year I thought they were. Q. You thought they were equal to supplying your own market; that is, the whole of your markets. What do you call your market !—A. Well, our market is all over the United States where our railroads go. By Mr. Dana: ° Q. I meant to include in my question the cod Bank fisheries '!—A. I am not posted as to the cod-fisheries at all. Q. But in asking you whether our fisheries would supply our market, I meant to include the Bank fisheries ?—A. I don’t kuow anything of the Bank fisheries. By Mr. Weatherbe: Q. You answered with reference to your own fisheries alone 1—A. Yes, Q. You were referring to the home fishery —A. FI understood him to ask me if I thonght our American fishery would supply our demands, and I replied — : Q. You were speaking of the home fishery alone ’—A. Yes. Q. Are you not astray? Mr. Dana did not mean that. He meant the cod fishery outside in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and on the Banks of Newfounland ?—A. I do not want to touch the cod fishery atall. 1 was talking about mackerel. Q. And you meant on the United States coast ?!—A. I meant the mackerel fishery on the coast last year; that last year I thoaght, from the price we got for our fish, there was plenty of fish to supply oar mar ket. They ruled so low that it was hardly worth while to catch fish. Q. You are speaking entirely of the mackerel fishery ?!—A. Yes. I would not talk about the codfish, for [ am not acquainted with it. Q. What do you consider to be the quantity required to supply the United States market ?—A. I do not know. I don’t take the figures at all. I supposed that if fish were not worth catching on account of the ‘price being so low everybody was supplied. Q. Suppose the supply was limited. Suppose other fish were very plenty and they were very scarce, what would your opinion be thea 1— _ A. I don’t understand the question. Q. I understood you now to have stated, or to have intended to say, that your supply of mackerel and cod on the United States os nde sufficient to supply the demand in the United States, all over the Unites States ?—A. My opinion was that it was last year. ee —A. When they haal ap - inion? Q. How do you come to have that opini that the market is and don’t think it worth while to catch fish I assume No Were there any mackerel caught outside of the United States 2118 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. shores last year?—A. I presum:; there was. There were 55 barrels caught in the Bay St. Lawrence. Q. When you were speaking of your market were you not confining yourself only to your own town ?—A. We don’t eat many fish in our town. I packed 11,000 barrels last year. Q. How many mackerel does your market require ?—A. I don’t know. Q. Can you give us any idea ?—A. I haven’t the least idea. Q. Have you any sort of an idea whatever how many of those mack- eral last year that did supply that demand were caught in the United States waters ?—A. No, I have not, only as to my own town of Well- fleet. In the town of Wellfleet there was 38,000 barrels put up. Q. Outside of that you can’t give us any idea whatever ?—A. No. Q. Do you recollect when there was an agitation in regard to the Washington Treaty coming into operation 7—A. i heard of it. I don’t recollect anything particular. Q. Did you engage with those who sent a delegation to Washing- ton ?—A. I didn’t take any part in any political movement. Q. In 1838 and 1839 you fished 7—A. Yes. Q. In the Bay St. Lawrence? Then from 1839 to 1845 you ceased to fish there? You fished on your own shores ?—A. Yes. Q. Then afterwards when did you fish on yout own shores? It was after ’45?—A. Yes. Q. You have nothingin your books, I suppose, except dates ?—A. No. Q. And these dates, of course, come from your records?—A. All of those except one. I went with other men into the bay. Q. Did you put those years down ?—A. They are all down in the book up to 1873. Then I was master. Q. From 739 to 45 you went on your own coast ?—A. Yes. @. You didn’t take any account of those years?—A. I only took a list of the vessels I went in, not the quantity of fish caught. Q. You didn’t take down the names of the vessels you fished in on your own coast ?—A. Yes; all the vessels I ever went in. Q. What vessels did you fish in in the Gulf of St. Lawrence? Did you take a list of them 7—A. I have them. Q. I wish you had made a list so that you could put it in?—A. I can give you the vessels and the tonnage. Q. Tell me if you can name any Nova Scotians or Canadians you fished with ?—A. In the bay? Q. Yes.—A. I could not tell you one. Q. You cannot give the name of a single man ?—A. Do you mean in the vessels with me? Q. Certainly; that is what I want to find out.—A. I don’t carry it in my mind. It is 15 years since I went into the bay. Q. These you have written down there in the (memorandum) are from memory ?—A. Yes. Q. Not from any book ?—A. No. Q. Then if your memory is defective the book is defective?—A. Yes, that is so. Q. Now, you have looked at the book. If you have it from your memory why can’t you give it to us without looking at the book? I can understand from the rules of the evidence it is allowable to look at any writing or instrument made at the time, but I never heard of it being allowed to write down from memory and give evidence from paper.—A. If I am sitting down by myself I can count them up, but in a room like this it is different. Q. We had an American master here the other day. He gave the si” r ‘lector told me he wanted me to go down and testi AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2119 names from the records, but vai : Monae aiid veadliig it a ee cor writing down evi. Mr. DANA. Suppose you didn’t, can’t y ty coart. Mr, Wear iente ated es fy can't you goon with the examination ? - You cannot give the name of one single Canadi ' or British sabject who fished with Cor aaitncomne Nova Scotian, in Canadian waters ?—A. No g the whole period you flahed Q. Can you tell me how man iti j ; ¥ British subjects fis i , Sones alee me anything like the pronto sigs in inset ay St. Lawrence. I think we had tl R na - Harbor Booches i had three Frenchmen from a aa. e, in the E. J. Lawton. I think it was three. I will not Q. Where did you fish in the E. J. L ? Te didn’ ae AN We tried everywhere. - Lawton i—A. We didn’t catch them - You haven’t down in yo c y you eee Sh ae ag book at all any memorandum of where . Read what you have in your book for 1858,— 5 i 30 barrels in the schooner E. J. Lawton, 70 tone burden. 1 ny rrp what I have in the book. i al bane Q. You have 30 down there ?—A. Yes. Loe aS von remember to put down 30 ?—A. I will tell you. I u j i ife 5 oa es ned tei was a man just starting life, and I had to pay $22 as Q. You have to look at the book now to tell oad re; the dates Fee ea. tell me?—A. I have; to show . It was not necessary to look to find the number’—A. No; gi me the vessels and I will tell the numbers. et een Re 9, can you tell me without looki rt i Mies Winiield Scot) ing at the book !—A. I think Q. That is the next year. We will su it i i : pose it is the Winfield Scott. Tell me what you caught.—A. 250 Garey Two trips. ; Q. Now, you recollect that, don’t you?—A. Yes. Q. The reason why you recollect with regard to the previous case is that you paid something. Perhaps with this vessel the reason why you recollect is different. Is it the same in this case ’—A. No; we el a fair voyage that time. Q. You told me the reason you recollected the previous year was be- cause you had to pay out money, which I admit was a good reason. There may be some other reason in this case?—A. We went only two or three times to various places. If we had gone a great namber of years in succession I might not remember, but by skipping 4 number of years and going to the bay in that way I can keep it in my mind. Q. How many years altogether did you fish in the Gulf of St. Law- -rence?—A. Seven years. Q. Then you give me as the reason of your recollecting, that you made so few trips?—A. Yes. ~ Q. That is the reason you recollect you got these 250 barrels. Is that in round numbers or exactly ?—A. That is to the best of my knowledge. Q. To the best of your recollection ’—A. Yes. Q. But in round numbers ?—A. Yes. Q. You had no record and could not get any record !—A. The col- fy to the namber of fish I caught in the Bay of St. Lawrence, and I supposed I could tell every year, but when I came to figure up the Winfield Scott bothered me. Every other one was quite clear. Q. So you are not sure ?—A. I am not sure. I am not sure that was 2120 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the exact number. We may have caught a few more, but I can say without flinching that we caught 250 barrels. We made two trips. Q. Why didn’t you go on fishing in the bay ?—A. We thought we could do better on our coast. @. As you had done so poorly the year before, why did you go in the bay that year?—A. I do not know that I had any particular reason. I was in the vessel and wherever the captain went I went. I shipped in the vessel and she concluded to go in th® bay. Q. That is no reason at all, as you could go where you liked. Q. That year you got 250 barrels. Having got only 30 barrels the year before, you came to the bay again, and yet when you got 250 bar- rels this year you didn’t goagain. Can you give any reason for remem- bering what proportion of these fish you caught within three miles of the shore?—A. Well, it is impressed upon my mind because the inshore was forbidden ground, and if we caught anything we would be apt to recollect it. Q. That is one of the best reasons in the world. I am speaking now of the whole period. You understand that, I suppose. Perhaps you don’t understand me? Do you understand my question to refer to any particular year?—A. No. Q. You understand it to refer to all the years?—A. Yes. Q. Of course that is a very good reason. Did you ever hear of the practice of lee-bowing boats?—A. Never, until I got down here. Q. Do you mean until you came down here as a witness ?—A. Yes. Q. Where did you hear it?—A. I don’t know. I have heard it re- marked. Q. Did you ever hear the expression 7—A. I have heard the expres- sion lee-bowing. Q. You always tried to keep outside the three-mile limit ?—A. I did not say so. Q. You would not come in, because it was illegal to goin? I under- stood you to say that.—A. I never said that. You asked me if I caught any fish inside. Q. I asked you what reason you had for remembering why you had caught fish inside. You told me, as I understood, and you ean correct me now if I am wrong, that you understood it to be illegal?—A. I did not understand your question so. JI understood you toask the question why I remembered when I caught mackerel inside. I said because it was forbidden ground. Q. I understand now the reason you recollect. I confess I misunder- stood you. What do you mean by forbidden ground ?—A. Inside of three miles. Q. Why was it forbidden grounds? , Who forbade you?—A. The gov- ernment. ae Did your owners tell you not to go inside ?—A. It was the govern- ment. Q. Then it-was illegal ?—A. I presume it was. Q. You understood it was wrong ?—A. I did. Q. And that you were liable to seizure?—A. Yes. Q. That is to say, thatif you were caught inshore you might have your vessel confiscated? Then you ran a great risk, did you not ?—A. I considered I ran a risk by being within five miles. Q. You did know you were running a risk inshore ?—A. Yes. @. You considered all the time you were fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence that you were running arisk, didn’t you? You say you were aS ie . you left off fishing ?—A. I think there might have been 2 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2121 running arisk. Were you running a risk all the time you were ian? Did you consider you were ?—A. Not when I was fishing off shore. Q. But whenever you went in you considered you were running a risk?—A. Yes, when I was trespassing. No. 14. MOSES PETTINGELL, of Newburyport, Mass., inspector of customs, and formerly a fisherman, cailed-on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Foster: Question. You were formerly a fisherman ’—Answer. Yes. Q. How early were you in Bay St. Lawrence fishing !—A. In 1842. Q. How many years after that were you there!—A. Ten. I was in the bay ten different years, between 1842 and 1858. rR = The rest of the time you were fishing on the United States coast !— . Yes. Q. Fishing for mackerel ?—A. Yes; solely. Q. Where did you catch the fish in the gulf ?—A. The first year, 1842, I was in the schooner Patrol as sharesman. We caught about 150 barrels of mackerel to the northward of the Magdalen Islands. Sometimes we caught sight of Cape Gaspé and Bonaventure Island, but we never saw St. John’s Island. It was called on our chart Prince Edward Island or St. John’s Island. The next year I was in the schooner as captain and caught 80 barrels. Q. Whereabouts ?—A. At Magdalen Islands; I saw North Cape once during the voyage and only once. I was young and | knew it was a very dangerous place, and I did not want to be caught there. Q. During all the years you have been in the gulf, where was your principal fishing done?—A. At Magdalen Islands; occasionally on Brad- ley, but not often. ; Q. Did you make fair catches?—A. Yes; fair. Q. During that term of years you fished a number of seasons on the United States coast ?—A. Yes. Q. How did you do there?—A. Very well; some years we made a good thing and some years a poor thing. Q. What would be the average number of barrels a season you took on the United States coast?—A bout 400 barrels a year. I bad a small vessel in those days. The vessels were not so large as now. .Q. How many trips did you require to make to take that quantity '— A. Half a dozen in one season extending for a fortnight or three weeks, as it might happen. If fishing near home, we would make short trips; if we went to George’s or Mount Desert, they would be longer. Q. You remember the mackerel fleet from Newburyport and — other of the leading fishery towns for a good many years aes Ta : the years when you were fishing here, how did the towns stand in phe se to the number of mackerel vessels they sent out; which had the te and so on ?—A. Gloucester, I think, for a great many years, led; Wet fleet came next, and Newburyport next. Q. How many vessels had Newburyport mackereling in the galf when 5 bailing from Newburyport and manned by Newburyport men. Q. Hor many mackerelers in all, including those on our own mong A. There was about an equal number in the gulf and on our coa those days. 2122 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. By Sir Alexander Galt: Q. In what year was that ?—A. 1858. By Mr. Foster : Q. How many mackerelers sail from Newburyport now 7—A. We have 7 vessels that are licensed by the government, being over 30 tons. We have a little fleet of vessels under 30 tons, Q. How many vessels from your port have been engaged mackerel- fishing in the bay this summer ?—A. The Miantonoma went to the bay, and two or three weeks ago she packed from the bay 96 barrels. Q. Name any other vessels?—A. S. C. Noyes, G. W. Brown, Lizzie Thompson, Greyhound, S. E. Babson, Edward Burke. The Edward Burke arrived with 150 barrels, which she caught with trawls on Brad- ley and sold in Gloucester. Q. How many mackerelers from your town are in the bay 7—A. There were six; there are five there now, if they have not left since I came from home. Q. Are they seiners, or hook-and-line vessels ?—A. Two are seiners and three hook-and-line. Q. Has any returned ?—A. The Miantonoma. Q. What did she do ?—A. She packed 96 barrels, and she caught 10 barrels on the way home; she packed altogether 106 barrels for the voyage. Had she not lost her mainmast, she would have had a fare in three days after she left Cape Sable. Q. Did she fish altogether in the gulf?—A. I don’t know where she fished ; I was not there. The vessel came down to the gulf and got something like 100 barrels. Q. What was the last year in which you were interested in fishing- vessels ?—A. In 1872 or 1873, I think I had a little interest indirectly. Q. In mackerel vessels ?—A. Yes. She went to the Banks one voy- age, and was in the bay two years. Q. Without dwelling on particular voyages, I ask you where the greater part of the mackerel has been taken: by vessels you have been ' in, that have come to the gulf, and by such other vessels as you have reason to know about ?—A. I can speak from my own observation. I have overhauled the statistics of my own personal accounts as I settled with the crews and owners, and I find I packed from the time I was skipper to the end, 1,600 barrels from the bay and 3,200 from our shores. Q. And of those you took in the gulf, what portion, so far as you can judge, was taken within three miles of the shore ?—A. I never caught a single mackerel within three miles of the Jand in any part of Bay St. ate except at Magdalen Islands, where I had a perfect right to 0 80. Q. Then, if you were asked whether it would make any difference to you, and prevent you from fishing in the gulf, if you were otherwise disposed, that you were excluded from fishing within three miles of the shore, what would your answer be ?—A. My answer would be that I would rather, to-day, if I was 25 years old, and going to prosecute the fishing business, be debarred from going into Bay St. Lawrence at all. I would not want to go there. Q. Why ?—A. For the very reason that I don’t think it is a profita- ble business. I never found it so there. I never went there of my own free will in my life. I went there because of the majority of the vessel was owned outside myself, and we have to please our owners sometimes. Q. If you were coming to the gulf, would you regard it as a matter o consequence to be deprived of the right of fishing within three miles of AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2123 the coast?—A. No. I think the mackerel ar -£TAass See Sah pane sa a vessel. and he a ce mire chely as ere, I would not have him goin the vessel. i : not a Scoal he tty ter eae sel. The inshore mackerel are . Then it is hardly necessary to ask you whether y , ter to have a duty on cnekeeed than nit 1—A. I sc focue trea ee better. It might enhance the price of our fish a little; I don’t know that it would. The fish caught in Nova Scotia vessels does not make a great deal of difference in the States, as regards the price, _Q. Why ?—A. Because we catch so many more there. If the quan. tity caught by American fishermen in American waters fell off, then the mackerel which came from Nova Scotia would be very high ‘in price ; but the main thing is this: if the quantity of mackerel caught by Amer. ican fishermen in American waters is plentiful we have low prices, if the quantity is scarce, we have high prices; and this without regard to imported mackerel. Q. How many boats from Newburyport are engaged in fishing !—A. We have from 40 to 60 open boats, having 2 men each. Q. Where do they fish 7—A. From one to six miles from land, winter and summer. I have myself fished 25 years in winter. Q. What do they fish for ?—A. for codfish altogether in the winter. Q. And for what in the summer ?—A. For cod, mackerel, hake, and haddock. : Q. And then going beyond open boats, what have you !—A. We have deck boats that are not large enough to be admeasured by government. We don’t admeasure anything under five tons. These deck boats go and stay out every night in summer. We have from 15 to 20 of these. Then we have another class, which comes under the registry laws, ves- sels from 5 tons to 30. We have from 15 to 20 of these. Q. Where do they fish?—A. They catch cod off the bar of the mouth of the Merrimae, off the Island of Shoals, and off the Jeffreys. They fish for haddock in winter. Q. Do they come into British waters ?—A. No. Q. Do any vessels less than 20 tons come up beyond the American side of the Bay of Fundy ?—A. No; I never knew one under that size, present tonnage. I knew a vessel which went to Bay Chaleurs and which was 25 tons, old register, about 15 tons new measurement. Q. That was how many years ago ?—A. 20 years ago. By Mr. Davies: Q. You are not a practical fisherman now !—A. No. ‘Q. What is the position you now bold?—A. I am inspector of cus- toms, and I hold four or five different offices. as Q. How long have you held office !—A. Seven years on 25th of last - month. Q. You are a Repu in that. , Q. You were down in the bay, I understood, for ten years!—A. Aboat ten years off and on, not contiuuously. 3 Q. From 1842 to 1858 you were some years on your own coast !—A. Yes. : 2. You fished chiefly to the north of the Magdalen Islands when in Mion catencallyour hati there? A> Ohieliy . Di sh all your fish there —A. fly. 3. Ties oa What Tose were you !—A. Vesper, and canght 260 barrels. blican in politics ’—A. I suppose you are right 2124 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. In 1845 ?—A. In Equator, and took 225 barrels. Q. In 1846 what vessel ?—A. Equator, on our shores. Q. In 1847 what vessel?—A. The Far West. I built the vessel, and the owners insisted on the vessel coming to the bay. Q. You did not like British waters for mackerel-fishing 7—A. No. Q. What year did the Far West come down to the bay 7—A. 1848. Q. The owners insisted on the vessel coming down. They knew better than you did ?—A. They theught they knew better than I did. Q. What did you get ?—A. About 240 barrels. Q. And the next year, 1849, what vessel were you in in the bay ?—A. I was on our shores. Q. In 1850 what vessel ?—A. I was in the bay one trip in the Far West, and got 160 barrels. Q.: Th 1851 where were you ?—A. On our shores. Q. And in 1852 ?—A. In the bay. Q. In what vesse] ?—A. Far West. We got 250 barrels. (. The owners still forced you there?—A. Yes; it was the year of the gale. Q. No; 1851 was the year of. the gale. What did you take on your own coast in the year of the gale ?—A. 500 barrels. Q. How many trips?—A. That was for the whole season, from 1st May to 1st November. . In 1853 where were you?—A. On our shores. Q. And in 1854 ?—A. In the bay. . How many barrels did you get ?—A,. 225, . In the same vessel ?—A. Yes. . In 1855 where were you ?—A. On our shores. . And in 1856?—A. In the bay. . How many barrels did you get?—A. 60 barrels, in the same vessel. . The owners were evidently comparing the value of the bay fishing with the fishing on your shores, for they sent the vessel to each in alter- nate years. Where were you in 1857 ?7—A. I was piloting on the Amer- ican coast. Q. Where were you in 1858 ?—A. In Bay Chaleurs, schooner Elliott ; we got 280 barrels. Q. You have said you took all your catches off the shore. Did you ever get in sight of the land ?—A. Yes. Q. Where ?—A. At St. John’s Island. I saw it the last time. Q. Were you very close ?—A. I was in a harbor there. Q. In what harbor ?—A. Malpeque. Q. Did you not cast a line overboard to see if mackerel were there ?— A. No. I had no desire to do so. Q. You would not have taken them if you could have got them 7—A. With a northeast wind blowing and night coming on, would you heave to to catch mackerel with a vessel on which there were 225 barrels? Q. You were in the harbor of Malpeque ?—A. Yes. Q. What were you doing there?—A. I went there out of the way of the storm. Q. Why did you not fish there?—A. In the harbor ? Q. When you went out next day.—A. If 1 had desired I could have done so; I had no desire. Q. Why did you not fish ?7—A. Because I did not like inshore mack- erel. Q. You call them eel-grass mackerel ?—A. I do. Q. You never caught any mackerel within ten miles of the shore in a: COOLLLE o— = ee ee. Bee 1S TS 762-6 SSS SO KN AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2125 your life in the bay, exce ; Sat recollect. _ pt a few round the Magdalen Islands!—A. | . Have you caught an ; of the shore?—A. L mead scar in the bay within 5, 6, or 7 miles Q. But what is the probability eG I don’t think it | Q. If you never caught any mackerel inshor sprig Upbeat tell whether they are eel-grass mackerel — e at the bay, how can you er home in vessels. '—A. From what I have seen . How did you know whe 1eV told me where they had taken Pe ae were taken!—A. Because they . Maar cargoes ?—A. No. . Did they select particular fish ehi and others as caught outside ag Rote yk von eee Q. They can tell whether the mackerel hav i Aeeryh DEY off shore?—A. Yes. ave been taken inshore or Q. They can select the fish tak ithi sand speaking Nese tia tory aken within the limits !—A. Yes. I am . What do i a wat ‘ on you call inshore ?—A. Five, six, seven, or eight miles . Do you come before the Commissi mmissi possessi ee of the fishing business and of tke k ay "e® - Do you represent yourself before the C ission ‘hae te # snonedes of the mackerel hits Hiag poh emg es ght up to fishi ae fe : mine Eee old. shing, and followed it up to 1858 from the time I was Q. Do you represent yourself as su ; : ch ?—A. I don’ ie Bre ne? but I eh bea Se mraaiienan ie age pre ch as an i knowledge By at Pl 2 fisherman who has common sense aad a . You never caught mackerel within the limits 1 rou Vv the opinion that fish caught withi eee eee ahane hee eterna ee ig! ee one, two, three, or four miles of the Q. And not so good a mat oy ra that sts tohave atone eee eee You make that statement, and wish . I don’t speak with regard to the American coast, where, ; stand, you catch mackerel 15, 20, and 30 miles out 1—A. Yes aoveue Q. The fish are not close to your shore?!—A. Yes. Q. How close ?—A. Near to the rocks. ¢ ero ae saa he to the rocks inshore 7—A. At times. - nerally 7—A. ave caught th 2 ile have caught eee ee g em one bundred miles oat and | . You call those fish caught insh sel-grass fis ‘ *v ’ te a vos ght inshore eel-grass fish, “a0 they don’t Q. How far out are the eel-grass fish caught !—A. To aboat the Jef- freys, about fifteen miles off from Cape Aun. Q. The mackerel caught within fifteen miles of shore are of an inferior character 7?—A. Yes. Q. Are they known as eel-grass fish 1—A. They are. Q. All the witnesses, especially American fishermen, as such ?—A. That is, inshore fish. Q. Fishermen will know what ! refer to wh fish ?—A. Yes; those coming from our port. Q. Don’t you know that mess mackerel are taken inshore in the gulf, and that no mess mackerel are taken wore than three miles from the shore ?—A. I don’t know it. will know them en I speak of eelgrass 2126 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Do you know the contrary ?—A. Yes; I know it from catching them. Q. When ?—A. In 1848. Q. I believe in 1848 they were taken a long distance from shore. Can you speak of any year from 1851, especially during the last ten years, when mess mackerel have been taken beyond three miles from shore in the bay 7—A. Yes. Q. From your own knowledge ?—A. I have not been there since 1851, and I don’t know. Q. Are you inspector of fish ?7—A. No. @. When fishermen come in with .a cargo, can the inspector, on ex- amining the fish, tell what have been taken within the limits and what outside ?—A. I think he can; I think I could. Q. Could you, when examining fish, tell that certain fish had been caught within ten miles of shore and were eel-grass fish 7—A. I never caught any of that kind in the bay. Q. You saw them ?—A. Yes; in my own port. Q. You easily recognized them?—A. As easily a8 spring and fall mackerel; they were not so fat. Q. You put the limit on your coast, within which eel-grass mackerel are caught, at 15 miles. How far from shore do you place it as regards the bay ?7—A. I should judge about ten miles. Q. Your catches in the bay were not very large ?—A. No; I always had small vessels. Q@. You never fished inshore ?—A. No; always at Magdalen Islands. Q. And you gave it up?—A. Yes. (. Did you ever fish in Bay Chaleurs ?—A. No. Q. You never caught any on the west shore or off New Brunswick ?— A. No. Q. Nor round Cape Breton ?—A. No. Q. You eventually had to give the business up; it didn’t pay you ?— ie I got a living all the time; I paid my debts and had something eft. @. With those small catches ?—A. Yes. Q. A vessel of the same size which caught two or three times as much would make a very remunerative return?—A. Allow me to explain why I gota living on small catches. When I was captain of the Far West I owned one-third of the vessel, and a man who was with me owned a sixth. Mr. Pettingell (I was junior then) and Mr. C. H. Ireland owned the other part of the vessel. They gave me $35 a month to sail the vessel, and I derived an equal share with the merchant at home. I hired all the rest of the crew and paid the provision bill, and allowed the vessel 25 per cent. After all duties were paid and provision bill, I drew a straight line dividing the balance. I made up to $1,000 a year in those small vessels. (. Then other vessels which caught three times as much fish must have made a handsome thing?—A. They had more men to feed and pay. Q. What was the size of the vessels ?—A. About 57 tons. Q. Were all the vessels about 57 tons?—A. The largest was 62 tons. @. With those returns of fish you cleared $1,000 a year ?—A. $1,000 in the best year. The average would be about $500. I made a profit on the men more than I caught with my own hands. Q. You would not make a great deal out of them ?—A. No. (. The chief part was out of the catch of mackerel ?—A. Yes. Q. When you were making that very fair profit why did you leave ‘ A > WARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2127 the business ?—A. I von if n. most can tell you if necessary; it was something do . You said that the dut ‘ Bhcrweris. qualified the sine th - mackerel might enhance the price, and ut ; { ent by doubting that i ’ ould hurt the price. Supposing one-h g that imported mackerel the United States was imported ve i. alf the mackerel consumed in feet the pics? You ckerel, would not that seriously af. a vey materially 7—A. Yes. . Suppose one-fourth of : pe art Le tie oH ee St ee rest deal. —A. Very slightly. I don’t think a | . You think that one-fo i | t -fourth of a given quanti | @ country being im quantity of food consumed | | slightly. g ported does not affect the price !—A. It iahe Q. Does not the law of s ; "as others?—A. I wish eae govern that matter as well : changed very much in the last 25 years in th United § co gag tose: _ portion of mackerél caught in United Stat See oe Cee __ without being salted or cured. That fresh sg chacg bboy by emer hme, of salt mackerel to that extent aad err gant agente tel | Wre'ae to supply the west parr the State of Sew’ York wth al } , but they have now fresh ei : { goes there want very little as sala al S08 08 tne Sr wee f . Does it not nec i ; i os | erel taken on your Te ai eae ie fi j downt—A. acon oe ou if your theory is correct, must go |} = ag . Does your theory and practice accord? i mackerel gone down? Can gon tell the Sains to ee at he Praag Paes c } y and say whether it was as high ?—A. I have got $28 a barrel for mackerel 9 bos is now the price ?—A. I don’t know. , . You cannot tell whether it is high or low !—< i av dead ieee a are Bradley, of the Minctouaria ae eis ond sites OT erel, No. 1 and No. 2. That was within the last three weeks. rs seg ee a high price ?—A. Very high. : ur statement of fact is to a certail 5 if it is pings nee fresh fish have taken the 68 yey Pager : er ae oe t mackerel brought such a high price !—A. Because there were Q. Does not the price de pend on the supply '—A. Tl » had not t any caught before that time. Look at ren inioes a Bape oe sts “bp iphees not a scarcity enhance the price of mackerel !—A. It would Q. If 250,000 barrels of mackerel are required for consamption in the United States yearly, and 50,000 barrels were shut off by reason of daties or other causes, would not the price of the 200,000 barrels necessarily go up ?—A. That would depend whether we had herring pleatifal or not. There is a good deal to look at. Q. I can quite understand that if the people have to be supplied with a certain quantity of food, and can supply themselves with cheaper food, they will procure cheaper food !—A. Just so. Q. Suppose 250,000 barrels of mackerel are go and buy 100,000 barrels and lock them up, will Other 150,000 advance ?—A. That would be like . cousumed yearly, and I not the price of the bulling the market. 2128 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. The fish would have to come out by and by, as they would not be worth much another year. So you could keep up the market for a few days, the same as speculators in flour and grain and other articles do. Q. To put it another way. Suppose that instead of 250,000 being re- quired for consumption, only 100,000 barrels were required, would those 100,000 barrels bring a higher price than if 250,000 were required ?—A. Some years when we have had as large a quantity of mackerel in- spected as there has ever been, we have got a good price. We have sometimes got low prices when there has been a small catch. This was owing to the demand, which is regulated by other businesses as much as anything else. Q. Did you oppose the Treaty of Washington, or were you in favor of it?—A. I did not know anything about it till it was settled. No. 15. IsAIAH C. YOUNG, of Wellfleet, Mass., outfitter of vessels, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examiued. By Mr. Trescot: Question. You have been engaged in mackerel-fishing during some years ?—Answer. Yes. Q. During what years?—A. From 1858 to 1871. Q. In 1859, where did you go?—A. To Bay St. Lawrence. Q. How long were you there ?—A. About two months. Q. What did you catch ?7—A. Sixty barrels. Q. Whereabouts?—A. Most of them at Magdalen Islands and Bank Bradley; we caught a few about Prince Edward Island. Q. How many ?—A. Five to eight barrels. Q. Did you go there in 1859?—A. Yes. Q. In the same vessel ?—A. Yes. Q. What luck had you there?—A.. We got 150 barrels. Q. What proportion of them did you take within the limits ?—A. About 120 barrels when we first went into the bay near East Point; the remainder we caught off shore and over at the Magdalen Islands. Q. After 1859 were you in the gulf?—A. No. Q. Where were you engaged fishing in the mean time ?—A. On the coast of the United States. Q. How long?—A. From the season of 1860 up to the season of 1871. Q. Upon an average have you done well in fishing on the American coast?—A. Yes; very well. Q. What is the average catch you made ?—A. Probably 500 barrels. @. Have you any idea from your own knowledge of the business of Wellfleet, and your experience since you have been in business, what number of barrels of mackerel have been inspected there ?—A. I can tell you for the last ten years. Q. For the last ten years, what do you suppose has been the number ? —A. There has been inspected in Wellfleet during the last ten years 274,591 barrels. Q. How do you know that?—A. It is the sworn statement of the general inspector. Q. From your knowledge of the business, can you form any idea as to what proportion of that number of barrels has been inspected as mackerel from the gulf ?—A. I got the best information I could get in our place. I went to the inspector, who has been there for twenty-five -rect.—A. I did not say it was correct. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2129 years, and he said he had not kept his books so th: > riv but 5,000 barrels was a large éatimate: arti Side Q. What sail of mackerel vessels have you this year belonging to your port ?—A. Fifty-four vessels. , . Q. How many went to the gulf this year —A. One. Q. How many went in 1875?—A. One. Q. And in 1874?—A. I think none. There was one in 1876, Q. In the last ten years an exceedingly small proportion of the mack. erel fleet of Wellfleet has gone to the gulf !—A. Very small. By Mr. Weatherbe : Q. You say 274,591 barrels were inspected in Wellfleet, daring what period ?—A. In the last ten years. Q. Where did you get those figures?—A. They come from the gen eral inspector’s report for the State of Massachusetts. Q. Where did you get them ?—A. The general inspector sends the statements to the various inspectors, and [ got that from one of bar inspectors. Q. You got the printed return ?—A. From the inspector. Q. You asked him for a statement in regard to the number of barrels inspected ?—A. I asked him for the amount of mackerel inspected at Wellfleet for the last ten years, and he gave me the figures. Q. This was sent to him from where?—A. From the general inspec- tor at Boston. I suppose so. Q. How did the Boston inspector get it?—A. That is his business. Q. How did he get it?—A. From the various inspectors. Q. From the inspector at Wellfleet ?—A. Yes. Q. The inspector at Wellfleet would send the information to the gen. eral inspector, who would send it back to the inspector at Welltleet !— "A. He places it on file. Q. The géneral inspector would get it from the inspector at Well. fleet ?—A. Yes. : Q. He would know what the quantity was without going to the Bos- ton inspector ?—A. I don’t know anything about that. This is a sworn statement. Q. Who swore to it; the inspector ?—A. The general inspector. Q. The local inspector 7—A. The local inspector swore to It Q. You would not undertake to say it is correct !—A. I would under take to swear it is as near correct as men can make figures. Q. There is no return with regard to the proportion of those caught on the different shores ?—A. They make no distinction so far as I know, Q. Have you undertaken to make a distinction !—A. This is the near est estimate I could get. Q. How did you make it? because I am instructed that is not cor Q. But you want some importance to be attached to it !—A. Cer tainly. . | Q. Where did you get it ?—A. From one of the inspectors. Q. What is his name ?—A. Noah Swett. ks wee Q. What did he tell you ?—A. That to the best of his judgment unl he has been in the business twenty-five years) there had not been 3,0 y barrels of mackerel brought into the town of W ellfieet from the gui during the last ten years. = Q. He kept no record of that ?_ A, I could not say. a Q. Don’t you know whether he kept any record i—A. ; Q. You uever asked him that !—A. I don’t think that I dis. 134 F 2130 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. I understood you to say you went to the books to ascertain whether there was any record of what had been inspected from the gulf?—A. I don’t think so. Q. Is that correct ?—A. I went to the books to see how many fish from the gulf had been inspected in the town of Wellfleet, and I got the general inspector’s report. I asked the inspector if there was any way of tell- ing how many barrels of fish had been inspected from the Gulf of St. Lawrence, aud he said no. Q. Now, you say you asked him; did you ask him?—A. I have told you I asked him. ; Q. What did you ask him ?—A. I have told you what I asked him. Q. Be kind enough to mention it again.—A. I went to Mr. Swett, he being the oldest inspector, and I asked him the number of barrels that had been inspected in Wellfleet during the last ten years. He said, “I can give you the general inspector’s sworn returns.” Then I asked him if he could tell me how many fish were inspected in Wellfleet from the Bay St. Lawrence for the last 10 years. He said he could not, but on the best estimate he could make the number would be 5,000 barrels. Q. That is the only foundation you have for making the statement ? —A. Yes. Q. Did you ask him how he came to that opinion ?—A. No. Q. Was there any information from which he could have judged ?— A. He said he could have told me if he had kept his books so. He told me he could not tell; but to the best of his judgment it would be 5,000 barrels. Q. Did you ask himif he had any record?—A. No. I don’t know about that. Q. You don’t remember ?—A. I think he told me that, to the best of his judgment, it was 5,000 barrels. Q. After he had given you the 274,000 barrels, I understood you to say you also asked him if he kept a record of the others ?—A. I asked him how many fish had been packed from Bay St. Lawrence. Q. Did y8u ask if he kept any record ?—A. I am unable tosay. Q. Do you remember whether you said so?—A. I am unable to tell you. Q. You don’t remember whether you said so or not ?—A. I asked him if he could tell me how many fish were packed from Bay St. Lawrence. Q. Have you no other means of knowing ?—A. No. . Q. You spoke of catching 160 barrels of mackerel in 1858; where were they caught ?—A. In Bay St. Lawrence. @. How many years were you engaged there ?—A. Two years; 1858 and 1859. Q. Do you recollect what vessel 7—A. Indiana. Q. Was any British subject on board 7—A. One each year; but I am unable to give his name. Q. Where did he belong ?—A. To the Strait of Canso. Q. Was that his place of residence ?—A. No; we shipped him there. ‘Q. The first year ?—A. Yes. Q. Did you find him there the second year?—A. Not the same man. We got another man from the same place. Q. You are not able to give the name of either of them 7—A. No. Q. What year was there one vessel from your town in the bay 7—A. This year, 1877. Q. And what number last year ?—A. In 1876 and 1875 we had one vessel each year. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 2181 Q. Previous to that year, do you know what town had theret—A. No.” number of vessels your a Yes, the number up to that date given from your own knowledge! fe Q. Previous to that year can you give us no idea of the number ?—A. oO. By Mr. Foster: Q. How many people live at Wellfleet ?—A. 2,250, Q. You are acquainted with pretty much all of them ?1—A. Yes. By Mr. Trescot : Q. Do you know a vessel of the name of R. A. Kingsbury, Captain Mulock ?—A. There is no such vessel and no such captain at our place. No. 16. TrmoTHy A. DANIELS, of Wellfleet, Mass., fisherman, called on bebalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Foster: Q. How old are you 7—A. Seventy years. Q. Were you engaged in mackerel fishing during a good many years? —A. Yes. . Q. How many years did you come to the gulf to fish mackerel '—A. Seventeen years. ; Q. What year did you begin and what year end ?—A. From 1346 to 1873 I believe, inclusive ; one year out. Q. Were you in the same schooner all the time 7—A. Yes. Q. What was the name of the vessel ?-—A. Pioneer. Q Q . What tonnage ?—A. 62 tons. . New or.old measurement ?—A. Old measurement. Q. Were you captain all those years?—A. Yes. Q. How many barrels of mackerel did you take in all during the 17 years you were in the gulf?—A. 2,678. : Q. That would be an average of 157 or 153. What was the largest catch you made ?—A. 280 barrels. Q. And what the smallest catch ?—A. 62 barrels. Q. Whereabouts were you in the habit of fishing !—A. From North Cape to East Point. ; Q. Off Prince Edward Island ?—A. Yes, mostly. Q. And where else ?—A. Off the west shore and on Bank Bradley. Q. Where did you do your principal fishing on those places ; more than three miles from shore, or less?—A. More than three miles. Q. What is the largest number of American mackerelers you ever re- member to have seen together 7—A. About 300, I think, from 250 to 300, Q. Where did you see them ?—A. I saw most of them off North Cape, between North Cape and East Point. ; | Q. What is the largest number of mackerel vessels Wellfleet bas ever had in one year in your day?—A. About 100 vessels. Q. And what is the largest number you bave ever known to be in one year in Bay St. Lawrence ?—A. From 30 to 40. Q. How many mackerelers has Wellfleet now ?!—A. About fifty, think. it Q. How many has it in the gulf now 7— A. There is not one now; } had one there this season. Q. If you were a young man and a fisherman once more and wanted 2132 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. to come to the gulf to catch mackerel, would you be prevented from doing it by the fact that you were forbidden to fish within three miles of the shore ?—A. I think so. Q. You would not come ?—A. I would sooner fish on our shores now any time. By Mr. Weatherbe : Q. If you were forbidden to come within three miles of the shore, would you come at all?—A. It would be under certain circumstances. If there were no fish with us and plenty there, perhaps I might. I can- not say as to that. Q. From your experience, if you had been restricted, during all the years you came to the bay, from coming to within three miles of the shore, you would not have come ?—A. I think not. Novia D. W. OLIVER, of Wellfleet, Mass., fisherman, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Trescot: Question. You have been engaged in fishing? How old are you ?— Answer. 37 years. Q. How long have you been fishing ?—A. 22 seasons. Q. Mackerel fishing entirely ?—A. Yes. Q. Where have you been fishing ?—A. Partly in Bay St. Lawrence and partly on our own coast. Parts of 7 seasons I was in the bay. Q. Then you had an opportunity to compare the two fisheries ?—A. Yes. Q. As far as your experience goes, which Men is the more profita- ble ?—A. That on our own shores. Q. What was your average catch on our shores ?—A. Our catches were from 500 to 1,200 barrels. \ Q. What was the average catch in the gulf?—A. The catches were from 130 to 460 barrels. Q. When fishing in the gulf, what portion did you take inshore, within the three-mile limit ?—A. Very little. Q. You have fished inside ?—A. I would not swear I had not fished within the limits. I will allow that I have, a little. Q. As far as the experience of Wellfleet fishermen goes, it is no great advantage to have the privilege of the inshore fishery of the gulf ?—A. No. Q. What is the number of the vessels from Wellfleet which have gone mackerel-fishing this season 7?—A. 52 sail. QQ. What portion has gone to the gulf?—A. One has been there part of the season, but she came out. Q. As a general rule, you don’t value the gulf fishery, for you send a very small portion of your fleet there ?—A. Yes. By Mr. Davies: Q. Where did you fish in the bay ?—A. I fished in different places in the gulf. Q. Whereabouts 7—A. On Bank Bradley, at Magdalen Islands, and at Bank Orphan. Q. Any other places ?—A. Along the north side of Prince Edward Island. Q. From East Point to North Cape ?—A. Yes. | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2138 Q. What year did you fish there 7—A. In 1857. 8 west shore down the north side of the island. ie nee Q.Was that the only year 7?—A. Yes. ee andes many seasons altogether were you in the gulf !—A. Seven, | Q. Your chief fishing was outside _—A. Yes. - Q. And you made poor catches !—A. Yes. Q. Did the business pay at all?—A. I made a trip that paid me one season. ; Ain With the exception of that, it was not a paying business !—A. No. Q. You did not fish within the limits at all !—A. I did not, to speak of. Q. Did the season when you caught your fish along the island, pay pretty well?—A. We were three months, and got 300 barrels. : Q. How was it you stuck in there and did not go out into the bay !— A. We were in there, and thought we would make a business of it. Q. What was the size of the vessel in which you fished on your own coast when you caught !,200 barrels 7—A. 90 tons, old register. Q. How many months were you in catching 1,200 barrels !—A. About five months. Q. How many hands were employed ?—A. Thirteen. Q. Was that considered a good catch in five months !—A. Yes. Q. Paid well?—A. Yes. Q. Netting a good profit?—A. Yes. Q. How much profit would a vessel catching 1,200 barrels of mackerel ' in five months make ?—A. I don’t think I could say. The crew got #300 apiece. PO. That would not be very extra ?—A, It is a very good average com- pared with what they get down here. Three to one, according to my experience. Q. Vessels have taken 1,200 barrels in the bay !—A. I don't know. Q. That would leave a good profit for five months’ work !—A. Yes. Q. Would it leave a large profit?—A. It is according to the quality of the fish. Q. What was the quality you caught?—A. The quality of the fish was nothing extra that season. ; Q. How far from the shore did you take them ?—A. We caught them all along the coast of Maine. es : Q. Any away down at George’s?—A. We did not go down to Georges. Q. 30, 20, and 10 miles out ?—A. Yes. . Q. Chiefly ten or twenty miles ?—A. Sometimes we were within (wo or three miles of land. Sometimes we would not be within 90 miles. By Sir Alexander Galt: . Q. Did you catch the fish with a purse seine 7—A. No, with hook and line. . -Q. When you caught 1,200 barrels, were they taken with hook and line?—A. Yes. The following season I caught 1,000 barrels which brought $14,000. Othey were better fish ?—A. Yes. They were caught on our own shores. = No. 18. TUESDAY, September 25, 187%. The Conference met. i 1 sailmaker, GEORGE FRIEND, of Gloucester, Mass., fisherman ant called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. lem | 2134 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. By Mr. Foster: Question. What is your age ?—Answer. Fifty-five years last July. Q. When were you first in the Gulf of St. Lawrence fishing for mack- erel 7—A. In 1836. Q. Do you remember how many barrels you caught that year?—A. About 120 barrels. Q. Do you recollect where you fished?—A. Mostly all over the bay. Q. It was a poor year, and you fished all over the bay 7—A. = Q. Did you fish within three miles of the shore?—A. No. Q. Was there any reason why that should not be done that year ?— A. We found no mackerel there, and if we had, there was a cutter, an English man-of-war, there. (J. In 1843 and 1844, were you next in the bay ?—A. Yes. Q. Fishing for mackerel 7—A. Yes. Q. What were you, a sharesman?—A. Yes. Q. Did you own part of the vessel?—A. I owned one-fourth part. @. What was the vessel?—A. The schooner Constitution, about 70 tons." Q. How many mackerel did you take those years, 1843 and 1844 ?— A. We took 270 barrels, I think, the first of those years; and from 260 to 270 barrels the second. Q. Where were they caught ?—A. At the Magdalen Islands. Q. You were in the gulf again fishing for mackerel in 1853, T believe? —A. Yes. Q. In what capacity were you in the vessel ?—A. As a sharesman. Q. What was the vessel?—A. The Republic. Q. How many barrels of mackerel were taken 7?—A. “About 280. Q. Where were they taken?—A. At the Magdalen Islands, North Cape, and on Banks Bradley and Orphan. Q. When were you next in the bay?—A. In 1855. Q. When you came in 1855 to the bay, were you skipper ?—A. I was. Q. What was the vessel ?—A. The Republic. Q. Of what tonnage ?—A. 102 tons and a few feet, old measurement. Q. And were you in the same vessel in the Gulf of St. Lawrence during the following years, from 1855 to 1860, inclusive?—A. Yes. Q. I will take these trips and see where you went and where you caught your mackerel. We will begin with your first trip in the Repub- lie, as skipper. How many trips did you make in 1855?7—A. Two. Q. How many barrels did you take the first trip ?—A. About 380. (. Where were they caught ?—A. At Bank Bradley, North Cape, and a few at Magdalen Islands and Burnt Island. Q. What did you do with your first trip of 380 barrels ?—A. Took them home to Gloucester. Q. Did you make another trip here that year?—A. Yes. Q. What time did you leave Gloucester on the second trip?—A. At the latter end of September. Q. How many barrels did you take on the second trip?—A. If my memory serves me right, 140 or 150 barrels. Q. Where were they taken ?—A. Most of them to the northward of Magdalen Islands. Q. Did you take any anywhere else?—A. I cannot say we did not take a few. We hauled to, I suppose, in going and coming out of Canso. Q. At what place did you take any mackerel except at Magdalen Islands ?—A. None of any consequence elsewhere. Q. In 1856 were you skipper of the same vessel, and how many eis did you make that year ?—A. Two. ; AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 2135 . ss oJ Q. How many mack vee it Sa y mackerel did you get the first trip !—A. I think aboat . Where were th ty SWharoabouts Bl four e: 1A. = deep water. Q. How far out ?—A. At Banks hie ae hp ways in one position ; our position Perea heen Bradley ; we are not al Q. Were they taken within sight of lan Sc aise! ae and {—A. In sight of Purse’s . Did you get the whole 300 Magdalen Islands for water see eatiery Pitighiciet tes 1—A. We went to few. Most of them were caught wh Th mackerel, but caught very Q. During the second trip of 185 eho have mentioned, Os ee 200 barrels. ow many mackerel did you get !— . Where were they taken 7—A = ad of those taken iselione Mag ar venta’ . in ow many trips did you = acs Q. How many barrels did you Sel Paver ah tip Sih Q. Where were they akan ek kt Bonk A —A. About 300.' ae at Magdalen Islands anks Bradley and Orphas and . Was any porti is hanes rah Sara the catch of the first trip in 1857 taken in- . H al Re ow wee barrels did you get the second trip !—A. I think about Q. Where were they taken ?— fall wo tool Ee ell) ee Islands, and in the . Were they taken insh * Seth : , were taken up in the ba within a Be re ere beach. with half that di J in perhaps three or four miles of the Cinae at distance from the shore on the north side, North Q. In 1858 what were y i tne i : you doing ?—A. Mackereling » bay C ee many trips did you Rake t—A. wo eee Rese ae oe many barrels did you get ?—A. I think about 250 barrels the . eunere ee ?7—A. At the Magdalen Islands and north. a ee do you mean by northward !—A. When we lose sight of Me risleh regs call it, we call ourselves to the northward of the ae pon Eek the fish up toward Seven Islands —A. We got them ds. Q. Did you fish there at Seven Islan is?—A. Yes; and wee Cape St. Anne on the south side. Ua chan eet wears Fey hate you fished at Seven Islands, how did you cateh mackerel !— . oats. ue dories 2—A. Instern boats and little Nova Scotia boats with ottoms. Q. Did you catch the fish inshore there ?—A. Yes, inshore. Q. Did you fish in the middle of the river there !—A,. No. Q. Why not ?—A. It is rough and mackerel don’t bite. pa ees current is too strong —A. The current is strong and ackerel won’t bite. Q. So when you say fishing was anne, Sa mean that it was done in the m awrence ?—A. No. (. But over in the bay at St. A. Yes, we anchored and went in small boats done between Seven Islands and St. iddle of the Gulf of St. Anne and the bay at Seveo Islands '— round the rocks. 2136 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Did you fish that way at St. Anne as well as at Seven Islands ?— A. Yes. Q. All the fish you caught during that first trip in 1858 up at Seven Islands and between there and Cape St. Anne, were caught inshore ?— A. Yes. Q. Do you remember what portion of your first trip was so taken ?— A. I think about 70 barrels. Q. Where were the rest taken?—A. At the Magdalen Islands; we fished round and up to Purse Hill that trip. Q. Did you fish inshore during the first trip in 1858, at any place except at St. Anne and Seven Islands?—A. No. Q. Take the second trip of 1858, where did you fish ?—A. At the Magdalen Islands and off Margaree. I caught some few off Margaree. Q. Were those taken off Margaree caught inshore ?—A. Isuppose we were outside of three miles. Three miles is very near at Margaree. Q. And the second trip you caught 150 barrels?—A. Yes. Q. In 1857 did you made two trips?—A. Yes. Q. How many did you get the first trip?—A. 300 barrels. Q. Where were they taken ?—A. Most of them at Magdalen Islands. Q. Any elsewhere ?—A. No. Q. On the second trip how many did you take ?—A. I think about 150 barrels. Ri Where were they taken?—A. At Magdalen Islands, most of them. Q. Did you take any fish, during that autumn trip, at what is called Fisherman’s Bank ?—A. Yes. Q. Where is that ?—A. Itis about in aline from Port Hood to George- town, off Cape St. George to the eastward. Q. It is on Cape Breton shore ?—A. Yes. i How far from any land is Fisherman’s Bank ?—A. I think about 10 miles. Q. In 1860 did you make a trip ?—A. One trip. @. Where did you go?—A. To the Magdalen Islands. @. How many barrels did you take ?—A. About 260. Ne on were fishing in the bay every year from 1855 to 1860 inclusive? _— es Q. And in those six years you made eleven trips, two trips a year every year, but*the last ?—A. Yes. Q. You appear to have caught 2,635 barrels, or 240 barrels a trip. How many barrels was the vessel fitted for?—A. Four hundred and eighty barrels. (). How many men did you take 7?—A. Sixteen. Q. When you were fishing for mackerel, did you ever take any off Prince Edward Island 7—A. No. Q. Did you ever go into any of the harbors of Prince Edward Island? —A. Not while fishing. I have been there coasting. I have been at Charlottetown coastin g. Q. All your fishing in the gulf was away from Prince Edward Island? —A. Yes; I never caught fish within 25 or 40 miles of it. Q. How late in the season have you been at the Magdalen Islands ?— A. To the last of October. Q. Do you regard the Magdalen Islands as a safe place to fish?—A. Perfectly safe. Q. Is the water there still or blowy ?—A. I don’t know that we have not more blowy weather there than in other parts of the bay at some Seasons. As a general thing it is more blowy. : =m, = AWA : RD OF F ISHERY C 1188 SION 9137 vf Q W on st Vhat ind makes i we Was the ae aay rm ( T 1 Tela: per cep any - your fish th sla ut ke arb jib ere? nd » as rel: if 0) a am Ae eel tw and mn ot wea s tha more nent, t INS aie P resor — is Com neh t tru tha ’ he gone ort t fo hg Q or e@ ev n gre: U H ral or. ed ev thr eat 1nd ood 1¢] Q Ine som ven of ee mi bod er th lat ter Ww ae e 1860 etime you viles fi dy of 1€ lee ein th hen Y Q. Di early li you : unde Z aig ae al your sof M © 8ea mn id you a ei are Bryon Is 44 shore A. Magaree f (4 ) + t A eS > Glou Perha - anys de v Island. alen I es esas t c ps ne sai y 1D slar A. ee D A. Nee m you bs sails ou pee —A 1ds !— Q bout mackerel se tell afer ot ae" No. A. Ye $5 Wh 50. l sch the C you ¢ Ze Sai a; 00 at ) eC ju il- Q : does a oner COs ommissi " Ppttlea time How an suit cost b ene what g in 1860 ollowi ssel i oes ay the c uit A. Q. aaa ae buil vessel A. It ¢ sat i sails first sui hen ee aa ey require costs pe »fore the for a Q. aes oe th ane = vessel new sui rbaps m eal Yes. Tea ee ie Yes, sean suit set comes out sails ore; aboat ° e a ’ ul = 1 ed tak Q. H very a stinmer ae porae t this ase fron ‘ Q. ft fishing did terw: winte n. conti the up t hat g ) you Ce ards : r set P) nuet @. withi have eae Poe i ee sae pe Y o ase the Goune ee sou leer 868. n the busi want at Q. My p to bai been sae? oing si siness of lew set! . . sluc 9 rt mi P ti— Q. n ho hat ti inter ef-- mea hee A. time, ene sv many ve ee net An tae tl ing sails af 8 : shi 518 le * You during the ae have 4 iheiep vessels the fish ba = Q. Whe old out e last ers hav ou beer ring of since 186 siness ing ‘ Betwe iA the see ite there. inereste 863 1—A ee sage Pb b wears ie yeen ested 2A. F A. Yes Ps a Wer cod sy At G ’ hat ate art of th ats ae any oe Sees oe e those ves e Q. and t ae redts eeue for f estern ssels doit Fe Di Wo V ips i essels i resh Banks ig t— ost id ess n th sin hal 8, 1 A. F mo you els w e bay thos ibut ’ and G . Fis Q ney mak ent ay or se ye: rial Q. How : e or lo anothe for mm: ars goi 1d Bank Q. a ws se Bey year ackerel ue for ma k — sai os —A. y on th ‘ ee re a meee see Lom 7 oaearcetel 7 aes hee pain and e shee and oe ee you. ipst—A. I _ metas ee go was £0 I makes pala heir ti eca made so p @ al we Q. D time ptain nothit oor th: yy thin er shore ign a and sei aay eanes Ly hares x ua rega ose ? a ues yu ee 0. ritish Sabo the privi : y got seed lont rs for ee of fi y few mack ackerel fishing ise ere] s of any pias cicee ue — \ miles e A. No. oF the , but the ALA . They got A ne sthing or ¥ ery ti . little ‘ \ 2138 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Where have your cod-fishing vessels obtained their bait; have they bought any 7—A. Yes. Q. At what places ?—A. At Eastport, Campobello Island, Shelburne, Prospect, and all down the coast, and at Newfoundland. Q. What do you say as to the profitableness of cod-fishing vessels go- ing in from the fishing-grounds to buy bait?—A. I have no doubt at all it is an injury to us. Q. Explain why.—A. The vessels lose one-half their time. Q. Do you mean half their time?—A. More than half their time. It takes a vessel to go to the Grand Banks with a fishing-crew and get 150,000 fish, three or four months. More than one-half of that time they are going away seeking bait. Q. Is that necessary, or do they do it because they prefer it to fish- ing?—A. There may be some inducement in the good spirit, good drink, in this country. Q. Do you think they come in unnecessarily ?—A. I do. Q. And'you prefer your vessels not to go in and buy bait?—A. Yes; and to take salt bait from home. Q. Did your cod-fishing vessels fish with trawls or hand-lines?—A. With trawls. Q. I think you had a couple of vessels seized ?—A. Yes. Q. What was the first one ?—A. The schooner Helen Maria, in 1852. Q. Where was she taken ?—A. In Publico Harbor. Q. What was the name of the captain ?—A. Captain Finney, belong- ing to Argyle, Nova Scotia. Q. What did you understand she was seized for ?—A. She was taken by Captain Cowie. She was detained about eight weeks, when word was sent to us to come and take our vessel. . Was there any trial ?—A. No. . Was that a cod-fishing vessel 7—A. Yes. . Had you any other vessel seized ?7—A. The White Fawn. . Where was she seized ?—A. At Campobello Island. Q. What year was that ?—A. The fall of 1870. @. She was restored after trial ?—A. She had no trial. Q. The White Fawn ?—A. She had no trial. Q. Do you remember who the judge was?—A. I forget the judge’s name. Q. Who was the counsel conducting the prosecution ?—-A. Mr. Tuck. Q. You say there was no trial; did you not employ a lawyer ?— Ae NO: By Mr. Weatherbe : (. When did you last fish yourself ?—A. In the fall of 1860. Q. Where did you fish that year ?—A. On Banks Bradley and Or- phan and north of Magdalen Jslands. Q. How many barrels did you catch 7—A. About 380. Q. In 1859, how many barrels did you catch during the season ?—A. About 450. Q. Where did you catch them ?—A. At Magdalen Islands. is @. ae ?—A. At Magdalen Islands and on the west shore, at aspé. ~ Q. On the first trip, where did you go when you first entered the bay ?—A. I went to Banks Bradley and Orphan. DOOLD Q. How long did you fish there ?—A. I do not remember the number . of days. Q. What proportion of time did you spend on Bank Bradley—one- - rence one year and one year north of C AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2139 half ?—A. We would fish there till our wa or two weeks, and then we would go to tba, an iat saat oe aes to?—A. To Magdalen Islands. I went twice, I think, to Q. What proportion of your trip did yo ? T conla net tell oil Pp you catch on Bank Bradley '[—A. . Can you give any idea?—A. No. . You fished at Gaspé in 1859?—A. Yes. . Where did you fish 7—A. I fished so that I could see Purse’s Hill. How long did you fish there ?—A. Till I got my trip. Have you ever been farther north than that'—A. Yea. Have you fished on the other side of the river Saint Lawrence '— A. I did that same year. . Where did you fish ?—A. At Seven Islands. . You fished there once ?—A. Yes, along the coast. . On the south side of the river at where !—A. Cape Saint Anne. . How many different seasons did you fish there !—A. Only one. Q. Where did you catch the fish at Cape Saint Anne; how far from the shore ?—A. About one mile: Q. How many did you catch there ?—A. About 70 barrels up the gulf. Q. How long were you in getting those 70 barrels !—A. We might have been there three weeks. Q. What did you catch on the north side of the river Saint Lawrence! —A. We caught 70 barrels up the gulf. Q. On both sides?—A. Yes. Q. You only were one season there 7—A. Yes. Q. In 1857 where did you catch your fish !—A. To the northward of the Magdalen Islands and on Banks Bradley and Orphan. Q. Did you fish every year at Magdalen Islands and Banks Bradley and Orphan ?—A. Yes. Q. And fished at no other places ?—A. No. Q. At any time?—A. In the fall 1 did. I caught a few mackerel at Margaree Island one fall. Q. Generally speaking, you caught your fish at three places, Magdalea Islands and Banks Bradley and Orphan ?!—A. Yes. Q. There were some exceptions !—A. Yes. Q. Tell me what the exceptions were !—A. I caught a few mackerel at Cape North Bay in 1857. ; ; : ; Q. North of Cape Breton Island?—A. Yes. Cape North Bay is marked on the chart as Aspee Bay. : Q. How often did you fish there !—A. We fished there and caught 40 barrels. We were there some three or four times. rf Q. During how many years ?—A. One year. Q. With fhe abeeptien of Banks Bradley and Orphan and Magdalen Islands, you fished, as you have shown us, on both sides of the St. Law e ape Breton Island !—A. Yea Q. Tell me any other place—A. We took a few mackerel at Marge ree one fall. Q. Did you try any othe we have heaved to. Q. Except, heaving to, you never tried to fish the fished off there seven or eight or ten or twelve miles oat. bank out there where we frequently go. Q. Is it Fisherman’s Bank ?—A. No. Cove Island. PLOPEHLO LODO j r year !—A. Yes; as we have gone aroun: ref—A. I bave There is a Margaree is marked as Sea 2140 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Is the bank to which you refer on the west coast of Cape Breton ? —A. Yes. Q. You did not confine yourself to the island, but fished off the coast ?—A. We tried all along there. Q. Along the west coast of Cape Breton ?—A. Yes. Q. How often did you try ?—A. We tried when we went there; I can- not tell how often. When night overtook us we would heave to. Q. Did you ever fish within three miles of the shore there 7—A. I would not swear that I have not, and I would not swear that I have, because distance is so deceiving. I would presume I have not. Q. I mean three miles of the land, either island or mainland ?—A. I should think I have, and I would not swear that I have, within three miles of the island. Q. Are you aware that the best fishing is within three miles of the land?—A. No; I am not. Q. At that place?—A. No. Q. Have you tried in there?—A. Yes. Q. Have you given it a fair and thorough trial?—A. I never fre- quented there so much as some other vessels. Q. Have you given it a fair and thorough trial ?—A. I cannot say that I have. Q. You never fished at Prince Edward Island ?—A. Never. Q. Previous to 1854, how many years did you fish 7—A. Three years. Q. You were not permitted to fish within three miles of the shore then ?—A. In 1854 we were not. Q. In 1855 were you ?—A. I was not there in 1855. Q. How many years were you there when you were prohibited from fishing within three miles of land ?—A. While I was skipper of a vessel we could fish anywhere we saw fit. Q. You don’t know what lee-bowing boats meens? You perhaps never heard the word lee-bowing before 7—A. Never in my life. Boats generally fish at anchor. To lee-bow a boat it must be under way. Q. You don’t know anything of the extent of the boat-fishing in any of the places you have been ?—A. It was not very extensive in those days. : Q. Do you know the statistics in regard to the number of boats en- gaged in the mackerel fishery ?—A. No, I do not. Q. Have you ason who has been fishing ?—A. Yes. Q. How many years has he been fishing 7—A. I really could not tell you. He went fishing some few years previous to the war, then he went to the war, then he came home and went fishing a year, and he has been to China and California. Q. What is his name ?—A. George F. Friend. Q. He is not here?—A. No. Veen you any Nova Scotia fishermen with you when fishing ?— A. Yes. Q. Will you give the names of any ?—A. I had a fellow of the name of Powers. Q. Do you know where he belonged ?—A. Somewhere on this shore ; I cannot tell the place. I think it was Prospect. Q. Do you know of any other ?—.A. A fellow of the name of Mitchell. Q. Where did he belong ?—A. Port Hood. Q. What years was he with you ?—A. Aboutthree years. I think he was with us the second, third, and fourth year. Q. What year was Powers fishing with you?—A. I could not tell you, e ~*~ = Ay AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2141 Q. Can you tell me where you were fishing when P you?—A., No; I could not tell you the year. terre eee Q. You cannot tell in what part of the bay you caught your fish when Powers was with you?—A. No. i , Q. Cannot you give the Commission any sort of idea!—A. No. Q. Not where you caught most of them !—A. No. Q. Did you catch the largest part at Margaree when Powers was with you ?—A. I could not answer the question. Q. I ask you to remember if possible ?—A. It is impossible. Q. Is it impossible for you to say whether, when Powers of Prospect was fishing in your vessel, you did not catch most of the fish at Mar garee ?—A. I could not say. Q. Within three miles of the shore 7—A. I could not say. Q. Did you carry cod-fisking gear with you when you went mackerel fishing ?—A. No. Q. Not atall? you never caught any codtish on those trips !—A. Just to eat; nothing else. F Q. Have you ever been in Bay Chaleurs !—A. No. By Mr. Foster: ~ Q. What do you understand by the phrase “ lee-bowing”!—A. When one vessel gets up a school of mackerel and a neighbor comes along and sees the vessel catching them, and being too lazy and not wanting to waste his bait, he goes round very close to the vessel and heaves oat a little bait, and drifts off and gets the mackerel to follow his vessel. By Mr. Weatherbe : Q. I understood that you did not know what lee-bowing boats was, and that you had not heard the phrase ?—A. I said I had not. Q. You never heard of lee-bowing boats !—A. If you will give me an idea of what you call a boat, I will be better able to answer you. Q. Have you ever heard of lee-bowing boats !—A. No. Q. You understand the question ?—A. I understand it perfectly. I never heard of it. Q. You know what a boat means ?—A. They sometimes call oar fish. ing-smacks of 70 or 80 tons boats. If you mean fishing vessels of + tons, I tell you, yes. = Q. Of boats smaller than that, you never heard it ’—A. What we would term boats, no. By Mr. Foster: -Q. Explain what you mean by boats.—A. Small boats, such as they have on Nova Scotia shore and some parts of Maine, of five, six, or seven loos. By Mr. Weatherbe : Q. These are what you call boats ?—A. Yes. ; Q. You never heard of vessels lee bowing them !—A. No. By Mr. Foster: . Q. Explain why.—A. Because they fish to an ancuor. By Sir Alexander Galt: | Ze Q. Could you not do the same witha boat fishing to an anchor as with . . satching *kerel, canhot a a boat drifting? If a boat is at anchor catching mackerel, cann * eatve ; er ake the fish with it f— vessel ran in, throw out bait and drift off and take the Abie PORE A. No; vessels of 70, 80, or 100 tons cannot rap in ees ek Whe fishing to an anchor. There are the wind and tide to contend WIN. 2142 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. wind might be blowing from the east and the tide setting in a westerly direction. By Mr. Weatherbe: Q. Then, if I understand you, you never heard of such a thing as lee- bowing boats—these small boats?—A. Never in my life. Q. You have described what lee-bowing is; what is it?—A. If you were in a vessel laying to, and I came along, and when I got within half or three-quarters of a mile, according to the headway, hauled the jib and came along by you, threw out a little bait as I came alongside your vessel, and then went ahead of your vessel and took the fish away. Q. It is quite possible, quite probable, that it could be done ?—A. Some might do it, but I would not. Q. You would not think it right to do it?—A. I would not dare to do it, even if I thought it right. ’Q. Is it not easily done?—A. No; I never tried it. Q. You would not, as a sailor, undertake to say that it could not be done ?—A. I don’t think it is impossible. Q. Is it not quite easily done ?—A. I don’t know that. Q. I want your opinion ?—A. I never knew of it being done. Q. You cannot undertake to say it is not easily done ?7—A. I tell you I don’t know. I would not dare to do it. Q. I want you to say whether it can be done or not ?—A. I could not answer the question. I would not dare to do it. Q. Can you not give your opinion as a sailor?—-A. No; I never under- took it. Q. Could you not undertake to do it?—A. I would do some things now which I would not have done years ago. Q. Between 1868 and 1876 you had five vessels fishing ?—A. Yes. Q. And you made three mackerel trips ?—A. Yes. Q. And you lost money by them ?—A. Yes. Q. Where did the vessels fish ; outside of the three-mile limits ?—A. I could not tell you. Q. You have no idea where they fished 7?—A. No. eee had three vessels fishing in the bay; you sent them there ?— A. Yes. Q. They came home, and you lost money by the trips ?—A. Yes. Q. And you undertake to say you do not know and never made any inquiry, whether the vessels fished inshore or outside 7—A. Yes. Q. You never made any inquiry about it?—A. No. Q. What are the names of the vessels 7—A. White Fawn, Annie Lin- wood, Sarah C. Pile. Q. Had any of them fishing licenses from the Canadian Govern- ment ?—A. I could not tell you. I did not keep the books; my partner kept them. Q. How did you become acquainted with the license system 7—A. I have heard it talked over on the streets. Q. What did you understand it to be ?—A. That we paid for license. Q. During what years ?—A. I could not tell you; I have no idea what ears. : Q. Was it your idea that you could get a license for the whole period you fished ?—A. I never knew of anything about it. Q. Did you know that you were permitted to go and fish within three miles without license at any time ?—A. Under the Reciprocity Treaty we could. Q. After the Reciprocity Treaty you could not ?—A. No. ’ AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2143 Q. After that it was necessary to have alicense?—A. Yes. Q. How many mackerel trips were made by your vessels after the Reciprocity Treaty was abrogated !—A. I was interested in three trips, but I could not tell you the yéars. Q. Can you not give me the years when you had vessels in the bay fishing for mackerel? Were they 1866, 1867, 1868, or 1869!—A. I think they must have been 1872 and 1873; I will not swear to it. Q. You don’t know whether you had licenses or not !—A. No. Q. Are you aware there were no licenses issued then ’—A. I am not. Q. Are you aware that it was impossible to procure permission to fish within three miles of the shore in 1872?—A. I don’t know anything about it. Q. You have no idea?—A. No. ee you have no idea where your fish were caught that year !— . No. Q. They may all have been caught in harbors?’—A. They may all have been caught up rivers for all I know. Q. You never made inquiry 7—A. No. ' Q. Did you give any directions to your captains as to where they should fish ?—A. No; it would be no use. When they leave the wharf we lose all jurisdiction over them, and they go where they have a mind. Q. You give no directions ?—A. It would be useless to do so. ae You made no inquiries as to where the fish were caught !—A. 0. Q. Did you state in your direct examination that the right to fish within three miles of the land was of no use ?—A. Yes. Q. How do you arrive at that opinion? You never fished there your: self to any extent?—A. In the first place, the vessels spend a great deal of time in the harbors. If they kept outside we would not have so many drafts from them; they would be attending to their business and would get their trips. This refers to both mackerel, cod, and halibat fishing. In- the next place, we would get a little better price for our fish, and a good deal better price for our mackerel. Q. Those are the only reasons you have to give!—A. The vessels would get more mackerel off shore. Q. How did you find out that the mackerel were better off shore than inshore; and how did you find out that there were more mackerel off shore, if you never fished inshore ?—A. I don’t think I made the asser- tion that they were better mackerel off shore than inshore. Q. You thought you would get more mackerel and get a better price for them ?—A. If we had a duty on mackerel we would get a better price, and would get more mackerel if we fished off shore. : Q. I am asking you what reasons you have for considering the privi- lege of fishing inshore to be of no use ’—A. I said I thougtit they would catch more mackerel if they fished off shore and kept the vessels oat of harbors, and that we would not have so many drafts, and, in answer to another question, I said we would get a better price for our mackere. Q. You did not give that as a reason for thinking the privilege of ses ing inshore of no use?—A. I certainly think if we had not the pris lege of fishing inshore you would have to pay & duty on your mackerel. You have no other market to which to send them. ae ie Q. You are now advancing theories. I want facts. Iw erie sy = ing of the duty at all; where did you get that idea? You di Beda! anything about duty in your examination 1—A. No question was a me about duty. 2144 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Is the privilege of using the inshore fishery of any use to you as fishermen ?—A. No. Personally I say, no. Q. Do you know that practically yourself?—A. That is my opinion. @. You never fished inshore 7—A. No. Q. Therefore you are not able to say so from your own knowledge ?— A. I fished off shore for the very reason that I thought I would do bet- ter there. I had a perfect right to come inshore. Q. You lost money, you say ?—A. Yes. q. Did you ever try fishing inshore ?—A. No. Q. But you say the privilege of inshore is of no value ?—A. That is my opinion. Q. For what reason ?—A. I gave youmy reasons. It would keep the vessels out of the harbors and they would get more mackerel. Q. Whatelse ?—A. Then we would not have so many drafts. They lay in the harbors too long, and go into harbors when it comes night. Q. Is it not the practice for the fishermen to run into the shore and drift off, and then run in again?—A. It is not always you can drift offshore. Q. Is the privilege of going inshore an advantage to you?—A. If the mackerel were inshore, it would certainly be an advantage; if they were not inshore, it would not be an advantage. Q. Yuu never tried whether the inshore was not better than the out- shore fishery ; why did you not try it?—A. Because I thought I could do better outside. Q. Year after year you lost money. As a business man, why did you not try fishing inshore like other fishermen who have made money ?7—A. I don’t know where they are; they are very much scattered. Q. Why did you not try 7—A. Because I thought I could do better off shore. Q. Do you know of any vessel which fished within three miles of the shore 7?—A. Not persunally. ; Q. Why do you say not personally ?—A. Because I do not know any one. I never saw them in there fishing. . Q. Did you hear of any vessel which fished inshore?—A. 1 could not tell what I have heard. @. Have you heard of vessels fishing inshore?—A. I could not an- swer that. ~ Q. Did you ever make any inquiries ?—A. No; I was not interested. Q. You fished off shore, lost money, and never tried to fish inshore, and never made any inquiries as to whether there was good fishing there ~ or not?—A. Yes. Q. Have you heard of 450 licenses having been taken out ?—A. No; nor of 150. (. Don’t you think it would be a curious thing for American owners. to take out fishing licenses if there was no fishing inshore?—A. No, I don’t think it would be a curious thing. Q. How does it strike you ?—A. If I kept six or eight skippers to go in vessels, four or five would be British subjects, and when they got down to the bay I could not trust them, and [ would take out licenses to guard myself against them. That is a plain, simple fact. Q. Let me remind youof what you said a few moments ago, that when you es vessels to the bay, you never made many inquiries from them ? —A. No. Pak You were not aware whether lic:nses were issuel to them ?— & ING: / s U ca *. ° parts of Argyle and Pubnico take very little fr AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2145 Q. You never made any inquiries ?’—A. No, I had a partne kept the books and attended to that part of the business. ete Q. You left that matter to him!—A. Yes. I don’t know whether be took out licenses or not. Q. Do you know of any vessel which took out licenses !—A. I keow 8f some, but I do not know their names. Q. For what reasons should they have taken out licenses !—A. I gave you my reason why I would, if I sent vessels. Q. That is your own personal reason ?—A. Yes. Q. You cannot give the reasons of any one else !—A. No. Q. What is your reason ?—A. If I sent a vessel down to the bay, and did not take out a license, it would not be allowed to fish within three miles of the shore; but by paying a certain amount, it would have the right to fish within three miles, and the license would save the veasel if it went in, and the cost of the license would not amount toa great deal. Q. Why could you not direct him not to go in ?—A. We lose all con. trol over our vessels when they go away. Q. If you were going there yourself, you would not take out a license ?—A. I don’t-know what I might do now; I know what I bave done. By Mr. Whiteway : Q. You have not been fishing yourself since 1860?—A. No. Q. You have never fished on the Grand Bank or Georges Banks for codfish since 1860?—A. I have fished on Georges Banks. Q. But never on the Grand Banks ?—A. No, ee Q. You never went to the Newfoundland coast for bait!—A. No; I have, however, gone in the winter from Fortune Bay to the New York market with fish. ‘ ide se Q. Was that many years ago ?—A. I think it was in 1558 or 1559, bat I will not be positive. Q. You eieae of Gloucester cod-fishing vessels taking bait from Bast port, Shelburne, and Prospect ?—A. Yes. _ Q. What description of bait ?—A. Herring. Q. Salted ?—A. No; fresh. Q. Where were these obtained ?—A. Irom now till next May, we can get them at Eastport and Grand Manan and Campobello, and as the - son advances, say from May to June, we are obliged to come on the coast here, down at Shelburne; and during the latter part of the sea son we are obliged to go for bait to Canso. Q. Do the cod-fishing vessels from Gloucester take all ter ait they require for the season, in the shape of frozen herring I—A. O, rane : Q. What bait do they take besides frozen berring !—A. The banker do not take any frozen herring. ‘ Q. Do they dae salt mere 1—A. No; fresh. : rved in ice ?—A. Yes. P a Gah coerce how much does each vessel take [—A. I could not ; re no idea. Ceca ag they take from Eastport or Shelburne !—A. I coald not tell you. ree « banking Q. beaiee take sufficient to last them for toe abo ee aioe voyage?—A. Not all; but some Ce Sater at bait with them. ‘ : = it. They do not bait ap They lay there and fill up their trips eileaaea eee oo eeLlewar They are old bankers, ad they vi bait up two or three, and I do own men and the Cape Breton skippers ait up not know but four times during the season. 135 F 2146 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. | Q. On the average, what quantity of bait preserved in ice do the Glou- cester vessels take in the shape of herring ?—A. I could not tell you. Q. Do they take enough for the whole banking voyage 7—A. No. Q. Where do they get the bait necessary for the prosecution of their voyage 7—A. In Newfoundland. Q. How long has the practice of their going to Newfoundland fér bait existed 7—A. Very few years; I suppose six or eight. Q. Can you tell how many vessels from Gloucester are now fitted out for the Bank fishery 7?—A. No. Q. How many are fitted from there for the mackerel fishery 7?—A. I should suppose somewhere about 200 sail. Q. Are the number of vessels now fitted out from Gloucester for the cod fishery less or more than it was five or six years ago ?—A. It is more. Q. Has their number increased gradually during the last four, five, or six years?—A. No; I do not know as it has during the last four or five years. I think not. «. Are you able to state positively whether this is the case or not ?— A. I should say not, if I was on my oath. Q. Have you no statistical information on the subject 7—A. I have no more than what I see. I know where each vessel is going to; and I should say that there is a decrease in the number, and that vessels which had been so engaged have gone into the mackerel-fishing busi- ness. Q. Have you any statistical information enabling you to speak posi- tively on the subject ?—A, No; I cannot tell their exact number. Q. You have had five vessels between 1868 and 1876 going to the Bank fishing, with the exception of the last two of these years, when you had three vessels there?—A. O, no; I have had the five vessels during the whole period. Q. What were they doing; cod-fishing?—A. One went for fresh hali- but; one was on Georges’ Bank ; two went to the western and Grand Banks, and one went mackerel fishing. Q. How many of your own vessels have gone to Newfoundland for fresh bait?—A. I could not tell, but I knew one did. @. When did she do so?—A. In 1870. Her name is the White Fawn. Q. And that is the only one which, in your recollection, did so?7—A. I do not know, but I presume that the others did so, though I am not sure. I was not in the way of knowing that; my partner would receive the drafts and pay them while I would be on the wharf working, sorting and packing mackerel, &c. If I was in when a draft was laying on the desk, I would see it. Q. Then only one of your vessels went to Newfoundland for fresh bait, that you can swear to; this was in 1870; and you do not know of any other of your vessels which went in there for it?7—A. I have no doubt that the others went in there. as But you cannot speak as to this from your own knowledge ?—A. No. Q. What quantity of herring do you estimate Gloucester vessels bring every spring from Grand Manan for bait ?—A. I could not tell you, lam sure. Q. Does the principal part of your Gloucester cod-fishing vessels bring their herring bait in the spring from Grand Manan?—A. For about two months—yes. @. And salt bait is much better than fresh bait for cod-fishing ?—A. Well, I will swear that though I think you can catch a few more fish th is if 8 4 e ry ‘given without any prejudice whatever, that our v cidedly better off if they used salt bait. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2147 with fresh bait while it last i if y go down to fish on the Bene pete sore pir bemp ver eo Detter with it . a ree - Does fresh bait take the fish quick ‘ catch a few more fish while it tees es me pee ie eae ale Q. You think that it is not advantageous to go a Roce. arr on i oe of Nova Scotia for fresh bait !— sy Yes. ee . And your principal reason for arriving 7 ' it gives an ete vias to your Ronis A ptr hearer ye oe. was such an induc ; ij Fane sare ucement; but another fact is, that the vessels wh carry salt bait get more fish and the best trips. falas Q. Then ue must be better than fresh bait !—A. No; it is the time that is to be considered. A Nova Scotia schooner, owned ! Gloucester and partly by aman named Goodwin does better ee Ss with salt bait than other vessels which have fresh bait. pohlen Q. Why do you cast a reflection on your own people, and say that they are reduced by spirits to be idle ?—A. I did not doso. More th one-half of the time is lost in going in for bait. sae Q. Are you aware of any drafts having been drawn on you for fresh bait 7—A. This may have been the case and it may not. Q. You know of no drafts having been made on ‘you for fresh bait !— A. I do not swear that there have been, but | have no doubt that our vessels have gone in for bait. Q. You have no idea of vessels going in from the Grand Bank for bait, obtaining it, and returning to the bank in fifteen days; on what de zon base your opinion ?—A. I say so because bait is not always plent- ul. Q. But you have never been in for bait!—A. No; but I have beard people say so. I have heard a good many people say so. | bave beard a good many people state the time they have lost by going in for bait. Q. Suppose you were told that a vessel could go into Newfoundland for bait and return to the Bank in 72 hours, would you pot then con net ee such a privilege was a very usefal advantage !—A. I discredit the whole story. q. But suppose it were the case ?—A. If a man was on oath and swore to it, L would not believe him. Q. But suppose it was the fact ?—A. should doubt the truth of the statement. Q. If it was so, would you consider it an advantage to be able to go in for fresh bait ?—A. No; i told you, and that is my candid opinion, essels would be de Q. Even if they could get fresh bait by running into New foandland and returning to the fishing ground in 3 days !—A, It ‘is impossible to do that. Q. But merely suppose it w possibility, I cannot answer you, that. Q. But suppose that you could do so in three or you think ?—A. I[ do not know how to answer suc Q. Do you refuse to answer 7_ A. I cannot answer su 100 it looks to me as ie IGAY doing so 12 that time. I cannot answer it so as to be Q. You cannot give an opinion ou stances ?—A. No, I cannot. oral fabian Q. When speaking with reference to the number of macke el-f sher- as true’—A. When you sappose an im I cannot ansver sach a question a four day a, W hat would ha question. h a question ; as absurd to think of a man satisfactory to mysell. this subject under those circam 2148 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. men now in the bay from Gloucester, you mean those in the bay, those off your own shores, and all?—A. Yes. I stated that we had 200 mack- erel-catchers employed. There are about 40 in the bay out of the 200. No. 19. CHARLES HENRY ORNE, master-mariner and fisherman, of Glouces- ter, called on behalf of the American Government, sworn and examined. By Mr. Trescot : Question. How old are you ?—Answer. Thirty-five. Q. How long have you been fishing 7—A. Eight seasons. Q. As a sharesman or master ?—A. As master. Q. Were you fishing previously ?—A. Yes; some. Q. When did you begin fishing ?—A. When a boy 9 years of age I wept on my first ‘trip. Q. And you fished ever since until you became master?—A. Yes; more or less. Q. When did you become master ?—A. In 1864. Q. You have been engaged mainly in the mackerel fishery ?—A. Yes. Q. What did you do in 1864?—A. I was in the schooner J oseph Sto- rey, of 55 tons register, and I went into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Q. How many trips did you make that year ?—A. Three. Q. Where did you make the first one?—A. At the Magdalen Islands. Q. What was your catch ?—A. Two hundred and seventy or 280 bar- rels. Q. Were they taken entirely around the Magdalen Islands?—A. Yes. I presume some were caught that trip within the 3-mile limit. Q. Where was your second trip taken?—A. At the Magdalen Isl- ands. Q. What was your catch then tA. Two hundred and fifty or 260 barrels, or thereabouts. Q. Did you fish inshore a little sometimes off the Magdalen Islands ? —A. Yes. Q. What proportion did you so cateh ?—A. I would not like to give an estimate; I do not think I could come anywhere near the real number. Q. Where was your third trip taken?—A. Between East Point, Prince Edward Island, and Cape George, principally. Q. You did not fish off the Cape Breton shore that year ?—A. I caught all my third trip this first year, 1864, there, off Margaree Island. Q. How many did you catch that trip ?—A. Two hundred and forty barrels. Q. What did you catch within the limits on this trip?—A. The land is very high there and I had no means to determine the distance, but I should judge we caught three-quarters of that trip within the limits. Q. What did you do in 1865?—A. I was in the same vessel in the gult. Q. Where did you go?—A. To the Magdalen Islands. Q. What did you catch ?—A. About a usual trip—260, 270, or 280 barrels, or thereabouts. That was about a full trip for the vessel. . Q. What did you catch within the limits?—A. I have no doubt that we took 30 barrels. Q. Where did you make your first trip that year?—A. I think off North Cape and on Bank Bradley. Q. What did you catch?—About a full trip. Probably 240 or 250 barrels. he ! . % — om AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2149 Q. Where did you go for your third trip ?—A. [we caur between the Magdalen Talsne and Cape Breton, Bertie lines 3 rs ae did oes oe tree A full trip—270 or 280 barrels. . Did you catch them off shore ’—A. Yes, off Entry the Ma giilen Islands. Yes, off Entry Island, one of Q. Where were you in 1866?—A. In the Gulf of Saint Liwrence. in the same vessel. : Q. How many trips did you make that year !—A. Three. Q. Where did you make your first trip?—A. At the Magdalen Island. We obtained about a full trip. Q. About how many did you get 7—A. 280 barrels. Q. How about the second trip?—A. I think it was made off North Cape, Prince Edward Island. Q. What was your catch ?—A. 250 barrels. Q. Did you then fish within 3 miles of the Prince Edward Island shore : and, if so, what did you catch ?—A. I often tried in there on that trip from North Cape down, but I do not think that [ canght much inshore. I am pretty sure that I did not. Q. Do you recollect the number you so caught !—A. I think it was 15 or 25 barrels. Q. Where were you in 1867? A. In the galf, in the Julia Grace. Q. What did you take on yorr third trip in 18667—A. It was what! call a mixed trip, being caught in different places. I fished off Prince Edward Island, and went from thence to Cape George and Fisherman's Bank and I think farther down, though I am not positive on this potot. I caught the trip principally at the places I have named. Q. How many did you get?—A. About 230 or 250 barrels, I think. Q. And in 1867 you were in the Julia Grace !—A. Yes. Q. What was her size ?—A. She was of 62 or 64 register—02, I think. , Q. How many trips did you make that year !—A. Two. Q. Where did you take the first?—A. About the northern part of Bank Bradley and over towards Point Miscou. It was a brokea thy. We got 130 or 140 barrels. Q What did you obtain on the second trip!—A, 230 or 249 barrels. Q. Where did you catch them?—A. We took a portion between the Magdalen Islands and Cape Breton and some over about Cheticamp. Q. Did you fish much within the 3-mile limit 1—A. I think that we caught some there near Cheticamp. We may have been within the J mile limit there. an) Q. What proportion of the 240 was taken within the limits '—A. A small proportion. I hardly know what to set It at. Pee Q. Where were you in 1868 ?—A. In the same vessel, in the gulf Q. How many trips did you make that year 1_—A. Two. i Q. What did you take on the first trip!—.\. It was a broken top We got 150 barrels or thereabouts. ‘ant as Q. Where were they caught ?—A. I think to the norar! of abost aaNG n Seen ie second trip ?—A. It was a mixed trip—canght in vane places. Some were caught at the Magdalen Islanits and some, | thos, ake ee the quantity you took ’—A. [t was something over 200 barrels. ah Pua tien bag Q. Were you fishing in 1869 !—A. Not in sae8 Q. When did you again fish in the gulf!—A. Th Ih. antess. C4 Q. What vessel were you in that year l= AL ERE es tons. ] was bani ing. 2150 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. How many trips did you make?—A. We made only one that year. Q. What was your catch and where was it taken?—A. It was 343 barrels, caught wholly at the Magdalen Islands. Q. What did you do in 1874 ?—A. I was in the John Storey, jr. We made one trip that year. It was taken partly to the nor’ard and partly down Prince Edward Island. Q. What sort of a trip did you make ?—A. It was a small one—150 or 160 barrels, I think. Q. What did you do in 1875 ?—A. I did not do anything that year. In 1876 I was in the gulf, in the Jamestown, 69 tons. We made a broken trip, catching 126 barrels, of which 90-odd were taken at the Magdalen Islands and the remainder about East Point—between that and Fisherman’s Bank. Q. This was all your fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence?—A. Yes. Q. Have you had any experience in mackerel-fishing on the coast of the United States ?—A. I fished there one year only; this was in 1872. Q. What sort of a trip did you make ?—A. I made different trips, and packed during the season 530 barrels. I made short trips. Q. A great deal of fishing is done from Gloucester, on the United States coast ?—A. Yes. Q. You have had some opportunity of forming an opinion, from your own experience in the gulf and on the American coast and from that of your neighbors, and how do you think that the gulf and United States coast fisheries compare ?—A. I do not suppose that they differ a great deal; but of late the comparison is in our favor as to the shore fishery, though years ago the gulf mack ere] ruled higher than our shore mackerel. Still I should not suppose that there is any great difference between them. @. Do you think that the American coast fishery affords ample room for the successful prosecution of the fishing business for those who go there?—A. Yes. Q. It is, besides, less costly fishing than fishing in the gulf?—A. I pre- sume that it is. There is not so much time wasted on our coast in making trips. ; Q. With your experience of the Gulf of St. Lawrence fishery, do you consider that the privilege of fishing within the 3-mile limit there is of any great value to us? I do not now refer to the Magdalen Islands, but to the rest of the coast.—A. I do not; judging from my own experience and the amount of fish that I caught inshore, I do not think that exclu- sion from fishing within the 3-mile limit would keep me out of the gulf any year when I felt disposed to go there. @. As a matter of profit as concerns your industry, you would rather have the restoration of the $2 duty on the fish that comes from abroad to compete with yours than the privilege of coming inshore in British waters to fish ?—A. Yes. Q. Has the number of mackerel-fishing vessels in the Gloucester fleet increased or decreased since you have been engaged in the fishing busi- ness ?—A. That is a difficult question to answer. I do not know that it has varied any. Q. I mean vessels employed entirely in the gulf mackerel fishery ?— A. O, that has diminished vastly. Q. How many mackerel-fishing vessels from Gloucester do you sup- pose are in the gulf this year?—A. I should say that there are 59. Q. And within your experience what has been the number which has come up to the gulf?—A. I have been there when from our port there AWARD OF T Lh » HE FISHERY COMMISSION : 2151 were 200 vess or 1866. els and upwards. I pr Q. The de presume that this was j : ishing. Th crease has been atonal 9 in 1864 or 1865 riba ere were 30-0dd sail i y ?—A. The numt now the ex: sail in the gulf iber has bee fleet. act number now in th 5 ih year from oat = on the Banks A supply yourself with 1873 !—A. Yes. I took clams from ( ell, one year—th ait when you were ¢ my own Rei rom Gloucester. Thi the first year that I oe cod fishing Tnevers it from Gloucester, ca s was in the spring of nt banking— at Saw land, in m , caught my trip of 1855. I took turned. ? y remembrance, fr p of fish, and went | 8 How lon » from the time I left until 1OmMe. of March Sea aac te out on that trip!—A. I il I re. WwW "IDS a ae > I ms me remember the ae pe tween that date at Ag on the 7th a Bane the bait which you stigse I was on my Pahoa of Jane. o. WI rst did, but during m out lasted you on eacl D- : 1at did yo y second trip Le n each occasion ’— Q. Darin you catch ?—A. Herri p [caught my own | ie Nowe g your fishing there, w ring. : rait. Q wee ane to buy Breen eee Soe a the habit of goin ’ Z ou oe ave De . oing at me second ee ea of it Ree ae “ late years. . : ‘ * ere. J VES Eom se: we : as arene is your opinion as to tl ent in for bait Leeper We ould the fisherman do Rous respective value of the tw Se oe ce pices fire heparan salt bait se e or in St. Peter’ sted to supplyi : as I think that oe s, or by running ih bbe. themselves : it of using salt bait. I Aaat is the best, after they oundland for Sat t the first year; but I er etant however, that deg eee into the habit of usi that this would be the c y would find Q. Do you consider riche salt bait. re case after they ee NS eure of the Magdalen Islands a d . 25 3s . oar S$ a dangero se eather are concerned ‘ 1e situation of vessels safer ther , would yo : durin oe eee ere than anywhere else in ihe ee yourself as ae | Q. eve s gulf ?—A. I would be fully as Prin you had any large ex 3 ; ¢ Lene Island 2—A tae deca in fishing in the Bight of (J. - : ans 3 yave he EA ‘ wht o ports of ref is nothing to make the hart nad veey Bee there. len Islands gee ee weather preferable Alar ee, Edward Island — A N a E « e lees . if for such a aaa i One my part I would prefer the Ma leds Mages ‘Prince Edward Taand eee for this is that the a Islands there, though d harbors is shoal, and in b: 1 es er about the When th 4 when the water is smo tl ; yad weather it is rough e water is ro apa oth they are very easy : Island harbors. ugh it is dangerous to go into the —S Brien By Mr. Davi : . ies: Q. You did not fi n a eyaee a great eat ot fish very much about Prince Edward Island !—A. Not . How often w yas ity =A. at ere you fisl ; A. I was there in 1368 ape ett and down the coast of the island !— Q. Is that the only Hime 1e Julia Grace. "Q Cyan years. you fished around the island f—A. I think I ~ you there every ye have been there every the year more or less !—A. I presume that I 2152 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Fishing?—A. Yes; but I cannot commit my memory to every time and place. Q. Did you go there every year when you came to the bay to fish 7— A. I think that I did. Q. You generally, as others do, have run down the north side of the island?—A. Well, if I go there,I[ do. Ihave run7 times out of 10 from Canso to Magdalen Islands. Q. When you and others have come to the bay, have you and they not made a practice of fishing off the north coast of Prince Edward Island ?—A. I have tried there, I think, every year that I was in the bay, but I cannot tell what my neighbors have done. Q. Have you not seen other vessels fishing there?—A. Yes. I pre- sume that they were fishing or trying to fish. Q. Have you any doubt of it at all ?—A. No; not in the least. Q. Off what parts of the island did you use to fish; for instance, did you fish from East Point down to Two Chapels ?—A. Yes; I tried there last year; but I could not command my memory to any other year in particular in this respect, but still I have no doubt that I have done so. Q. It is a well-known fishing-ground to many Gloucester fishermen, is it not?—A. I presume that it is. Q. Is that not the fact ?7—A. I have stated that I have fished there, and I have seen my neighbors there. Q. Have you fished or seen vessels fishing down off Rustico and Malpeque Harbors ?—A. Malpeque—yes. I have fished there and tried there; and I was in Malpeque Harbor last year and one year before. Q. Going up farther west, off Cascumpeque, Kildare, and North Cape, have you fished there?—A. I do not remember fishing on this side of North Cape, farther than Tignish Chapel. Q. That is also a fishing ground pretty well known among Gloucester fishermen, and one of the points which you make ?—A. I presume so. Q. Did you fish on the other side of North Cape, off Miminegash ?— A. 1do not know of such a place. Q. Itlies between North and West Capes?—A. I do not remember fish- ing there. @. When would you go to Prince Edward Island, or would yon select any special part of the season to do so ?—A. I was there last year dur- ing this month. Q. How was it during previous years, 1864, ’65, ’67, or 68 ?—A. I cannot commit my memory to the time of the year when I was there ; one trip excepted. Q. Would you go there when you went up to the bay in the spring, or did you do so later, in September or October 7—A. Well, I never have been there earlier than in July as I know of. Q. Do you generally strike the Magdalen Islands d uring the first trip for mackerel ?—A. Yes. I have gone there7 times out of 10. Q. And when would you leave these islands ?—A. I fished there until I got my trip, if I found the mackerel there. Q. Ido not notice your having got any ove trip at the Magdalen Islands alone.—A. O, I think I have stated that I did get a full trip there. Q. Have you ever fished on the west shore of New Brunswick, from Miscou down to Richibucto ?—A. No; not that I remember of. Q. You may have done so and have forgotten it?—A. I think not. I think if I had fished there I would remember it. Q. Did you ever fish in the Bay of Chaleurs ?—A. I have tried there. * Q. Have you seen other vessels there ?—A. I presume that I have. ij —_ = AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2153 di ete know whether you did or not!—A. I went in to procure Q. Have you seen other vessels there !—A. Yes. Q. Fishing ?—A. I would not swear to that. Q. What is your belief?—A. I believe that part, if not all of them, which I saw were coasting-vessels. I have now reference to one time tn particular. Q. Do I understand you to say you have no recollection of ever hav- ing seen American vessels fishing in the Bay of Chalears !—A. To my certain knowledge, no. : Q. What do you mean by ‘certain knowledge” !—A. To my know}. edge. The vessels I saw there I suppose were, as to the most of them, coasters. I saw very few, and them only once that I remember of. Q. Did you try to fish there then ?—A. Yes. Q. On which shore did you do so?—A. I filled with water on the Canadian side and I presume that I tried there. Q. At what harbor ?—A. Cascapediac. Q. When was this ?—A. I think that it was in 1863. Q. You were then in the Julia Grace ?—A. Yes. Q. You were never in the Bay of Chaleurs previously !—A. Not to my recollection. Q. Have you ever fished much up around the Gaspé shore !—A. No. Q. Perhaps you were uever to the north of that or at Seven Islands! —A. No. Q. You have never been there at all f!—A. No. Q. Do you know whether the American fishing fleet go there or not! —A. I do not know. Q. You have never heard of it ?—A. I heard Mr. Friend state outside _ to-day that he was there. Q. Before your conversation with Mr. Friend about it today have you heard many Americans say that they had fished about Seven Isl- ands, and speak of it as one of the points where they used to fish '— A. No. Q. Nor Gaspé?—A. I could not say as to that. ; Q. Have you heard them speak of fishing around the Gaspe shore '— A. That is near Bonaventure, is it not? Q. Yes.—A. Well, I presume that I have. Q. Do you not know whether you have or not!—A. I shoald not want to swear to it. -Q. Have you a doubt in your own mind about this part being spoken of as one of the points where they caught mackerel !—.\. We are talk ing about fishing all the time when on our trips, and | would not swear that I have heard of it during my voyages. Q. Or that you have not !—A. No; we are talking about the fishing grounds all the time while fishing, aud aman may have mentioned that last year, and still I would not remember it. ; ; . rare you ever heard them talk about Prince Edward Island as one of their fishing grounds ?—A. Yes. Q. Often ?—A. Yes. Q. Many of them ?—A. Plenty oben: ~ A many of them ?—A. 1€s. a OQ. Tee a ae many people, or some at any rate, from : re . Edward Island who have sailed from Gloucester in fishing vesse!s *—- : ae enee tee heard the island constantly and often talked of '— A. Yes. 2154 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Have you heard the Cape Breton shore, between Cheticamp and Margaree and around Margaree Island, spoken of as one of the fishing grounds of American fishermen?—A. Yes. Q. Often?—A. Yes. Q. And as one of the best fishing grounds?—A. I never heard it spoken of in that way. Q. Have you ever heard it mentioned as a place where the best fish are taken in the fall?—A. No. Q. In 1864 you were in the Joseph Storey, and you stated at first that you got your first trip at the Magdalen Islands, and afterward you cor- rected yourself and said that was wrong; what really is the fact?—A. The fact is that I caught the whole trip at the Magdalen Islands, and I do not think that I altered that statement. Q. I understood you to alter it—A. If I did, l was wrong. I caught them all at the Magdalen Islands. Q. How far out around the Magdalen Islands did you fish?—A. When I speak of fishing round them, I mean inshore, and off shore I could not determine the distance round, but the distances off shore would vary from 2 to 30 miles. Q. Is the bulk of the fish caught near the shores of these islands ?— A. The bulk of mine was not so taken. Q. Is the bulk of the fish taken near their shores by other people 7— A. I do not know. Q. You have no knowledge of what others have caught there ?—A. No more than seeing their vessels fishing where I was. Q. You really cannot tell whether the bulk of the fish is caught in- shore there or not ?—A. Other vessels might have done so, but I did not. Q. What proportion of yours was caught there within the three-mile limit?—A. A small proportion; possibly from 15 to 25 barrels in the trip I made there. Q. That number out of 270 or 280?7—A. Yes. Q. And the rest were caught from 15 to 20 miles from the islands ?— A. From 2 to 30 miles off. Q. During that trip?—A. And in fact during every trip I was there. Q. Did you fish on Bank Bradley during your first trip?—A. No. I fished then entirely at the Magdalen Islands. Q. And wheré did you fish on your second trin?—A. At the Magda- len islands. Q. That year?—A. Yes. Q. You caught it altogether there ?—A. Yes. Q. And on your third trip you fished about East Point and Marga- ree, and caught three-quarters of your fish within the three-mile limit. How much did you catch on your third trip that year ?—A. 240 bar- rels, and I caught them at Margaree Island. Q. How far from the island 7—A. It is difficult to determine that. I presume that I caught three-quarters of that trip within the limits. Q. Would you like to swear that you caught one-quarter of it outside the three-mile limit ?—A. I should. Q. Why ?—A. Because I fished well off shore. Q. And you are perfectly clear in your recollection as to three-quar- ters of the trip being taken inside and one-quarter of it outside of the limits ?—A. Yes; to the best of my judgment. Q. Is that the only time when you fished around Margaree ?—A. Yes; that year. Q. Did you fish there at any other time ?—A. I believe not. - the Magdalen Islands and Cape Breton, did you A. Farther off than about Margaree. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2155 Q. Then, so far as you personally are ec j Margaree are taken in the Es son (eda Nasa rt ar Se Vhdl ete quarter outside of the 3-mile limit; and that Pv rig eent eet oo your experience 7?—A. That is my experience. i aan aes gc at Q. In 1865, you went in the same vessel. Where di your first trip?—A. At the Magd: rere did you then get a Wie 1¢ Magdalen Islands. : . Wit the same result as during previous vears '—A. I Q. You did not fish on Bank Bradley at all ay Nor Far ay Pac ye Biorscnonuiy éar. ) : . Not on my first trip Q. And during you ‘j . Beer cibente ee pk pe you caught some off North I think I caught my second tri a ‘in 1365 stip acl a maitre hes Piuatl judo, tet Laid cotas of then, Venue cnenine Sane Gane ; ot do so there, I caught them off North Q. You are not sure where y i ' you took them; but if y at N praca far off from it were you?—A. I think I sas earl nein e ) agdalen Islands on that trip, and I think I said so; | ! =e “ 76 to do with it. My memory is bad salad weseraed aes . You do not recollect where y j ( you caught that second trip ?— as now that I caught one trip in that vessel about North Leon a Drags exactly say whether it was that trip or a trip in the ensuing f e ° Q. If you caught them at Nortl ; at } 1 Cape, can you tell what y a and what outside of 3 or 4 miles from the shore [—.A. tat ep ie pugs a small proportion of the trip inside the limits. Sree hen you fished off Prince Edward Island, was it your practice to 5p nin and drift off 2—A. If the wind was off shore, I would do so; bat i eae was inshore, I would not. , on area ta fish inshore at Prince Edward Island with an inshore Q. Is it not a fact that 5 day 6 i ; ‘ ys out of 6 during the fishing season, the one there blows offshore 2—A. That was not the case when I was there. e little I have been there was usually in September. Then the weather rae in blowy and it gets blustery. You are as likely to get the wind from ek as from the southwest at this time in my experience. Where I was one could fish, I think, as well with a northwest wind as if it was from the southwest. ee You do not mean to say that you fished within the 3 miles of the shore with anorthwest wind ?—A. I could do so down at Georgetown. Q. And I dare say you have done so I—A. I do not remember partic ularly of having done so. Q. Have you ever fished off Georgetown ?—A. Not that 1 remember of. I have not fished nearer it than on Fisherman's Bank. Q. That is about 7 miles from East Point ?—A. I think it is more that, but I do not remember the exact distance. ‘Q. When you spoke of having taken your third trip that year between mean that you caught than them off North Cape, C. B., or between the Magdalen Islands and Mar garee, or partly in one place and partly in anotber!—A. I mean be tween Entry Island and Cheticamp, or between that and Cape North Q. How far offshore are the fish generally taken about Cheticamp '— Q. How far off?—A. When I speak of fishing inshore, I mean fishing from 3 to 5 and 8 miles from the shore. Q. How far off shore have you been camp ?—A. From 2 to 8 and 9 miles. accustomed to fish about Chets- 2156 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Have you caught many fish within the 3-mile limit there ?—A. No. Q. You have never fished there often ?—A. I fished there part of one trip. Q. And thatis all?—A. Yes. Q. The next year, 1869, you fished in the same vessel, taking the first trip off the Magdalen Islands; the second off North Cape, and the third around the Magdalen Islands, East Point, and Cape George; what pro- portion of the third trip was taken off East Point and Cape George, and what proportion within the limit?—A. From 25 to 30 barrels. Q. You said you did that on the second trip that year ?—A. I presume that I did. Q. You said that the third trip was a mixed trip, and that you caught some of the fish at the Magdalen Islands, but the most of them about East Point and Cape George ?—A. I do not remember saying that I took the most of them there. I stated that it was what I call a mixed trip. Some were caught at the Magdalen Islands; some between these islands and Cheticamp, some between that and East Point, and some between that and Fisherman’s Bank. __ Q. You kept no account of what were taken within the limits, and of what were not so caught in 1866?—A. No. Q. Had you a license in 1866 ?—A. Yes. . Q. So you had a right to go inshore, and you did not keep any special account regarding your catch 7—A. Yes; as far as the license is con- cerned. Q. You stated the gulf inshore fisheries were of no use ?—A. I did not say they were of no use; at least I do not remember of having done so. Q. Why then did you take out a license and pay for it 7—A. One rea- son why I did so was my owners advised me to do it; and another rea- son was, if I was in and made a harbor and wanted to try inshore, I wished to do so without running the risk of being taken. Q. You could make a harbor without a license ?—A. Certainly. I said that if I was inshore in a harbor, I might try for fish within the limits. Q. Then the inshore fisheries are of some value 7?—A. If you can catch any fish inshore—yes. Q. Have you seen many boats fishing along the coast of Prince Edward Island ?—A. I have; some. Q. Only a few, I suppose ?—A. I have seen as many as 30 at a time, I think, while passing along the shore. Q. Do you know of any place in the world where there is a better boat-fishery than there is off Prince Edward Island ?—A.I could not say; I was never boat-fishing. Q. Have you seen as many as 30 boats there in one place ?7—A. I saw them along the island. I do not think there is a place about the island with 30 boats, where I could see them fishing from my vessel’s deck. Q. How far off could you see them ?—A. Four miles, I presume. Q. Would it surprise you to learn that in some of the harbors of the island there are as many as 150 and 180 boats?—A. No; I do not doubt your word. Q. When you saw those boats fishing how far off from the shore were they 7—A.. From 2 to 7 miles off the island. Q. What size was a boat which fished 7 miles off shore?—A. I pre- sume that it was an open boat. I know in fact that most of them were open boats, but I could not give their dimensions. I would not wish to try to do so. Zz by . fleets. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2157 Q. What year was this ?—A. I cannot remem be “i bingy to any year in a respect, a 7 eee aes ee - How far were you from these boats !—A. I were on both sides of me when I was ranning up tn lala “Te aa , - Ido not know why I should be outside of all these boats which fish there. I presume that some were outside and some were inside of my veasel. I will not swear to being on any one side of all these boats. If I was running from East Point up to Malpeque and ran through 4 \ é gh a fleet of boats I would as likely be in the middle of them as outside of them, be. cause e would be running up there in good and not in bad weather. Q. 0 you not make a practice of fishing where you see the boats fishing off:Prince Edward Island?—A. No; I have tried there and caught little or nothing. I had men with me who called the fish there boat mackerel. The boats would lay to an anchor and catch mackerel when I could not do anything with the vessel. Q. What year was that ?—A. I do not remember. Q. At what part of the island was it!—A. I do not remember.’ | presume that it was about Rustico and about that way. Q. You say you would prefer a duty of $2 a barrel to the liberty of fishing within the limits of the bay ?—A. I do. Q. Why ?—A. Because I think the mackerel which I take to market would then bring more. Q. Would the price be then higher by $2?—A. I could not say. Q. What is your belief ?—A. I believe that would be the case. a use might appreciate the matter differently !—A. I speak as a fisherman. Q. You spoke of 200 vessels and upwards being in the bay some years ago ae aca were there as many as 300 !—A. I cannot go into the details. ’ Q. Was the number 300 ?—A. I think not. : ae an sou ever examine the lists to see how many there were in the ay — - NO. Q. You are only speaking generally ?—A. I speak from general infor: mation. Q. Do you know as a fact how many vessels from Gloucester are this year in the bay ?—A. I do not. Q. Do you know whether the catch this year has been very good or not ?—A. I presume from the general information I have received that it has been very slim. Q. You have not taken means to post yourself on this sulject '—A. No. Q. Do you know how many vessels have returned from the bay to Gloucester with catches this year ?—A. I do not. _Q. In your fishing you generally kept clear of the Bay of Chalears and you never saw large fleets in there at all i—A. No. Q. Have you ever seen off the Prince Edward [sland coast—several wit nesses have'mentioned the fact—as many as 300 American vessels in one - fleet at one time ?—A. I think not. I do not think that I ever saw 2 vessels in one fleet in the bay in my life. Q. You did not go perhaps with the fleet !—A. I bave bee in the Q. When ?—A. Late in the fall; then the vessels generally fish to gether. : Q. That would be down near the Cape Breton shore !—A. It was on the fishing grounds where I fished. Q. Did you not fish about the Cape Breton shore mostly in the fall, 2158 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. when the mackerel were returning 7—A. I only fished there the year when I caught a trip there, in 1864; that was my last trip that year. By Mr. Whiteway : QQ. On what bank were you fishing in 1865 7?—A. I do not know that I was fishing on any bank save Bank Bradley, and I presume I was there that year. Q. Did I not understand you to say that between the 7th of March and the 27th of June, 1865, you made two trips?—A. I did so; you have reference to cod-fishing. I caught my first trip on the Western Bank. Q. And the second ?—A. I then fished off to the southward of Cape Sable. Q. And then you closed your cod-fishery for that year ?—A. Yes; I afterwards, in the first part of July, went into the gulf. I was engaged in fishing on the Banks from 1869 to 1872, inclusive, four years ; though I may not have been fishing for one year during this time. Q. In what vessels were you ?—A. In the J. F. Huntress, E. L. Cook, and Arequippa. Q. Had you an interest in those vessels ?—A. No. Q. But you were captain ?—A. Yes, and that is all. Q. During all those years did you go to the Newfoundland coast for — bait 7—A. I did go in 1870. Q. And not during the other years ?—A. I think not. Q. To what port did you go?—A. I went to St. Pierre, and from thence to different places, for which there are no names I guess in Fortune Bay. I was at St. Jacques, Fortune Bay. Q. When were you at St. Jacques ?—.A. In June, [ think. Q. What bait did you get there?—A. Herring. Q. And that was in tbe spring ?—A. I presume that it was in June. I know, in fact, that this was the case. Q. Did you go immediately from Gloucester for bait ?—A. No; I took some bait from Gloucester. During part of 1870 I was fresh-halibuting. I took enough herring to bait up my trawls once, and then I used small fish for bait. Q. You left Gloucester with salt bait?—A. No; I took enough fresh ~ herring to bait my trawls once; this was in 1870. If I remember right. I went to the Grand Bank for halibut. I did not get a trip until after I had gone in for fresh bait. Q. You went into St. Peter’s ?—A. Yes. Q. And not being able to procure bait there you went to St. Jacques? —A. Yes. Q. Where you got fresh herring and preserved them in ice?—A. Yes. Q. Then you went out, finished your trip, and returned to Gloucester? —A. Yes. Q. What was the result of that voyage ?—A. I cannot remember. @. When did you return?—A. I do not remember. I made six or seven trips that year. ; Q. To the Banks ?—A. I left Gloucester that year, if I remember aright, the 1st of January, and from that time until I hauled up I made 6 or 7 trips. Q. Whendid you leave off?—A. The first part of November, as nearly as I can remember. Q. And in the mean time you made 6 or 7 trips to the Banks ?— A. Yes. Q. Did you go into any other ports in the Dominion or Newfound- ae | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2159 land, besides St. Peter’s and St. Jacques ; in? tre Tcameation of jues, that year for bait !-A. Nor . Q. What bait did you use !—A. Herring. 5: Q.-Where did you procure it ?—A. I came into St. Peter's for it Q. Then you went there several times during that year !—A. Yea. Q. Did you go into any port in Newfoundland besides '—A. I only went up Fortune Bay for bait. . Q. Then you went in repeatedly that year to get bait!—A. I did. Q. Fresh bait is far superior to salt bait, I believe !—A. Well. [ think it is better than salt bait. “4 Q. Did you fish with a trawl ?—A. Yes. Q. And 1870 is the only year when you went into Newfoundland for bait ?—A. It is the only year I remember of; yes. Q. Did you go in there for it in 1871 or 1872!—A. I think not. I know that I did not do so. Q. Are you certain that you did not ?—A. I am clear that I did pot go to St. Peter’s or anywhere about the Newfoundland coast; vat ! think I got bait about this coast. Q. At what part of the Nova Scotian coast '—A. I baited up onee in Prospect. That was in 1873. Q. I thought that you were mackerel fishing in 1873 ?—A. That was the case, part of the year. Q. In 1871 and 1872 did you get your bait for Bank fishing on the coast of Nova Scotia 7—A. In 1872 I did, but I do not think that I went Bank fishing in 1871. Q. You stated just now that you were Bank fishing in IS71 !—A. Dar ing those years there was one year when | did not go fishing; bat in 1873 I went Bank fishing one trip, and afterward I weut mackerel-fish ing. 6. Where did you get your bait in 1869 ?—A. I think that I did not go banking that year. Q. Then you did not go Bank fishing in 1869 or 1871; and you oals fished on the Banks in 1870 and 1872 and the first part of I873f— A. Yes, By Mr. Dana: Q. You went to Saint Pierre for bait ’—A. Yes. Q. Is that.as good as any place in Newfoundland for the procaring of bait ?—A. I found that I could get bait every time I went there daring the years I frequented the Banks. By Mr. Whiteway: Q. You now refer to the French Island f—A. Yes. tan Q. I understood you to say that you went to Saint Peter's to get bait, -and not being able to procure it there, went to Saint Jacques !—A. I first said so. I think that I went there one trip when I did not get any bait and had to go for it up Fortune say, but at other times this was not the case. ; No. ‘20. ter, Mass, was ca'led cn BENJAMIN MADDOCKS, fish-dealer, of Glouces 1 examined. behalf of the American Government, sworn ane By Mr. Dana: moe | = Question. When did you cease to go fishing ?’—Answer. I we last trip in 1852. ; ie Q. When did you make your firs nf O88 My t fis) ing voyage !—.A. In 2160 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Where did you go then ?—A. Down the Bay of Fundy, off Mount Desert. Q. You were fishing for mackerel?—A. Yes. «). You did not go to the Gulf of St. Lawrence ?—A. Not then. Q. When did you make your next voyage ?—A. In the Spring of 1828 on this coast, cod-fishing. Q. What did you do in your next voyage ?—A. In 1829I was cod- fishing during the latter part of the season in the Bay of St. Lawrence. Q. Was there any such thing then known as mackerel-fishing in the bay as an occupation ?—A. I do not recollect that anything of the sort was then done. Q. What did you then mostly use for bait ?—A. We caught mackerel to use as bait for codfish. Q. What did you do from 1829 to 1833 ?—A. I was then fishing on our own coast. , Q. For what ?—A. Cod and hake. Q. What sort of luck did you have ?—A. We did what was consid- ered then a fair business. Q. Where did you goin 1833 ?—A. Into the Bay of St. Lawrence cod- fishing. Q. What did you do from 1833 to 1847?—A. From 1833 to 1847 I was fishing for the larger portion of the time on our own coast, and I also made one or two foreign trading voyages during that time. Q. Did you go to the Grand Banks during that period ?—A. I was there in 1835 and in 1844. Q. When did you make your first mackerel voyage ?—A. In 1847, I think, to the Bay of St. Lawrence. Q. How many barrels did you catch ?—A. I was in a very small ves- sel. I do not think she would have held more than 150 barrels, and we got, I believe, about 100 barrels. @. Did you get them inshore or off shore 7—A. Well, we caught them off shore. Q. What did you do in 1848 7?—A. I went one trip to the bay, mack- erel-fishing. Q. What were the results?—A. We got about 90 barrels, I think, in the same vessel in which I was the year before. In 1849 and 1850 I was not fishing. I did not go fishing from 1848 to 1852, when I went one trip in the fall. Q. Were you always during the latter part of this period interested in vessels ?—A. Well, I had a small interest in two or three different ves- sels, I think, up to 1852. Q. The last year you went fishing to the bay you went for mackerel ?— A. Yes. Q. That was in 1852?—A. Yes; I left on that trip about the latter part of August. Q. How much did you get ?—A. About 250 barrels. Q. Where ?—A. The larger portion of them we took broad off North Cape, P. E. Island, and toward Bank Bradley. Q. How much do you think you caught off Bank Bradley ?—A. Nearly 200 barrels. Q. Where did you catch the other 50 barrels?—A. We made a good . catch one morning down off Margaree. The men on board, I believe, thought we were then rather inside of the 3-mile range, but I was in- clined to think that we were not. Q. Is it not difficult to determine that question?—A. Yes. Q. Why ?—A. When you are near or in sight of high land, you al- AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2161 ways look to be a great deal n : : ; eare experiences: and if the laud is hi peace than you really are in my looks to be. , the distance is not so great as it = Q. So then you may be then 3 mi en. a you are 4 or 5 miles ott ee rg from land when you suppose that | Q. piel the land is high it is just the other way? , Q. Is your ability to determine distances affec eo reas pai dancin Certainly. es allected by the state of the ~ Q,. Did you ever take out li 4 a ine licenses were issued. Mesoee rae Ninen E meat tothe Says Q. Were any cutters the , i : this was the case in 1852 re -enen you Ashe in the bay tA. 'O) vant Q. What is your ex rience i i real dangers which ee Aes Pana’ oe cee ene was the reason why they wished hs ae re eared from them, and what by lieense b : ; relieved from their interfere ses or by treaty 7—A. What we used to dread hap noyance the cutters occasioned us, when we did ran cicero oa: was 3 miles from the land sib ich hahaa _ Q. Ifa vessel was entirely i ont i i intend to go within three ae raed hnera ldd t eee eigen annoyance did the cutters occasion her “i \ Ae ‘all papers doen might have thought we were nearer the lend suee pc fat cd Our fishermen were afraid that they would trouble z se hate MS phates than 3 miles from the land Beever tree ee . They could not always tell the distance a % nue ay ne see ven say we were three berpnaee pe digs acacia ' five miles. There is that much diff in: judg these distances, and when we were five inilea’ hilt pe Seay ss 6 tee Gaia would consider it three miles. pie Me re besides they might have a personal interest in seizing you !— Q. Suppose that-a vessel turned ot i i i it to be innoeent was she restored next day or was she often kept oul tee pl praere: en 2—A. Some of our vessels were confiscated, but I do not recol- Eee of any vessel that was seized when so innocent and held for a long ime. This might have, however, been the case in soine instances. , ee any held until the end of the season before they were re 0 Aspe rae not recollect of any with which this was the case. . Did you hear of any such instances ?—A. I do not know thar I did. Q. There was also an unsettled question as to how the three-mile lioe ee ee it ran from aline drawn from headland to headland 1 PPP, . : in y. Q. Did the Americans generally know that the British held they had a right to seize vessels within the three-mile line drawn from headland ta aa which we denied?—A. Yes. I was aware of that at the 3 ‘Q. After 1852, when you made your last fishing voyage, what did you do?—A. From 1852 to 1858 I was in business at Southport maioly. e used to fit out vessels to fish on the bauks in the spring until aboat ‘sanding tere “ July, and then they went into the Bay of Saint Lawrence ackerel. - . Q. About how many vessels were you interested in daring these six years at Southport 2A. From 1852 to the time I left Southport I think I was interested in vessels to the number of all the way from ten to twenty, from year to year. Q. During that period while you were at Southport you say soe were al 136 F 2162 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. engaged in cod-fishing on the Banks in the spring. What kind of bait was used by your vessels ?—A. Clam bait wholly. Q. Were your vessels hand-liners or trawlers ?—A. They were hand- liners, they used to fish over the rail at that time. Q. They didn’t have boats even?—A. No; they fished from the deck of the vessel. Q. Did they make respectable voyages?—A. Yes. Q. What time did they generally go into the bay 7—A. From the first of July to the middle of July generally. They used to make two trips. Q. Now, when those vessels returned did you as agent usually learn where they fished ?—A. Well, yes. I recollect hearing the men telling about where they would get their best catches. Q. According to their reports where did they get their best catches ?— A. About the Magdalens principally. Q. You have been in the bay several years fishing, and you have heard the reports of owners and underwriters I suppose. What do you con- sider the safest part?—A. We used to consider the Magdalens were safe. Q. Why ?—A. Well, on account of the wind shifting we could run around the islands and make lee with almost any wind. Q. Now, how is it with the north side—the bend of Prince Edward Island ?—A. That was considered the most dangerous part of the bay. Q. From what reasons ?—A. Well, from its being quite a deep bay ; if the wind came up from the southeast, to the northeast or north, the sea would come up very suddenly. Q. Is it rather a shoal shore ?—A. Yes; we would have a heavy sea, and a vessel getting in there would find it very difficult to get out with it blowing heavily. Q. Look at the chart for a moment. (Witness refers to chart.) Q. Now suppose the wind was easterly, what you call an east-south- east gale, and you are here (pointing to chart), what chance have you to weather East Cape ?—A. If you were up anywhere toward this bight you would have a hard chance to get out. Q. Then with a gale from southeast to east-northeast, if you were near inshore toward North Point, it would be difficult?—A. Yes. (Mr. Davies asks witness to put his finger upon the place, and witness points to map, near Kildare Cape.) Q. If you were on the eastern part of the island, with an east-south- east gale, you could go where you liked 7—A. Yes. Q. But with the wind westerly it would be dangerous about getting clear of North Cape ?—A. Yes. Q. Now, if the wind is more to northward, east- northeast to north- east, how would it be if you were near shore in any part of the bend? Does not a northerly wind blow as straight into the bend as it can ?— A. Yes. Q. What chance would you have to escape a northerly gale if you were close in on the north side ?—A. No chance whatever. Q. Do you know anything about Cascumpec Harbor ?—A. I was there once. Q. How did you find it?—A. I should think it was rather a difficult place to get in; rather shoal. Q. Is there a heavy sea there ?—A. Yes; with the wind blowing in- shore. Q. Then Malpeque, what do you think of that?—A. I have nevey been there. _ have the advantage ?—A. Certainly. . foundland to get fresh b out and using salt bait and AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 21638 Q. Have you been near it?—A. Not very near j : " ano As more than I could learn by the Pet eR rb ee - Now you say from 1852 to 1858 you were engaged in business at Southport. Did you return to Gloucester —A. [ e ’ in sence es in January, 1858. mn, OBC Leelneee Q. Have you remained in the fishing business up to this time !— With the exception of two years I fave has accaails Beco ta fishing business there. For two years I had a partial interest in differ- ent vessels. I was not engaged directly. Q. Except these two years have you been an agent and manager of vessels 7?—A. I have. Q. And engaged both in the cod and mackerel business [—A. Yes. Q. Now, I take that period from 1858 on, excepting the two years you refer to. How have you fitted out your cod-fishers for Banks as to bait ?—A. When we fitted them out we put aboard some clams and some pogies. Q. Are the pogies put on board fresh ?—A. No; salted. Q. When did you first know—how many years ago—of any of the vessels going in either to some port in Nova Scotia or of Newfoundland for fresh bait?—A. The Bankers? I think itis not more than four years since they went in to make a business of getting fresh bait. Q. Are there plenty of clams to be found on the American coast to fit out your vessels 7—A. Yes. Q. There is no difficulty 7?—A. No. Q. Have your Bankers for the last 12 or 15 years been trawlers or hand-line fishers ?—A. They have been trawling | think about, well, 8 or 9 years. Q. Before they were hand-liners?—A. Yes. : Q. Sir ALEXANDER GALT. Does he mean that they are now all trawl- ‘ “ers? By Mr, Dana: QQ. Do you mean to say that the vessels you are engaged in and have been for the last 8 or 10 years are all trawlers !—A. All we send down to the Banks. A good many vessels fish on the Georges, and always fish over the rail. k Q. But those you send to the Bank are all trawlers !—A. Yes. Q. Do you know whether for the last year many of your vessels have gone in for fresh bait as a practice ?—A. Well, [ think they have, about all of them. Q. You have had about something like about four years’ experience, then, of that practice ?—A. Yes; about that. Q. Now, fresh bait is better than salt bait, is it not, catch ?— A. Yes. . ; - Q. So that if two vessels are lying side by side under exactly the same circumstances, equally good fishermen, and all that, both hand.liners or both trawlers, for the time being, the men using fresh bait would for the single Q. Now Lask you a totally different question. Taking the commer- cial results for the whole season of two vessels under equally good cir- cumstances in all other respects, one depending upon going into New- ait as often as necessary, and the other staying such bait as she can get there, which is the commercial interests of all concerned ? f both.—A. I think the difference would be lay on the ground and kept on fishing with the most profitable as to You have had experience 0 in favor of the vessel that the salt bait. 2164 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. How strong an opinion have you on that point ?—A. My opinion would be strong enough to induce me to give my captains express orders not to go in for bait, which I have done a good many times. But they go contrary to orders. Q. Do you think that the captains of the vessels are a little apt to pre- fer running into port occasionally to standing out ?—A. Yes, sir; they are are very much in favor of going in. @. You have drafts drawn upon you in consequence of those vessels going in to Newfoundland ?7—A. I have. Q. What are they entitled? What are they said to be for 7—A. Well, a good many times when we have drafts come we haven’t had any bills accompanying them. Sometimes we let them go to protest. Q. Where there is no bill?—A. On account of not having a bill. Q. Where you have proceeded in compelling them to present bills what do they generally stand for? What do they say the money is spent for ? —A. Well, sometimes the men will be charged with some of the money they draw for. The captains will advanee the men some of the money, but the larger portion of it falls on the vessel. Q. There are some little dues to pay, port charges, &c.?—A. Yes. Q. Now is the rest called bait?—A. Yes; the money is for bait. Q. Do you know how much of that called bait is actually bait?—A. We have no way of knowing any more than to take their word for it. Q. Bait is the term under which this money is placed ?—A. Yes, Q. Would you consider it an advantage or a disadvantage to the com- mercial and pecuniary interest of all concerned, the master, crew, and owners, to have them all prohibited from going in for fresh bait 7?—A. If there was any authority to keep our vessels out, if the Canadian Gov- ernment had any authority to keep all vessels out, I should be greatly in favor of it; I should be willing to let them take every vessel they found within three miles of land. Q. Now do the cod-fishers continue to do well? You say those that don’t go in do better than those that do ?—A. Yes. Q. You say those that don’t go in do best ?—A. Yes. Q. Are they doing pretty well?—A. No; they haven’t been doing what I call doing well. They don’t get enough to pay expenses. Q. You include those that go into port? Do you mean only those ?— A. Well, all our vessels that go to the Grand Banks go in for bait now. Q. They are not doing well ?—A. No. Q. You have a fixed opinion that it would be better for them not to go in?—A. That is my opinion. Q. If you had the sole management and could nae your captains do as you wished, you would nothave any doit 7—A. No. Q. Now about the mackerel business. During thelast five years what has been the amount of the mackerel-fishing inthe bay? I donotmean ‘* to ask you the exact amount, but has it been large or small compared with past years in the town of Gloucester ?—A,. It has been very small com- pared with other years. Q. How many mackerel-vessels do you suppose there were from Glou- cester in the gulf 10 yearsago. Have -you any notion ?—A. I have not any way of knowing, but I should judge that there were from Gloucester perhaps near 200 sail of American vessels in the gulf. Q. How many are there now ?—A, This year there are more than there have been for the past two years. Ithink this year there may be 50 or 60 sail. Q. How many were there two years preyious ?—A. I don’t think last year there were more than 20 sail. | e - _ judgment leads me to think that ou -- going inshore they may sometimes get a spurt of m AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2165 ae ee icine that 7—A. There might have been afew more than Q. How do you account for this steady diminuti waily cepting the variation of perhaps ten een sgn ewer this diminution down to the present year i pt iretepecte teed ark ear oO e present year in the number of mackerel ves Sate e gulf from your town {—A. Because the busineas bas not Q. How does the shore mackerel—by shore mackerel you mean mack es the markets understood to be caught ou the American coast !—A. aa Those caught in British waters are called bay mackerel !—A. Q. Now, how do the shore mackerel compare in the market as to the price they bring 7—A. Well, we have on our coast different qualities. Lt appears to me there is more difference in the quality on our coast than there is in the bay. : Q. Well, [take No. 1lthen. Howdo those marked as No. 1 Shore Maek- erel compare with those marked as No. 1 Bay Mackerel !—A. Well, the bay mackerel, at least I should say the shore mackerel, bas been a great deal better than the bay mackerel the last seven or eight years. Q. That is not simply an opin:on, but the market prices are better? How much more dothe No. 1 Shore Mackerel bring than the No. 1 Bay Mackerel ?—A. Well, there has been $7 or 38 difference between them, I have seen the time when the bay mackerel was equal to our shore mackerel. It has not been for the last seven years. Q. Then as to the plentifulness or scarcity of the fish. From your experience as a dealer, how do the shore mackerel compare with the bay mackerel ?—A. It varies every year. Last year the mackerel were plenty on our coast. A great many vessels got from oue to two thoa- “sand barrels, seining principally. Q. Here it was very scarce !—A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, this year, so far as the returns have come in from the bay fishery, how has it looxed ?—A. Well, we have had some considerable ; many vessels went into the bay about the usual time, say the Ist of July; but I don’t know that they have had any returns yet any Way. I heard there was one trip that went up ou the last boat. That ts all the returns I know of. Q. Then you are not able to give any judgment as to the results ? Can you tell us what the general impression is as to the probabilities 1—A, ‘As we haven’t had any returns, I should think the prospects are poor for the catch. Q. If there had been good results you would have heard it !—-A. Certainly. : ~ Q. During your experience afterwards, will you be so good in the bay and from what you learned as to tell the Commissioners what you think as to the comparison of the value between deep sea fishing for ‘mackerel and inshore fishing? By inshore fishing, | mean withia say three miles—one, two, and three miles off 1—A. From my experience, my r vessels would get full as many, if three-mile range altogether. By ackerel, but they are to the harbors and lose a good deal of time ; farther off they would save a good deal of 20 years back they might bave caught, y kerel within the not more, by staying outside of the ‘then liable to go farther in whereas if they would fish time. I think that for 10 or é ! well, somewhere from a 10th to a 15th part of the mac 2166 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. three-mile range. I don’t know but what they have. I don’t think any- thing more than a 10th part certainly. Q. Do you include in that the Magdalens as well? Do you mean within three miles of all the coast ?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Magdalen Islands and all?—A. Certainly. @. Perhaps you know that before the Washington Treaty we had the right to fish as near as we pleased to the Magdalen Islands ?—A. Cer- tainly, we always understood that. Q. And also Labrador 7—A. Yes. Q. What the treaty gives us is the other places. Now taking the rights we had, irrespective of the treaty, to use Magdalen Islands and Labrador as we pleased, do you attach much practical value to the ad- ditional privilege of going within three miles of other parts of the gulf ?—A. I would not think there was any money value in it. Q. Taking it through ?—A. There is not any money value there. Q. Now, you have given one reason, and that is the danger of vessels being too fond of lying in port?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, how do you think the fish caught, when they are caught, com- pare with those caught in the deep waters or on the Banks?—A. Well, the fish caught along Prince Edward Island are the poorest fish caught in the bay; they are generally of small size. Q. Well, the fattest and stoutest fish are caught in the autumn in the bay ?—A. Yes, that is my experience. Q. Do you think much of the Bend of Prince Edward Island in the autumnas a fishing-ground ?—A. No, I do not; we have caught some very fine mackerel down on the Cape Breton coast there off Margaree. Q. Is that a good fishing-ground ?—A. Yes. Q. You get good fish there in the autumn ?7—A. Yes. Q. And at the Magdalens?—A. The Magdalens mackerel are the largest we get in the bay—up about Bird Rocks. Q. The largest and best of all are those caught on our own coast ?—A. North about Magdalen Islands and Bird Rock is the best in the bay. Q. But of all the No..1 mackerel caught, the best, according to the rae rates, are those caught off the coast of the United States ?—A. » yes. Q. Now, I ask your attention for a moment to the subject of boat-fish- ing, including among boats anything under 20 tons. You have small open boats to begin with. Is there a great deal of day and night fish- ing near Gloucester 7—A. Yes. Q. Dory fishing ?—A. Some considerable. Q. They catch mackerel, and what else ?—A. Haddock, in the winter. Q. The haddock in the winter is sent fresh into the market ?—A. Yes, Q. The rest of the season’s fish is also caught in dories?—A. Yes. Q. Take now the larger vessels, which are still called boats, having a cuddy decked over, which fits them for a day or two or two or three days’ fishing. Is there a good deal of that ?—A. Some considerable. Q. How do they succeed in their fishing altogether ?—A. Well, the people about Gloucester and Cape Ann do pretty well. They get a good living. That is what we call doing well. Q. Those small vessels fish all the winter and summer ?—A. Yes. Q. Has the shore fishery from Gloucester increased or diminished for the last ten years ?—A. Increased greatly. Q. In numbers and profit, do you mean ?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Is there much herring caught by your Gloucester boats and ves- sels ?—A. There is a school of herring comes there about this time in the fall, and lasts about—well, as much as three or four weeks. EB ot? =’ land. - shore boats fishing off there ?—A. I have AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2187 . ‘; : Meets pele ny ‘—A. There is a good many of them caught; thou Q. How are they caught; from the boats’—A. With nets prine Q. How big are those nets? Some five are pio ‘om & aircice Aen tthe lene Some five or six fathoms long !—A. Q. Fifty or sixty feet long ?—A. Yes. Q. More than that ?—A. Yes; some ninety. pote 1s a very great supply ?—A. Yes; there is any quantity of Q. Your Gloucester vessels that want to go and stay i the autumn—those you have had built that have oad - = prhenin twelve or fifteen years are large sized and good vessels !—A. Yes, sir Q. They draw about what, when they are half full !—A. | should ale our vessels that go into the bay would draw from 84 to 12 feet of water. Q. If there is danger of heavy weather, it behooves them to be pretty careful what harbors they enter and what coast they are on !—A. Yes. Q. It is not your opinion that if a vessel draws twelve feet she can go safely into a harbor when the depth is only twelve feet in the still water by any manner of means ?—A. No; it would not be very safe. By Mr. Doutre: Q. When did you say you heard for the first time there were mackerel in the Bay of St. Lawrence ?—A. In 1847. Q. You never heard of it before ?—A. Not mackerel. fishing. Q. Where do you say you fished in 1847; what part of the bay '—A. I think we fished abroad off North Cape, and towards Bradley Bank. Then we ran over to Magdalens. I think, when I left the bay, I came direct from the Magdalens that fall. . Q. What did you consider a good catch when you went into the bay 7—A. That depends upon the size of the vessel. Q. In what kind of a vessel did you go there 1—A. The one I was in was @ small vessel. She would not stow more than 150 barrels. [ think I got, perhaps, two-thirds of the quantity she would carry. Somewhere about 100 barrels. Q. Did you consider that a good catch !—A. No; I did not. — Q. How many men had you on board !—A. About seven or eight. Q. What was her tonnage?—A. Thirty-two tous of our previoas measurement. ‘ Q. Now, to sum up all your fishing in the bay, do you mean to say you never fished within three miles ?—A. I don’t know as I understand you. ; wa Q. Do you mean to say you never fished within three niles of the coast ?—A. I don’t think lever did. I don’t know bat what there might have been some people that might have been tn very nigh. Some of the crew might have thought we were within three miles, bat I cant recollect any time when I supposed we were within that distance of the Q. Well, did you ever see people from Prince Edward Island fishing! —A. I never did. ee) Sy those Q. You never were near enough to Prince Edward [sland to see heard people tell of them. Q. Did you hear they were fishing ?—A. I know of them perp ~— there, but I was never near enough to see them. I bave beard of those shore boats catching mackerel. ns Q. Do you aT far from the coast they were fishing '—A. I didn’t know how far they might come off. 2168 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Could their boats allow them to go far from the shore? Did you see any of those boats?—A. I never saw them. Q. Did you hear what size they were ?—A. No; I don’t know that I ever heard the dimensions. I believe they are not deck-boats. Q. So you have always fished outside of three miles, you say ?—A. I don’t think I ever fished inside. Q. Did you ever see any Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, or Quebec people fishing near you ?—A. No; I don’t recollect that I have. Q. So if they have been fishing they must have been fishing far away from you ?—A. I never saw them, not in those open boats. I may have seen some of their large vessels in the bay, but not to distinguish them from our own. Q. You have never been in the bas since 1852 7?—A. That was my last trip there. Q. Did you ever fish in any of the bays, such as Bay Chaleur ?—A. No; I never was in Bay Chaleur. Q. Have you ever been in Gaspé Bay ?—A. No; I have never been in Gaspé Bay either. Q. You are not aware at all what was going on during the whole of the Reciprocity Treaty, except from hearsay? You have’no personal knowledge of anything ?—A. I was in the fishing business all that time. I used to listen to what our men said. Perhaps I didn’t pay particular attention to it. I never remember anything particular. » Q. You have never been yourself, during the existence of the treaty, in the bay ?—A. I have never been since 1852. Q. I have taken down here that you said you would not fish in the bend of the island because it was too deep. Did I understand you ?— A. I didn’t say I would not fish there. I said I considered it more dan- gerous than any other part of the bay. Q. I have taken down because the water was too deep 7?—A. No; I didn’t say that. We didn’t heave the lead over to see how dep the water was on account of the mackerel. We were not particular about the depth. Q. It was on account of the prevailing winds only that you didn’t like that part of the island ?—A. O, yes; if you go into shoal water the sea comes up suddenly. It makes it more dangerous. Q. Have you any knowledge of the number of vessels engaged in fishing from Gloucester ?—A. The number fishing in the Bay of St. Lawrence? Q. Anywhere ?—A. Thewhole of them? Well, should think 300 sail. I don’t believe but what there is that many. Q. Allof a tonnage to go to the Bay of St. Lawrence?—A. O,no; very few of them go. Q. I don’t say that they go, but that they are all of capacity to go ?— A. Certainly. The larger portion of them are of the right size to go to the bay. That is, if there is anything there to make it pay. Q. What is the population of Gloucester ?—A. I think about in the ‘neighborhood of 18,000; 18,000 or 19,000, 1 should think. Q. Has it not been built almost exclusively from the fishing industry? —A. Fishing is the principal business and has always been. Q. Where would they go generally fishing 7—A. To George’s Banks principally. Q. That is on the coast of Maine?—A. That is abroad off the eastward of Nantucket. Between the Grand Bank and Nantucket shoals is what ~ we call the South Channel. The South Channel is inside of George’s Banks. . ~ he am etil aS ' PR OP PY PON TREE ORS TE SY 7 c © gece pets e , _ stay out three or four or five weeks, may be. cause you don’t find remuner AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2169 - Q. Is thato nly cod-fishing ?—A. Yes; cod-fishing exclasively, Well. we have sent vessels off there mackereling, but they didn’t seem to de very much there for the last year or two. It used to be a good fishing ground for mackerel. Q. What other places are there for mackerel !—A. Our own coat. Q. Has that been good along for the last fifteen or twenty years !—A. There have been a great many mackerel taken on our coast during the last four or five years. Q. Previous to the last five years, were there many !—A. Yes; it has always been a business which our vessels have followed. You mean to say for the last five years it has been more aban- dant ?—A. Yes; last year especially. Q. This year how is it?—A. Rather a failure. The mackere!l-fishing varies every year. You don’t get any two years alike. Q. Well, I want to know whether the mackerel-fishing is so remaner- ative in American waters that they need not go anywhere else !—.A. Well, that is what we have done the last three years. What we ave done elsewhere is a mere fraction. It does not amount to anything. Q. In 1852 you went in the bay. Why didn’t you remain in your own waters; it was nearer to you and handier in every shape !—A. | suppose we thought we could do better going in the bay. ® Q. Then you were not doing well enough in your own waters, since you were looking for other quarters ?—A. Well, we were in hopes we would do better. Q. Well, you say that from 1852 to 1858 you were interested in some twenty vessels ?—A. I think I had all the way fifteen to tweuty sail, I believe. Q. How many of these came in the bay from 1552 to 1858! Didn't they all go?—A. Well, all my vessels that [ had an interest tn at that time. Our business was to fit them in the spring for the banks, and after that, say about the first or middle of July, for the bay. Some of them weuld go two trips. air Q. Did you send them all ?—A. The principal part of them. Q. Why didn’t you fish in your own waters 1—A. We did sometimes, Sometimes we would fish in our own waters and also in the bay in the same season. We would send them away to the bay the first of Jaly, and when they came home we would keep them on oar own Coast. Q. I suppose the trip is far shorter in your own waters than to « ee into the bay. When you send your vessel from Gloucester to ae A of St. Lawrence, how long after mp expert De to return [—A. Well, it is just according to how plenty the mackerel are. Q What is Seems aie they take 1—A. | suppose y may re about—some years it is longer than others—I shoukl say about etg weeks for an average trip. we Q. Well, when you send these same vessels into eg — i ( 43 it take fur a trip!—A. Well, they woal mackerel-fishing, how long does =a hag Orige i j at » : . k handy home. They can come In just as soon as they get ate ‘a erel, and land them, thinking they can get a better price (has wait to make a full trip. Sepa . n vou come to the Bay of St. Lawrenc Bee door aud ative trips in your own waters r—A. When e are in hopes of doing better than we coald on we come to the bay w in hopes of our own coast ; and when we fish on our own coast we are . doing better than by sending to the bay. r fishing beyond the three Q. Well, the reason you think you do bette 2170 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. miles is that your vessels will not go into port so much ?—A. The rea- son, I think, is that I think we could save time; the vessels, when they get close in, are apt to go into harbors after they are done fishing. Q. But when you were your own master and skipper of a vessel, you had control of your own crew. You trusted yourself, I suppose. Why didn’t you go in then ?—A. I used not to go within, because I was not well acquainted around the shores. It was not the custom of the fisher- men in those times to goin shore. Since that time we have a great many Nova Scotia skippers. They consider they are close home, and they consider they have a natural right to fish in there. They are ac- quainted in there. Q. Now, from the vessels you are acquainted with, fishing in the bay, are they not mostly fishing within three miles from what they report to you?—A. Well, I have an opinion that they get only a very small por- tion of their fish in shore. It is very seldom they go within three miles, or that they used to go within. Q. That is what they report to you ?—A. I should think so, from what I have heard them say. Q. Had you at your service during those years, from 1852 to 1858, any British subjects? Do you know of any that you could name; people from Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island ?—A. Certainly. Q. Could you name some of them ?—A. I can’t remember names. I have them now. I have different men on my vessels—oue man named John Scott, who belongs to Canseau. He has been with me for the last ten years. I have had different men of the name of McDonald. Q. Is John Scott still living ?—A. He is in the bay now, fishing for me. I don’t recollect ever hearing him say he got any mackerel within three miles of the land. I suppose he might have caught some inshore. He never says much about it. Q. How many vessels now have you fishing in the bay?—A. I have three. I haven’t had any fishing in the bay before, 1 think, since 1872. I had onein 1872; [I think one in 1873. That is the last year, I think, Ihave had them until this year. Q. Is Scott the only man you can name as a British subject that has been employed in your vessels ?—A. No; I have others. Q. Please give their names ?—A. I can’t think of their names. I am running ten vessels now. @. Where are the other seven ?—A. I have three on the Grand Banks, two home, hauled up, and two more on the George’s, I think. Q. So that there are five of your vessels which are in the British waters now fishing ?—A. Well, I don’t know what you call the Grand Bank ; I don’t know about that. Mr. DANA. The claim that the Grand Banks are British waters has been abandoned. By Mr. Doutre: Q. Did you ever fish in the bend of Prince Edward Island ?—A. I don’t believe I ever did. I don’t recollect fishing in the bend of the island. Q. What you have said of the danger of the bend of the island is all from hearsay? You don’t know anything personally 7—A. Well, I have Q. What is your answer 7?—A. I know it is a dangerous place. Yes; I know by hearsay, and I have lost a vessel there. I lost one vessel there which came out of Malpeque. That was the last year I ever heard from her. ‘ é k fee. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2171 Q. Was it not in the gale of 18511—A. No; in 1859, She wasa good vessel, too. I hadn't any insurance on her. My brother was in her \ Ks 2 By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: Q. You never heard of her ?—A. No, Q. Where was she lost?—A. She came out of Malpeque at 12 0! ! Fe : . « ahi -2 a OG k in the day, and the wind was south then, a iegdevatarecees, The pore died away, and then chopped right around from the northeast, and that night it was a heavy gale; a very heavy gale; that was the last we heard of her. By Mr. Davies: Q. Will you name the vessel ?—A. The E. S. Pendleton. A she get ashore; was the wreck found on the coast !—A. | ink not; no. By Mr. Whiteway : Q. How long were you fishing on the Grand Bank !—A. I was on the Grand Bank in 1835. Q. What was the last year you fished there —A. 1845, I think. Q. Since that time you have not been fishing on Grand Bank. Have you been in the gulf ?—A. Yes; cod-fishing. _Q. Personally 7—A. I was in the Bay of St. Lawrence cod-fishing that same year, 1845. I was on the Grand Bank in the spring, and the Bay of St. Lawrence in the latter part of the season. Q. Well, then, you have no personal experience as regards Bank or deep-sea fishing since 1845?—A. No; I have not been cod-fishing, | be lieve, since 1845. Q. Well, now, you have owned several Bank vessels for several years past ?—A. I have always owned some vessels since 1845. Q. Have these vessels, or any of them, been engaged in deep-sea or Bauk fisheries ?—A. Yes. Q. How many of them ?—A. More or less each year. I could not ay. I have had an interest in a good many different vessels. Q. How many from year to year? Varying between what namber, and what other number ?—A. I cannot fix it in my mind how many dif- ferent vessels that I have had an interest in any particular year that have been in the Grand Bank fishery. Q. But can’t you say between that time and the present how many you have been interested in?—A. At what time | Q. Between the time you left off fishing in 1845 and the present Ume, —A. I think I have owned all the way—I don’t believe I have had any one time an interest in less than ten vessels. Say up to tweoty. Q. How many of those have been engaged in deep-sea or Bank Gsh- ing ?—A. Well, some parts of the season there might be seven, or eight, or ten may be. Then some parts there would not be so many. Q. Hand-liners or trawlers !—A. We were always using hand lines. I think it was seven or eight years since, perhaps, that we adopted the method of trawling. — Q. Now you always use the trawl on the Banks!—A. Yes; for the last few years. Q. For the last seven or eight years 7—A. I think so; generally. _ Ms Q. Now, all those vessels you speak of titted oat from sae ae fe te A heen interested in a good many vesseis | ue Sn, No; I have been interestec 4 ate ot Maine. : . Q. Can you tell me now how many vessels ft ont for the cod fisheries, 2&2 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the Grand Bank fishery, from Gloucester 7—A. I haven’t any means of telling you bow many. Q. You don’t know ?—A. No; I couldn’t tell how many. I should think, perhaps—— Q. Never mind “perhaps.” If you don’t know, that is the end of it. How many have you had carrying on the fishing on the Grand Banks for the last seven or eight years?—A. I don’t think I have averaged more than five vessels, perhaps, a year for the last seven years. Q. Have those five vessels exclusively carried on the fishing on Grand Banks?—A. No, sir; they go to the Grand Banks part of the season, and-in other fisheries other parts. As a general thing we fit them out first to go to the George’s in February. Q. What time do they go to the Grand Banks ?—A. Some of our vessels don’t go to the George’s, and we send them to the Grand Banks the first of March. Q. They go the first of March, having landed their trips ?—A. Well, some we don’t send to the George’s at all. Q. 1 am speaking now of those five that you say you are interested in; do they go to the George’s first and then on the Grand Banks 7—A., Some do. Q. Then they come in and land their fare, and go to the Grand Banks the first of March. Is that it?—A. No; those that go to the George’s don’t come-in until May generally. Q. Are there not some that go to the Grand Banks in February ?—A. Some go; those that we don’t send to the George’s at all. They go as early as the first of March. Q. They go direct ?—A. Some do. Q. What bait do those vessels take ?—A. We generally put on board some salt bait to start with. Q. What buit do you take from Gloucester ?—A. They take slivers— pogy sliver and clams. Q. Both salted?—A. Yes. Q. They take no other bait ?—A. No. @. You are clear they take no other bait except salt slivers and clams, the vessels that go to the Grand Bank from Gloucester ?7— don’t know as I can name any particular vessels. I know it has been ae . AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2175 done. We always understand it i i ; of Maine where tier ree hire aif Dee or two places in the State ; at places are they?—A. I think there i near Mount Desert, I dont know pect cade feta basatad peranae Q. Do you know yourself of any instance in which the eaptal i] crew of a vessel have been hired at a distinct wage !—A vi “I don" a we, ‘ do; I don’t think I do. Se Lanes . Well, since about four or five years ; , fishing upon the Banks, and you nave pita a Sa Sapte BP theis cova hae , ‘rally spoken as to the resalta oyages. Have you got their accounts here with you !—A. N aise scrap of a pen of anything. ie ere . Can you give us the results of their vo sf— . I know some of them made very poor stn Na Seat ee Q. But you cannot state the particulars of any one of them !—A. No. Q. Now, I think you said that some that were fishing with sait bait made superior voyages to those using fresh bait from the coast of New. foundland, didn’t you?—A. I think I did. / Q. Now can you give me the results of any one of those vessels that fished with salt bait alone ?—A. No, sir; I canuot give you the resalt of any voyage whatever, not exactly. Q. You are not then prepared to give me any particulars with regard to any voyages made by your vessels during the last four or five years !— A. Not anything at all. ; Q. I think you said that the captains and crews of your vessels ex- hibited a strong desire to go into harbors instead of remaining out apoe the Banks fishing ?—A. They go in. Q. And they remain there quite an unnecessary time, I think you said?—A. I think they may, some of them. Q. You have given them instructions not to go into the harbors after bait?—A. I have, in some cases. Q. When did you give them instructions'—A. Previous to the vessels going to sea, certainly. _Q. When did you first give such instructions?! When did you first give instructions to captains of your vessels not to go to Newfoundland for bait ?—A. O, at different times within the last two or three years. Q. Did you give those instructions in writing !—A. Not at all. Q. When did you give them; what time of the year!—A. Previous to the vessels going to sea. Q. Then, previous to your vessels going to the Grand Bank fishing for the last two or three years, you have given them instructions not to go into Newfoundland for bait 7—A. In some cases I have. Q. Name them, will you; the men you have told !—A. No; I cannot remember names. I could not tell the men’s names that go ia those vessels, one or two of them. Q. You cannot tell the names of the captains of your own vessels '— A. Not all of them. Q. Have they carried out these instructions or not [—A. Very seldom they do. oo Q. Did you threaten them that if they didn’t would discharge them ?—A. I could not discharge sels came home. - Q. Did you threaten them you would not let them go another year i they didn’t carry out your instructions !—A. 1 don't do that sort of thing. When a man has been in my employ, 1 I don’t want bim any longer, I discharge him. carry them oat yoa them before the ves 2176 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Have you discharged any for not carrying out these instructions ?— A. I have discharged men frequently. Q. Have you for not carrying out these instructions?—A. I always. have other reasons; different reasons. I do not generally discharge a man for one fault. q@. You would not discharge a man for one fault, be it ever so gross ?— A. Unless it was a very bad fault I would not. Q. Then you don’t consider it a very bad fault to go into Newfound- land for bait, do you ?—A. I should not consider it a fault at all if the _ captain used his best judgment. Q. Well, what wou!d you consider his best judgment to be? Give us an illustration of what you consider an exercise of good judgment.—A. That would be according to the ability of the man. Q. Yes. Give an instance, now, of a banker fishing on the Grand Bank, and going into the Newfoundland coast for bait. Under what circumstances would he exercise a wholesome and sound judgment ?— A. I don’t know that I exactly understand your question, sir. Q. Well, you say that if a man going in there for bait exercised a sound judgment, you would approve of it.—A. I should approve of his using his best judgment. Q. Very good. Then, if a captain of a vessel on the Banks went in, and he was a man of good judgment, you would say that you approved of his conduct ?—A. O, certainly, if he attended rightly to his business and got his bait, and got out on the ground as soon as he could con- veniently. I should think a man might do that and use his best judg- ment too. Q. Now, in your instructions to your captains, you say you instruct them not to go there for bait. Is that the case, or is it the case that you told those captains to exercise their best judgment as to whether they should go there or not ?—A. O, my instructions would he accord- ing to who he was and what abilities he had. Of course, I have menin ~ my employ that I would not give any instructions to whatever. I would let them use their judgment. - Q. And would be perfectly satisfied if they exercised their judgment in favor of going in to Newfoundland for bait? You would be perfectly satisfied that they had done what was for the best ?—A. O, I don’t ex- press any dissatisfaction generally, unless I have occasion to. Q. Have you ever expressed any dissatisfaction to any one of your captains because he went in for bait?—A. O, I have expressed a good deal of dissatisfaction on account of their waste of time. w Q. Answer the question I put. Have you ever expressed any dissat- isfaction becanse they went in for bait ?—A. Not if they have attended to their business and got their bait as soon as they could and gone out on the ground again, I did not. Q. Well, now, Mr. Maddocks, I would desire very much that you should answer the question straightforwardly. Have you ever expressed dissatistaction to a captain of either of your vessels because he went in to Newfoundland for bait? Have you been dissatisfied upon that ground alone with his conduct, because he went in for bait? I am not speak- ing of losing time, or anything of that sort, but simply because he went in there for bait ?—A. Well, I would not be likely to, if he went in and got bait, and didn’t waste time, of course. Q. If everything went straight, you would not be dissatisfied, of course; but can you pledge your oath that you have ever expressed to either of your captains dissatisfaction with his conduct, because he went into Newfoundland for bait?—A. I don’t generally express dissatisfac- Ra, a a 7 ” AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2177 tion. I am not that sort of Tieeatin out of my Baie. man. If I am not satisfied with a man, ue ela ata oe you have never expressed dissatisfact ins beca 3 action with thine eaves” sd use he has done this!—A. I don’t reeolleet Q. Now, then, you are only dissati consider an unreasonable ain Os oct Spey nesesin whee. foe : gett in the harbor. 2 TT EAE JDO SOLES 0 a . Then you are only dissatisfied whe i —A. I am never dissatisfied when they Mer ikon ae eee Q. Now, are not the captain and crew e& + po ically i ot owner in getting bait and being off as ks pro ig be, certainly they are i in tk : ad ive t—A. Wel 7 y nterested in the voyage, of course : Q. Then when you would lead the Commission to 8 captain and the crew were anxious to remain in h cae —— their duties on the Banks, to the prejudice of tl eduaigiwgeaen. be equally injuring themselves as well as pias steak a pre are a great many of them that don’t care anything about te = Q. They are completely lost, then, the ca Itai i ‘self EE eA AM the 6 c ’ ’ ptain and crew, to self-inter- 0 ale e captains and crews of my vessels are not all alike. = wou’t say they are completely lost to self-interest !—( Ne an- Question repeated —A. I won’t sa ‘ - y that they are all lost i . oe ae as not pains? unmindful. I should Boe foe ane ; ave as deep an interest in the voy : : me me one-half interest ?—(No answer.) bisa ner beanie ars . Are they not as d i i A. Of alas they eae paedgaens tages poe a ald a be there. hei ey Q. Well, now, are you aware as to the effect upon the fishing. d of a large number of vessels fishing with sisi and eovelae apie ae of ground with trawls baited; has it the effect of attracting and ee fish upon the ground !—A. Well, there are various opinions Q. N ow, asa fisherman, do you consider that several vessels, a large number of vessels, fishing upon the Banks, all of them with trawls, would have the effect of attracting and keeping the fish upon the grounds—the spreading of such a large amount of bait? It bas been asserted here that it has the effect of keeping the fish from coming into the inshore. Do you concur in that opinion! I think it was Mr. At- wood that said so.—A. Well, it has a tendency to thin off the fish, to catch them up, right in certain localities. Q. It has the effect of attracting fish [—A. Making the fish scarcer right in the locality where they set their trawls. Q. In other words, it attracts the fish to the locality of the trawls themselves—the large quantity of bait upon those trawls f—A. I don’t think that it tolls the fish much. I don’t think it tolls them from a long distance. _Q. Well, I think I asked you before and you answered that yoo cas give no distinct account of the results of any fishing-voyages apoe tbe Grand Bank ?—A. No; I cannot. 137 F 2178 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 21. ANDREW LEIGHTON, of Gloucester, fisherman, and member of a fishing- firm, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Foster : Question. How old are you ataver Fifty-five years. Q. When were you first skipper of a mackerel vessel in the Gulf of St. Lawrence ?—A. In 1847. Q. What was the vessel?—A. The Alabama. Q. What was her tonnage?—A. About 70 tons old measurement—55 new measurement, I guess. Q. Now, how many fish did you catch that trip, and where were they caught ?—A. 260 barrels at Bird Rocks and Biron Island. Q. Then what did you do ?—A. I went home and went to the Georges Q. What for there ?—A. Cod-fishing. Q. The next year, ’48, what vessel ?—A. The Rio del Norte. Q. Did you make more than one trip for mackerel ?—A. No. Q. How many barrels did you get and where ?—A. 350 barrels, at the same places, at the Bird Rocks and Biron Island. Q. And the rest of that year what were you doing ?—A. Cod-fishing on the Georges. Q. In 1849 what did you do?—A. I went to the Georges fishing all the year. Q. In 1850 what did you do ?7—A. I was to the Georges that year. Q. In 1851 were you to the Bay of St. Lawrence 7?—A. I was in the same vessel to the bay in the bay. Q. That was the year of the great gale ?—A. Yes. Q. What did you catch ?—A. 350 barrels. - Q. Where were they taken ?—A. We got them all at the Magdalens_ , —280 barrels before the gale; and I caught at the Margaree Islands after the gale enough to make 350 barrels. Q. At Margaree Islands did you catch them inshore or out ?—A. I hove to off shore; and the wind was westward, and we drifted down inside of the island, and caught enough to finish the trip at anchor there, between Margaree Island and the mainland. Q. In 1852 what were you doing 7—A. I went to the Georges until July, and then went a trip on the shore, and came into the bay in the last of September. Q. How many fish did you catch on the United States coast that year 7—A. 110 barrels. Q. What vessel were you in in 1851?—A. The Rio del Norte. Q. These 110 barrels you caught on the United States coast, where- abouts were they taken 7?—A. They were taken down off Mount Desert, along the coast. Q. Then what did you do with them?—A. Went home and packed them out and sold them, and came to the bay. Q. About what time did you come to the bay ?—A. I think about the middle of September I went up there. - @. How many mackerel did you catch, and where were they taken ?— A. In the bay. 1 made 150 barrels, and got ashore in Souris and lost my vessel. Q. Was that all you had taken before the vessel was lost ?—A. Yes. Q. Now, where were these taken, inshore or offshore?—A. From — three or four miles to seven or eight miles off Magdalen and along there. . . i Ris - AS ° of land. 5 hives te. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2179 Q. Did you fish in 1852 an : ae miles?—A. No; nowhere, get cal Bal hess trip in the gulf within three along there. There was a cutter there . ee at Margaree Island and captain, Laybold was his name, he aed a steamer and boat, and the ae ‘Y always fished outside of that Coe ee . You say there was a stea - 7 hora poleedite bite the Seon: gunboat and barge !—A. No, . Now, do you remember anythi a di ers ARnnU su opine sie ihe SIGAEeLICN the Ueited Reates tue were prohibited from fishing ?—A. He t id ie biked Beakes Yoneae Pole Wantignm avery dav. ; old me he would run a three Q. Did he do it?—A. I su i y Q. Did you see the line a Aan ne i etl bape angers: Zs ye he came back again at night sa a a Biche tent . Now, wi o Chivan ves aM as a man by the name of Chiverie on board then '—A. . He was one of your mo eighteen years a oe ee Oe ee ee . L showed you the testi . 7 Pe eat aidh mh Se ee he gave with reference to that trip in = ie ie correct or not ?—A. No. . In the first place, with reference to the num : : a : »ber of barrels of mack- ee eee in the Rio del Norte, did you take more than 130 barrels !— Q. In the next place, did thi : mackerel rywheren A. en say anything about going to catch . Did you go inside of the three mile line, as poi ! ., as pointed out to you b care Laybold?—A. No; not to catch any mackerel, I went in . Q. Did you own part of your vessel that y —! a. hat Saale aaah A year !—A. Half of it. . Well, something was said by Captain Chiverie about your maki an attempt to hire a British vessel, after you had lost sok ear ta - der to fish in there ; was there any attempt of that kind !—A. No; the fishing was about over; the gale of wind broke it up. Q. Your vessel was lost when ?—A. The 15th October. ge Sey en your vessel was broken up, what did you do!—A. I went Q. What became of the vessel ?7—A. She was sold. Q. Was there any of the underwriters or their agents there!—A. Yea Q. Who were they ?—A. Tarr aud Burnham. Q. In 1853, what vessel were you in; that is, the ne lost your vessel !—A. I was in the Snowsquall. Q. Did you go to the bay that year =A; You. —A. I fished at the xt year after you ~* Q. Where did you fish, and what did you take? Magdalens and Bank Orphan some, and ou the West Shore, jast im sight ig off the West Shore, just in sight of Q. When you speak of fishit ‘A. Miscou; that is, on the New brane land, what land do you mean !— wick shore. Q. How many barrels of mackerel did you take there 1—A. Well, that trip we got 350 barrels. ne trip in 1853 in the Snowsquall !—AA. Q. Did you make more than 0 No. Q. Did you take any portion of these m the shore ?—A. No. ackerel within three miles of 2180 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. In 1854 what vessel were you in ?—A. The same vessel. Q. More than one trip 7—A. Yes, two trips. Q. How many did you get the first, and how many the second trip ? —A. The first trip we got 350 barrels, I believe, and the second trip 200. Q. Where were they taken ?—A. The first trip was taken at the Mag- dalens, and the second I got about 100 barrels inshore between Cheti- camp and Margaree Island, Mabou, and along there. Q. Did you take any of them within three miles?—A. Yes, 100 bar- rels, I guess. Q. Where ?—A. At Margaree, and right along shore there. Q. In 1855 what schooner were you in?—A. The Montezuma, two trips. Q. How many barrels each trip ?—A. 200 barrels each trip. She was a small schooner, and that was all she would carry. Q. Where was the first trip, and where was the second trip taken ?— A. Taken at the Magdalens, the first trip, and along West Shore and Bradley Bank—on the West Shore, just in sight of land. The second trip at the Magdalens. ThenI went home and went fishing on our own shore. Q. In 1856 you were again in the same vessel?—A. Yes, three trips. Q. How many barrels did you get ?—A. 260 each of the first two trips, and the last trip 200. Q. Where did you get the first, second, and third trips?—A. I got them, one trip at Bradley and West Shore, the other at Magdalens. We got about 75 or 100 barrels inshore at Margaree Island, in the fall, late. Q. That was a larger number of barrels than you had taken before ? —A. Yes. Q. Did you go home after each trip ?—A. I went home each trip. Q. Were those large or small mackerel 7—A. Small mackerel. Q. It was not a very profitable trip on that account?—A. No, I didn’t make much of a year’s work; they sold cheap. Q. In 1857 what did you do ?—A. I was in the Queen of Clippers. Q. Where did you fish ?—A. At the Magdalens. Q. How many trips?—A. Two; the first at the Magdalens. Q. How many barrels did you get ?—A. I think the first trip we got 550, and the second 300. Q. Where did you say the second was taken ?—A. Taken around the Magdalens. Q. Take the following year, 1858?—A. I was in the same schooner, the Queen of Clippers. I got one trip at the Magdalens of 350 barrels, then I got 200 barrels in the fall of the year. I got about 50 barrels, I think, at Cape North Bay. Q. Where did you get the rest ?—A. Around Margaree Islands. Q. Then your second trip that year was largely taken inshore, was it?—A. Yes. I only got 200 barrels; I didn’t make the whole trip. It was blowy weather, and there was no chance. Q. What proportion of the second trip was taken inshore?—A. About 100 barrels. I got 100 barrels at the Magdalens, and then came over and got 100 barrels more. The weather was bad, and there was no chance. Q. In 1859 what vessel were you in ?—A. The Rattler. Q. Did that belong to you?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Wholly 7—A. Yes. Q. Was it a new vessel built for you ?—A. Yes. Bigs . e J ‘) feed AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2181 Q. Were you in it a number of years !—A. Yes. . Q. Now, in the year 1859, being the first year in the Rattler, did Fo go into the bay, and at what time of the year !—A. I came in Joly: | guess about the 10th or 15th of July. I got into the bay the 10th of Aa. ' gust. I left home after the 4th of July. Q. How many barrels did you take, and where !—A. I got 400 bar. rels that year. The mackerel were scarce. 1 got them on Bank Orphan and the Magdalens. Q. In the first year you were in the Rattler did you take any in- shore ?—A. No. ‘ Q. In 1860 you were in the same vessel. How many trips did you make, and where did you catch your fish!—A. I made one trip, I think, and got 500 barrels. I got them around the Magdalens, most of them around Bird Rocks. Q. In 1861 you were in the same vessel '—A. Yes. Q. How many trips did you make ?—A. Two trips, I think. Q. How many barrels did you catch ’—A. 500 barrels each trip. + Q. That is the third year in the Rattler !—A. Yes. Q. Now, where were those taken the first trip and the second !—A. They were taken at the Magdalen and Bank Orphan. Q. Any inshore that year 7—A. No. Q. In 1862 were you in the same vessel still 7—A. Yes. Q. How many trips. did you make then !—A. Two trips. I got, I think, 500 barrels each trip. Q. Where ?—A. I got them part on Bank Orphan and the rest at the Magdalens. ; Q. In 1863?—A. I got one trip on the Magdalens, and went right back again and got about 150 barrels, and went to Sydney and got - enough to make 300 barrels. Q. Your first trip was 500 barrels at the Magdalens and yoar second 300 barrels, half of them at the Magdalens and half at Sydney. When you fished off Sydney was it inshore or out !—A. It was inshore. Q. Then in 1863 you took 150 barrels inshore near Sydney !—A. Yea. Q. Were you in the Rattler another year !—A. Yes; 1864. Q. What did you doin 1864 !—A. I made three trips. Q. How many barrels did you get in the bay !—A. 1,515 barrels. Q. That you would be likely to remember. Now, where did yoa take the first trip that year ?—A. I got them on Orphan and the Magdalens the first trip, and the second trip at the Magdalens. . é Q. And the third trip ?—A. I got about 500 barrels up on Fisherman's Bank, and ran down to Margaree aud got 215 barrels there 18 two days, and went home. aa Q. How near inshore did you get them at Margaree ‘i—A. Right fa- shore. It is about a mile ora mile aude half wae | . Was that the last trip in the Rattleri—.\. 1es. ss Now, what did you do with the first and second trips that year '— A. I lett them at Mr. Hartley’s till I went home in the fall. _ Where is Hartley ?—A. At Pirate Cove, Canseau. 6. Did you take them all home in the autumn or have some digas sent ?—A. I chartered a schooner to take them bome when I went m) self. ae ete ey : Q. What did it cost you by the schooner i. Li Are hevohig Q. What did the steamers charge that Peat keoe. 1 dide’t Q. Was that currency or gold ?—A. Well, send by steamer. 2182 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. What did you payin ?—A. Currency. It was an American vessel. Q. That ends the Rattler ?— A. Yes. Q. In 1865 what vessel were you in?—A. The Blue Jacket. Q. What did you do that year ?—A. I got 670 barrels the first trip on what they call Pigeon Hill. Q. Was that within three miles or not?—A. No; we just saw the tops of the hills. Q. What did you do with the 670 barrels 7—A. Shipped them in the steamer. Q. From where 7—A. From Canseau. Q. What did you pay ?—A. $1. Q. Gold or currency ?—A. Currency. Q. The freight was paid in Boston ?—A. Yes. Q. Then your second trip in 1865, how many did you take ?—A. I got 400 barrels. Q. Where did you take them ?—A. About half-way between Magda- lens and East Point. Q. All of them ?—A. Yes; we drifted down about that direction. Q. Did you take any of the second trip inshore that year 7?—A. No. Q. How late were you that year, if you remember ?—A. I went out of the bay pretty early. Q. In 1866 what vessel were you in?—A. The Wild Fire. Q. What was her tonnage ?—A. She was 108 tons, new tonnage. Q. Did you take a license that year ?—A. I think I had bought a license in Georgetown, but I have looked over the list and could not see that I had paid for any. « Mr. Davies. The names of the parties are not entered there. Q. You thought you had bought a license 7—A, Yes; but I could not see my name. I thought I had paid for it. I was a sick man, and put inshore, and I thought I bought a ‘license. Q. What were you in in 1866 ?—1866, I believe, is the last year you were fishing. Now, how many fish did you take that year?—A. The first trip I got 600 barrels. Q. What did you do with them ?—A. I put them aboard a steamer at Plaister Cove. Q. What did it cost you to send them home ?—A. $1. Q. Where were these 600 barrels taken 7—A. On Magdalens, Bird Rocks, and all around the Magdalens, I fished that year. The mackerel were scarce. Q. How many did you take the second tripthat year?—A. 360 barrels. Q. Where were they taken ?—A. I got them all off shore, but I think I got about 50 or 60 barrels at Margaree Island in the fall. Q. Those you caught at Margaree were inshore?—A. Yes; it was a blowy fall. Q. About how late did you go home that fall?—A. I went home, I guess, on the 20th October. Q. Since then, you have not been fishing yourself?—A. No. . Q. Now, before I ask you about your subsequent business, there is another matter I want to inquire into. There is a gentleman who seems to know about your business, and property generally, Mr. Campion. I read from his statements, page 37 of the British Testimony: ‘*«@. When you were four or five years in Gloucester with American vessels, did you notice whether they made such large catches when high prices prevailed, and whether the wealth of the place was greatly in- creased in consequence ?—A. Yes; it was materially increased. Some | . lie AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2183 ig who were poor when I went there, were owners of firms whea I eft. “Q. Were they engaged in the bay-fishing?—A. Captain Andrew Layton was reported to be part owner of a vessel in 1862, and when I left there he was established with seven or eight vessels with a firm. “‘Q. Due to his prosecution of the Bank fishing !—A. Yes; in 1863 he had a vessel built at a cost of $14,000. He sold ber that fall at St. Peter’s for the same amount of money, and he declared that be cleared in the business that year the price he paid for this vessel. Other men I also knew made money.” I hope you have been tolerably prosperous. Is that a true account of the way your money was made ?—A. No, sir. Q. What do you say about clearing $14,000 in a year at the Magda lens ?—A. I do not think all the fleet ever cleared it. Q. Taking the business of fishing for mackerel alone, suppose that was all a man was doing, would be make a large amount of money '—A. Well, there is once in a while when they would do very well, but taking the fleet together, they didn’t do anything. Q. What else were you doing those years you were fishing for mack- ~ ere] in the saummer?—A. I went for herring at Newfoundland from 1556. Q. How many years did you go?—A. I went about eight years. Q. To what part of Newfoundland ?—A. Fortune Bay. Q. Did you go to catch or to buy ?—A. To buy. Q. Did you catch any herring there ?—A. No. Q. How did you provide for buying, with mouey or goods !—A. Some money and some goods. Q. Did you freeze them yourself?—A. Yes, Q. Did you carry any arrangemeuts for fishing. yourself for herring f —A. No. Q. Whom did you buy them from !—A. I bought them of the inhab- itants. They caught them, and IL gave them so much a barrel. That was when we first went out for frozen herring. Q. You were one of the earliest ?—A. Yes. Q. Did you freeze them yourself !—A. Yes. : Q. On your vessel ?—A. Yes; we used to build little wharves ou shore and freeze some, and we would freeze the rest In the vessel. . Q. Which way did you freeze the greater part t—A. On board the ves- sel. When we got more herring than we could freeze on board, the in- habitants would let us freeze them there. They told as to pat lumber ashore, and we fixed a little stage and froze them. ‘ a ‘Q. In 1866 you ceased to fish and started a firm !—\. In 1867. went to the West Indies, one year after I quit fishing. Q. In command of a vessel ?—A. Yes. Q. The name of your firm is Layton & Co. 1—A. Yes. a nan Q. How many vessels have you had fishing since in the + ye Some years sixteen and seventeen. Most every year from fiftee seventeen to twenty. Q. In what branch of fishing have you been enga a ae them.—A. Cod-fishing, halibuting, mackereling, berringing, everything a little. Q: How many vessels have you usu valor fan ae were We had twelve one spell this year. : y Pe. same y all the year round, of Q. The vessels did not do the same thing a ; course ?—A. No. ged !—A. Well, in ally had fishing for mackerel 2184 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. How many vessels have you had come to the bay for mackerel since youorganized your firm, which is ten years ?—A. This year we have five; one went out and the other four are there now. We haven't heard from them since they went away. Q. What became of the one you had there that went out?—A. She went fishing on our shores; that is the Falcon. Q. How many did she bring from sme bay ?—A. One hundred and ten barrels, packed. Q. Do you know what she has done on our coast ?—A. I don’t know. Q. Now, how many vessels have you fishing this year on the American coast ?—A. Well, they have all been fishing there some time of the sea- son. They have fished there until August, and then gone into the bay. The Falcon went into the bay in July, and the other two in August. They have all been on our coast since April. Q. How many have been in the bay for mackerel this year?—A. There are five of them have been in the bay, but ten went south mackereling, seining, and then came home. Three of them left and went into the bay, and then those other ones (two) that went to the West Indies came and went to the bay. That makes five in the bay. Q. What has been the result of the mackerel voyages to the gulf made by your vessels since you have been in business ?—A. They have done pretty poorly. One year they did very well. The next year after the year I knocked off they did very well. Since that they have been dwindling away until we have had. only one there last year. They knocked off and went seining on our own coast. Q. How many did you have the year before last?—A. I (hank only one. I think for the last three years they all knocked off and went seiping, but that one,-and she never had a seine. Q. Now, generally, what have been the results of the mackerel ves- sels on the American shores since you have been in the business 7—A. Well, some of our vessels have done very well. They have always paid their bills on our own shores and cleared a little more. Q. I believe you had one particularly profitable seining voyage last year ?—A. Yes. . ea was that?—A. We cleared $5,000. That was the Mary dell. Q. How long was she doing it ?—A. She began the last of April, and knocked off about the first of November. Q. Do you remember how many trips ?—A. No; we could not tell, because she ran them fresh to Boston and New York. We didn’t pack any of them hardly. Q. Now take your vessels that have gone to the Gulf of St. Lawrence this year; name them.—A. The Wild Fire, the Colonel Cook, the Rat- tler, the Griffin. Q. That only makes four. The other one you gave previously 7?—A. The Faleon. The Griffin we don’t own. She fits with us. We find her barrels and provisions. Q. What is the tonnage of your schooners ?—A. Well, the Wild Fire is 108 tons, the Rattler 82, the Colonel Cook about 66, I think, the Fal- con 71. Q. I will not bother you with details of price, because we have those in a more compact form. But generally, how many mackerel ought one of those vessels, a vessel of that size, to catch in order to make @ paying voyage ?—A. Well, it is all owing to the price. Q. Would the mackerel average $10 a barrel, cleaned and packed ?— A. No, not this year. i ° trip. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2185 - Q. What do you think they would?—A. W late and got all fat mackerel. But this sau iiheehesry sbogred ne es et hpi average. Take out'$1.75 for packing, and it doesn't leave Q. Does that $1.75 include the barrel ?—A. ‘ or that is ten cents more. ot ERO DARTS AOS ah oes . Well, suppose you got $10 a barrel; I take tha average, but as it has been named here a number of hl heen barrels ought these vessels to get year in and year out, to make it a paying business ?—A. To make it pay they should get 1,000 barrels te make money. Q. Well, that is to make money for everybody, is it not !—A. Yes; that makes a little something. ; Q. But take the cost of the voyage. We will say nothing about the interest on the vessel itself—how many barrels should she get !—A, Well, 500 or 600. It is according to what kind of mackerel. Q. I was asking you to take them at 810. You thought that toe high ?—A. Well, taking $10, if they got 400 barrels the bills would be about $2,000 to run a vessel like that for four months. The other #2,000 would go to the captain and the crew. Q. Then before the owners could get anything they should ran ap above $4,000 ?—A. About that. It would be safe to reckon that way. Q. Now I want to ask you one or two more things about your owa trips. On page 193 of the British Evidence we have the statement of James Mackay. Do you know him?—A. No, sir. Q. You owned the Colonel Cook ?—A. I owned the third part of ber. Q. On page 193 of the Evidence it is stated that she was commanded by George Bass in 1872. Do you remember how many mackerel the Colonel Cook took, when Captain Bass commanded her in 18721!—A. I think he sent home 200 barrels the first time. I won't be sure, though. Q. The second ?—A. 160 I think. It may be wrong; I could not say for certain. I think that is it. : Q. You have nothing by which to correct your recollection !—A. No. Q. Now, Mr. James Mackay says that 400 barrels were obtained each trip that year, as I understood it ?—A. | don’t know, I never made any money. Q. Do you know whether there was 400 barrels each trip or not '—\. No. Q. That is not correct?—A. He is mistaken. That ts more than sbe ever got since she was built. Mr. Daviss. He didn’t say 400 each trip. Mr, Foster. Your construction is that the witnéss only meant fo sy 400 barrels for the two trips. It reads as 400 barrels for the second Mr. Davies. He only mentions the one figure, 400 barrels. By Mr. Foster : Q. Now, here is the statement of a witness by the name of McDonald, that you got 1,600 barrels of mackerel one year in the Rattler. You my you got 1,515 barrels ?—A. Yes. Q. Did you have anything to do with the se A. Yes, I and others chartered a quarter of her. reaper Q. William McDonald’s statement Is, that he and you and two of i i fi at right !—A. No. were interested in that vessel. Was that right !—.- Q. His statement is (page 310) that he chartered her for the trip, and after paying $1,000 for the charter, and payiog him as captain 5 pet hooner Allen Forester '— € 2186 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. cent. commission, which cams out of the vessel’s half, there was $1,050 for the four who chartered her. Did you get your share of that ?—A. I don’t think I did get as much as that; I might have. It don’t seem as though I did. I could not say that I did not. I thought it was not so much as that. Q. On page 396, we seem to hear of you again from somebody. Ro- nald McDonald says he was with you in 1859 or 1860, I believe, in the _ Rattler. Do you remember him ?—A. I don’t remember him. He might have been with me; many men have, whose names I don’t re- member. Q. What are the prospects, if you know, of the mackerel fishing this year ?—A. Well, 1 don’t know; so far as I can hear, they are pretty poor. Our vessels have done very badly. Q. Now, suppose the mackerel were to be very plenty from this time on, is there time to make a good result?—A. No; it is too late now. It is coming on blowy weather; and they could not do much. There ' might be, perhaps, some few days when they could do something. Q. When you were in the habit of fishing, was Magdalen Islands con- sidered safe or dangerous ?—A. It was the safest place in the bay. Q. Why?—A. You can run around it any time, day or night, sounding with the lead, no matter what kind of weather. Q. Can you estimate the largest number of vessels from Gloucester that ever went to the gulf for mackerel ?—A. I should not think over 275, or 300 at the most. There used only to be in those times four or fiv e hundred sail altogether; and I don’t think a great many more than half of them went into the bay. I think there are now about 520, or thereabouts, boats and all. Q. If you were coming to the gulf to fish for mackerel, what value would you attach to the right of fishing inshore? Explain your opinion on that point.—A. Well, some years—I have seen two or three years— I should like to have fished inshore; when the mackerel was inshore. A heavy northeast wind late in the fall drives them all in, around Mar- garee Island, maybe, and a man might catch a trip of mackerel, if he could not get them anywhere else, the last thing in the fall. That is about all the advantage. In good weather, I should not care anything about it; but late in the fall, the last thing, I have caught 215 barrels there in two days, and I suppose I could have caught 500 if I had a place for them. I never saw but two years like that. The year of the gale, in 1851, was just such a year; but I was full when [ got there. By Sir Alexander Galt: Q. Are they good mackerel ?—A. Nice mackerel. By Mr. Foster: Q. Which would you rather have, the right to fish inshore and have the British mackerel come in free, or be excluded and have the old duty on it ?—A. I should rather have the old duty. It is not altogether on account of the mackerel, but the herring. Q. Tell me about that.—A. If there were a duty, we could have the whole trade of selling them in Boston, but when there is no duty the English vessel can carry them cheaper than we can. Q. The old duty was a dollar a barrel ?—A. Yes; I think so. We have lost that trade. Q. I notice that in 1873 the Colonel Cook, of Gloucester, is stated by the collector at Port Mulgrave, under the head of June 13, to have been twice through Canso—to have made two trips; to have taken on the first trip 380 barrels, and on the second trip 320 barrels of mackerel. w= | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2187 That was one of your vessels; did she ever ¢ —A.' bay pe ever eee She never fitted for paige ae saa . Do you recollect what she did ?—A, ¢ that is th PAO) sha hare d?—A. I think that is the time she -Q. 1 am not talking of the Colonel Cook when you were in b 1863, but as to the quantity she caught in 1873 !— a avast the Colonel Cook. 2 : si diy ree ee ere Q. In 1873 you were interested in her; do you recollect wt erel she took ?—A. She did not take any such quantity as Anon — Q. Not 700 barrels in Bay St. Lawrence !—A. No; because that ts more than she can carry. Q. She did not make two-trips and catch 380 and 320 barrels '—A. She never carried at the most over 350 barrels; I think she did not. Q. Do you revoliect what her catch was that year!—A. | don’t recollect. Q. Did she make any money ?—A. She never made any money since she was built, hardly. I don’t think she made any that year. oe Q. If the date June 13 was the date given as when she had got two trips, that could not be correct, as no vessel could ever make two trips before June 13 in Bay St. Lawrence ?— A. She could not have gone in till June 15. Q. I am now reading from page 26, Appendix X: “ Return of United States mackerel-fishing vessels and their catch in 1573, as reckoned at Port Mulgrave, N. S., by the collector of customs at that port.” Under June 13, there appears, ‘ Colonel Cook, Gloucester, 380, 520, total 700 i ae He has made a mistake. That is when she went into the ay. Q. Did she get 700 barrels that year ?—A. I don’t think so. She never ,got that many any year. By Mr. Davies: Q. Have you any recollection of the catches made by your vessel since you gave up fishing yourself ?—A. I know pretty well what they have made. The bay vessels have made no money. : Q. Have you a good recollection of the catches they made !—A. No; I don’t recollect. I could not tell you the exact quantity, but they made very poor trips. : Q. In 1873 you owned the Wildfire {—A. Yes. Q. Give me the catch you made that year.—. I don't recollect what we did. za Q. Would you be prepared to dispute a return made by the collector of customs at Port Mulgrave as to what her catch was t—A. I coakd tell something near it. ~ Q. You don’t recollect at the pr it was something like 600 barrels; some Q. He returns 625 barrels.—A. I guess that is correct. Q. Was the Phoenix your vessel 7—A. No. e Q. What size vessel is Colonel Cook !—A. About 66 tons. read Q. What is her capacity ?—A. When she fits for the bay, she Sts for about 350 barrels. : ; Q. And will you undertake to swear that she did not in 18733 Have you any recollection of what her cat presage would not want to swear to it, but [ am pretty sure she did not ges that. ; ep Q. Have you a sufticient recollection of it '— cient recollection of it. esent time what it was 1—A. L think where between 500 aod 6). get 700 barrels *h was !—.\. I A. I bave not 4 aa ? 2188 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. And if you have not, can you say that the number was incorrect ?— A. Itis not correct about going out at that time. Q. I think the date stands for when she was reported as entering the guif ?—A. I think so. Q. Putting the date aside, I ask you if you would undertake to dispute the correctness of this return, if you have no recollection of the catch yourself ?—A. No more than I packed the mackerel. Q. You don’t wish to contradict this return ?—A. No. Q. You think, I understood you to say, that the fishing this year is not very good ?—A. Yes. Q. Have you been in the gulf yourself ?—A. No. Q. You don’t know it from personal knowledge ?—A. No more than from vessels that have come home. Q. Have you a list of the vessels that have come home and reported at your port ?—A. I have got no list. Q. Could you state the names of some vessels that have returned, in order to show on what you base your statement ?—A. I could tell you some vessels that have come home with small fares. The Vulcan had a small fare. Q. What time did she come to the bay?—A. She came out of the bay about the last of August; somewhere about that time. Q. What is her size ?—A. 71 tons. Q. She had only 110 barrels?—A. She packed 110. The William G. Baker came home. I believe she got nothing hardly in the bay. Q. Is she one of your vessels ?—A. No; she belongs to the next wharf. Q. Can you speak of her catch from personal knowledge ?—A. The owner told me she did not have anything. Q. I have got here a list of vessels which have returned to Gloucester. On 15th August: David F. Low, 190 barrels of mackerel. Do you know her ?—A. Yes. . Do you call that very bad?—A. No. . August 16. J. F. Clarke, 240 barrels. Do you know her ?—A. Yes. a) August 17. Hyperion, 240 barrels. Do you know her?—A. Yes. August 16. Gertie Lewis, 135 barrels. Is that correct ?—A. Yes. On the same day, Martha C., 250 barrels. Is that correct?—A. Q Q Q Q. Yes, Q. August 20. George S. Low, 230 first trip and 120 second—altogether 350 barrels. Is that correct?—A. Yes. I know those vessels, and I know they got those trips; I know it because the owners told me. Q. August 25. Fred Gerring, junior, 230 barrels; refitted and made second trip. Have you received information that she has made a sec- ond trip?—A. Yes. Q. Eastern Queen. She has not got round, I believe, on her second trip; perhaps you can give the numbers ?—A. I don’t know about the second trip. After the first trip she came home with, I think, some 200 odd barrels—I think about 240 or 250. Q. She has made two trips 7—A. I never heard that she had made more than one. Q. She has not yet completed her second ?—A. She is on it. — August 30. Marion Grimes, 150 barrels. Do you know her ?—A, es. Phe eas King, 120 barrels; put in for repairs. Is that correct ?— ape i. Q. John Wesley, 200 barrels?—A. The John Wesley bought the mack- erel and did not catch it. The captain told me he bought it from boats ae ¢ , ’ would drive British vessels out of the trad AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 2189 at Port Hood, and traded for them. He came through Canso and re ported he had that many. He is Captain Pool. caper 12. B. F. Somes, 160 barrels, refitted for second trip!— Q. September 13. Harvest Home, 235 barrels, refitted for second trip ?—A. Yes. Pa September 13. Etta Gott, 225 barrels, refitted for second trip !— . Yes. : a peuieue 14. George B. Loring, 250 barrels, refitted for second rip?—A. Yes. Q. September 18. S. L. Mayo, 150 barrels, refitted for second trip t— A. Yes. You have skipped those vessels which have not got any. Q. I am reading from the return.—A. Is the Ellen Crosby mentioned there? That is one which did not get anything. Mr. Foster. What is the list you are reading from ? Mr. DAVIES. From a return of vessels reported from the Gut of Canse. Q. I understood you to say that you knew those vessels, and that ‘the quantities were correct ?.—A. Yes, as far as what the owners told me. Q. The Cape Ann Advertiser of September 20 says: Our correspondent at Port Mulgrave writes under the date of last Monday as fellows “Since my last there have been several arrivals from the bay with discouraging news, bet lately the news has been more encouraging. The following arrivals are reported: Sebee Etta Gott, 226 bbls. mackerel; Harvest Home, 235; George B. Loring, 40; George § Low, two trips, 350; Benjamin F. Somes, 160; Idella Small, of Deer Isle, 15% The mackerel are large and fat. The Harvest Home and George Bb. Loring took their fares te Chaleur Bay ; the Etta Gott at Bird Rock. Most of the tleet were in Cape 5 George Bay on Saturday, doing well; the George S. Low took 45 wash barrels that day. WITNEss. Those are about ten or fifteen vessels out of seventy-five sail. Q. There are 75 sail from Gloucester in the bay !—A. Yes; that bate been there this year. Q: I see you have given the Vulcan’s catch as a poor one; she re turned early in August ?—A. Some time in August. Q. You don’t expect a vessel to make a successful trip that early '— A. She was gone long enough to make a good trip. Q. Have you heard lately, within the last fortnight, what catches are made by your vessels in the bay 7—A. No. Q. You would not undertake, then, to say whether the catcbes are good or not ?—A. No. ; wer Q. When the question in regard to imposing a duty on Canadian fis ; d have yretty strong idea on if; you was put to you, you seemed to have a | , A ' would prefer to have that duty imposed, would youf—A,. Yea. *.Q. In regard to herring, you want to have the herring trade trans fer ve ‘ican | s, and if a duty was imposed, it ferred from British to American bottoms, am eae eon gees ei—aA. wy . : s much as the herring is worth. them, because the duty would be about - ; po Rbeadpag bine depo b= _ Q. Has there ever been a duty on igs lerring '—-\. herring we get at the Magdalen Islands in spring. Pa Q ne ne salt herring ’—A. We never got any fresh herring there We get our frozen herring at Newfoundland, in Fortune Bay. P 8 - should be placed on fresh herring ’— Q. Would you suggest that a duty 8 sou e | A. Nos there never was adaty on fresh rT sais ta. Yea . But you would propose ‘ : ior | Q. In ean to eeekorl leaving herring out, would you prefer a duty on mackerel ?—A. Yes. m Q. You speak as a fisherman !—A. Yes. 2190 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Why would you prefer a duty on mackere] 7—A. Our mackerel would fetch that much more a barrel; we lose that, you know. Q. By the duty coming off ?—A. Yes; the fishermen lose it; the gov- ernment does not lose it. @. And the people who eat the fish gain it?—A. Yes. Q. And if you were to speak to a man whose business was consuming mackerel, you would get an opinion adverse to a duty ?—A. Yes. Q. You would not object, I suppose, to run the duty up a little higher —how would that suit the fishermen?—A. I think that is about right. Q. When asked by Mr. Foster as to how many barrels of mackerel should be taken by a vessel to pay well, I understood you to say that if mackerel brought $10 a barrel, the number should be 1,000 barrels ?—A. No; 400 barrels. Q. Four hundred barrels would make a paying voyage ?—A. It would make the vessel pay her bills. Q. A vessel of what size?—A. A 75 or 100 ton vessel. It would cost about $2,000 to run her. Q. You say it would cost $2,000 to run the vessel; what would become of the other $2,000?—A. The crew get half. They are not paid by wages, but on shares. If a man catches 10 barrels he has half of those, after expenses are taken out, and so with a man who catches 5 barrels. Q. A vessel of 75 or 100 tons with the fishermen going on half line would, if it got 400 barrels at $10 a barrel, pay its bills. Would it leave a fair recompense to the owners?—A. It would not leave much. Some men might run a vessel and leave something, and others would leave it in debt. Q. You have made some pretty successful trips in your time ?—A. Well, I have got many fish, but they never fetched a great price. Q. In regard to the year ’ when you made the wonderful voyage, Mr. Foster read you some parts of Captain Campion’s testimony, and I did not understand you to contradict it. Do you know Captain Campion ?— A. No; I may have seen him, but I don’t know him. Q. In how many vessels are you interested ?—A. 15. Q. How many years have you been in the business?—A. I have bes in it since I owned a piece of a vessel—from 1847. Q. How many vessels had you when you commenced ?—A. I had Sali, one-sixth part of a vessel, the whole of which cost $1,800. Q. You are now interested in 15 vessels ?—A. In 15. Q. You live in Gloucester and have a snug place besides ?—A. Yes. Q. What is the cost of one of those fishing vessels, take a vessel of 90 tons, present tonnage?—A, A vessel of 90 tons would cost, all rig- ged, about $7,500. @. When you commenced business, I suppose Gloucester was rather a small place compared with what it is now ?—A. It has grown some since. Q. How much do you mean by some ?—A. About one-half. Q. In 1847, did you commence the fishery business ?—A. Yes. Q. What was the population in 1847 ?—A. I cannot recollect. Q. Has it grown more than two-thirds since then—been practically built up ?—A. It has been practically built up. Q. How many members are there of your firm ?—A. Three. Q. I wish to see whether you contradict the statement of Captain Campion. This is what he said: Q. Were they engaged in the bay fishing ?—A. Captain Andrew Layton was reported to be part owner of a vessel in 1862 ; and when I left there he was established bla seven or eight vessels, with a firm. TE ONT AT P TT UE Ta! ab) Oe ae aay AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2191 Q. Due to his prosecution of the bay fishery ?—A. Yea: in 1803 he a cost of $14,000; he sold her that fall at St. Peter’s, for the same rSuanly pepe he declared that he cleared in the business that year the price he had paid Pale oe Dorey =1 wt ave aon By recollection of the year’s business in 18631—A. I Q. That does not dispute the statement. Have v > of the year’s Susie You were omar Sthor euaie elie the Rattler ?—A. I had part of two or three vessels then. j Q. He says he was informed by you, or from you indirectly, that. as the result of that year’s business, you cleared the cost of that veenel 2. A. I don’t know what he meant by the statement. I had no sach ven. sel as that at that time. Q. The statement was that “he declared he had cleared in the bust. ness that year the price he had paid for this vessel."—A. 1 did not bave any vessel that year, only the one I went in—no new vessel. Q. Did you ever sell a vessel at St. Peter's ’—A. No. Q. Can you tell me what was the result of that year's business !—A. I could not tell you. Q. Can you not state what was your share of the year’s business !— A. I made a little something that year. Mostly every year I was in the bay I cleared, some money. Q. Will you contradict this statement !—A. I don’t think any of it is right. He has got mixed up. _ Q. Is it substantially correct ?—A. I had no new vessel that year. I think I know where he is, but he has got it wrong. Q. Where is he?—A. He is two or three years behind. Q. Then it is substantially correct, although he has not fixed the year correctly ?—A. No; I did not sell any vessel at St. Peter's. Q. I want to come to the amount of profit. Where did you sell any vessel ?—A. I sold a vessel two-years after, the Blue Jacket, in 1565. f fe | | : ina Q. Where?—A. In Boston, fer $15,000. Perhaps that is what be was referring to. Q. What profit had you made that year—you had taken 1,070 barrels in her?—A. Yes. Q. That would leave a pretty handsome profit!—A. A very goo! year’s work. Q. Substantially his statement with regard to the year's business is correct ?—A. I don’t understand it. , Q. Did you ever make $14,000 in a one year in your business [— A.- No. Q. I don’t mean in the business, but in the firm?—A. I was not ia firm; I was fishing those times. as x Q. Did you make that much in a year at any time !—A. No. “ Q. But it was something comfortable !—A. I always cleared a little money every year at Newfoundland and all round. vo Q. Are the fish caught off your coasts sent 10 the American markets fresh ?—A. They are packed and salted as a rule; mackerel are most!) packed and salted. Some vessels run fresh fish to market. Q. Before I leave the question of profits, I want to call your a i to little book published in Gloucester by Procter Brothers, called re Fishermen’s Memorial and Record Book.” Do you know, or have yos seen the book ?—A. I have heard of it. Q. At page 86, under head of “ Large The largest stock made in the Bay of St. Lawrence mackerel fs : : ; a5 che was absent sboat give moe Colonel Ellsworth, Capt. George Robinson, in 156. 5 Neen x aeae* Laell her net stock SEgnge to $13,723. The high liner’s share was $205; cook's # ttention st mackerel stock,” if says: hery wae thal of schooms ‘ the, 2192 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Wagner, the murderer, was one of the Ellsworth crew that year. His share amounted to $307. Owned by Rowe & Jordan. Schooner General Grant, Captain Coas, in 1864, stocked, in two trips to the Bay of St. Lawrence, $11,254.94 clear of all expenses. The high liner made $502.24; cook’s share, $638.17. Schooner Norwester, Capt. Daniel Hillier, the same year, stocked $9,721.74, net, in one bay trip; the high liner making $308.60, and the cook $486.61. Both vessels owned by John Pew & Son. Schooner General Sherman, Capt. George W. Miner, in 1864, in a three months’ trip to the bay, packed 612 barrels of mackerel, her net stock amounting to $9,696. High liner’s share, $575.06. Owned by D.C. & H. Babson. Schooner Kit Carson, Capt. Horace Merry, in 1865, brought in 591 barrels of mackerel, having been absent about ten weeks. Her net stock amounted to $6,542. High liner’s share $260. Owned by Rowe & Jordan. Schooner James G. Tarr, Capt. Robert Reeves, in 1866, stocked $5,824 in a nine weeks’ trip to the bay. Cook’s share, $331.76. Owned by Dodd, Tarr & Co. Q. You knew those vessels and their owners?—A. Yes. Q. Do you remember the catches ?—A. Yes. Q. But you think you never made as much profit any year ?—A. I never wanted to get it into the papers and swell it up any. Q. You have had a good deal of experience in the bay, but for the last ten years you have not been fishing ?—A. No. Q. Therefore you can give no statement of the habits of the mackerel during the last ten years, and whether they have been more taken in- shore than formerly ?—A. I think they have. I have heard that they catch some on the south side of Prince Edward Island, where we never used to catch any; that is, off Souris. We never used to catch fish there. Q. You have heard that they are now caught there ?—A. Yes. . Have you conversed much with captains in the American fleet ?— A. When they come in I ask them where they caught their fish. ; Q. You have learnt from them that the habits of the fish are now dif- ferent ?—A. They don’t go on that ground at all. Q. They don’t go on the old ground 7—A. No. Q. Do they catch more inshore ?—A. They don’t go on the old ground. Q. The vessels don’t go on the old ground, such as Bank Bradley ?— A. No. @. They fish around the shores more ?7—A. Yes. Q@. You have not been there personally?—A. No. ; Q. I watched your evidence pretty closely, you being an experienced man, but I did not hear you mention Bay Chaleurs.—A. I have been there, but I never could get any fish there. ; Q. Your memory probably has failed you in regard to your having caught any there?—A. No; I have not caught any there. I never went there much. I heard about vessels going up and getting nothing, sol never went up much. ‘I always got my fish at the Magdalen Islands * and Banks Bradley and Orphan. Q. Do you know Ronald McDonald, of Souris, farmer and fisherman? In his evidence he said he was with you in the Rattler in 1859 and 1860. I will read from his statement: Q. How many summers were you in that vessel ?—A. One summer. Q. Who was the captain ?—A. Andrew Layton. Q. Where did the vessel hail from ?—A. Gloucester. Q. How many barrels did she get ?—A. About 1,000 barrels. Q. Captain Layton is always successful apparently 7—A. I believe he is. = Sad is one of the best fishermen in the fleet 7—A. In his time, when he was in the bay, 6 was. q Q. Where did you go to fish ?—A. I shipped at East Point, Prince Edward Island, and | we fished along to West Cape; then up’ the West Shore, up to the Bay Chaleurs; then off oe alates ee eee I on AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2193 cen Cae and afterwards at the Magdalen Islands, and away up the Canade share, Q. Did you take fish on Bank Bradley !—A. From 70 to 100 barrels, Q. Taking the fish you got off East Point, along Prince Edward Island, along the Weat Shore and Canada shore, how far from the land did you eatch them !—A. Along the \slasd and the West Shore we got the principal part close to the shore. Q. How did you do along the West Shore !—A. From the ti . probably got about 200 barrels. rom the time we left Bay Chaleure we Q. Did you fish in Bay Chaleurs?—A. Yes. Q. How far from shore 7—A. We tried everywhere ; part of the time inshore, Q. Did you fish much in the center of the bay ?—A, Ko. Q. Did you fish somewhat there ?—A. We did. oe proportion of this large catch was taken within three miles of shore !—A, Abeet one-half. Q. Where did you take the other halff—A. On Bank Bradley and at the Magdalea Islands. Q. So far as regards Bank Bradley and Magdalen Islands you are tn agreement, but he states that you caught fish at Prince Edward Island shore, and west shore, and in Bay Chaleurs !—A. I would like to know what year it was. ‘ Q. Do you recollect shipping a man at East Point!—A. I never shipped any man at East Point but one, and his name was Ruth. Q. Some people call Souris East Point ?—A. I never went into Souris but twice. Once I was cast away there, and I have never been there since. Q. You were in the Rattler in 1859 and 1860 ?—A. I did not get bat 400 barrels in 1859, and 500 in 1860. Q. Have you got any statement of the returus with you !—A, I have got a little memorandum of the mackerel I have caught, within a few. Q. I understood you in your first examination to say you never knew the man?—A. Yes. Q. Will you undertake to say you never had a man of that name on board ?—A. I might have had a man of that name. I never shipped a man from East Point of that name. Q. You might have had a man of that name on your vessel whether you shipped him at East Point or not ?—A. I could not say. Q. How can he possibly be mistaken when he comes here and states that in 1859 or 1860 he was in the Rattler, and that you caught your fish along the coast of Prince Edward Island, the West Shore, and Bank Bradley ?—A: He was not with me in 1599. That was the year the vessel was new. ; eae Q. In 1859 or 1860 did you get any men at the island '—A. Not in 1859. . 7 Q. In 1860?—A. I don’t know whether we had an island man in 1860 ornot. | = ; Q. You may have had an island man in 1860?—A. I don’t hardly think I had. a rots ~ Q. Will you swear you had not ?—A. I will swear I never shipped one there (East Point). ; os “Q. Will'you swear you had not an island man on board !—A. No; be I don’t know where the men belong. Q. Will on swear that Ronald Macdonald was not on board your ~ sel in 1860?—A. No; because I don’t know where the me amore ; ba I never got a man at the island and never fished are t J = ae Wiel Q. In the statement he made, he said, “ We fished ak Pike: Cape.”—A. I never knew that vessels fished at West a tl Ppp knew that mackerel ever dpekeits 3 on Cape. 1 would h er caught any at West Cape. ; ; , : eee here aid bat a ars have struck in at different points 138 F 2194 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. and that captains don’t fish on the old grounds ?—A. I would like to see a@ man who caught mackerel there during the years I was in the bay. Q. West Cape is opposite to the New Brunswick shore ?—A. Yes. Q. Is not Miminegash between North Cape and West Cape ?—A. I don’t know the name. Q. Would you be surprised to know that the best fishing at Prince Edward Island this year is at Miminegash, between West Cape and North Cape?—A. I don’t know but that it may be. When I went to the bay I never knew any mackerel caught up that way. Q. Point it out on the map.—A. The place you mention is what is called French Village. There used to be mackerel in there once in a while. The year of the gale I heard about mackerel being caught in there. Q. Thatis within a very few miles of West Cape ?—A. From 15 to 20 miles. That is as far as I have heard of mackerel being caught up there, except at Cape Egmont Bay, where boats take them. Q. At what parts of the island were fish caught in your day ?—A. I heard of none being caught there except along the north side. Q. You heard they were caught along the north side?—A. Yes; but I never fished there. Q. Do you wish to imply that there is the slightest doubt that fish were caught along the north side ?—A. There were fish caught on the north side. I spoke vessels which had caught them there. Q. You heard that from American captains ?—A. Yes. Q. Do you know Capt. Chivirie 7—A. Yes. Q. Is he a respectable man ?—A. He was with me as a boy. He was then eighteen or twenty years old. Q. Had he been fishing four or five years before he went with you ?— A. Yes; out of Newburyport. Q. Then he was a somewhat experienced fisherman ?—A. I don’t know. Q. After three or four years’ fishing, if a man is smart, be is con- sidered an experienced fisherman ?—A. Yes. Q. Captain Chivirie gave his testimony, and I will call your attention to it. He said: ‘In 1852 I was in the Rio del Norte.” Before I read that portion of Captain Chivirie’s testimony, do I understand you cor- rectly with regard to Margaree? You fished several times from Cheti- camp to Margaree ?7—A. Yes. Q. I understood you to say that all the fish you caught there were caught within a short distance of the shore?—A. What I caught in those years. Q. What you caught at Margaree and on Cape Breton shore were caught inshore ?—A. I told you what years I caught these there. Q. Did you catch what you caught there within three miles of the shore ?—A. Those years I caught them. In the year I caught 130 bar- rels in the Rio del Norte, I caught them off shore. Q. I want to know whether the mackerel caught by you at Margaree and along the Cape Breton coast from Cheticamp to Margaree were taken within three miles of the shore?—A. All of them? No. Q. Then I misunderstood you. You stated in answer to Mr. Foster, I thought, that at Margaree Island in 1858, in the Queen of Clippers, you caught 100 barrels inshore ?—A. Yes. Q. Were all these 100 barrels taken inshore ?—A. About all those. Q. And in 1851, in the Rio del Norte, 100 barrels at Margaree were taken inshore ?—A. Not 100 barrels. I had 280 barrels, and I got AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2195 enough to make 350. I was ina i rest Fanea Ria Misawa gale of wind with 280 barrels and the . Those you caught at Margaree you caught i woe q (. In 1856, the third trip, ae baught iS 0 108 barrole lnckers at Margaree ?—A. I caught 215 barrels inshore at Margaree. sein year was that 7—A. In 1864, I think. The year I got 1,300 ee eee emis te 1856. You took 75 or 100 barrels inshore at . Mr Pas taken - Margaree taken inshore !—A. Yea, . In , on the second trip, you cau 350 barre : which were taken at Margaree ‘airy 215 bhai oe Q. Were they taken inshore ?—A. Yes. Q. Then all that were taken about Margaree, and from there to Cheti- camp, were taken inshore ?—A. Yes; all but that one time in Rio del Norte. I did not take those inshore. Q. There was one exception ?—A. Yes; that time. Q. What was the year ?—A. No man could catch any inshore that year, 1852; the year I lost the vessel. ‘ Q. Was there anything special about the mackerel in the gulf that year ?—A. I was only in a little while. I went in late in the fall, canght mackerel, got ashore, and lost the vessel. Q. That year—1852—how many did you catch in the Rio del Norte [— A. 130 barrels. Q. You did not come to the bay till September !—A. Some time ia September. Q. You got ashore, and abandoned the voyage !—A. Yes, Q. Was there any conversation between you and Chivirie about his -ghartering a British vessel 7—A. No. Q. Can you recollect distinctly? Do you undertake to swear distinetly there was no such conversation 7—A. Yes. Q. Why do you recollect there was no such conversation !—A. Becanse such a thing as chartering a British vessel I never thought of. Q. Were not the cutters there that year ?—A. Yes. Q. Were you not kept out of the inshore limits {—A. We were. Q. Is it a thing impossible that such a conversation should have takea place, and that. you should have desired to get one of your men to charter a British vessel, and so enable you to fish inshore with impunity !—A. There were not any mackerel inshore that year. Q. Not in 1852 ?—A. No. es Q. Do you remember the catches made by different vessels in 18027 —A. By the time I got in the bay it was late. I know English vessels were fishing inshore, and we fished outside the line; and they woald try inshore in the morning aud come out to where we were. It was mackerel picking. ; | Q. Did ae ster ran up every day marking the three-mile line f— A. He staid there till night every day. He would lay off where the fleet was. ag Q. Why did you not go away out into the bay ![—A. Because that -_ was the only place where we could get any fish. . How large was the fleet there ?—A. Not over 30 or 40 sail. 3. That ae right round Port Hood !—A. Down at pcal ries ae Q. And he was staying at Margaree ¢—A. He would run « oeeete morning—either the steamer or the schooner ; then there aret ee n Broad Cove. When he ran down his distance he —— a e topsail back and lie to till the afternoon, then go to Port Hoo i ' 2196 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. When he did that, did you not cross the three-mile line ?—A. No; because if there had been any fish inshore, no doubt I would have gone. Q. Had you any scruples about crossing the line ?—A. None at all. I knew that the English vessels found no fish inshore. Q. If there were no fish inshore and you were fishing outside and found fish there, what necessity was there for the cutter to run down to ‘show you the three-mile line every morning ?—A. He ran every day. Q. And told you he would go every day and so mark the line ?—A. He told me he ran the three-mile line. Q. If there were no fish inshore, where was the necessity for that ?— A. He was on that station and had always to stay there. Q. You took particular notice of the line ?—A. I took notice enough not to go inside at all. Q. How far out of it did you keep 1A. Half a mile, perhaps a mile, perhaps a quarter of a mile; I might be right alongside of it some- times. Q. You never let the bow of the vessel cross it ?—A. Not when he was there. Q. When he was not there?—A. We had no oceasion. There were not many mackerel inshore or off shore. They did not get many that fall. : Q. I will read you part of the statement made before this Commission by Captain Chivirie. He said: lu 1852 I was in the Rio del Norte. We made one trip on the American coast. We then left that coast and came down the Gulf of the St. Lawrence. Q. And who was her captain?—A. Andrew Layton, of Gloucester. Q. A very experienced fisherman ?—A. Yes. Q. You came down to the bay to fish ?7—A. We went qut on the American coast. The vessel was of rather small size; she was about sixty tons, I think, and this is the reason why we went out on the American coast. We found the fish to be very small, though there were @ great many in that quarter. In about four weeks we caught one hundred and ten barrels, and having landed them, we had repairs made, and fitting out, came down the bay, where most of the fleet was. Q..He gave the same catch as you, 110 barrels on the American coast. He is correct in that ?—A. I think he is. We fished between Port Hood and Cheticamp. We made all our trip there, and were about}fourteen_or fifteen days on that part of the coast. Q. Is that correct ?—A. Yes. When we came to Port Hood we found a cutter in the bay. Q. Is that correct ?—A. Yes. A ;large fleet was there, but we did not mind the cutter or anything else. The captain says, ‘‘I am going to have mackerel,’ and we got them anyhow; and we succeeded. Q. That tallies to some extent. You would not have minded going over the line if mackerel were there ?—A. We could not have gone over if they had been ever so plentiful. Q. If the fish had been there, you would have been there?—A. I would have been, but there were not fish enough. In a fortnight we caught two hundred and thirty or forty barrels. Q. Is 240 correct ?—A. No. Q. You say 140?—A. 130. I went to see the man who packed them; he is down here. Q. Who is the man 7—A. Mr. Tarr. Q. Before you had seen Mr. Tarr, had you had this read over to you? —A. Yes. Q. Were you at that time prepared to dispute the accuracy of Cap- — tain Chivirie’s statement 7—A. Yes. whether I understood it all or not. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2197 Q. Before you saw Mr. Tarr ?—A. Y, But Mr. Tarr said it was 130, , We saw the cutter for a few days several times, and k > It seemed to be in the harbor of Port Hood almost avery nlghe ee Q. Is that correct ?—A. Yes. We anchored under Margaree Island and Cheticamp, and made that a harbor Q. That is where you anchored ?—A. Yes, ‘ Q. Did you make that a harbor ?—A. We staid at Margaree all the ime. Q. How close did you anchor under Margaree Island !—A. Maybe 100 yards from it. : Q. You were inside of the three-mile line !—A. There never were any fish at Margaree Island. Q. Between the island and the mainland, I understood you to say there was the best fishing ?—A. Not between the island and the mainland, but from Broad Cove down to Margaree Island. I drifted down aad anchored there while we got our trip. A. We lay under the lee of these places. We caught the fish inshore. There were me mackerel outside the three-mile limit. I would say that five hundred barrels of mackerel were not caught by the whole fleet outside. There were not five hundred barrels so caaghe. Q. Outside the three-mile limit ?—A. Outside two miles. Q. That was in the year 1852?7—A. Yes. The big mackerel struck into the shore, theagh there were many small mackerel outside, but nothing save mackerel about seven inches 9 length. We heaved to, and we kept out of the way of the cutter. When we threw baw and there was oil about the vessel, the mackerel followed her outside. There were echoes of small mackerel in this part, but of big mackerel we could not get one outelde. Ln ender to catch any fish we had to get inshore against the bank, very close to Cape Eretes. We had to watch our chance to get in, when the cutter was out of the way, in order te catch oar mackerel. We crossed to the island. We made two hundred and thirty barrels. In ite es. Ithought it was 120 myself, _ =, We got shipwrecked, running ashore at Souris. Q. Is that-statement correct ?—A. That part about getting ashore is correct, the other is not correct. Q..I have read you the statement, and I have asked you as I have gone through it whether certain statements were correct !—A. Some of them were. : Q. You deny the accuracy of the 230 barrels ’—A. Yes. Q. And you say that you caught them inshore 1—A. Yea. : ; Q. Those are the two points at which you are at variance 1—A. You. Q. You say you would have caught the fish inside if you could have got them there, and you would have had no atu be 1—A. Yea. ny Q. Is there any other material statements that I have read to yout u incorrect ? ie nates objected to it being assumed that the witness only — to two passages in the statement, which was 80 long and had bees so rapidly that he had not the chance to assent of dissent. By Mr. Davies: . Q. Did you understand the sentences I read from Capt. Chivine® | statement 7?—A. I don’t know. Some of them I did. did not understand [—A. I don’t knoe. Q. Is there any part you Sar aakak 1 etree Q. Did I read so fast you could 1 Q. I ask you now whether or not it is an invariable fer ecaees when you contradict Chivirie excepted—that when fet NE 0 z you catch the fish within three miles ’—A. On se iP aay they were : . y he . Except that one trip on Rio del Norte wl ae a Bat ade and Chivirie says they were taken inside, did y 2198 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. make all your catches of mackerel about Margaree inside the limit ?— A. All but that trip. Q. You have never fished in Bay Chaleurs ?—A. No. Q. Do you understand that a large number of the American fleet did fish there ?—A. No. Q. You never heard that?—A. No. Q. You have never heard that a large number of the American fleet have fished in Bay Chaleurs 7—A. No. Q. At any time ?—A. No. Q. Have you ever conversed with American captains about Bay Cha- leurs fishing ?—A. Yes. Q. Have they ever told you that they fished there?—A. No. Once in a while there would be a vessel go up in the bay, and get nothing, and come out. That is the most I know about Bay Chaleurs. Q. If a number of witnesses come here and say they fished in Ameri- can vessels in that bay, and thaf a large fleet fished there at the same time, what would you say?—A. What do you call up Bay Chaleurs ; from Point Miscou to Port Daniels? I don’t know that ever a great many fished up inside of that. Q. As you have not fished there yourself, you are not prepared to say that vessels were not there 7?—A. I will not swear that a vessel was not there, but a large fleet was not there. Q. Were 30 vessels there at one time fishing ?—A. There might be, but most of the vessels fished around Magdalen Islands—the biggest fleet. Q. I am asking you about Bay Chaleurs ?--A. I don’t know anything about Bay Chaleurs. Q. Then you will not undertake to say that vessels did not fish there ?—A. I never heard about mackerel being caught there. When- ever they get mackerel you most always hear where they get them. Q. About the Magdalen Islands, you have spoken of Bryon Island and Bird Rocks; how far from those did you catch your fish?—A. At Bird Rocks we would fish to a spring. Q. At Bryon Island?—A. Three or four, four or five, or about 12 miles off between the two. You cannot get any mackerel close up to the island. Q. You caught some in Cape North Bay ?—A. Yes. Q. How far from the shore; close in ?—A. We were inside two miles, along there. a i ee Q. Am I correct in saying that fish taken in the fall of the year about Cape Breton Island are very good fish ?—A. They are, some years. Q. The fish taken in June and July are a poorer class, are they not ?— A. Yes. Q. And in the fall the catches are made about Cape Breton more than in spring and summer ?—A. I never heard when I went to the bay of anybody catching any round those places in summer but last year I heard they did. Q. The ‘fish are generally taken there toward the fall of the year ?— A. Yes. Q. I will call your attention to Bay Chaleurs again. I will read from the testimony of Hon. Robert Young, president of the Executive Council of New Brunswick, who lives at Caraquette, New Brunswick. You know that Caraquette is in New Brunswick 7—A. Yes. Q. On page 395 Mr. Young was asked the question in regard to the number of American vessels: Q. How many on an average have you seen in the bay since 1871 ?—A. I should say -about 100; the number may be more. a Pia ¥. OPA {Wider Loy wn INIT ey C aiactieiaenanrenrmneae RS et . _ ae SPAT NRE EON AU aeit AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2199 . Q. Do you contradict that !—A. I could not say. I don't know an thing about Bay Chaleurs, no more than I have rm > Peon to ares in a breeze of wad. saa ahead . Along the west coast of New Brunswick, have you only fishe there ?—A. Only just in sight of the land, and not up the sharas ak Q. Have you heard American captains speak of having fished along there?—A. Yes, at Pigeon Hill, and up inshore; 1 never heard of any catches of mackerel of any account inshore. Q. Have you heard that they did fish there ; and is it one of the fish- ing grounds to which American vessels resort !—A. They do go some times, I think, but not generally. Ste 1 am now referring to the time when you were in the gulf !—A. es. Q. In regard to Prince Edward Island, you did hear there were fish. ing grounds on the north side?—A. Yes. Q. You heard that American vessels frequented there '—A. Yes. Q. Personally you did not, to any extent !—A. No. { Q. Do Canadian vessels go to fish off the American coast!—A. I never saw any there but one or two English vessels. I saw one up there after bait one year. Q. What was her name ?—A. Lettie. There is one there this year, f think from Shelburne. These are all I have seen. By Mr. Foster: Q. When you speak of a trip of mackerel stocking out a certain nam- ber of dollars, what do you mean?!—A. Say $4,000; half goes to the owner, half to the men. ; Q. Are the $4,000 the proceeds of the fish 1—A. Yes. Q. That is what you mean by stocking a voyage !—A. Yea. Q. That the stock sells for so much?—A. The fish sell for se much. If at $10 a barrel it would be $4,000 for 400 barrels. ; Q. When you speak of net stocking, what do you mean !—A. When the barrels, packing, and bait, and all expenses are taken oat, there is net stock left. Q. It is stated in the Fishermen’s Memorial and Record Book : k made in the Bay of St. Lawrence mackerel fishery wee that of the ieee i eilewotke Capt. Gavvee Rouen: in 1865. She was absent aboot Ave meathe, her net stock amounting to $13,725. Does net stock mean after the expenses of the voyage were paid !— A. Yes. ‘Q. Can that be so?—A. Yes. : 0, How many barrels would she sot erg She must have had seven hundred or eight hundred barrels, 500 likely. ee Q. And fies would be sold for how much !—A. A big pend oe and $18, I guess. I have a statement made up concerning the resalts of ome of my own voyages, when I was in the Blue Jacket, in dint pea ' Q. I see from it that on your first trip you took 604 barrels /—A. That was packed. OQ vand on your second trip 372 barrels !—A. This was pac ked. Q. The 604 ‘parrels were sold at $8,500.65 1—A. Yes. And the 372 barrels for nent os es Yes. king together $15,171.72 [—A. Les. | mee Q. a ee that is to be first deducted the cost of packing A ; f bait. - : areas ar rece packing cost $1,664.85, and the bait #025 1—A. Yee -Q. Making together $2,589.59 !—A. Yes. Q. Q. 2200 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Then you subtract from that what the mackerel sold for, which leaves $12,581.87 ?—A. Yes. . Q. I see you have marked this, net stock ?—A. Yes. Q. What is then to be deducted out of that ?—A. Out of the vessel’s half is to be taken the cost of salt and provisions. One-half of the re- sult goes to the crew, and then the cost of salt, and provisions, and run- ning expenses of the vessel are to be paid. Q. Then you divide the $12,581.87 into two parts ?—A. Yes. Q. And out of the vessel’s part come certain charges, and out of the crew’s part certain other charges ?—A. Nothing comes out of the crew’s part save the cost of packing. Q. Then one-half of the $12,581.87 is to be divided among the crew ? —A. Yes. Q. What is to be paid out of the half which belongs to the vessel ?— A. Well, it will cost about $2,000 to run her, I guess. It would take somewhere about that sum. ; Q. Before anything goes to the vessel ?—A. Yes. It may cost more some years, but that is about a fair average, I guess... Q. Then the expression, net stock, means the proceeds of the sale of the mackerel less the cost of packing the mackerel and of the bait ?— A. Yes. By Sir Alexander Galt: Q. I understand you to say that it costs about $2,000 to run the ves- sel ?—A. Yes. By Mz. Foster: Q. What does the $2,000 which you estimate as the owner’s ex- penses consist of —A. It goes for salt and provisions, and other things which are required to run the vessel. Q. What is needed for this besides salt and provisions?—A. You have to buy some rigging and other things like that, which run up to $300 or $400. Q. Taking out this $2,000 from the vessel’s half, the rest goes to pay the owner of the vessel for insurance and interest ?—A. I do not know about insurance ; the $2,000 might cover it all. I think that this covers the insurance for four months some years. Advantage for this purpose is taken of a mutual office, and the cost depends on the result. Q. Is that voyage, of which you have given us the particulars, one of your best?—A. No; I have donea little better than that sometimes. Q. Which voyage did you ever make which was better than this one ? —A. In the Rattler, the last year, I made a better voyage. I then got 3 1,510 barrels. :. Q. Do you remember any other voyage which resulted better than ~— this one ?—A. No; I could not get the particulars of the other one men- tioned, the man with whom I packed having gone away. He had given up the fishing business, else I would have got the particulars of that voyage. Q. I notice some catches on the United States coast which were pretty satisfactory to the owners and all concerned : Schooner Seddie C. Pyle, Capt. Richard Warren, in 1871, packed 1,070 barrels mackerel caught off this shore in addition to 18,000 southern mackerel sold fresh in New York in the spring. Her net stock for the year was $10,561.66. High-liner’s share, $491.38 ; cook’s share, $708.52. Owned by George Friend & Co. A. Yes. Q. Would that be a correct statement of the voyage as far as you know ?—A. Yes; that is correct. a . ~*~ 4 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2201 Q. Then there was the— | Schooner Eureka, Captain Rowe, jn 1868, in six months mackere! packed 935 barrels, her stock amounting to $10,748.33. ae 20 Gis thom share, $473.70. Owned by Smith & Gett and the wranter er” ee HOME: cmat’s 5 Fi . aaa a mae seenene apparently '—A. Yes . When you said that one of your vessel ked &5 f Mn Se has mean ?7—A, I Siegen $5,000, a nee e ESO a a, ; at do you mean by that?—A. I he amor mone aes ler paying all passant po ees secant ot . That was not the net stock, but you made &5,000?~— cr stocked about $17,000. ata ee ee ; a Then your vessel that seined last summer stocked #17,000'—A. f Q. What was her net stock ?—A. That was about the net stock. She _ ran fresh mackerel. When you run fresh mackerel you take the cost of the oe out of the whole stock—the gross stock. A vessel always has tay ing to come out of it, and that brought what was cleared down’ to 9 . _ Q. I would like you to tell me what is the most money you ever made in your business in all its branches in any one year in your life '—A, The year I had the Blue Jacket I had another vessel, the Kattler; she packed a little over 1,000 barrels that year, I think. Green has it oa us spas now. I sold the vessel, and I guess I likely made $10,000 at year. . Q. That was your best year; the $10,000 includes the profit you made on the sale of the vessel; your two vessels did remarkably well that year, and one of them you yourself commanded !—A. Yes. Q. You put in your own time ?—A. Yes. Q. What was the most money which you ever made in any one year out of your catch of mackerel in the Gulf of St. Lawrence !—A. That was the year. Q. What is the most money you ever made out of the catch of a vee sel which you commanded in one year!—A. I could not tell yoo. In | | a the Rattler that year 1 got 1,510 barrels, but I could not tell yoa how much I made out of it. If, however, I had the statement for that year, I could do so. Q. Going outside the profit you made on the sale of your veasol, coald | you give the Commission an estimate of the average which yoa made during those years when you were skipper, going for mackerel to the gulf to fish? You were avery successful fisherman, in command of good vessels, and you had a series of lucky years ; and if you coaki give the average amount of money which you made during these years, I would like to have it—A. I suppose that I may have cleared about - $1,000 a year, all the year round, in my whole business. : Q. Do you mean over and above family expenses 1—A. Yea; aboat that, and during 20 years. ; Q. Would you put down your family expenses, on the average, as $1,000 more a year ?—A. They would be something like that, I gacee ; Q. Then you have made about $2,000 a year on. the average, oat © which you have paid your family expenses 1—A. Yes. sie z Q. During the examination of Captain Chivirie, he was asxes Q. You came down to the bay to fish ?—A. We went out on the Ameriesa comet 7—A. Yes. Is that correct ?—A she was about sixty toas, I Q. “The vessel was of rather small size ; ; “ think, and this is the reason why we went out on the American cost. 2202 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. What do you say about that ?—A. That is not correct. The vessel was as large as the average then in use. I used to go to Georges Bank in her, and everywhere. I went in her to Georges Bank all the year round, never hauling up in December, January, or at any other time. Q. ‘‘ We found the fish to be very small, though there were a great many in that quarter.” How is that?—A. They were small and they fetched a low price. Q. “In about four weeks we caught one hundred and ten barrels, and having landed them, we had repairs made, and fitting out, came down the bay, where most of the fleet was.”—-A. That is correct. Q. ‘‘ We fished between Port Hood and Cheticamp.”—A. That is cor- rect. Q. “ We made all our trip there, and were about fourteen or fifteen days on that part of the coast.”.—-A. That is correct. Q. ‘‘ When we first came to Port Hood we found a cutter in the bay.” —A. That is correct. Q. “A large fleet was there, but we did not mind the cutter or any- thing else.”—A. That is not correct. Q. What part of it is incorrect?—A. That which relates to not mind- ing the cutter. We did mind her, for if there had been no cutter there we would have tried inshore. Q. Was there a large fleet there?—A. No, not very large. There were about 30 sail of vessels. Q. “The captain says, ‘I am going to have mackerel.’” Do you re- member that ?—A. No; I do not. Q. You perhaps know whether you were likely to tell this young fel- low of 18 or 20 your plans in that way ?—A. I did not do so. Q. “And we got them anyhow; and we succeeded.” What do you say to that?—A. We got 130 barrels and that was all. Q. “In a fortnight we had caught two hundred and thirty or forty barrels. We saw the cutter for a few days several times and we kept out of Port Hood Harbor”?—A. We never went to Port Hood after we went down. We made harbor at Margaree Island. Q. “ It seemed to be in the harbor of Port Hood almost every night?’ —A. Yes; she used to go up there every night unless it was very pleas- ant, when she would lay off the island. Q. “ We anchored under Margaret Island and Cheticamp, and made that a habor”?—A. That is correct. Q. ‘ We lay under the lee of these places”?—-A. That is correct. Q. “ We caught the fish all inshore ”?—A. That is not correct. Q. “There were no mackerel outside the three-mile limit”?—A. That is not correct. There were more mackerel inside than outside the limit where the English vessels were, [ think. The English vessels would try inshore in the morning, when we would bear up and run out, and along about nine or ten o’clock they would come out where we were, and that made me think that there were no mackerel inshore—not but that there were plenty of them inshore after the gale. ‘Q. “There were not five hundred barrels so caught”? Q. Outside the 3-mile limit ?—A. Outside of 2 miles. Q. That was in the year 1852?—A. Yes. The big mackerel struck into the shore, though ae ere many small mackerel outside, but nothing save small mackerel about 7 inches in lengt A. That is wrong. Q. ‘I would say that five hundred barrels of mackerel were not caught — by the whole fleet outside ”?—A. That is not correct. Q. “We heaved to, and we kept out of the way of thecutter?”—A. We ea a * aS Fe has to keep his vessel in re AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2203 kept out of the way of the cutter because c ; and that was because we kept outside of ketene Beigsctecicis Q. ‘When we threw bait ‘and there was oil about the vensel, the mackerel followed her outside” !—A. I forget sueh things aa those. Q. There were schools of small mackerel in this part, bat of bi mackerel we could not get one outside; in order to cateh any feb = had to get inshore against the bank, very close to Cape Breton” f— A. That is wrong. ? Q. “ We had to watch our chance to get in, when the entter was oat of the way, in order to catch our mackerel” !—A. There was no chance of getting inshore at all. Q. “In 1852 we got shipwrecked running ashore at Souris” !—A. That is correct. Q. “We crossed to the island. We made 230 barrels” !—A. That ts not correct. Q. “Our main object was to charter a British vessel and pot some of our experienced fishermen on her, so as to fish without any fear of «he cutters” ?—A. I never thought of such a thing. Res Did you ever speak of such a thing to any human being '—A. 0. Q. Had you the means to charter an English vessel!—A. No. Q. And after your vessel was wrecked you say that you sent for the underwriters and came home ?—A. Yes. Q. What did you do with your 130 barrels of mackerel !—A. | shipped them home in another vessel. : Q. Did you try to fish any more up here that year!—A. No. Q. Did you make any arrangements to do so that yearf—A. No. When that gale of wind commenced everybody got kind of frightened. The water was stirred up and thick, and weall gave up and weat home. By Mr. Davies: Q. I think you said that the $2,000 which you put down for the ex penses of the vessel includes everything for wear and tear, rigging, sup- plies, insurance, and other vessel expenses {—A. That is only a roagh guess. Q. But that is your estimate !—A. I think that it would be abot that; if you reckon in the charter it would be about $1,000 more. We paid $1,000 for chartering a vessel that year. ; Q. This $1,000 would be additional if you chartered a vessel '—A. Yes, -Q. You mentioned in your items of expense salt and provisions !—A. ee. eee Q. And $300 or $400 for rigging, wear and tear !—A. Yea. Q. Do you include these items in the 82,000 7—A. I think that would - cover them. By Mr. Foster: Q. What wear and tear do you mean + trip in the bay wears out sails and rigging; and pay $1.000 for it, the charterer does not poe ee | pair, which will cost 83500 or 8400. an {—A. A vessel on a foar monthe’ and if you charter 4 veer! ket 81,000 clear, as be By Mr. Davies: fishing Q. Would not $250 a mouth ing be a fair price for the charter of a - schooner ?—A. I think so. By Sir Alexander Galt: -Q. You have had a great experience in these matters; and I woald 2204 : AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. like to ask you whether you do not think that $2,000 is not a little too high for the purposes in question ?—A. I do not know but what it is. Q. How many men would there be on board a vessel ?7-—A. We carried from 15 to 22 in the Wildfire and Blue Jacket. The cost of salt and bait mounted up to a pretty figure then, though this is not now the case. Q. One of the witnesses has told us that salt costs 90 cents a barrel ? —A. That is now; but in the war times salt was high as well as every- thing else. Q. Would you put down for provisions for the crew about $1.50 a week per man?—A. Well, I guess that would not be far out of the way. No. 22. THURSDAY, September 27, 1877. The Conference met. AARON RIGGS, master-mariner, of Gloucester, Mass., was called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Trescot : Question. How old are you ?—Answer. 57. Q. How long have you fished in the Gulf of St. Lawrence ?—A. When I first went there, I was 15 years old. Q. How long have you been going there as skipper ?—A. I first went as skipper in 1845. Q. In what vessel ?—A. The Deposit. Q. What was your catch that year ?—A. 130 barrels. Q. Whereabouts were they taken ?—A. We fished on Bank Bradley. _Q. That was the only trip you made that year ?—A. Yes. Q. And you caught all your fish on Bank Bradley ?—A. Yes. Q. Were you in the bay in 1847 ?—A. Yes; in another vessel. I was not the skipper Q. When did you go to the bay again as skipper ?—A. In 1854. Q. Where were you fishing in 1847, ’8, and ’9?—A. I was fishing on | our shore. Q. What sort of fishing did you have there during those years, as a general rule?—A. Well, we had pretty good fishing; one year we got between 600 and 700 barrels. I was not skipper at the time. Q. When did you next go into the Gulf of St. Lawrence ?—A. I was there in 1854. Q. Were you not there in 1850?—A. Yes; in 1850 and 1851 I was in the bay, but I was not skipper. Q. What vessel were you in during 1850 ?—A. The Gazelle. (. Where did you fish?—A. We caught our fish between Point Es- cuminac and North Cape. Q. What did you catch?—A. We made 2 trips, and caught 240 or 250 _ barrels on the first and 175 barrels on the second. Q. Did you fish inshore onany of those occasions?—A. No; not within 3 miles of the shore. Q. Were you in the bay in 1851?—A. Yes; and made two trips. Q. Where did you catch your fish ?—A. About North Cape. : Q. At what distance from it?7—A. Ten or 15 miles, and maybe 20 miles. Q. Were you in the bay in 1852 ?—A. No. Q. Or in 1853 ?—A. No. Q. Were you there in 1854?—A. Yes. CO OTR ETE TY PRT oO I a ey SN caer RTS AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 2205 a wae did you Es fish?—A. About all over the not you exactly where we got our fish th ; then pretty scarce. I was in tlhe Ohio at the ia ies. Q. What was your catch ?—A. Two hundred barrels, _Q. What proportion of these 200 barrels was taken within the 3-mile limit?—A. About 20 barrels, I think. The cutters were round then, and we did not fish inshore at all; I do not know that we got any fish in. shore that year. Q. In what vessel were you in 1856?—A. The Leading Star. Q. Where did you tish in her ?—A. Over at the Magdalen Islands Q. What did you catch ?—A. About 230 barrels. Q. In what vessel were you in 1857 —A. The Ellen Francis, I think. Q. Whereabouts did you fish —A. We got them to the por’ard of the Magdalen Islands—between there and Bank Orphan. Q. In what vessel were you in 1858’—A. The Ellen Francia. Q. Where did you fish ?—A. We fished some off Point Miscou, Bank Orphan, and Gaspé Bank. ; Q. During how many years from 1857 on did you fish in the gulf? You did so in 1858, 1859, and 1860, and up to what time !—A. The last time I was fishing there was in 1875; I was not skipper at the time; but we did not stop in the bay at all that season. Q. You fished in the bay in 1858,’9, and 1360, 1, '2, °3, ‘4, 5, "6, "7, 9, 1870, 71, ’2, 73, 4, and ’5?7—A. Yes; but I was not skipper either in 1873 or 1875. - Q. You were skipper all these years, 1873 and 1875 excepted '—A, Yes. Q. Without going into the trips particularly, state where you fished, when on these trips, as a general rule.-—A. We caught the biggest part of our fish at the Magdalen Islands,and we took about 200 barrels dowa bay. I could -, off Margaree. Q. During that time, as your recollection serves you, what propor: tion of your fish did you take within the 3-mile limit!—A. | could set say that we caught more than one-twelfth part there while | was te the a . : d. What was the best fishing which you did during that time t—A. We always did our best fishing over at the Magdalen Islands. 1 got as high as 140 wash-barrels, or about 125 barrels at one time, and 900 bar: rels during my best trip these years. Q. When was that ?—A. In 1864. _ Q. In what vessel were you at the time !—A. The Galena. ‘Q. How many trips did you make that year !—A. We only made owe trip before we landed 300 barrels in the gut. We carried them all bome sara ht 900 barrels '—A. Yes. . And that year you caught + yparrels T—A. 3. What was the “eareat approach that you made to that cateb dar- ing the other years ?—A. The next year we got 650 barrels. Mer _ Q. Where were the 900 barrels mostly taken [—A. To the nor the Magdalen Islands. : oad : Q. arid the next year you caught 650 barrels 1—A. Y ° ; we dear about northwest and about 75 miles from East Point, Prince & Island. ar ne With your experience of the fishing in the Galf hres prigptgainn do you attach much value to the privilege of fishing wit m : . = limit ?—No; I do not. I never caught any fish withio that hm “e. ‘When fishing in the gulf, what was your experience with regard 2206 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. to the safety of fishing about the Magdalen Islands?—A. Well, I call that the safest place there is in the bay for fishing purposes. I was once caught in the bend of the island and I did not fancy it. The ves- sel went ashore, but nevertheless we got out of our difficulty safe. Q. Do you know the number of mackerel-fishing vessels which are now in the gulf from Gloucester ?—A. I do not. Q. Do you know, speaking generally, whether the number of these vessels from Gloucester is now larger, or as largeas or smaller, than it used to be ?—A. O, it is smaller. Q. With your experience, which would you rather have, $2 per barrel duty levied on fish which competes with yours or the privilege of com- ing within the three-mile limit in British waters ?—A. Well, I should rather have the $2 duty. : By Mr. Davies: Q. Isee you have a memorandum; did you make it up in order to give in your evidence ?—A. I made it up for the years during which I was fishing. Q. In 1850 you were in the Gazelle ?—A. Yes; but I was not master. Q. In what vessel were you in 1851 ?—A. In the Leading Star; but I was not master. Q. What did you cate ?—A. On both trips we got between 300 and 400 barrels. Q. In 1854 you were in the Ohio ?—A. Yes. Q. And in 1856 you were in the Leading Star?—-A. No; I was in the John. Q. Where were you in 1857 ?—A. I was in the Ellen Francis. Q. And in 1858?—A. I was then in the Leading Star. Q. What did you take that year ?—A. 230 barrels. Q. And in 1857 ?—A. I was in the bay two trips that year; we got 230 barrels on the first and 175 barrels on the second. Q. In what vessel were you in in 1859?—A. The Leading Star. ~ Q. What was your catch 7—A. 260 barrels. Q. And in 1860?—A. I was then in the Anglo Saxon. Q. What was your catch ?—A. 300 barrels. Q. And 1861 ?—A. I was then in the Anglo Saxon. Our catch was 300 barrels. In 1862 I was in the Ellen Francis; our catch was 200 barrels. In 1863 I was in the Weather Gauge; catch, about 500 barrels. In 1864, in the Galena; catch, 900 barrels. In 1865 I was in the River Dale. @. Are you sure whether it was in 1864 or’5 that you were in the Galena ?—A. It was in 1864, [ am positive. I will take my oath to it. Q. How many did you catch in 1865 ?—A. 650 barrels. (. In what vessel were you in 1866 ?—A. The John Bright. Q. What was your catch ?—A. 750 barrels. Q. In what vessel were you in 1867 ?—A. The Alaska. Q. What was your catch ?7—A. About 500 barrels. We made two trips. Q. In what vessel were you in 1868 ?—A. The Rush Light; our catch was 300 barrels. I was also in her in 1869, when our catch’ was about 300 barrels. In 1870 I was in the same vessel ; and our catch was about 270 barrels. In 1871 I was in the same vessel; our catch wasa little short of 200 barrels. In 1872 I was in the same vessel, and our catch was about 250 barrels. Q. In what vessel were you in 1873?—A. I cannot think of the name. I was not skipper at the time. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2207 Q. And 1874 ?—A. I was not in the bay that year. Q. Were you in the bay in 1875!—A. Yes; in the Martha C., bat we are ~~ ong as nee did not get/any mackerel at all. a . How long did you remain in the bay !~A. We tried to seine, but we did not get any fish at on ee Q. Who was captain of the Galena when you were in her !—A. I was. Q. Do you know Captain Beatton !—A. Yes. . Q. Did you know him when he was captain of the Galena !—A. Yee: it was in 1865 when he was captain of that vessel. ; Q. Did you see him in the bay in 1865!~A. Yes, : Q. Do you know what he caught that year!—A. No, I do not reeol. ect. Q. Or where he caught them ?—A. No. Q. Was Joseph Beatton, of West Point, in the Galena the year you were captain of her ?—A. No. Q. You said you fished all over the bay some years '—A. Yes; we fished in different parts of it. : Q. Have you fished at all about Seven Islands !—A. No; | never fished there. Q. It is a fishing ground for some fishermen !—A. I suppose so. Q. Have you heard American captains speak of it as a fishing ground ?—A. I have heard them speak of catching mackerel there. | heard James Pattilo tell about catching mackerel there. Q. He is an American captain ’—A. He has been one, bat he was not one then. He used to belong up here in Nova Scotia somewhere. Q. Did he fish in American vessels ?—A. He has fished in them. Q. ,Did you ever fish along the Gaspé shore about Bonaventure !—A. I fished along about northwest of Bonaventure—jast in sight of it. Q. You never fished close in there !—A. No. _~- Q. Do you know whether any of the fishing fleet fish about there at times ?—A. The vessels that do so are very scattered, I guess. Q. Have you heard fishermen speak of it as a fishing groand !—A. It used to be such. Q. And is now, for aught you know to the contrary; you have not been there to test it?—A. No; not of late years. Q. There is a celebrated place which has been frequently mentioned before the Commission—the Bay of Chaleurs—have you ever on | there?—A. I have been up there, but I never caught any mackere there. : . Did you ever try there ?—A. Yes; off Paspebiac. G: Péshaps you fished only in the center of the bay; did you come within the three-mile limit there !—A. No. , Q. And therefore you an aot eres ae : ' . Ldo not wonder at that ?—A. At what 3. Your not getting any fish there !—A. There were — as Ae . Q. If you did not go inshore to try, I do not see how neg net | ane | did you try within three miles of the shore there —A. th in - the boats fishing, and they did not get any. I spoke to oo naw beats Q. How often were you in the Bay of Chaleurs, ybcge ht peste 2 ! . 1ave _ fishing there ?—A. I do not suppose that I have been ther moa i in my life. . z eet there you only tried beyond three miles from th gg ea fish ?—A. Yes. New Bransw ck | Q. Did you ever try along the West Shore, on the Sew _ coast ?—A. Yes. i> —A, No. 2208 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. That is a rather noted fishing-ground, is it not ?7—A. Yes, I have tried in there pretty handy. Q. Not when the cutters were about, I hope 7—A. No, we did not do so then. Q. When ‘the cutters were away, you tried there?—-A. When I had a license I tried in there. Q. And how did you succeed then ?—A. Wecould not find any mack- erel inshore there, save what the boats catch, and those I call eel-grass mackerel. Q. But you did not catch them ?—A. Q. Therefore you did not even get eel- me mackerel there ?—A. We did not get any. Q. During the years when you had a license you did try in along the West Shore, and were not successful ?—A. One year we did so, and one year we did not, catching all our mackerel that season over at the Mag- dalen Islands. Q. And the year you tried in there, you did not catch any fish at all ? —A. We never caught any fish in there. Q. Even when you had a license ?—A. No. Q. Vessels frequent that fishing-ground at times?—A. They go all over the bay. Q. You have heard of that place as a fishing-ground?—A. Yes. -Q. Did you ever try around Prince Edward Island 7—A. No, not that year. Q. Or any year?—A. Yes, I have tried around Prince Edward Islanda good many times. Q. We have evidence of the fleet going there to fish up and down the shore of the Island ?—A. I never caught but very few mackerel round Prince Edward Island. I took them just in sight of land, ten miles off. Q. Did you come nearer to the shore then ten miles ?—A. I have hove to within one mile of it, but I never caught any fish. Q. You hove to and drifted off?—A. Yes. 1 drifted as much as five or six miles off. . =. Were other vessels doing the same thing when you were there 7— .. Yes. Q. Were there many of them?—A. There might have been a dozen or twenty sail. Q. Within sight of you ?—A. Yes. Q. Off what particular part of the island did you try?—A. Up be- tween the First and Second Chapel. Q. Toward East Point ?—A. Yes. The First Chapel is about nine miles from there, and the other is about fifteen miles up. @. I understand that the ground between the First and Second Chapel is a good fishing ground; has it that reputation ?—A. I never found it to be so. Q. Have you heard it so spoken of among American fishermen ?—A. Yes; I have heard folks speak of it; but it is not such a good fishing ground as the Magdalen Islands. It does not begin to be like the Mag- dalen Islands. Q. Have you heard of the ground between First and Second Chapel spoken of by American captains or fishermen as being a good fishing- ground?—A. Yes; along about the middle of September I have heard of them getting spurts of mackerel there. Q. The fleet goes there every year, more or less ?—A. Some vessels do so, and some do not. Q. Have you fished up off Rustico and New London, and Malpeque 5 Island ?—A. I never did, round the Island. culated getting within three miles of the lan¢ AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2209 and that part of the island !—A. Ihave caught 5 from New London Head. ght mackerel about 15 miles Q. You were not fishing within three miles of = No; I was from 10 to 15 miles off shore. Se en oe _Q. Did you never come inshore and drift off there when you had a license 7—A. When I had a license we never tried inside of the three mile limit. The first year I had a license | only tried two or three times _ there, and then went over to the Magdalen Islands and Bank Bradley. Q. You never tried off Tignish ?—A. No, Q. Nor off North Cape ?—A. No. Q. Then, with one exception, when you tried inshore between the two Chapels, you never went within three miles of the shore at Prince Bd. ward Island to fish? Will you make that assertion before the Commis sion ?—A. I never caught any fish there within the three-mile limit. We might have been within this limit, but I do not think that we were. Three miles on the water is a short distance. Q. When you were or might have been within three miles of the shore there, did you catch any fish?—A No. Wedrifted seven or eight miles off. Q. And you caught fish 7 or 8 miles off shore !—A. Yes. Q. Did you draw mackerel with you from the shore !—A. The mack erel were not there in the first place when we hove to. Q. Did you ever hear of vessels coming within 1 or 1} miles of the island, throwing out bait, drifting off and catching fish !—A. I never did —save as to boats. ie Q. Did you ever hear of American vessels ranning in to within 2 miles or 14 miles or a mile, or about that of the island shore with the object of fishing, throwing out bait, and then drifting off, fishing as they weat '— A. No. Q. You did that once yourself off Two Chapels !—A. I bove to aod drifted off,-but we did not get any mackerel until we were 6 miles off. Q. And from 10 to 20 vessels were then doing the same thing !—A. Yes. : w Q. How often did you repeat that practice the same year i_—A. We might have done so that day once or twice, and then we ran off to some other place. ’ es Ni : Q. It was only one day daring which you tried it !—A. Yea. ie Q. And you have only had one dlay’s tishing within 3 miles of ¢ shore of Prince Edward Island ?—A. Yes. - . Q. You are quizzing me about the 3-mile limit.—A. 0, lam pot. - -Q. Had you more than one day’s fishing withio 3 miles of the tsa coast ?—A. Idonotthink that] did. d Q. And you never caught any tish within 3 miles of Prince Edward : oC © Q. Not even the day you went inshore near Two ¢ hapels aod drifted off ?—A. No. I call it six miles off where I canght a ony land '—A Q. Then you only tried once inshore off Prince Sipe aes Yes. We were then within or about three miles off, I — ? siiea tos Q. In all your fishing experience, that was the a time a ae tried within three miles of the Prince Edward Island shore '—. within what I call three miles. ae PEL Q. Your three miles must be the same as fnine Days se! ated ere Q. Is there any difficulty in telling when she are three i casacaa Pi be « E Ye 3 2 it save wit 1 my eye. am ’ island coast ?—A. I never meaali _ 1, especially when the steam ers were there. 139 F 2210 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. _ Q. Especially when the cutters were there ?—A. Well, I never did so; they used to run upand down, three miles off shore, and we used to fish outside of that. Q. During the whole term of the Reciprocity Treaty, or nearly so at all events, you were fishing in the Bay of St. Lawrence 7?—A. Yes. Q. And then you had aright to fish within three miles of the shore ?— A. Yes. Q. Do I understand you to say that during this period you never fished within three miles of the island coast ?—A. Yes. Q. I understand you to say that ever since you have fished in the bay, you never fished within three miles of Prince Edward Island, with one exception ?—A. Yes. Q. Is there any doubt in your mind as to where the three-mile line runs ?—A. It is hard to tell where it runs unless you measure the dis- tance. When you do so with your eyes, you have to go by your judg- ment. : Q. In point of fact, Captain Riggs might have been within the three- mile limit, but did not think that this was the case ?—A. I do not think that he was. Q. Might you have been ?—A. I might have been if I measured it; I suppose you could not tell anything about it. Q. You might have been; but you did not measure it; and I suppose that: you would not be very particular about it if you were catching fish ?—A. As long as we were catching fish I did not trouble myself about it, since I knew that we were six miles off shore. The steamer used to run up about three miles off shore, and we always used to fish outside of her. Q. But there was no steamer so running during the Reciprocity Treaty?—A. No; but we never fished round there during that time. Q. When you had a right to go inshore and fish you did not go ?—A. No. @. You have fished about the Cape Breton shore ?7—A. Yes. Q. This would be towards the fall of the year?—A. Yes; I got the biggest part of a trip there. @. When do the mackerel strike the Cape Breton shore ?—A. In Oc- tober. Q. Do the fleet fish much there’in October ?—A. They used to do so ; but of late years they have not caught any fish there at all. Q. Have you tried of late years there ?—A. No. (. Have you been there of late years?—A. No; not since 1867. Q. Then you cannot tell whether fish are caught there or not ?—A. Well, I have never heard of anybody catching them thus. Q. But before that you did ?—A. Yes. (. Did you catch your whole fare there ?—A. Not quite. (). How many barrels did you take there ?—A. About 209. Q. When was this ?—A. In 1867. (. Was that the only time that you ever caught fish there ?—A. Yes. Q. Perhaps it was the only time you ever tried there 7—A. No. Q@. Did you try there every year ?—A. No; I may have been there a dozen times from first to last. I cannot speak more particularly on this point. Q. Do you believe that you have tried there a dozen times ?—A. I have done so for mackerel, but I never got any there save once. Q. And that was when you caught about 200 barrels there ?—A. Yes. Q. You never caught any at all there on the other occasions ?—A. No; I don’t recollect of having done so. ee Re 2 i RT the John Bright. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2211 Q. Where did you try there ?—A. We used down. We used to catch all our mack vee yrieehad nage way Bp end Magdalen Islands. ae ee Point and the G, Name the places whereyou taeda, We ata oaroe, p ere you tried.— A. We did so about Cheticamp Q. Is this the place where you think you tried at pis oe and on yes, at different times. ~ Nel Sek nara ieee ee - How close to the shore did you try ‘— i some times four miles off. a a aa Q. And you never tried within the three-mile limi I do ee ae ee-mile limit except ones '—A. . And then you caught 200 barrels !—A. We cau Sapa “ —A. caught them oataide he eee limit, I expect; they were taken at a place called Q. That is to the southward of Margaree _—A. Yes. Q. How far from the shore were you when you caught 200 barrels there?—A. We might have been 24 or 3 miles or so off. _Q. You just told me that you did not catch any within the three mile limit ?—A. I do not think, however, but that we were three miles off. Q. What, then, do you mean by telling me that you caught them 2) or 3 miles off ?—A. Some we got outside the limits and some inside. eine exactly or give a fair statement about it; I never measured Q. We know that no fisherman measures it; but, as. an experieooed mariner, you are able to form a judgment on the matter. Now tell es frankly what proportion of the 200 barrels you caught within the three mile limit—A. It might have been 150. : Q. And the rest might have been taken outside —A. Yea. Q. And that was the only time when you fished there within three miles of the shore ?—A. It was. Q. And for a very short time you fished 4 or 5 miles off the Cape Breton shore and caught nothing —A. Yes; we just tried, bat did pes fish in there because there were no fish there. Q. And you have been fishing all these years in the bay, and you have never tried but once within three miles of the Prince Edward Island Q. You never fished in the Bay of Chaleurs or off the Weat Shore, within three miles of the coast, and never but ouce withio three miles of the Cape Breton shore. How often did you take out licenses, !—A. Twice. : est af the Q. Why did you take them out ?—.\. I did so at the reqa owners, else I should not have taken them out. Q. Who were the owners 7—A. George Norwood was the owner of o? They must bave known that yo e three-mile limit.—A. They, wanted to nd they did not know where, ¥e weald but they insisted on, it, and se Q. Why did the owners do s never caught any fish within th be safe. Cutters were round, a fish. I told them that it was of Do Use, I took them out. Q. If you always fished around the Magdalen Islands, and in the center of the Bay of Chaleurs, and ou Bradley and Orphan Banks, «bere no cutters were, why did you want licenses !—A. Well, that did = make any odds. If they told me to take them oat I had to do =. told them where I commonly fished, but they said they wished licenses to be taken out. 2212 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Excuse me; it was not where you commonly fished, but where you invariably fished.—A. Yes; about every year that I have fished in the bay, I have fished round the Magdalen Islands and on Bank Bradley. Q. In all your experience, you only fished twice within three miles of the shore in the bay; and notwithstanding that fact you took out licenses, though you had invariably fished in the deep sea where you ran no risk—those two times excepted. Does not that strike you as being a little curious ?—A. No; I do not think that there is anything curious about it. ‘ Q. What was the size of the vessels in which you fished during the two years when you took out licenses ?— A. Oue was 132 tons, and the other, I think, 51 tons. Q. Suppose that you were cruising along the coast of Cape Breton when you had no license, and saw fine fishing within the limits, would you have kept out or would you have gone in and taken fish ?—A. I cannot tell anything about that. Q. What is your opinion about it ?-—A. I do not think I should have gone in if the cutters were round, or any such thing as that. Q. But if the cutters were not round ?—A. I should not have gone in; I should not have known anything about it. Q. You would not then have measured the distance you were from the shore to see whether the school was within three miles of the shore or not ?—A. Yes. Q. How would you have measured it 7—A. With my eye. Q. What do you think would have been the result; would it have been that you were 3} miles from the shore 7?—A. The cutters took ves- sels 7 or 8 miles off. Q. Don’t you think that that amusing eye of yours would have made the distance 34 or 34 miles?—A. No; IL do not think it would. Q. During the years when you came down to the bay, how many Gloucester vessels came to the Gulf of St. Lawrence? Take the time when the Reciprocity Treaty was in foree.—A. There were 250 or 300; about 250, I guess, or 275, or along there; that would be as many as were there. Q. You say you would prefer a duty being imposed on our mackerel to the right to fish inshore in British waters ?—A. I should. Q. Why do you want a duty on ?—A. It is no benefit to us to fish in- shore that I ever saw. Q. Why do you want it on?—A. Well, we would have a better mar- ket for our fish. Q. Would you get a higher price for them ?—A. We should; yes. Q. And therefore you are speaking as a fisherman; as such you would like to get the highest price you could for your fish ?—A. Cer- tainly. Q. You think that the imposition of a duty would give you a better market ?..-A. Yes; if Canadians had to pay the duty, it is likely they would not fetch the fish in. Q. What would be the result of that?—A. We would have a higher price and a quicker market. Q. You would have a higher price?—A. I do not know that this would be the case, or anything about it; but it would be a quicker mar- ket for us. Q. I see that you fished chiefly in the bay; you did not often go on the American coast to fish ?—A. I fished there some years. Q. But very few apparently ?—A. For several years I did so, I guess. Ove year I was in the bay, and went out with 100 barrels; and then fished on our coast, where I got 500 barrels. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2213 Q. I understand that from 1856 down to 1872 you fished | ‘ Sie nvarial oo on Ate heehee Yes; but I was not oA Atti the serv ra . q . And during those years you were not, of 5 ' ne eee Yes; some years. raat te la aa Q. Between 1856 and 1872 ?—A. Yes; I fished BENT Or tie bay: ied on our coast after we Q. Every year ?—A. No; not every year. 7 me some years you did so?—A. Yes. . What catches did you there make in the fall after yoa left bay 7—A. One fall we got 200 barrels. eal, Q. Is that a high or low catch for the fall ’—A. It was jast aboot an average catch that fall, I think. ; Q. Possibly ; but is that a fair average of the catches you made dar. ing different falls on the American coast ?—A. Well, no. h Q. Would 60 barrels be under the average '—A. No; | guess about f 100 barrels would be an average catch there in October, ; Q. Did you ever fish about Grand Manan ?—A. No. ‘ ; Q. You were never on that coast at all?— A. No. Q. Have you ever heard of the fisheries there !—A. I have heard tell _ of fishing on the Grand Manan Banks. E Q. What was said about it 7—A. I heard of the catch of codfish there. By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: f Q. You said during cross-examination, there was one time when yoo were in the bay, but stayed only a short time and went out. I ander stood you to say that you remained there about three weeks [—A. Yea. ' Q. When did you then leave the bay 7—A. The tirst of September. | Q. Did you do so because you did not catch any fish !—A. Yes; we went in with a seine. “+ Q, Did you ever fish off Rustico ?—.\. No; not broad off, ; Q. Have you ever been in the neighborhood of Rustico Bay 1—A. No. "Q. Where do they fish off Rustico generally !—A, The boats there Beh close inshore. Q. Where do the vessels fish there ?—A. I do not know, I do pot know anything about the fishing off there. | Q. Isit within the means of fishermen in the waters there to obtain intelligence about the fishing at the different localities which the mack erel frequent, without visiting these places themselves ! If you were, for instance, at the mouth of the Bay of Chaleurs, or io tf, conkd yoa hear one day‘after another whether mackerel were to be caught in cer. | tain localities without visiting them ’—-\. Yes. - Q. Whether this is true or not as to the coast generally, ts there 7 | a sort of fisherman’s telegraph passing intelligence from ope veme . 1! another with respect to the different lucalities here the fish are '—A. oy i his is the case. . any on learn whether the mackerel are in certain arp without visiting them ?—A. Yes; we speak 8 thothes teers ee will give us such information. . - wall » } 4 If af the of Gloucester, Was called on beoal @ JOHN J. ROWE, fisherman, ates, sworn and examined. Government of the United St By Mr. Dana: ae Question. Were you born in Gloucester _—Answe ¥ Ve tae ‘Q. When did you first 30 fishing ?—-\. Somewhere 2214 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. think. I was but a youngster at the time, and I went fishing on our shore. Q. How did you do that year ?—A. Not much of anything. Prob- ably during the whole season we got 150 or 200 barrels; the mackerel were not very plentiful that year. The next voyage I made was in 1842 in the bay, in the Tremont. Q. How much did you then take ?—A. We packed out 47 barrels. Q. For how many did you fit out ?—A. About 250 barrels. Q. What was the trouble ?—A. There were no fish in the bay. Q. How long did you stay there?—A. We went out. on the 8th of July, and we arrived home on the 8th of November. Q. Where did you try in the bay ?—A. We tried in every possible part of the bay where the fish went; then we did not go up above Gaspé, but around Banks Bradley and Orphan. Q. And the Magdalen Islands ?—A. Yes; and to all the offshore grounds where the fish were generally found. Q. Were there many American vessels in the bay then ?—A. The fleet was very few in number. Q. They had not begun to send large fleets into the bay at that time? —A. O, no; very few Gloucester vessels were then there in my recol- lection. -Q. And the American vessels then in the bay were not very many ?— A. They were very few. Most of the American vessels which were then sent to the bay came from Newburyport. Our fleet had not begun to increase much then. Q. Where were you fishing from 1843 to 1854 ?—A. On our shore. Q. How did you do on the whole?—A. We did generally a fair busi- ness; the fishery there was better then than it is now. Q. What did you catch ?—A. Mackerel and codfish; during the early part of the season we fished for cod on George’s Bank, and during the latter part of it we fished round our coast. - Q. Did you try in the bay at all during those 11 years from 1843 to 1854?—A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Between 1843 and 1854, did you go into the bay at all?—A, I did. Q. When did you do so?—A. In 1851. Q. Were you there at the time of the gale?—A. Yes; I was there with James Pattillo. Q. How much did you take that year?—A. We packed out somewhere about 480 barrels. Q. Where were they caught ?—A. Some of them broad off Gaspé and on Banks Bradley and Orphan, and along there. We fished more to the nor’ard then than now; I do not think we caught any of them at the Magdalen Islands. Q. Where were you at the time of the gale?—A. In the bight of the island; we got about 7 leagues from the shore that night before the gale came on. It was all of that distance off, and we were in 27 fathoms of water. Q. That gave you an offing of over twenty miles?—A. Yes; we were right off St. Peter’s. Q. What did you do when the gale came on ?—A. That morning when it was blowing heaviest we laid to under a reefed foresail. We found that the tide, which was running fast, was taking us into the bight of the island, and we laid to under a two-reef foresail. Q. Is there only a two-reef foresai] ?—A. We have what is called a second, third, and first reef. pee a . ee ee ee ee fies x ey ce ee TT AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2215 oo And you drifted?—A. We kept drifting and dragging in on the Q. What is the effect of the'wind on the tide there!—A. When the wind makes right in from the east, northea: . ta reg iiouhebiehvoftheiaid °° eee Q. So besides the wind you have a tide running into the bight t— Yes; rightin. The wind drives the water right in and creates a iteae eurrent. Q. How is the shore there, shoal or deep!—A. It is very shoal as a general thing along the whole of Prince Edward Island; between North Cape and Cape Kildare you cannot anchor withiu a mile of land, tt rene off so shoal. Q. Is there a bar up off North Cape!—A. There is what we call a three mile bar at this point; and outside of that it is shoal, there being five fathoms of water. Q. Taking one of our large ships of 100 tons, drawing from 8 to 12 feet of water, is it safe for them to go uear North Cape in time of heary weather ?—A. A 100-ton vessel now draws from 12 to 14 feet of water. Q. Is it safe for a vessel drawing from 10 to 14 feet of water to go there 7?—A. It is not. I would not call it safe to go within 8 or 10 miles oe North Cape in a heavy gale of wind; aud I would vot like to be there then. Q. How far did you drift off _—A. We went over North Cape Bar oa Saturday night, in five fathoms of water. Q. What was the reason ?—A. We were there jogging along, the wind heading to the northeast, and then it came round to the east-northeast, and that was all that saved us from foundering. A number of vessels were seen near there that night which were never beard of after. One _of them was the Colonel C. Mathews, of Southport, which bad ow beard 130 barrels of mackerel. A large schooner from the Bay of Faady was afterwards found ashore there, farther down. Q. Would you have been safe at all if the wind had not shifted !—A I do not think so; otherwise we would have goue ashore of & certaaty. Q. Did you make calculations for doing so!—A. Yes; the master was for running the vessel ashore, but one of the crew, James Pattillo, a Nova Scotian by birth, persuaded him not to do so. — When we got half way over the breakers, we came on the other side into deep water—1", 13. or 13 fathoms—and as the wind shifted, we kept gradually dnftiag of The wind was then about north. - . How many trips did you make in 189; !—A, Two. oe . What did you cateh on your first trip /—A. I think about 0 nar. rels, which we landed at Arichat. eer Q. And on the second '—A. We got somewhere about 229 OF 2) Date 6. Were any caught within the three-mile limit ?—A. No; ie saab fish around Prince Edward Island that year, baton Bradley aad Orphaa 3anks, and up toward Gaspe. bm oa San epic were ae fishing in 1852 and 1853!—A. To the les bella, I think, on our shore. . Q. How did you do?—A. We dida fair business. Q. When did you next go to the bay t—A. To Uso. i eat Q. How many trips did you make !—A. Two was (a h Lanetgiaret Q. How much did you get on the first trip !— \. | soon loeb Resto 240 or 250 barrels; and on ria re o somewhere along i -e them both home :-—-\. 1&5. ; Pi 3. Did eae cus of them inshore !—A. The first trip ¥e took at 2216 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Byron Island; and the second between the Magdalen Islands and one of the outlying banks. Q. In what vessel were you in 1855?—A. The Nourmahal. I was | ' then master. The first trip we packed somewhere about 250 barrels, and on the second we only got 80 barrels. Q. Did you go home with the first trip ?—A. Yes. Q. Did you catch any of either of these trips within three miles of the shore ?—A. No; we took the first part of the trip up on Bank Or- phan. Then we went to Bank Bradley and obtained the rest of the trip on the eastern part of this bank. Q. Did you catch any fish off Prince Edward Island at all?—A. No; not that year. Q. Were you in the same vessel in 1856 ?—A. Yes. Q. How much did you catch that year 7—A. Two hundred and sixty barrels. Q. Did you take any of them inshore ?—A. No. Q. Did you makea trip before you came into the bay that year?—A. Yes; we fished on the George’s Bank. Q. In many of these years you passed the early part of the spring in that manner ?—A. Yes; before we came into the bay, which would be about the 8th or the 18th of July. Q. Is that very much the custom in Gloucester, to fish in the spring through February, March, April, May, and June, off the American coast, and then to come down here in July ?—A. Yes; it was then, and it is SO now, more or less. Other vessels that do not follow anything but the mackerel fishery, go earlier in the season to the bay, getting down here about the 8th or the LOth of June, and that is pretty early. Q. Previously you fish on George’s Bank ?7—A. Yes; and on our shore. @. And then the vessels come down here later ?—A. I am speaking of the class of vessels in which I went; probably few baukers left Gloucester those years for the Grand and Western Banks. Q. You were in the same vessel in 1857 7—A. No. I was then in the Hiram Powers. No; I was for four seasons in the Nourmahal—in 1855, 56, 57, and 58, Q. In 1857 and 1858, how many trips did you make 7—A. On the first trip we got 260, and the following year 230 barrels. } Q. What did you do during the rest of the year in that vessel 2—A, | I was codfishing in the spring. . Q. On the American coast ?—A. Yes. Q. In 1859 you shipped in the Hiram Powers ?—A. Yes. Q. You then made two trips up here ?—A. Yes; but we did not get much of anything. Q. What did you get on the first trip ?—A. We packed somewhere about 215 barrels, and on the second trip we packed about 25 barrels. Q. Did you take the fish home ?—A. Yes. a Did you catch any fish that year within the three-mile limit 7—A. 0. Q. In 1860 you were in the Hiram Powers; how many trips did you make to the bay that year 7?—A. One. Q. How much did you get?—A. In 1859, we got 235 barrels ; and in 1860, 180 barrels, I believe. (). How long were you in tbe bay in 1860 ?—A. Four months. Q. How many trips did you make in 1861 ?—A. Two. Q. How much did you get?—A. About 225 barrels, I think, the first trip, and about 75 barrels the second. . —— ——_= ~ AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 2217 Q. For how many did yon fit ont?—A. From 310 to 315 each trip. Q. And you carried your fish home’—A. Yes. n id see eorch them with lines '—A, Yes. i at did you stock that year in the bay ?—A. route loealtoceitiat, ines el ee ae fe ona not fish any at Prince Edward Island !—A. Not at all in Q. Did that pay?7—A. I do not think that it did; the amonnt of stock on the first trip was something like $700 or 8800, and balf of that went to the crew. eae In 1862, 3, ’4, 5, and ’6, you were still in the Hiram Powers !— . Yes. Q. You were nine seasons in her ’—A. No, eight. Q. That was from 1859 to 1866 inclusive !—A. Yes. Q. During all that time the Reciprocity Treaty was in force, and yoa had the right to fish where you pleased; but did, you then fish at all within the three-mile limit ?—A. We fished during the whole of that time in the vicinity of the Magdalen Islands; probably we might see the Cape Breton shore part of the time, and sometimes we would be ta sight of Prince Edward Island. Q. But though you had free right to then fish where you pleased, you did not fish within the three-mile limit ?—A. No; for seven eighths of the time we were in sight of and within eight or ten miles of the Mag dalen Islands. Q. Why did you not fish close inshore at Prince Edward Island o¢ elsewhere ?—A. We fished where we could tind the fish. We did pot fish inshore at the Magdalen Islands because we did not fod any Geb inshore, but we fished off on the outlying banks; this was where We got most of our fish. Q. You did not fish any at Prince Edward Island !—A, Not af all tn that vessel. Q. I suppose that you are not obliged to go and actually try at place to learn whether fish are to be caught there! You have & great many means besides of finding this out !—A, Yes; Vessels are comlog and going all the time, crossing trom Prince Edward Island to the Mag- dalen Islands, and from the latter back; and you may say that Bees ts flying one way and the other all the time. . = Q. Part of your business is to pick up news as quickly 4s soa eae A. Of course it is. Paes -Q. You can tell whether mackerel are to be obtained in any place os not?—A. We can tell by the appearance ol things. If w e ace a feet of vessels coming from East Point towards the Magdalen hase ge eal- culate that nothing is to be got over there, and so we stay “here #e are _ getting a few. Q. In 1867 you went in the A. M. Storey iA, ae! Q. In 1867 you were in the Hattie M. Storey f—A. You Q. How many seasons 7—A. Kight seasons, Q. From 1867 to 1874 inclusive ?—.\. Yes. Q. Were you in the bay every year of those In 1870 and 1871 I was on our own shore. ee “Q. In 1870 you were on the American coast. — - ave take there?—A. We got aca in the neighborhood of barrels—say 800 packed barrels. _ ee Q. In 1871 ane did you get ?—A. We caught .” at ace Pen Q. Which did you do best in, there or in the | ane Easter two years on your own shore compare with the averag » ba years fi A | wae Bo hs) oe 2218 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. We got more stock out of those two years than any seasons I went in that vessel. Q. But still you went back to the bay ?—A. Well, yes. I had every- thing to contend with on our own shores after that. The seiners would go on the ground, and I would not have as good a chance. So we took _@ trip in the fall in the bay. A number of these years I only went one trip. Q. Because you had made your first trip on our coast?—A. Yes. (. In 1872, for instance, you made but one trip, I believe ?—A. That was the year of the gale. Q. Where did you go?—A. In 72? Where did we make harbor ? At the Magdalens we lost our cables and anchors, and went to Port Hood. P Q. You could get into Port Hood ?—A. We ran ashore on the beach.. We had to beach her, as we had nothing to anchor her with. Q. Now, in 1874— that was, I believe, the last year you fished, was it not? You got how many barrels ?—A. I think somewhere about Q. Take the first trip?—A. That was somewheres about 290 barrels. The second trip was something about 220. Q. Were you in the bend of Prince Edward Island at all?—A. We fished that year around Prince Edward Island altogether—from Fish- ermen’s Bank, between that and Margaree, on the outlying ground. Q. Not within three miles?—A. No. Q. You were not in the bend of the island ?—A. What we eall the bend of the island is Malpeque. That is the deepest part of the island. Q. Did you fish within three miles in 1874?—A. Yes; I did some- times. Q. Excepting that year did you?—A. I don’t recollect catching fish anywhere within the three-mile limit except that year. Q. How were the fish you did catch there?—A. Well, out of 300 headed barrels almost, at least 290 barrels, we only had 30 barrels of No. ones. Q. What season was that ?—A. It was in August, in the best season, when they should have been good fish. Q. Since 1874 what have you been doing ?—A. Working ashore. Q. Now, you have had an experience of eighteen seasons ?—A. Eight- een seasons, and two seasons that I was home, made twenty that I was master. @. And several seasons before you were master ?—A. O, yes; I went on the water 35 years. Q. -You must be well acquainted with that subject. What is the safest part of the gulf as respects vessels in storms or gales ?—A. The safest ground to fish in is the Magdalen Islands. Q. Is that a settled opinion, do you think ?—A. That is the settled opinion of any reasonable man that ever took any notice of the lay of the land. There is no place anywhere around there that you can get caught in there quick, to make trouble. There is always a chance, as we say, to scout. We can always run in under some lee or other. The extent of land from North Cape to East Point is 90-odd miles. By striking a line from North Cape to East Point you have a bend of 22 miles. Q. It is the fixed opinion that the Magdalens is the safest place 7—A. Of course. Q. Now, what is the objection to the bend of Prince Edward Island, except, perhaps, in midsummer, when there is no wind?—A. It is one of the hardest places. If you get caught in there, let a gale come on insidé. I have never kuown any fish except those AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 2219 suddenly, east-northeast, or northeast, and the vessel that gets out there if it is a long gale, has to have something more than sails. ; ae phy tive or six miles from land ; do you inclade that !— , , 1 1t comes on a sudden gale. It is impossible for her te get out if there is a sudden gale. If that gale of 1872 had happened with the fleet there that was at Magdalen Islands there would pot bare been less than seventy-five or eighty sail lost. It began about 9 o'clock and by 12 it was blowing a hurricane. Q. Do you know anything about what they call harbors of refage !— A. Malpeque and Cascumpeque. Cascumpeque is no harbor. No Amer ican vessel of any size will go in it. Q. Take the American vessels as they have been bailt for a namwber of years past. Suppose they are loaded to balf their capacity '—A. Say from ’67 to the present time, they draw all the way from eight or tea te fourteen feet of water. : Q. In a gale of wind how would the bar be !—A. You could not go. As soon as the breeze begins to come up, three or four hours after: it begins to blow, vou cannot go into Cascumpeque at all. It is not safe for a vessel drawing over seven feet of water. Malpeque is better, Lt is avery fair harbor compared with the other. Within the last eight or nine years it has become dangerous. Ground has made up exactly in the middle of the channel. There is only nine feet of water init. I struck on there once. a Q. Does the bar shift ?’—A. No; but very little. At Cascumpeqae it oes. Q. How do the people at Cascumpeque account for it shifting '—A The northeast wind changes the shape of the bar. Q. Does ice affect it ?—A. I could not say. Q. Now, when the mackerel attend inshore within three miles or “ what is that a sign of as to the fishing generally '—A. Well, when we find them right in among the rocks, we calculate to have & poor rang of mackerel. Asa general thing, when they are that way, the Lowte will get them when they cannot get enough for breakfast. The fisher men have a way of calling them eel-grass mackerel. Q. Is the fact of mackerel setting in the sign of a poor year '—A- It is, as a general thing. When we get good catches we get them in deep water—a good fair depth. Q. Did you buy any license ?—A. I never did. . Q. Why did you not ?—A. I thought the difference was not worth the money. I owned the balf of one vessel and the whole of anot ber, There are expenses enough without anything extra attached to the vessel, Q. And you didu’t try to fish inshore until after the Treaty of W ash ington went in tooperation ?—A. No: there was nothing to tempt me to Geb last years I was Osh ing there. are hel oa Q. That was after the Treaty of Washington. You say the fish yoe saw there were poor 7—A. Yes. I would state the amount cf stock "eo got off these two trips. I didn’t tell you about this last year : 4 bles $1,826 the vessel had, after all expenses ot the vovage xen = — is, paying for salt and bait, provisions, and everything. herr little over $900 to pay for her expetses. Q. Do you include insurance '—A. No; insn Q. That left you $900 odd to divide !—A. She for provisions, salt, insurance, and commission, provi ea owned by outside parties, but she was owned by mysell, ? insurance 1s net inclades had sthN) old fo pas led the vessel was therefore 2220 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. I take the commission out. I had a catch of 104 barrels—I and one of my boys. I lost $500 besides the mackerel thrown in. She lost $700. _Q. Now, when you speak of what a vessel nets at the time she divides, then half goes to the owner. He has to calculate not only insurance and repairs, if there are any—the average rate of repairs and sails—you have to have a new suit of sails once in two years, haven’t you 7—A, Generally. Q. Now, take thecables. Youused hemp. How long do they last ?— A. Sometimes on the Georges they do not last overa year. We say two years; sometimes a little more. Q. How long are they 7—A. We had 150 fathoms. We should not trust the whole of that over two seasons. Part of it would be good and the rest bad. Q. It would be between two and three years that it would last in the bay ?—A. Yes. Q. Besides the expense, there is interest on the cost of the vessel, and there is depreciation. Can you give the Commission some idea what the depreciation of those vessels is? Take any vessel—an average of vessels. I do not care about your own particularly, but you can judge from that.—A. Well, I run my own more economically. Q. Well, take them as they are, managed with average prudence, and employed steadily, coming into the bay for a portion of the year, and for the rest of the year on the coast. How much is the natural depre- ciation ?—A. I think 15 per cent. That is reckoning low. I reckon that, providing a vessel costs $65 a ton, and you could build the same kind of a vessel for $65 at the end of five years. But if you were going to reckon that a vessel cost $65 a ton when she was built, and then take the vessel at the end of five years, when the building-material had gone down to about $45, she has depreciated one-half. Q. I don’t mean to count that ; suppose the price of material has re- mained the same, say it is 15 per cent. It isa short life?—A. Yes, everything is giving out. Q. You have been cod fishing on the Georges ?—A. Yes; all I ever fished was on the Georges. Q. With hand-lines 7—A. Yes. Q. Where did you get your bait 7—A. Well, the first year we used to get bait on the Banks ourselves. Latterly it ‘got to be the custom to get it at Grand Manan and in Newfoundland. Q. That is early in the season ?—A. Then we have the pogy. At Grand Manan the bait does not last a long while. Q. Have you been yourself to Grand Manan to buy bait ?—A. I have been there to buy herring, but never to buy bait. Q. You mean herring to sell again ?—A. Yes; frozen herring to sells in New York. Q. You were never there to get bait ?—A. No. (. The vessels you have been in took bait from home and caught it?—A. As a general thing. Q. You catch some bait going and coming and on the Banks ?—A. We do along the summer months, in May and June. Q. You have no personal knowledge about Grand Manan ?—A. All I have about it is from going down to buy frozen herring. Q. You know nothing about it as a place for fishing, for the purpose of getting bait for fishing ?—A. No. I only know my vessels go down— one vessel would in the season. She would go there once between the time of the frozen herring and the time of what we call the pogy sea- son. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2221 Q. You find these pogies on the American coast ?—A. Yes; about the ~ 10th to the 12th of May. It continues to the fall of the year. We get them as late as November in Provincetown; sometimes as late as the 25th. ; By Mr. Davies: Q. The mode of supplying themselves with bait has changed, I under- stood you to say, of late years?—A. Yes, it has, of course. Q. How is it now on the Banks ?—A. I don’t fish on the Banks. Q. How is it with those that d6?—A. Some, I suppose, go into New- foundland. I was down year before last. One man belonging to Bev- erly hadn’t been in there at all. He made a remark to me that this going in for bait was a kind of a bother. One man that spoke to me about it—he was a little temperate, I believe—he said if we could get along without coming in for bait we would do better. Q. You know one man that didn’t go in?—A. Yes. Q. He was looked upon asa rather singular man?—A. Yes,.in one respect. He got 2,200 quintals of codfish. Q. I didn’t ask you what he got.—A. I didn’t know I was limited in my answer. Q. You volunteered some conversation you -had had with a particular person, and I asked if he was looked upon as a singular man in not coming in ?—A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Why was he selected from all the rest and spoken of as not having come in?—A. The reason was that he did so much better than other vessels by staying out. Q. Do you wish to give the opinion that those that use salt bait alone do better ?—A. That is my own opinion. I don’t know anything about it. I have never been to the Banks. : Q. What has the general practice been for the last few years ?—A. As a general thing, they go in for fresh bait. Q. When you speak of bait taken on the Grand Manan, is it not the Bank fishers that take that bait in the spring 7—A. Yes; the Cape Ann vessels go down one trip. Some do and some do not. Q. Do most?—A. They do not. When bait is very scarce anywhere else, And there is no other resource, they go there. They don’t like to go. It is a long distance. Q. Still they go?—A. Yes. Q. And they get bait 7—A. I think they do. . _Q. Is there good fishing at Grand Manan ?—A. I don’t know. It is not very good and not very bad. Q. It is medium, is it?7—A. Our vessels don’t fish there. Q. They go there to get this bait?—A. Yes; and go to the Georges. Q. Do most of them go?—A. Very few. Some that can’t get it any- ~ where else take the trouble to go down there. Q. And when they can’t get it there, do they go to the coast of Nova ‘Scotia to get it?—A. I don’t know. Q. You never practiced cod-fishirg much?—A. No; I never did, ex- cept when I first went skipper. Q. You have never fished with fresh and salt bait?—A. Yes; the first year on the Georges I fished with salt bait. Q. That is not what I asked you. -Did you fish with fresh and salt bait both on the same trip?—A. Yes. - Q. Are you able to state whether the salt was as good as the fresh for catching ?—A. The first season I went we used part fresh and part salt. As long as we didn’t use anything else but salt bait we would get fish ; 2222 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. but after using fresh bait, and changing again to salt, we would not do so well. Q. You say a vessel would prefer fresh bait to salt ?—A. Of course, where it is generally used, but when I went and we used salt bait alto- gether I didn’t see any difference. Q. But supposing they have an opportunity to fish with fresh bait, will the fish prefer that bait to the salt ?—A. I never used enough to make a fair statement. Q. You have told me that when you were fishing with fresh bait and used salt bait again they would not take as well. You were speaking of the very voyage when youhad both. Youtold me that when you had been using fresh bait you could not catch any with salt; is that correct. Do you adhere to that statement ?—A. Yes ; I do. Q. Then the fish, in your experience, prefer fresh to the salt bait ; they would not take the salt when they could get fresh 7?—A. I would not say so in all cases. Q. That is in your experience 7—A. My experience is very limited. Q. Why do you object to answer ?—A. I have no objection to answer. It does not interest me at all. When we had a little fresh bait and used it we caught a little more fish, and when we turned again to salt bait they would not take it quite as well. - Q. How long does one of those mackerel vessels last; would 20 years be considered a long period ?—A. It would. We generally calculate that at ten years she is getting along. Q. Don’t you know there are mackerel fishers in the gulf and have been that are twenty years old 7—-A. I don’t doubt it in the least. @. Many of them 7—A. I don’t think so. They are few and far be- tween. They cannot get crews. Q. Ten years would not be considered old ?—A. When she is ten years she is called an old vessel. Still they use them, of course. Q. Up to 15 or 20 years ?—A. Probably there are vessels from Glou- cester 15 years old, but very few of them. I could not enumerate them, because I do not keep a list. Q. What did you do with the Hiram Powers after she had been pce years fishing ?—A. I sold her to the firm for $4,800. Q. What ‘did she cost new 2?—A. Somewhere about $4,000. @. You sold her for that when she was eight years old ?—A. Yes. Q. Her age did not seem to depreciate her valuemuch. What did you do with the Hattie M. Story after she had been fishing from 1867 to 1874 ?—A. I sold her for $4,500. She cost me $8,800. Q. What was the reason for her depreciating so much ?—A. Ship- ping cost $65 a ton when she was built, and only $43 a ton when she was sold. Q. Was it because she got old that she sold for so much less? Wasn't she considered almost as good as new when you sold her ?—A. Well, she was in a good condition. The difference was not in the age of the vessel—it was in the rise and depreciation of the property. Q. We perfectly agree that a vessel eight years old is about as good as one newly built. Your evidence is that ?—A. She was just as good in the rise of property, not in the value of the vessel. Q. You said it was not because she was any worse. A moment ago you wished me to understand that the Hiram Powers was not much worse when you sold her than when she was built. Is a fishing-vessel much worse at the end of eight years than when she is built 7—A. Of course. She was eight years old, and when a vessel is eight years old she does not command the same price as a new vessel. The price I got ET gee TTT A PEE Nn, STDS wr AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2223 ‘for her was due to a factitious rise in property because vessels were in demand. Q. Just as a fall in the value of the property depreciated the value of the Hattie M. Story 7?—A. The vessel was not so good of course. Q. Now I will ask you a question or two about the cost of a voyage. I will take the example you give us, the year 1874, when you got 510 barrels. Now you say your net stock was $1,826, after paying expenses. What expense do you deduct ?—A. Packing, bait, and barrels; you can say bait and packing. s Q. Now $900 went to the vessel, and the other $900 to the crew ?—A. es. Q. So the crew had $900 divided among them. How many men were on board?—A. Fourteen. Q. How long were they out ?—A. From the 4th June to the 20th No- vember when we got home. Q. Were you in the Bay St. Lawrence till the 20th November ?—A. We.were some time going home. : Q. Will you say you were in the bay on the 1st November ?—A. I don’t think we were in the bay on the lst November. I think on the 25th October we started for home. : Q. Of that $900 what do you say has to be paid ?—A. Provisions. Q. What will that cost? You know; it was your vessel I suppose.— A. Between $600 and $700. Q. That is for the two trips?—A. From the 4th of June to the 10th of November, or about those dates. The provisions cost $600. Q. Are you quite sure ?—A. That is as near as I can guess. Q. Have you no memorandum ?—A. No. Q. No means of judging?—A. No; because the last two years [ was in the firm I.did not take the trouble. I think the cost was $400 the * first trip and $200 the second. ’ Q. Then you say you must have a new suit of sails every two years ? —A. Yes; we have to have sails, rigging, and cooking utensils. Q. Then your result from that catch would not much more than pay the vessel’s expenses ?—A. I lost between six and seven hundred dol- lars. Q. Now, just give me the catches for the years Mr. Dana omitted to ask you about. You gave us from ’61; have you a memorandum in your pocket 7?—A. I have it in my head. Q. I asked you if you had it in your pocket—you have it on paper !— A. Yes. Q. Will you give it to me? Witness produces memorandum, from which Mr. Davies reads: In 1862 you caught 590: barrels ; in 1863, 500 barrels ; in 1864, 500 ; in 1865, 280 ; in 1866, 200; in 1867, 459; in 1868, 150 ; 1869, 221 ; in 1872, 253; in 1873, 410; in 1874, 498. a _ Q. Now, captain, in the year when you took 579 barrels you lost $700? —A. That is 1872. Q. I thought it was 1874 ?—A. Yes, 1874; you are right ; the very last year I went. Q. You lost your cables in 1872 ?—A. Yes. Q. I am correct ?—A. Yes. Q. In 1874 you lost $700. Ipresumethat you area poorman. Idon’t want to ask impertinent questions, but I presume you must be a very poor man.—A. How poor do you think ? Q. I would not like to say, because if you lost $700 with a catch of 510 barrels, I don’t know how much you lost when you caught only 150. 2224 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. —A. Well, would you say a man who has followed the sea for thirty-five years was rich at £4,000? Q. No.—A. Well that is what Iam worth. The last year satisfied me I was losing what little I had, and I gave it up. Q. I dare say you will understand presently why you were losing. In 1874 you knew you had a right to fish anywhere 7—A. Yes; I did. Q. Did you exercise that right ?—A. I did. Q. You fished inshore and out of shore ?—A. Yes. Q. I understood you to answer Mr. Dana that in 1874 you caught your fish around Margaree and in the bend of the island ?—A. I did not say any such thing. I told him I got 150 that year inshore. Q. I didn’t ask you with reference to inshore at all I understood you to say. you fished altogether around Prince Edward Island and Mar-,. garee in 1874?—A. Yes; I believe it was 1874. Q. I was right ?—A. Yes. Q. In that year you caught all your fish around Prince Edward Island and Margaree?—A. Yes; sometimes in sight of Margaree. Q. You had a right to go where you liked. Now, did you or did you not pay any attention to the quantities you took inshore or outside in that particular year ?—A. I did not. Q. And have you had any-reason to divide the quantity you caught inside from that ‘caught outside ; there has been nothing to induce you to recollect what you caught inside as against those taken outside ?—A. I didn’t keep any account. All I noticed Q. You cannot keep them separate 7?—A. All I noticed was that those we caught inshore were a good deal poorer than those we took outside. Whenever we caught close in we got a poor quality. Q. Would you like to swear that you didn’t get three-fourths within three miles ?—A. I would swear to it. Q. Although you had no reason to watch 7?—A. Of course. Is it not natural we should take notice where we were? For instance I can tell you we caught such and such atrip at such and sucha place. We would notice where we got good catches, and would probably go there ° again. Q. Give me the proportion you caught within three miles ?—A. I think we got 150 barrels within the three-mile limit. Q. Don’t you think more?—A. I think not. Q. How many did you get about Margaree?—A. Very few. Nearly all around Prince Edward Island. What we call Fisherman’s Bank to Second Chapel. Once we were in Malpeque Harbor. That was not very stormy that year. We had the wind easterly around the point. Q. Although you were there that year you returned all right. You were not drowned.—A. That does not signify. Q. Asa matter of fact your vessel did actually escape that year ?— A. Yes. That does not signify it is not: dangerous. Q. Not at all. Do you know any vessel that got ashore that year on that dangerous coast ?—A. Don’t they often go ashore in safe and pleas- ant weather? Anybody can get off then. Q. Do you know any vessel that got ashore that year in Prince Ed- ward Island?—A. Not to my recollection. There might have been a dozen. Q. Why do you say ‘there might have been?—A. A vessel would likely go ashore there in calm, in misty or foggy weather, she might go ashore any time. Q. You think it is very likely ?—A. Yes. a Q. Would you not have seen a report of it if any of your vessels had — j ° AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2225 gone nia ?—A. There was other vessels in the bay beside American vessels. : Q. Did you hear of any fishing-vessels going ashore that year on the island?—A. I might have heard it; I don’t recollect. Q. You were not fishing there any other year on the island coast ex- cept 1874?—A. The year before we fished around there, but off shore. Q. Did you fish around the island in 18737—A. We did some, part of the year. Q. Did you catch any inshore ?.—A. No. Q. In 1872 you lost your cables ‘and anchors at the Magdalens, that calm and beautiful place where it does not blow at all?—A. Well, it may not be so moderate. Q. Is it as moderate as Prince Edward Island?—A. In the latter part. Q. Take it all through ?—A. There is very little difference. Q. You don’t think it is more boisterous ?—A. I don’t think. There are plenty of times you can fish at the Magdalens when you can’t at Prince Edward Island. Q. Did you say you were around the Prince Edward Island shore any other year than 1873?—A. Not tomy knowledge. I might probably go there once in a while. Q. During all the years you were in the bay, from 1851 downward, do you know of any American vessels going ashore, leaving out the gale of 1851?—A. There was another gale in 1861. That is the Yankee gale. Q. No, that is the gale of 1851. Did you or did you- not know of any American vessels being lost on the Prince Edward Island coast from 1852 to 1874 ?—A. That includes the last gale. Q. Not the gale of 1851?—A. It includes 1861. You say from 1852 to when ? Q. To the time you went out of the gulf—A. That includes—that would be to-1874. Yes, I do. Q. American vessels? Give the names.—A. I could not exactly say the names. One vessel went ashore right close to the point. The other one was the Atwood, I think, owned by Ayers & Co. She went ashore. One of them was got off by parties in Souris. And the other was sold to parties there. Q. Those are the two?—A. Yes. Q. And these are all you know of ?—A. I don’t know of any others. There might be a dozen; I don’t know. _ Q. Lasked you simply what you knew. You know for the last 25 years of two vessels, one of which was got off—both of which were got off, and one of them sold. Do you know of any going ashore in 1861 ?— A. Yes, anumber. The Golden Rule. ; Q. I speak of being lost ?—A. I could not say whether she was lost or ‘not. Q. I don’t mean to speak of vessels touching the shore, but driving ashore and being lost.—A. Well, I don’t know what you mean by touch- ing the shore. I guess if you were the owner you would not speak of them as touching the shore. Q. Were you there fishing ?—A. I was in the bend of the Island. Q. Fishing? You told me before you never fished in Prince Edward Island.—A. I never told you so. I said when I was skipper. Q. I asked you most distinctly whether you had ever fished around the Prince Edward Island shore except in 1874 and 1873, and you told me you didn’t. You denied it—A. [didn’t deny it. You were question- 140 F 2226 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ing me as to the time when I was skipper. I deny anything of that description. Q. Do you deny you were skipper in 1861 ?—A. I deny I was skipper in 1861. Q. Then deny that you were skipper of the Hiram Powers in 1861 ?— A. [have got things mixed now—1861—No, I don’t. I was thinking of 1851. Q. You were wrong 10 years. That is just what I thought.—A. In 1851 I told you I knew vessels going ashore. Q. In 1861 you were master of the Hiram Powers ?—A. That is right. I got a little mixed up. Q. Then you were fishing in the bend of the island ?—A. No, I was not. Q. In 1851, were you in the Hiram Powers at all ?--A. I was in an- other schooner, the Alexander. Q. Now, you said you never took out a license ?—A. I never did. @. Your reason was that it was not worth while ?—A. No, I did not want to go to the expense. Q. It was not worth while, and the privilege it would confer you did not na worth what it would cost. Are you of that opinion now?— A. Yes. Q. Was that opinion shared by the Americar fleet generally 7— A. The opinion of the American vessels was that it was no benefit, the three- mile line, that is, the privilege of fishing within the three-mile line. Q. Have you any doubt about that ?—A. No. Q. Would you be surprised to know the opinion was directly the op- posite of what you state ?—A. I would be surprised. Q. Very much ?—A. Yes. - Q. Well, I will surprise you. In that year, 1866, there were taken out by American vessels 592 licenses. So 592 captains there seem to ae entertained a different opinion from yours.—A. That was only for Safety. Q. How do you know? Did you consult each one of those captains and ask if that was the general opinion ?—A. I came in contact with those men every day I was in Gloucester. Q. What do you mean when you say they took those licenses for safety ?—A. If they were three, four, or five miles off they would not know for a certainty whether they were five or three miles. If there was a cutter coming in and they had alicense there would be no trouble, but if she happened to make up her mind they were within she would bother them. Q. Do you think a cutter would capture a vessel five miles out ?—A. Yes; that is, not thinking but what she was doing right. One man - might say it was five miles, when another would not think it was. Q. But if the vessels fished where you described, on Bradley and Orphans and at the Magdalens, hardly within sight of land 7—A. Well, probably other vessels went inshore. Q. Do you believe other vessels did go in?—A. I don’t believe any- thing about it. As a general thing, those years I was there the heft of our vessels were at the Magdalens. Q. Do you think any of these vessels that took licenses didn’t go in- shore 7?—A. I think so. Q. Can you name one that did not ?—A. Well, when a vessel would come along we would ask if he had been to the Bend, he would say yes. We would ask if he found anything there, and he would answer no. (. Was that the invariable-answer ?—A. No; of course not. ¥ a : C 7 + a * TR ET E AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2227 Q. When the answer was favorable did you run over ?—A. Not gen- erally ; we kept around the Magdalens. Q. When you heard it reported that they were doing well, although you were making such very small catchesin the gulf, did you not run over ? —A. What particular year do you mean ? Q. I don’t care what year.—A. We never fished in Prince Edward Island the latter part of the season. Q. But you have given us your catches 7?—A. Yes. Q. Do you wish this Commission to understand that when you heard the fishing was good at Prince Edward Island you would not go ?—A. Of course I would go if I knew there was better fishing. Q. Did you never know it was better fishing until ’74?—A. Never in- shore. Q. Did you ever hear of good fishing in the Bay Chaleurs 7—A. Very little; in the spring we would sometimes. Q. Then it would surprise you also to know that a large number of the fleet were in the habit of frequenting Bay Chaleurs?—A, I have been there myself. : Q. Why didn’t you give Bay Chaleurs among the places where you had fished ?—A. We never fished there, but probably staid a day or two, and came out. I have been there in the course of my being skipper twice. One season we fished at the mouth of Bay Chaleur, at Miscou— on Miscou Bank. Q. Did you ever fish in Bay Chaleur within three miles ?—A. I never did. Q. Therefore you never saw any fish there? When you fished outside you never caught any fish in the Bay Chaleur? When you fished within three miles in the bay did you catch any fish ?—A. I never did, ., only a few, because we never fished there. Q. You told me you were there one season?—A. I didn’t say so; I said on Miscou. I recollect for instance catching a few half-way be- tween Miscou and , 15 wash barrels. Q. You say your business on the American coast used to be better than itis now. You said you were on the American coast from 1843 to 1854, and that it was a better business then than now. You fished on the Georges Bank. Yon call that the American shore ?—A. That is 135 miles off. Q. In 1842, when you commenced to fish, Gloucester, you say, had no ‘fleet to speak of ?—A. It was very small. Q. Was it a small town in 1842?—A. [ could not say how large it was then. It is 19,000 now. I can tell you something about the busi- ness of the town. ; ; Q. Can you give us an idea of what it was then ?—A. The population then might be 3,000 and it might be 6,000. Q. It has been built up since then?—A. Yes. I suppose there are six times the fishing firms now that there were then: Q. The Gloucester fleet now numbers how many ?—A. Somewhere about four hundred sail of fishermen. Q. Do they frequent the Bay of St. Lawrence ?—A. Some of them. Q. Have they been in the habit of frequenting the bay ?—A. Yes; » more or less every year. ae Q. What number have they averaged? 300 or 400?—A. I don’t think they have. I don’t think over 175 vessels from the bay at one time. But you might know exactly, while I would not. Ye. Q. If you tell me that you have not the means of forming an opinion 2228 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. that will be the end of it—A. I should say there were 175 some years in the bay. Q. Did you ever take means to ascertain whether that is correct or not?—A. No; I judge from what I have seen. Q. How many have you seen in one spot together 7A. At Port Hood I have seen as many as 200 sail. Q. Mostly Americans ?—A. All descriptions. Q. Were they or were they not mostly Americans ?—A. Probably a hundred and fifty sail were Americans. ). What were they doing at Port Hood? I thought you always fished about the Magdalens and Bradley Bank ?—A. We don’t always. When there is a gale of wind probably—— Q. What? Would you leave this fine, safe place and run down ina _ gale of wind?) Would you leave this harbor of refuge and come down to Cape Breton to get a harbor?—A. No, I did not. They did not run across exactly to make harbor. They gather from different points. Probably they would find the fish scarce, and go in to get fittings and make a harbor. Q. Could they get fittings there?—-A. They could get anything they want there, water, wood, or any little thing. Q. What do you mean by fittings ?—-A. Wood and water. Q. Do you class them as fittings? Did you mean that when you made use of the word “‘fittings”?—-A. Yes; that is part of the fittings. Q. Didn’t you mean rigging, sails, and things of that kind ?—A. No. Q. Where would they be fisbing when they would run into Port Hood ?—A. Off Margaree, probably. Q. Were you among them when they were fishing off Margaree ?—A. Sometimes. In the latter part of the season we would be fishing be- tween Margaree and Cheticamp, and, if it was stormy, work into Port Hood. Q. In the latter part of the season you would probably be fishing be- tween Margaree and Cheticamp and then work up into Port Hood ?7— A. Yes. Q. And you say that would probably be the case?—A. Probably it would. Q. And then not one of them ever was fishing within three miles ?— A. It is not very often they fished in so near as three miles. . The fish would not attend. Q. How often have you been fishing between Margaree and Cheti- camp ?—A. Never but very little. I fished there once in the Henry. Q. When were you again between Margaree and Cheticamp?—A, That is all, to my knowledge, I ever fished. Q. If you have never been there but once how can you hazard the statement that the fish would not be there? How do you know if you did not go there to fish ?—A. I am judging from what I heard from par- ties. The general report was that they never caught any fish. They © fished right off what we cali the northeast part of the island. Q. You knew Captain Layton ?—A. Yes. Q. He said that with the exception of one time he caught all the fish 3 he took at Margaree within three miles ?—A. Probably he might. Q. How so, if they are not there ?—A. They might be there. As a | general thing they are not within three miles. Q. How do you know if you were not there 7—A. Other vessels go in and say, probably, they are not there. Q. Tell me a man who told you that fish were not taken within three AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2229 miles of Margaree ?—A. I have probably heard it a dozen times, but never bring it to mind. ; Q. Now, perhaps we can reconcile this. Perhaps your statement can be reconciled with that of Captain Layton. I include, when I speak of three miles, three miles from Margaree Island, as well as three miles from the mainland. Do you mean that ?—A. When we fish we fish four or five or ten miles from the back side of Margaree. Q. When you say they didn’t fish within three miles, did you include Margaree Island as well as the mainland ?—A. Of course I did. Q. You base it upon hearsay ?—A. That is the general opinion. We go by the boats as much as anything else, and they would not go off the northwest part of Margaree for fish if there was any mackerel inshore. It would not be necessary. Q. How far from shore do they fish? From the island ?—A. All the way from two and three miles up towards Broad Cave. Q. Don’t they tish within a quarter of a mile ?—A. They come right in, for all I know. Q. Now, you stated that on your shore you had everything to contend with some years—that the seiners occupied the ground ?—A. Yes; the last year I was there. Q. Why were they a nuisance to you?—A, I have always fished with hook and line, being a little behind the times. I did not care, being along in years—I thought if I could get along without using the seine I would do so. Q. Why were the seines cbjectionable ?—A. Because they fished where we did. They occupied all the grounds. They were setting seines where we were. Q. Is the purse seine a destructive kind of fishing or not ?—A. It catches the fish up very fast. Q. Is it destructive to the fisheries ?—A. I think it is the worst thing that ever could be for mackerel. item f Q. Is it your opinion that it destroys the fishery ?—A. I think it does. Q. It kills a good many fish?—A. Yes. Q. When a man fishes with the hook he has everything to contend with with the seiners?—A. I think it kills the fish up and makes them scarce. Q. Do I understand that in your opinion, it destroys the fishing ground ?—A. It makes the fish scarcer, yes. By Mr. Dana: Q. In the year 1874 you told me you caught 278 barrels in the first trip; and in the second how many, do you remember ?—A. I think somewhere about 200. We packed 498 barrels that season. Q. How many of those did you catch at the Magdalens?—A, Very few. I was there once. p Q. State as nearly as you can.—A. I should think twenty barrels. Q. Now, taking twenty from 498 barrels, where were the rest caught t —A. At Prince Edward Island—off around what they call Fisherm2n’s Bank, and East Point the second trip. Once I was at Malpeque Har- bor. That is all, but didn’t catch any fish that way. Q. What parts of Prince Edward Island did you say you caught fish ? —A. At Fisherman’s Bank. That is abroad off Georgetown, some eight or ten miles, some a little farther down, what they call East Point, east- southeast from the point, then at Second Chapel. re. Q. You were asked some questions about the general opinion as to 2230 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. licenses or the value of licenses. What do you say was the general opinion of the masters as to having licenses?—A. They didn’t think they were any value at all—only to protect themselves in case they were not dealt with just squarely. They thought they were best to be on the sure side. Q. Now, you have heard this talked over and the reasons given, have you?—A. Yes; I have. Q. Those who did think it safe to have them, or convenient to ee them, didn’t consider them really as of much value ?—A. They thought it would save them from trouble when they came into collision with the cutters. They were uncertain how far they were off. Q. Now, is it difficult at sea to determine your distance from the land? —A. It is, especially with high land. It is very deceiving. Q. Explain how that ~is, and to what extent an honest man, who wishes to know how far he can go with safety to his vessel—I don’t mean from cutters—may be deceived by the appearance of the land ?—A. Plenty of men have thought they were within three or four miles when they were not within six or seven. Q. Take your own experience. If you have high land, have you had experience of being deceived in that way, thinking yourself very near and finding yourself double the distance you supposed 7—A. Yes, I have. Q. Is that common with seamen?—A. Yes; itiscommon. The coast of Cape Breton is bold, and at Prince Edward Island it runs up pretty abruptly at Malpeque. Q. Suppose the land is low, a sandy beach and low-lying country, and you have your vessel near, are you liable to make a mistake, and which way ?—A. Well, you can generally tell pretty near how far you are off. Q. If you make a mistake, which way will it be likely to be if the land is low ?—A. We would think we were too far off, when we would be too nigh. Q. Is the liability to mistakes a common and recognized thing?—A. Itis. I will state an instance. We were fishing off East Point the last year before the treaty, 1872, was it not? and were catching fish in the morning. I supposed for a certainty I was not much more than three iniles off, and 1 saw a steamer coming along. I didn’t know whether I was safe or not. I did not know what to think. I had no license, and felt afraid. When he came along he went outside of us overa mile. Q. Did he say anything to you?—A. He never said a word. Q. And you don’t know now whether he was running on the three-mile line or not ?—A. He was not running on the three-mile line. Q. Mr. Davies said your catches in the bay had been very small and yet you had not tried to go inside. Are those catches very small ?—A. No; they are a fair average. ; Q. Do you call that catch in 1862, when you caught 290 and 280 bar- rels, a small one 7—A. I do not. That was a good catch. Q. In 1863 you had 280 and 215. Was that very small?—A. No. Q. In 1864, 284 and 215, how was that ?—A. That is the very best year. Q. In 1865 you had 285 and 215? Mr. Davies. That is not the statement he gave me. Mr. DANA. Look at 1865. Take the paper or your memory, I don’t care which, only give me a correct answer. How many trips did you make in 1865 1—A. Two. Q. What did you catch ?—A. I think about 500 barrels. Q. Is that very small ?—A. No. ~ paar AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2231 Q. Take 1866, 280 and 220. That is just 500.—A. That is for the season. That is pretty good. Q. In 1868 you went in late 7A. I made only one trip. Q. In 1872 you made one trip 7—A. Yes. Q. In 1873 you took 480 in two trips. Is that a very small catch ?— A. That was a good fair catch in proportion to the rest. Q. In 1874, so far as numbers were concerned, you had 498 barrels. Is that very small ?—A. It was called a very good catch for the season. Q. Now, I have been over every trip from 1860 to 1874. There is no one you call a very small catch 7—A. Not for the season. I always got a very fair catch for the fleet. Q. Now, Mr. Davies having based a question upon that, do you say that the catches have been very small in the bay ?—A. I donot. Always, as a general thing, I got good fair catches of fish. Q. One point-‘more. You say you went to Miscou Bank. Is that in Bay Chaleurs ?—A. It is not in Bay Chaleurs at all. Q. Where is it?—A. It lies right off Miscou Point, one of the peints of Bay Chaleurs. Q. Then you don’t see any inconsistency in saying that when in Mis- cou Bank you were not in Bay Chaleurs? You were not up Bay Chal- eurs ?—A. I don’t recollect it. Q. Did you say you knew of no fish caught inside of three miles off Margaree ?—A. I did not. Q. Did you say anything like that ?—A. No, I said very likely there was mackerel caught within three miles. They might be right on the rocks for all I know, but I never caught any. Q. One more question. Were you conscious of intentionally evad- ing questions put by Mr. Davies ?—A. I came here to tell the truth. Q. Were youconscious of intentionally evading questions put by him ?— ‘A. Not at all. I came here to tell as near the truth as I can tell. Q. Did you always understand his questions in the form put ?—A. No, he talked to me so sharp. It is the first time I was before a court, and it is difficult for a person, especially where a man is trying to bore right into you. Q. You were supposing the questions to be put for the purpose 1—A. They were put to bother me and disconcert me. Q. I only asked if you understood his questions ?—A. I did not. I know what a cross-questioning means. Q. Look at the paper and tell what is the correct catch as regards 1865?—A. About 500 barrels. Q. That is not what is there.—A. In 1865 280 barrels. If I had been asked the years in the bay in succession, I could have given every one promptly, but when you take certain years and cross-examine & person, it is different. By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: -Q. You spoke of a line from North Cape to East Cape and the distance from the Magdalen Islands down to the deepest bend of Prince Edward Island. What is it?—A. I think about 22 miles. No. 24. JOHN H. GALE, of Gloucester, Mass., packer and deputy inspector of mackerel for the city of Gloucester, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Foster : ‘Question. How old are you 7—Answer. Forty-three years. 2232 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. And your business of late years has been that of deputy inspector of mackerel ?—A. Packer and inspector of mackerel. Q. Have you some of your books with you ?—A. I have. Q. Turn to the account of the trip of the James Seward in 1857. I will ask you, before you begin to read the trip, if you know Wm. McDon- nell ?—A. I know him well. Q. By what name did he go on board ?—A. Bill Mack. @. You have no doubt about the man ?—A. Not in the least. Q. He was on board the James Seward ?—A. Yes, my memory is per- fectly clear about the man. Q. Read the entry of the trip from your book.—A. Schooner James Seward, September 8, 1857, packed 2423 barrels of mackerel. Wm. Mack caught of that trip 21 barrels No. 1 mackerel, 85 pounds of No. 2, and 10 pounds No.3. These were packed barrels. Q. What is the difference, on an average, between sea barrels and packed barrels ?—A. We reckon ten per cent. Q. MecDonnell’s statement was that James Seward was a 300-barrel vessel, and got two full fares. Did James Seward make a second trip?—A. Yes, two trips that year. Q. What was the second trip ?—A. She packed out on November 20, 1857, two hundred and five and three-quarters packed barrels. Q. We will now take the Mohenia, of which Macdonnell was captain in 1865 ?—A. I have the statement. Q. Give it—A. The Mohenia packed, September 2, 1858, 1623 packed barrels. William Mack was captain. Q. Take the second trip of the Mohenia that year ?—A. On December 4, 1858, she packed out 15435 packed barrels. Wm. Mack captain. Q. McDonnell’s statement about the Mohenia was as follows: Q. What fares did you take ?—A. I think about 150 barrels the first trip and perhaps 300 barrels the second trip. It was a 300-barrel vessel and we generally got fares. Mr. DAVIES asked how the statement of McDonnell fixed the year. Mr. Foster said the testimony of McDonnell was as follows: Q. You afterwards became captain of the vessel ?—A. Yes. Q. What vessel ?—A. The Mohenia. Q. What was the size of the vessel ?—A. About 75 tons, I think. Q. How many tri zips did you make?—A. Two. Q. What fares did you make ?—A. I think about 250 barrels the first trip, and about 300 barrels the second trip. It was a 300-barrel vessel and we generally got fares. The fair inference is it was the first year he was captain. That is what I assume. WITNESS. Those two years are the only two Macdonnell was captain of the Mohenia. I owned part of her and my partner the rest. Q. Take 1859, the same schooner.—A. I have the statement. Q. Read the result—A. November 25, 1859, Mohenia packed 193} packed barrels. Q. Did she make in 1859 more than one trip?—A. Only one trip; mackerel were very scarce that year. Q. Macdonnell’s statement reads: ame The next year, I believe, you went again in the Mohenia?—A. Yes, we made two Tips. b. With similar results to those of the previous year?—A. About the same. WITNESS. The first year he was to my knowledge skipper of the Mo- henia he went two trips to the bay with the result stated, and the next year one trip in the bay. He was never afterward, or before, master of the Mohenia. L . AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 2233 Q. Turn to the S. A. Parkhurst, in 1866. Peter Deagle’s statement in regard to it was as follows: I fished in the Safronia from Gloucester, and that season we caught 700 barrels. The next year I was in the S. A. Parkhurst, and we caught 600 barrels. Q. Give me the voyage of the S. A. Packhurst in 1866.—A. Novem. ber 9, 1866, schooner S. A. Parkhurst packed 3104 packed barrels. Q. Do you know Deagle ?—A. I did know him. 1 have no very defin- ite recollection of him. Q. Did she make more than one trip that year ?—A. No. On Nov. 9 the trip was packed. That is correct with the settlement we made with him. Q. You have a statement of the settlement of Deagle and a statement of the settlement of William Mack ?—A. Yes. Q. As you are mackerel inspector I should like to have you state ex- actly what net stock is. As you have shown me in your books the set- tlement of one of Captain Layton’s voyages in the Rattler stated very distinctly, I will ask you to read it and put in a copy. ‘ Witness read following statement from his book : GLOUCESTER, November 4, 1255. Schooner Rattler packed: 57 bbls. 80 lbs. mess mackerel, at $20.... $1, 148 00 441 bbls. 55 lbs. No. 1 mackerel at 17.... 7,50i 67 16 bbls. 55 lbs. No. 1 mackerel, at 13.... 211 37 9 bbls. — lbs. No. 3 mackerel, at 10..-.. 90 00 $2,951 04 Packing at $2 per barrel . 2. sec ceen= esscccces esse 1,047 90 7,903 14 GI DONTOISTBH VOR IAL! OG focus cee cctce sooo > cen eeccs meee ch cc euesawects 483 00 ebarrels:clains. Stel Ocue acs cess ees oo cae nese suites cos holaes che Sane 70 00 INNA PW abeb- shoscs. coca ccccsteueves cceue seus seiscb ces locassancacicoes 70 PPSJOOPRANG HOS cect ous coe Saas ae, cnoerscins ae ble swcine as ewicescese 3 00 AGADOL ON albae vasee see sees See nen in ei aa eisaals Cats be aaae ty asiaee 2 50 SORMO te RES s cok eh onc hides weet anos nsec cuberseuseesone cass 1 50 —_— — 560 70 2)7, 342 44 3, 671 22 That sum of $3,671.22 is divided among the crew. There are other expenses which come out of the crew. Originally the crews used to cook by turns. Now they agree among themselves, and have done so for years, to have a man to cook and engage to pay him, so that when we make up the trip we have to take off the pay of the cook, which comes out of the crew and not out of the vessel. The statement _ was made up by me in order to settle with the crew of Captain Layton’s vessel, he having packed the Rattler with me. _ By Hon. Mr. Kellogg : Q. Was it made up by you as inspector ?—A. No; as packer. In Gloucester each firm has its own inspector when they carry on business and own vessels and pack other vessels, as it is necessary that one of the firm should inspect in order to take care of their own mackerel. In Newburyport there is a State inspector, who goes about in his official capacity and inspects mackerel for everybody, but in Gloucester the ‘custom is different. By Mr. Foster : Q. Will you now take a settlement with one of the crew and read it ? —A. I will take the settlement with Captain Bearse. 2234 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Does the captain have one man’s share?—A. Yes; with a per centage for being captain. Q. That percentage comes out of the vessel 7—A. Yes. Q. He has an advantage in the place from which to fish ?—A. Yes. Q. What is that ?—A. He has the first pick of the berths to fish from. - Q. Explain it.—A. Of course the captain has the choice of the place where he will stand and fish from, and he takes the best place. He also throws the bait, which is additional trouble. The others draw lots for choice. ; Q. Take the captain’s settlement; I suppose those of the rest of the crew are just like it?—A. Yes; every man gets half of the price of the mackerel he catches, after expenses are taken out. Witness then read the following statement : GLOUCESTER, November 4, 1865. Schooner Rattler (Benjamin Bearse) packed 4 bbls, 105 lbs., mess mackerel, at $20. $90 50 25 bbls., 165 lbs., No 1 mackerel, at 17. 439 02 60 Ibs., No. 2 mackerel, at 13. 3 90 100 lbs, No. 3 mackerel, at 10. 5 00 Pachini: at Sew owas serials ses ceed doaleecuus cess Seaens bee ecotuue rset cacuee ~ 62 30 Baitiandcookscce sodas cas cetis:s oe sa coe ekccclece ces eemicee elo ee nace ae cee aes 26 83 211 23 Q. How much is received by the owners of the vessel for the whole voyage?—A. $3,671.22. Q. What have the owners to pay out of that, or what has been paid ? —A. They have to pay for the vessel, wear and tear, insurance, fitting out, provisions, and all other expenses that a vessel is liable to incur. Q. What do you mean by fitting out ?—A. Provisions, Manila rope, anchors, &c. Q. They pay for the charter of the vessel ?—A. The use of the vessel. Q. The owner has to pay for wear and tear, insurance, fitting out, which includes provisions, and what else?—A. Ship’s tackling, sails, anchors, ropes, cooking-utensils, and everything that is used. Q. How is the salt paid for ?—A. The salt which is put on board the vessel is paid for by the vessel, and is included in the outfit. Q. No part of that is included in packing ?—A. No. When we repack the mackerel from sea barrels to barrels for market we use salt, which is included in the $2 per barrel for packing; but the salt which goes on board to keep the mackerel until they come in port is paid for by the owners. Q. That particular voyage was settled on when?—A. November 4, 1865. ’ Q. Does it represent the number caught for the whole season ?—A. No, there was another trip in the same vessel. Q. That was a great year?--A. Yes. Q. The Rattler made another trip the same year?—A. There was another trip which the Rattler made the same year. Q. That was the end of the season?—A. This is the trip which she brought home. Q. Was that an uncommonly profitable voyage ?—A. It was. It was an uncommonly profitable year and voyage. Q. It was an extraordinary voyage?—A. Yes, an extraordinary voy- age. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2235 By Mr. Davies: , Q. What position did you hold in Gloucester at the time of which you are speaking ?—A. I was a packer and inspector of mackerel. F Q. In Mr. Layton’s firm ?—A. No. b Q. You had no connection with Mr. Layton’s business ?—A. No, ex- _ cept packing his mackerel. «. Was packing and inspecting fish a distinct branch of the fishing business, and had Mr. Layton no interest in it?—A. No interest at all. $ Q. These are your own books as a packer and inspector ?—A. At that time I was in the employ of D. A. Parkhurst as his clerk; he was __ inspector. Q. Is it the custom for men to inspect their own fish there ?—A. Yes. Q. When you get fish in from the bay, you inspect and mark them No. 1, 2, and 3?—A. Yes. Q. You put your own brand on them ?—A. The inspector inspects the mackerel from vessels in which he is connected. | Q. When your vessels come in from Bay St. Lawrence with mackerel | how do you brand them ?—A. We brand them with a hot iron, Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 according to the quality. | Q. Do they appear by your inspectors to be bay mackerel or shore mackerel ?—A. They do not by the inspection. Q. You put them on the market cs Nos, 1, 2, 3, or 4, irrespective of where they were caught?—A. They are branded irrespective of where caught. Q. Do I understand you that you put them on the market in that way ?—A. The buyers usually inquire whether they are bay or shore, and buy accordingly, but nothing is branded on them which shows any difference. : Q. Nothing on the barrels themselves ?—A. No; nothing. Q. You have been inspector of mackerel yourself?—A. Y years. Q. Can you name all the different kinds of mackerel ?—A. I can name the different brands. Q. Name them.—A. Nos. 1, 2,3 large,3,and 4. There are five differ- ent legal brands. Q. Do you make any distinction between mackerel caught inshore and off shore ?—A. Not in culling them. ; Q. Suppose there was a barrel full of mackerel, could you tell what were taken inshore and what out; what were taken within three miles and what 4, 5, or 6 miles out 7—A. No; I could not. Q. Do you as inspector know a particular kind of mackerel as ill- grass mackerel, as distinct from any other?—A. We don’t snake any such distinction. ; Q. Do you know of any such distinction ?—A. No; not in our brand- ing or inspection. ‘ ; _ Q. Do you know any mackerel as ill-grass mackerel in your inspec- tion?—A. I never heard of any as inspector. Q. During the ten years you have been inspector you never heard of that?—-A. Not as inspector. , Q. Practically, it is not known among inspeetors?—A. No. Q. In regard to No. 1 mess mackerel, I suppose there is such a thing from the bay?—A. Yes; when you cut off their heads and fix them. Q. Do No. 1 mess mackerel from the bay range as high as No. 1 mess mackerel, say from Georges Bank ?—A. For the last two years I should say that our shore mackerel were the better mackerel. es; for 10 2236 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. And previous to that?—A. I should say they would average to be so when we got large mackerel off our shores. Q. That is not a very clear answer.—A. Mess mackerel is supposed to be the first quality, and, to be marketable, must be large, with the heads cut off, cleaned and prepared to be “mess mackerel.” The larger and fatter the mackerel, the better mess mackerel they are. I don’t think that the mess mackerel from the bay are considered as good, or have been during the last eight or ten years, as those got off our shores when we have got large mackerel off our shores. Q. Were they considered as good previously?—A. That covers my time as inspector. Q. From your knowledge, do you know whether No. 1 mess mackerel from the bay was considered as good or inferior to No. 1 mess shore mackerel ?—A. The better qualities of shore mackerel usually ranged higher than the better qualities of bay mackerel. Q. Before this limit of time, was Bay No.1 mess mackerel equal or superior to No. 1 mess mackerel caught on the American coast ?—A. IL don’t care to state about that, because I was not inspector. Q. As you do not personally know, you do not care to state 7—A. No. Q. Is there much difference between No. 1 mess from the bay and No. 1 mess from Georges Bank ?—A. The larger kinds of mackerel from our shores have fetched considerably more than No. 1 from the bay this present year. - Q. Are you not aware that No. 1 are not taken in the bay to any ex- tent until fall?—A. Not large mackerel. Fat mackerel are not. taken anywhere till late in the year. Q. Is there any appreciable difference in price between No. 1 Bay and No. 1 from Georges Banks?—A. We have not had many mackerel this year from Georges Banks. Georges Bank is a very small place on our shores. Q. I will take the mackerel caught off the United States coast 7—A. They have been of better quality during the last two years, and fetched a higher price. Q. Did the No. 2 or No. 1 not mess bring higher prices?—A. As re- gards No. 1 not mess, the only difference is that one quality had the heads cut off. Q. Did those caught on the American coast bring a higher price ?—- A. Yes, this year. Q. Taking a ran of years ?—A. I think so. Q. And in regard to No.2?—A. There is a great variation in No. 2 mackerel. Q. I want to know whether mackerel caught on the American coast sold at higher prices in the American market than the same brands of mackerel caught in the.bay ?—A. I would like to explain in regard to No. 2 mackerel. The law under which I inspect requires that No. 1 shall be 13 inches long, and no matter how fat the mackerel may be, if it is a quarter of an inch short, it is nothing but No. 2. Consequently, a great number of mackerel, when mackerel are mixed, lack a trifle of 13 inches, though they are just as good as No. 1, and are branded No. 2. So there is a great difference in No. 2 mackerel about the quality, although they are the same brand. No. 2 may be as fat mackerel as was ever in the sea, but as it is only 13 inches, it can only be No. 2. Therefore No. 2 quality is inspected by buyers more particularly than any other brand according to the value and quality of the fish. Q. That extends generally over all mackerel ? —A. Yes. > CP Ae rg ls | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2237 Q; What is the difference in price between No. 1 mess bay, and No. L mess shore mackerel 7—A. This year it has been —— Q. I don’t ask you this year because No. 1 has not come in from the bay yet. What has been the difference for the last four, five, or six years ?—A. There has to be some judgment exercised because the price varies at different times according to the market. Q. Is there really any difference in the price of bay and shore mack- erel of the same brands, so that if mackerel went up a dollar or down a dollar the same difference would continue ?—A. We don’t know the nature or kind of mackerel caught in the bay or off our shore until some are brought in. Mackerel vary in kind and quality in the bay and on our shore every year, and we, the inspectors, have to have some from the bay and shore in order to judge what mackerel are going to be dur- ing the season. Q. A fisherman stated yesterday that there was a difference of 37 per barrel between mackerel caught in the bay St. Lawrence and your shore. Is that true ?—A. That is true to-day. ; Q. I ask you what is the difference between No. 1 bay and No. 1 caught on your coast ?—A. Eight dollars, to-day. Q. Have you had any No. 1 mackerel from the bay up to the present time this year?—A. Yes; I have packed them. Q. How many ?—A. I packed 25 barrels of one trip. Q. Do you wish the Commission to understand that your opinion, as inspector of mackerel at Gloucester, is that there is a difference of $8 per barrel between No. 1 mess-mackerel from the bay and No. 1 mess caught on your shores ?—A. I wish to give the Commission to under- stand distinctly that there is, to my personal knowledge, from mackerel sold under my observation within three weeks, $8 difference between No. 1. bay mackerel and No. 1 shore mackerel. Q. Is there, to your knowledge, any recognized distinction in the price paid for No. 1 mess-mackerel caught in the bay and No. 1 mess caught on your coast ?—A. There is. Q. How much ?—A. Eight dollars, to-day. Q. You consider that to be a fair answer ?—A. I certainly do. By Sir Alexander Galt: Q. Are we to consider that there is usually a difference of $8 ?—A. I didn't say that. Q. Could you not tell us what the difference is ?—A. I did not under- stand it that way. By Mr. Davies: Q. Is there any difference usually 7—A. Yes. : Q. How much?—A. We have to judge, as mackerel vary in price from day to day. I should judge, from my knowledge of the last four or five years, there is $5 difference. Q. Did that difference exist in 1865?—A. I think not so much as that. Q. How much was it in 1865? Isee that No. 1 mess, in the Rat- tler, brought $20 that year?—A. Yes. Q. Can you tell what No. 1 mess-mackerel from your coast brought that year? Is there one barrel No.1 entered in your book as caught on your shores that year ?—A. One hundred and twenty-nine barrels No. 1, $21 per barrel. I think that would bea fair price that year, for it was a good year in the bay. , Q. Can you give us any entries to show what the difference was in any other year ?—A. Not before 1865. Q. Tell me the difference in 1866 and 1867, and give me the names of 2238 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the two vessels you take the amounts from ?—A. In order to form a correct judgment on these matters, you must have sales of.mackerel on the same day. Q. Were those you gave sold on the same day 7—A. No. Q.. Then the difference in price might have arisen from the mackerel having gone up?—A. Yes; I have said the price of mackerel varies from day to day. Q. Give two cases from your book ?—A. On October 17, 1866, Sarah Elwell, 146 barrels, $18 per barrel. October 20, Eastern Clipper, 26 packed barrels, $18.50. They were in both cases caught on our shores. Q. Can you give the price obtained for bay mackerel about that time?—A. November 5, 1866, H. M. Woodward $18 per barrel. That came from the bay. Q. The rise and fall of the market has something to do with the price ?—A. It has everything to do with it. Q. In regard to the information you gave about packing, did I under- stand you to say you charge $2 a barrel for packing ?—A. Yes Q. That is charged against the vessel ?—A. That is charged against the mackerel. Q. Has the ship-owner anything to do with it?—A. He has nothing to do with that. Q. Ifa firm of ship-owners send out three or four vessels, have they not the mackerel packed in their own establishment?—A. Yes; when they pack their own mackerel, but they sometimes pack for other peo- ple. Q. I am supposing that a firm send out three or four vessels, do they not generally pack their own mackerel ?—A. Certainly. Q. They charge $2 per barrel against the mackerel ?—A. Yes. Q. What is that charge composed of ?—A. It includes barrels. Q. How much do barrels cost ?—A. The price varies according to the market value, from 50 to 80 cents, I suppose. I know one year $1 was paid. Q. What year was that?—A. It was paid by Rattler in 1865. Q. What has been the average value of a barrel ?—A. Durin g the last seven or eight years it has been about 90 cents. Q. What are the other items ?—A. Another item is salt. Q. How much does salt cost per bushel ?—A. $1.50 a hogshead at Gloucester. At that time, 1865, I know salt was $6 per hogshead. Q. How many barrels of mackerel will a hogshead pack ?—A. We put half a bushel of salt in a barrel. Q. What was the duty on salt then ?—A. I don’t know. (). How many bushels are there to a hogshead ?—A. Hight. Q. When salt was $6 per hogshead, that would be 30c. per barrel ?— A. Yes. Q. Is there a drawback on salt used in that way ?—A. There was no drawback at that time. We paid a duty at that time. Q. There is a drawback now 7—A. Yes. Q. What else is there?—A. We cull and salt the mackerel. Q. That is labor ?—A. Yes. Q. Does not the $2 per barrel for packing and salt leave a very hand- some profit?—A. It leaves a profit or we would not carry on the busi- ness. Q. Does it leave a handsome profit ?—A. I don’t know your definition of the word * handsome.” Q. 1 will omit * very.” Does it leave a handsome profit ?—A. It leaves a profit. -" AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2239 Q. Will you state what the profit is?—A. That varies according to the price of the different articles, of course. I should judge it leaves a profit of 50c. a barrel. Thére is considerable labor in it. We have to hire-cullers and pay them 50c. an hour—at that time. Q. Is it 50c. clear of all expenses ?—A. Yes; at that time. Q. When you spoke of the berths, I did not understand whether the captain charged the men for the berths ?—A. That is optional with the captain; there is no rule. The captain makes his own arrangements ‘about the berths; it is not a matter for the owners. Q. Is the selling of berths a perquisite of the captain ?—A. It belongs to the captain. Q. Your statement with regard to the schooner Mohenia differs some- what from the statement of Macdonnell. You say she made one trip only in 1859. Turn up your book and show me how you are able to swear to that from your book ?—A. All the trips and settlements with the crews are put in this book, and there is only one trip entered. She started late for the bay and it was a very hard year for mackerel.‘ Q. Do you speak from your personal knowledge or do you simply form your opinion from the book ?—A. Both. I have a very distinct recollection of the voyage. I was part owner of the vessel. Q. Principally from the book ?—A. I spoke from recollection, and also from the book. Q. Are you enabled to contradict Macdonnell from recollection ?—A. I find there is no account of any other voyage in the book, and I know by refreshing my memory that he did not do it. Q. I suppose you did not see the book. Are you able from memory alone to contradict Macdonnell?—A. Not so firmly as Ican now. My memory is refreshed by the whole book. Q. I am drawing your attention to 1859.—A. There is a trip for cod- ’ fish July 1, 1859, schooner Mohenia. That is the last trip she made before she went to the bay. It took about one week and a half to fit out. Q. On July 1, 1859, she came in with a catch of codfish ?—A. Yes. Q. On November 25 she packed the trip of mackerel of which you have spoken ?—A. Yes. Q. How are you able to state that she did not make a trip before that?—A. Because she did not bring any home, and because she was not put in the book. Q. If the trip was packed by somebody else, would it necessarily ap- pear in that book 7—A. Yes. I part owner. ‘Q. Did you pack all Captain Layton’s vessels ?—A. Two-fifths of them. ’ Q. You owned part of the yessel ?—A. Yes. . Q. You are of opinion there was only one trip made that year !—A. Yes; I have no doubt of it. — Q. Does the book show the number of wash-barrels !—A. No; the number of packed barrels. By Mr. Foster: These are the wholesale prices current of mackerel, from the Boston Daily Advertiser, of September 24,1877. They are as follows: Mackerel, bay: 3s, $8 and $10; 1s, $16 and $18; 2s, $11 and $19, Mackerel, shore: 1s, $17 and $20; 2s, $11 and $13; 3s, $7 and $8. Q. Will you tell me how the people, who make up prices current, find whether a particular lot of mackerel are bay or shore mackerel 7—A. They generally know where the vessels have been, but they decide on the quality by examination. 2240 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . Q. Do they not in Boston sometimes put on a stencil mark, ‘‘ Bay,” or ‘“‘Shore”?—A,. Yes. Q. That is no part of the inspector’s duty 7—A. No. Q. It is nothing that the law requires to be done officially ?—A. No. Q. It is done for the purpose of informing buyers whether it is bay or shore ?—A. It is done in nearly all cases where it is shipped. Q. Shipped from the wharf?—A. Yes. Q. Then all over the country those two kinds of mackerel are known ? —A. Yes. They are known by thestencil plates. I think it is the uni- vessel practice to put on “Shore” and “ Bay,” to whichever they belong. Q. Can a person accustomed to mackerel easily tell by looking at mackerel whether they come from the bay or shore?—A. I think they can after they have culled a trip from each place during the year. . Q. A person who has culled or inspected them can do so?—A. Yes; after they have packed a single lot from each place. The mackerel that come.in from the*bay and from shore are of different character every year in each case. So it is necessary for the inspector to see a trip from each place, and he can afterwards decide. Q. Is there any practice by which the captain is allowed to sell the choice of berths among the crew ?—A. Personally 1 never heard of it. The choice I understand is by lot. I have usually heard it spoken of as drawing for berths. Q. Something was said about people packing all their own mackerel. Is a sharesman obliged to have the owner of the vessel pack out his mackerel, and is he liable to be cheated about it? Explain—A. When the vessel is at the wharf the crew’s duty is to throw the mackerel from the barrels into the kid, from which they are sorted. One of the crew stands at one side of the tub to see there is fair weight, and the owner appoints a man who stands on the other side and sees there is a fair thing, and if there is any dissatisfaction the crew generally speak about it and ask if it is a fair cull. It is a mere matter of opinion, for the in- spector culls the mackerel to the best of his judgment and according to law. Q. Now, about the price charged for packing and inspection; is it always $2?—A. No; only during those high years. It is $1.75 this year. Q. It varies with the price of barrels ?—A. With the cost of packing. Q. You said there was a clear profit of 50 cents a barrel on the pack- ing ?—A. I thought there was at the time. I was speaking of the Rat- tler. Q. Will you state what, in your judgment, is the usual profit on the packing of mackerel ?—A. I should say from 30 cents to 40 cents a barrel. Q. What does the packer have to furnish; what capital has he to invest in the business ?—A. He has to furnish a wharf on which to pack the mackerel. Q. And you gave us the items of barrels, salt, and labor ?—A. Yes; they are included in the $2. Q. What else ?—A. Scales and all the materials with which to pack them. Q. Does he get any payment for the wharf?—A. No. Q. All those items come in the price of packing, which now is $1.75 per barrel ?—A. Yes; and a wharf costs quite a sum at Gloucester. _ Q. What becomes of the sea barrels ?—A. When we fit a vessel we furnish barrels. They belong to the owner, and are not charged to any AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2241 one; and when the vessel returns we take the barrels back and store them away. By Mr. Davies: Q. Do you mean to say that the average profit on packing is 30 or 40 cents per barrel ?—A. I should say the average profit is 40 cents. / No. 25. FRIDAY, September 28, 1877. The Conference met. JOHN 8. Evirt, residing at the Bay of Islands, Newfoundland, master mariner and dealer in fish, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Foster : Question. How old are yon ?—Answer. 37 years. Q. You were born in the State of Maryland 7—A. Yes. Q. You have fished in Gloucester vessels ?—A. Yes. Q. And have lived at Salem, Mass., and are now at the Bay of Isl- ands, Newfoundland, in the employment of a Salem fishing firm, as their agent ?—A. i am not now. I was, up to the lst June this year. I am now for myself. Q. In what years have you fished for mackerel in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence ?—A. From 1862 to 1869, excepting 1868. That is to say, part of some of the years. Q. You were not master of a schooner at that time ?—A. No. Q. What was the first schooner in which you came for mackerel to the gulf?—A. Bell Brandon. ~, Q. Who was her captain ?—A. Captain Walker. Q. From Gloucester ?—A. From Southport, Me. Q. How many barrels of mackerel were taken?—A. About 200 sea- barrels. _ Q. And where were they caught ?—A. In the vicinity of North Cape, Prince Edward Island, off Bradley, and that way. Q. Do you recollect whether any portion of them was caught within three miles of the shore? Have you any particular recollection about that?—A. No; at that time the matter was not agitated, and unless there was something to make a person recollect, he could not recollect, and could not form any idea of it. Q. You don’t recollect ?—A. No. Q. In the next year, 1863, what schooner were you in ?7—A. General Burnside, of Gloucester, Captain Solomon Fry. : Q. What was the tonnage of the vessel 7—A. About 168 tons, carpen- ter’s tonnage. Q. How many men were on board ?—A. 20. .Q. How many barrels of mackerel did she get 7—A. Between 800 and _ 900 sea barrels. Q. Where were they caught ?—A. We caught most of them at Mag- dalen Islands, Banks Bradley and Orphan and in that vicinity, with the exception of 250 we caught round Sydney, near Flint Island, Cape Bre- ton. Q. Were those 250 barrels taken inshore or out ?—A. I should think that they were taken inshore. I don’t recollect, but I should judge most of them were taken within the three-mile limit. : Q. Where was the rest of the catch of 800 or 900 barrels taken—in shore or offshore ?—A. Offshore altogether, I have no doubt. 141 F 2242 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Were you in the same vessel the following year, 1864?—A. No. Q. Do you happen to know from information received, and if so, who told you, what the catch of that vessel was in 1864 ?—A. I was well ac- quainted with the captain, and was on board the vessel a good many times. Going home he said they had about 500 sea barrels on the vessel ; 530 they were reported to have. Q. What vessel were you in during 1864 ?—A. Lady Franklin, of Glou- cester. Q. On the first trip ?7—A. No. Q. What time did you go in her ?—A. In September. Q. What was the captain’s name ?—A. Elias Olsen. Q. How many barrels did she take ?—A. 260 sea barrels. Q. Where were they taken ?—A. They were taken round Port Hood, Margaree, and towards the island, generally there. Q. What portion of them, if any, was taken inshore ?—A. I could not say, probably one-half. Q. In 1865 what vessel were you in?—A. General Grant. Q. Who was her captain ?—A. William Coombes. Q. What was her tonnage ?—A. 80 tons odd; about 85, I suppose. Q. How many years were you in her?—A. Three years in succession ; only part of the third year. Q. Two whole years and part of a third ?—A. Yes. Q. In 1865, your first year, how many barrels of mackerel did the General Grant catch ?—A. About 1,200 sea barrels. Q. How many trips did she make ?—A. Two. Q. How many did you catch on the first trip 7—A. Something about 500 sea barrels; 520 if I recollect rightly. Q. What did’ you do with them ?— A. Landed them at Gloucester. Q. Then did you return to the bay ?—A. We did. Q. How many barrels did you take the second trip?—A. Enough to make up the complement—about 1,200 barrels. Q. Did you land any of the second trip ?—A. I think we landed about 200 barrels at Canso. Q. Do you remember whether you shipped them up or carried them home ?—A. The impression I[ have is that they were freighted up. Q. Can you tell the Commission where the 1,200 barrels were taken ? —A. They were all taken between Magdalen Islands and North Cape and on Bank Bradley and in that vicinity. Q. Was any portion taken within three miles of the shore ?—A. I don’t think there was any, because we generally fished just in sight of land. The land was very low there, and we were probably six, eight or ten miles off. Q. What land was it 7—A. Tignish and Cascumpeque. Q. In 1866 you were in the same vessel ?—A. Yes. Q. Do you happen to know whether the vessel was licensed in 1866? —A. She was. Q. How many barrels were taken in 1866?—A. About 600 barrels. Q. How many trips were made?—A. Two. Q. Where were those two trips of mackerel taken 7—A. On the same fishing ground. Q. Repeat it?—A. At Bank Bradley, North Cape, and Magdalen Islands. Q. Was any portion taken within three miles of the shore ?—A., I don’t think there was, because we did not visit the shores. That year we had ~ a license. For my own satisfaction I used to take observations and cross-bearings to find out whether we were inshore. a ace AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2243 Q. In 1867, were you in the same vessel ?—A. Yes; the first trip. Q. What did the General Grant catch the first trip!—A. About 200 barrels. : Q. Where were they taken ?—A. On the same grounds—at Magdalen Islands, off North Cape, and at Bank Bradley ; that is, the bulk of them. Q. Was any portion taken inshore ?—A. I don’t think so. There might possible have been a few, but not to amount to anything. We did not fish inshore at all in that vessel. Q. Not during any of the years ?—A. No; we never fished inshore. Q. You say you took cross-bearings 7—A. Yes; for my own satisfae- tion. Q. Did you do it for the captain ?—A. No; for my own satisfaction. Q. What reason had you for doing so?—A. So that if at any time we should be fishing inshore, I would know we were within the three miles. Q. Did you then understand navigation 7—A. I was learning it. Q. By yourself ?—A. By myself. Q. You say you were on the General Grant one trip in 1867 7—A. Yes. Q. Were you on any other schooner the latter part of that year ?—A. On the Ruth Groves, of Gloucester, Captain David Gathney. Q. How many barrels did she get ?—A. About 120 barrels, I think. Q. Where were they taken ?—A. Round Prince Edward Island. We got so few, and they were so scattered, we could hardly tell where we got them. Q. Did you get any portion inshore ?—A. We might have; I could not say. Q. In stating the number of years you were in the gulf, you said you were not there in 1868. What were you doing then ?—A. Halibut fish- ing. : ©. Where ?—A. At Grand Banks, St. Peter’s Bank, and the Western Banks. ; Q. In 1869, were you in the gulf?—A. Yes; one trip in the fall. Q. In what schooner ?—A. Samuel E. Sawyer, Captain M. C. Web- ber. 5 Q. How many barrels did she take ?—A. About 120 sea barrels. Q. Where were they taken?—A. Round the bend of Prince Edward Island, principally. Q. In shore or out ?—A. I could not say positively. Q. In 1866, 1867, and 1869, you were fishing in the Gulf of St. Law- rence at different places. Two of those years, the whole of 1866 and the first part of 1867, your vessel was licensed. Do you recollect whether the Ruth Groves was licensed ?—A. I don’t recollect. ; Q. Were any cutters there in 1869?—A. I never saw a Canadian cut- ter under sail in my life; not to know her. Q. In what harbors in Prince Edward Island have you been ?—A, Cascumpeque, Malpeque, Souris, and Georgetown. Q. Have you been in those harbors often ?—A. No; very seldom. We did not frequent the harbors. : Q. Is the bend of the island regarded by American fishermen as a safe or a dangerous place ?—A. It is considered a very dangerous place in the fall. : Q. Did you ever fish in Bay Chaleurs ?—A. Yes, we fished there, but we never caught any mackerel there. We tried to fish. i Q. What year did you ever try to fish there?—A. We were there in 1865 and 1869. We might have been there other years. I don’t re- member. 2244 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. What harbors did you go into most often ?—A. Port Daniel and Paspebiac. : Q. Where is Port Daniel?—A. Right across from Point Miscou, at the mouth of Bay Chaleurs. Paspebiac is thirty miles from Port Daniel, and on the same shore. ae Q. In 1868 you say you were halibut fishing; where ?—A. At Grand Banks, St. Peter’s Bank, and Western Banks. Q. What were you dving in 1870 ?—A. I was halibut fishing. Q. And in 1871 and 1872 ?—A. The same, in the same vessel, the C. H. Price, of Salem. Q. Were you captain ?—A. I was. Q. When did you begin to go as captain 7?—A. In 1870. Q. How have you supplied yourself with bait for halibut fishing 7—A. I have got it on the Nova Scotia shore at times. Q. Have you caught it or bought it?—A. Bought it always; I never caught any. Q. Where?—A. At Prospect, Strait of Canso, or Little Canso, and Shelburne. I was in at Dover once. Q. Did you ever buy any on the American coast?—A. No; I never did, except in the winter. I have bought frozen herring and taken them home. We get our bait principally at Newfoundland, at Fortune Bay, or St. Peter’s Island. . Q. You know about the island of St. Peter’s?—A. Yes. Q. Do you know about cod-fishing at Newfoundland and the Grand Banks ?—A. Yes. Q. Do you know about the bait that is used by codfishermen ?—A. Yes. Q. What bait do the French use ?—A. Salt bait, except what they catch on the Banks. Salt herring, caplin, and squid. Q. Always salt bait?—A. Yes, except what they catch themselves on the Banks. Q. Do they fish with trawls?—A. Altogether. Q. Is there a supply of bait procurable and purchasable at St. Pe- ter’s ?— A. There always is when it is in season. If you can get it at Fortune Bay you can get it there. Q. What proportion of your bait did you buy at St. Peter’s?—A. I could not say. I have been a number of times there. Sometimes we would hire a vessel to go to Fortune Bay. We generally hired a ves- sel at St. Peter’s to get bait. Q. Since you left off fishing yourself, which was, I understand, in 1873, what have you been doing?—A. I was agent for Whalen & Co., Salem. @. Where were you located ?—A. Bay of Islands. Q. Doing what ?—A. Selling goods and taking all kinds of fish and produce in exchange. Q. I want to ask you with regard to estimating distances by the eye at sea, looking from the sea to the shore, looking from one vessel to another, and looking from the shore to a vessel out at sea. Is it easy to estimate the distance accurately, and if there is a liability to err, is a man more likely to overestimate or to underestimate the distance ?— A. He is more liable to underestimate the distance looking toward the land. Q. How when looking from the land ?—A. Looking toward a vessel? Q. Yes.—A. I don’t think he is liable to err one way or the other unless he is a long way from her. Then it would be according to the height of the vessel. If you knew the vessel you could judge better. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . 2245 _ -Q. But on looking at a schooner from the land, how will it be ?—A. - If you err at all, you will be nearer than what you seem; the schooner would look farther out than what she was. - Q. Have you any opinion as regards the comparative value of salt i bait and fresh bait for cod-fishing? If so, state what it is, and give your reasons.—A, I think, of course, that with fresh bait yon eatech more _ fish for the time being; there is no doubt about that. But the time that _ is lost in the vessel running in after bait, as a general thing, would be more than counterbalanced by continuous fishing with salt bait. I know that from experience. Q. Would that be the case with trawls as well as with hand-lines ?— A. I don’t know anything about hand-line fishing. By Mr. Davies: Q. Looking from the shore at a vessel, the liability to err would be about equal ?—A. I should think you would be more liable to underes- _ timate the distance if looking to the shore. I should not like to say positively. Q. You took out a license two years ?—A. I did not say two years. I took out a license one year, and I am not sure about the other year. Mr. Foster said the list showed that a license had been taken out during two years. By Mr. Davies: Q. You were master of the vessel at that time ?—A. No. ti Q. That was in 1866 and 1867 ?—A. Yes. il Q. In 1862 you caught 200 barrels at North Cape, Bank Bradley ; but ‘how near the shore you have no idea?—A. Because the matter was not agitated. \ oe Q. Some were taken insbore ?—A. Yes. Q. In 1863 you were in the General Burnside, and made a pretty good | catch. I understood you to say you got 250 barrels near Flint Island.— A. Yes. Q. Most of the fish taken around Sydney and Cape Breton are taken inshore ?—A. Round Sydney they were that time. I don’t know any- thing about it other years, because I never fished there. Q. You never fished there except that one time ?—A. No, Q. Were many American vessels fishing there besides your vessel when you got those 250 barrels?—A. There were a good many there ; put they left before they caught a great many. They caught a good many. Q. They fished inside?—A. They fished where we did. No doubt some were taken off shore and some inshore; that is, of those we caught , there. Q. The other vessels would take the mackerel about the same place you did?—A. Yes; at the time we were there. - Q. Where did you get the other 550 barrels? Did you fish that year, 1863, along Prince Edward Island shore ?—A. Not at all. Q. Nor in Bay Chaleurs?—A. No. Q. Where did you take the rest of the trip?—A. At Bank Bradley, around Magdalen Islands, and at Bank Orphan. Q. You did not go near the shore at all?—A. Not when we caught maekerel. . : Q. Did you try fishing there?—A. I don’t recollect whether we did or not. I know we did not catch any. We did not visit the shores and harbors ; we staid out all the time. 2246 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. You don’t recollect whether you tried or not?—A. No; probably we did try. Q. Your memory is not sufficiently clear to recollect ?—A. No; Iam well satisfied we did not catch any, because I can recollect our catches pretty well. Q. In 1864, you were in the Lady Franklin, and got 260 barrels round Port Hood, Margaree, and toward Prince Edward Island 7—A. Yes. Q. Those you got at Port Hood and Margaree were taken inshore?— . A. I should say one-half of them, probably. We fished from East Point to Port Hood, and round Margaree, and off Cape St. George. Q. Have you fished between Margaree Island and the shore?—A. I never did; I never was there but once. Q. Did you see any other vessels fishing there when you were there ?— A. Yes. Q. Many ?—A. Whatever the fleet was. Q. They were fishing there?—A. Yes. Q. In 1863 7—A. Yes. Q. How many, in round numbers, would be fishing at Margaree, Chet- icamp, and round there?—A. From 50 to 60. Sometimes there would not be any for weeks; they were coming and going all the time. Q. Would there be as many as 100 there at any time ?—A. It is likely there would be. Q. Fishing round the Cape Breton shore ?—A. ‘Yes. Q. Then you fished sometimes that year around Prince Edward Isl- and ?7—A. Yes. Q. Up and down the bight of the island ?—A. Yes. Q. Did you follow the custom of some of the vessels, go inshore and drift out?—A. We fished generally where the fleet did. Q. Was that the general custom when you were there?—A. That would depend on how the wind was. Q. Suppose the wind is off shore?—A. That is the way. Q. You run in shore, throw out bait, and drift off ?—A. I don’t know what you term inshore. We might not run inshore. Q. How near would you go ?—A. I would not like to say. Probably we would go inside of three miles; most likely we would. | Q. Suppose the wind was blowing off shore, would you not run within three miles of the shore, heave to, throw out bait, and drift off?—A. We would in certain cases. When mackerelmen fish they stand up near the shore; they are as liable to heave to ten miles out as three. Q. How near did you go to the shore ?—A. I could not say. q. Cannot you form an idea ?—A. I cannot form any opinion. Q. I think you can, if you try. How close have you gone to try to fish and drifted out ?—A. The nearest I ever was was at Flint Island; probably within one mile or half a mile of the shore. Q. You never went within one mile of the Prince Edward Island : shore?—A. No; at the bight of the island the water is pretty shallow within a mile of the shore. Q. Or any part of the island, or off East Point or the Two Chapels ?— A. I never fished there at all. Q. Is your memory sufficiently clear on the point to enable you .to state that you did not catch three-fourths of your mackerel that year in the Lady Franklin within three miles of the shore? You say you prob- ably caught one-half there.—A. I could not give any definite statement. I don’t believe anybody could. I cannot. Q. Then it may have been three-fourths or one-half ?—A. It might be one-fourth. et * AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2247 Q. It might be three-fourths 7?—A. I say I cannot tell you how many. Q. Does your memory enable you to say that the portion taken inshore was not three-fourths 7—A. It was not the whole. That is as near as I can come to it. I can give you no just idea. Q. In 1865, in General Grant, you seem to have fished in different places from other years ?—A. Yes. = he you ever, during that year, try any inshore fishing ’—A, Yes; we did. Q. Where ?—A. We tried up in Bay Chaleurs. Q. Did you try near the shoré?—A. Yes; we tried right in the ‘mouth of Port Daniel Harbor. Q. In Port Daniel Harbor, near the mouth of Bay Chaleurs ?—A. Yes; it is right across to the north of Cape Gaspé. Q. That is hardly in Bay Chaleurs ?—A. It is in the mouth of it. It is termed Bay Chaleurs. Q. Did you ever go up the bay ?—A. As far as Paspebiac. Q. Did you fish within the limits 7—A. I don’t recollect. It is likely we did. I was very seldom there; I did not take any notice. Q. You had the right to fish there ?—A. I don’t recollect. Q. If you don’t recollect whether you fished inshore, how can you recollect whether you took any fish or not?—A. I know we did not take any fish in Bay Chaleurs; I never helped to catch ten barrels there. Q. Did you fish in Bay Chaleurs more than once ?—A. Yes; we tried sometimes, in the Samuel E. Sawyer, in 1869. Q. Did you go within three miles of the shore ?—A. I think we did; round Point Miscou we did. Q. Did your fishermen generally try within three miles of the shore ? —A. I cannot say. Q. Did you see any others trying to fish there ?—A. Yes; off Miscou, eight or ten vessels. Q. All trying at the same place?—A. Yes; but they tried as much and more off shore, and in the middle of the bay. Q. You caught 1,200 barrels in the General Grant?—A. About 1,200 sea-barrels. Q: They would pack 1,100?—A. I don’t recollect. I remember how many I packed. Q. Did you not try round Cape Breton that year ?—A. Yes; we tried on our way running up. We tried right along. We hove to off Port Hood and Margaree. Q. Were American vessels fishing there ?—A. Yes. Q. When you took your fish you were off Tignish ?—A. Yes. Q. Did you never run in there close to the shore ?—A. We never tried inside of three miles; we never took any fish inside of three miles. I am sure of that. Q. You were right off ?—A. I will tell you why I recollect it. There was not any agitation about the matter then; but we several times—it was calm weather—put out our boat, and she has rowed out of our sight. %. That is the mode you took of going ?—A. Yes; that is how I recollect. They caught some in the boat, although the vessel could have gone inshore. Q. Did you go inshore to catch some ?—A. Yes, I was in the boat. The catch did not amount to anything. — Q. How close did you go in with the boat to get mackerel? Did you go where the other boats were fishing ?—A. No other boats were there. 2248 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. We went in to get mackerel. We got about one barrel among seven or eight men. It was more for the sport than for the fish. Q. It did not occur to you to run the vessel inshore ?—A. No. Q. Why ?—A. Because the captain did not care for the shores, and did not think it worth while. Q. That year when you got 1,200 barrels you caught them all outside, and the very next year the captain went inshore?—A. The reason he did it was to avoid any trouble whatever. Q. In 1865 you never fished in sight of the shore; there was no trouble then ?—A. He would get fish for mackerel if they were to be caught. Q. You never ran in to see?—A. We went in to see, but none were caught inshore. Q. I am confining myself to 1865 ?7—A,. Most likely we did go in and try. Q. From all you can remember to the contrary, you did go in and fish 7—A. I don’t recollect that we were inside of the three miles when fishing on that vessel. @. It seems curious that when you caught the large catch outside, the next year you should take out a license ?—A. There is a difference in men. Some did not take out any license, but other men, law-abiding citizens, when fhey found the law required them to do so, took them out. _Q. A good many did not take out licenses ?—A. Some. Q. How many ?—A. I could not form any idea. ’ Q. You knew there were some ?—A. I don’t know any more than what they have said. Q. From what they told you, you understood there were some who did not take out licenses ?—A. Yes. Q@. There was a large fleet which did take out licenses that year ?—A. I know we took out a license one year. Q. Mr. Foster has said you had licenses two years?—A. I did not know it. @. In 1866 you made two trips in the same vessel; where did you catch your fish 7—A. On the same fishing-gound as in 1865; at Magda- len Islands and North Cape. Q. Any inshore ?—A. I think not. I never remember ays inshore that year, although we had a license. Q. Did you go inshore that year at all ?—A. It is likely we did. Q. Whereabouts ?—A. I could not say that we ever did, because that year I used to take bearings to form an idea how far we were from land. There used to be arguments with the crew and captain as to how far we were off, and we were always further off land by the cross-bearings than they estimated. Q. How far off did you appear to be by the cross-bearings 7—A. From five to ten miles. Q. Off what land ?—A. Off North Cape. Q. Were some of the crew disputing as to whether you were not within three miles of the shore?—A. Yes. Q. Was that when you were ten miles off?—A. Not when we were ten miles off, but when we were different distances. Q. From five to teu miles ?—A. I think the closest I ever found us by cross-bearings was four miles. Q. And you took them for your own satisfaction ?—A. Yes. Q. You had no doubt in your mind that you were outside of three miles?—A. I was studying navigation; I did it for practice and for several purposes. ee a ee = ( ° AWARD OF THE FISHERY CUMMISSION. 2249 Q. Did you keep any memorandum of the bearings?—A. I did. I kept a kind of journal, but [ have not got it here. Q. In 1867 you caught mackerel in the Ruth Groves round Prince Edward Island ?—A. Yes. Q. You cannot say how many you took inshore ?—A. No. We caught 120 barrels, I think. Seventy barrels we took in sight of land at Mal- peque. Q. How far off were you at that time?7—A. I don’t know. It was only in 1866 I took cross-bearings.. Q. During the last year or two have mackerel been found closer to the shore than formerly ?—A. I don’t know anything about that; I have not been there. Q. You were there in 1869?—A. Yes. Q. You caught all your catch in the bend of Prince Edward Island? —A. Not all of it. We caught part at Magdalen Islands. Q. You said, generally, that you caught them at the bend of the island ?—A. I said that we caught them at Magdalen Islands and the bend of the island. Q. Will you swear you caught any part of them at Magdalen Islands? —A. I might have omitted that. Speaking in general terms, I said we caught so few mackerel that it was hard to tell where they were taken. We visited the whole bay that year. Q. You went up and down, fishing inshore and outside ?—A. Yes. Q. Where were the other vessels fishing, inshore and outshore 7—A. We saw vessels all round where we were fishing. Q. You never fished up at Seven Islands ?—A. Never. Q. Nor up St. Lawrence River ?—A. No. . Q. You cannot tell where you fished in Bay Chaleurs?—A. I never caught any there. Q. Did you see some English war vessels ?—A. I have seen, on the way, one or two lying at Port Hood which appeared to be English steamers. Q. They did not interfere much with you ?—A. Not with us. Q. Where were you fishing halilfut in 1872?—A. At the Grand Banks principally and at the Banks of Newfoundland. Q. Not down the Nova Scotia Coast 7—A. No. Q. Do you know Cape Sable Island ?—A. Yes. Q. Do you know that the halibut fleet go there and fish ?—A. I don’t thipk they do; I never went there. Q. Have you sufficient information to enable you to state that they do not?—A. I never heard of anybody catching fish close to Sable Island. They might do so. . Q. You don’t know ?—A. I don’t know anything about it. By Mr. Whiteway: Q. You live at the Bay of Seven Islands now 7—A. Yes. ' Q. How long have you lived there ?—A. I went there first in 1874. I went again in 1875. Q. You now reside there permanently ?—A. I don’t call it perma- nently. I have been there for three years, but I don’t call it my place of residence. — xe Q. You are an American citizen ?—A. I am not a naturalized British subject, but an American citizen. Q. How long have you been fishing on the Banks ?—A. I was for three years captain of the C. H. Price, of Salem. We fished on the Grand, St. Peter’s, and Western Banks. 2250 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. During what years ?—A. 1870, 1871, and 1872. Q. And what have you been doing since 7—A. I have been at the Bay - of Islands. Q. Were you fishing on the Grand Banks forcod or halibut ?—A. For both. Q. During those years you caught your fish with fresh bait ?—A. Mostly. Q. You went to St. Peter’s and hired parties there to go to Fortune Bay and fish 7—A. I did at times. I sometimes ran right up to the bay. Q. You had no experience at the Grand Banks prior to 1870 ?—A. No. Q. Other American vessels pursued the same course you adopted ?— A. I don’t know anything about other vessels. I know what I have done. I have seen other vessels where I was. Q. Did you ever fish with salt bait ?—A. Yes; one trip for cod; not for halibut. We always fish with salt bait if the fresh gives out. Q. When was that trip 7—A. In 1870. Q. Where did you get the salt bait ?—A. We took it from Salem. Q. What quantity did you take with you ?—A. I don’t remember. Q. You left Salem, and went from there to where ?—A. To Grand Banks. Q. You fished with salt bait, and continued there how long ?—-A. Till the latter part of October. Q. You were absent about six weeks 7—A. Yes. @. Did you then return to Salem, or did you go in for fresh bait 7?—A. I never went in for fresh bait. Q. What fish did you take ?— A. Cod and halibut. (). How much ?—A. About 75,000 pounds. @. Do you remember how much cod and how much halibut ?—A. Be- tween 8,000 and 10,000 pounds of flitched halibut, salted. Q. You remember distinctly that was the quantity ?—A. Between 8,000 and 10,000 pounds ; I don’t exactly recollect. Q. You were only absent a period of six weeks ?—A. We left home in September, and we left the Banks about 20th October. Q. The fish were very plentiful about that time ?—A. I never found them very plentiful; some did. Q. To get so large a quantity in so short a time, they must have been very plentiful?—A. We don’t call fish very plentiful to catch that quan- tity in six weeks’ trawling; we did not then. Ihave known vessels catch double the quantity in half the time. Q. That is your only experience in fishing with salt bait?—A. Yes; beyond what I have seen among the French. Q. Have you ever fished in French vessels ?—A. No; but I have been on board those vessels and seen the men fish, and seen them take bait. Q. You say they always fish with salt bait?—A. All I have ever seen. Q. How many vessels have you been on board of ?—A. A dozen. Q. What year?—A. Every year I have been there. @. Where were you, on the Banks ?—A. Yes. Q. Can you say that they ever fish with fresh bait 7—A. I never saw pen fish with fresh bait, anything more than what they caught them- selves. Q. Don’t you know that of late they are beginning to use fresh bait ?— A. They may be. Q. Don’t you know that they are beginning to use fresh bait in conse- quence of Americans using fresh bait in such large quantities on the — -—-. —-——- AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2251 Banks ?—A. I have not been on the Banks since 1873. I have not heard it. Q. The French fish with trawls ?—A. Altogether. Q. You fished with trawls ?—A. Altogether. Q. Did you know any Frenchmen fishing with hand-lines ?—A. Some of them, towards the rocks. Q. Very few, I believe ?—A. No; there are a good many. Q. Those who fish with hand-lines, do they fish in vessels or in do- ries ?—A. In dories, principally. _ Q. In a vessel fishing with dories and hand-lines, how many will com- pose a crew ?—A. I don’t know; it will be according to the size of the vessel. Q. Say for a vessel of 70 or 80 tons ?—A. I don’t know. Q. Take a vessel of that size fishing with trawls, what will be the number of her crew?—A. About 12 men all told. @. How many dories will she have ?—A. Four, five, or six. Q. Taking a vessel of that size, what do you consider would be a fair trip of codfish 7—A. 150,000 pounds of fish. She would not lose any- thing with that, if she did the voyage in a reasonable time, and the fish broughta fair price. That would be a fair good trip. Q. It would be a full trip?—A. A vessel would carry from 150,000 pounds to 200,000 pounds, a full trip. Q. What would you considera fairly good trip ?—A. 150,000 pounds I would consider a good trip. Q. How many trips do you consider a Grand Bank codfish and hali- but fishing vessel could make during the year, sailing from Salem or Gloucester, and going to the Grand Banks?—A. It is probable she might make twelve, and might not make more than six. Q. She might make six trips?—A. Not for salt fish. Iam speak- * ing about fresh fish. For salt fish, the most trips 1 have ever known made were three, and much oftener one or two. Q. You are of opinion that fresh bait enables fishermen to catch the fish more quickly than salt bait?—A. Yes; for the time being. Q. Then with a good supply of fresh bait always on hand, a greater number of trips would be made?—A. Yes; but they cannot keep a good supply a long while. Q. But ifit was on hand ?—A. If they hadit there they would do bet- ter than if they had to go after it. Q. They would increase the number of trips ?—A. It is likely they would, if they always had it on hand; but if they have to run after it three or four hundred miles and spend five or six weeks doing it, they might get the fish more quickly, but would not increase the whole catch. Q. But if they could get the fresh bait easily they would be able to increase the number of trips 7—A. Yes. Q. Are you carrying on the cod and herring fishery at the Bay of Islands ?—A. No; we don’t catch any. Q. You are engaged trading ?7—A. Yes. By Mr. Foster: Q. When you say 150,000 pounds of salt codfish would be a fair trip, did you mean an average trip 7—A. No. Q. What would be an average trip ?—A. I don’t know; I should not like to say. , Q. What would be regarded as a paying trip ?—A. That depends on the length of time the vessel is on it. She might go and get 100,000 2252 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. pounds in two weeks, or she might in three or four months get 150,000 pounds and lose money. It all depends on the time occupied. Q).. During the three years you were captain you were fishing princi- pally for halibut, and so your catch would not be a fair test ?—A. No. Q. Suppose a voyage took three months, and you got 150,000 pounds of salt codfish, would that be profitable to the vessel 7?—A. I think not. I think she would come out at the wrong end with present prices. Q. You were not summoned here as a witness 7—A. No. Q. You were in the city attending to your business and you were asked to come and testify ?—A. Yes. Q. Have you had aceess to books, papers, or memoranda for making your recollection distinct?—A. No; I havenot. I never had any idea of coming here; and I did not want to ceme here to-day, because I had my business to attend to. Q. Where are your family ?—A. At Bay of Seven Islands. Q. When you went wita your vessel to Fortuue Bay after bait, did you buy it or catch it?—A. We always bought it, never caught it. Q. When you hired a vessel at Saint Peter’s to catch bait, how did you pay ?—A. In money. Q. What was your bargain?—A. We would give either so much a _ barrel or so much for what we wanted. Q. Then you bought the bait from them ?—A. Yes. Q. Hither at so much a barrel or so much for the required quantity ?— A. For what-we wanted. Q. Was that what you meant by saying you hired a vessel ?—A. Yes. Q. Did you ever catch any halibut inshore ?—A. No. Q. I noticed you spoke of going to Bay Chaleurs and trying for mack- erel in 1865, which was the year when in the General Grant you made the big catch 7—A. Yes. .Q. How did it happen that you left the ground where you were doing so well and went up Bay Chaleurs ?—A. We were fishing on Bradley. I recollect it very distinctly. The hands of the crew were sore. We went into the harbor for water, and to see if we could not do better. We laid there a tew days; we caught none there, and we went back to the former fishing-ground. When I say we caught none, I mean we may have caught two or three barrels. No. 26. Col. BENJAMIN F. Cook, inspector of customs at Gloucester, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Trescot : Question. What is your age ?—Answer. Forty-four. . Q. How long have you been fishing in the gulf ?—A. Off and on for twenty years. Q. As sharesman?—A. Well, yes. Q. When were you in the gulf as captain?—A. I never was there in that capacity. Q. When have you been fishing lately in the gulf?—A. I have not fished there lately; the last year I was there was 1856. Q. Were you fishing there in 1852 and 18532—A. Yes. Q. Where were you fishing in 1852 2A. We then tried all over the bay. After we left Canso we went up the island, and to Banks Brad- Ky ae Orphan. We fished broad off Malpeque, and at the Magdalen slands. ”* AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2253 Q. What distance were you off Malpeque ?—A. We were just in sight of land—perhaps 20 miles off. Q. What was your catch that year ?—A. Abont 275 barrels; we took about 75 barrels off Malpeque, and the remainder ou Banks Bradley and Orphan, and at the Magdalen Islands. Q. You only made one trip that year ?—A. Yes. Q. Where were you in 1853 ?—A. In the bay. Q. Where did you fish?—A. At about the same places as in 1852, We tried off Margaree, Cape Mabou, Cheticamp, and other places. Q. And in 1853 you did the same ?—A. Yes. Q. What was your catch that year ?—A. About 300 sea-barrels, which packed out about 275 barrels. Q. What did you do in 1854?—A. A firm was formed and opened stores—one at Port Hood, and one on Margaree Island. I resided at the latter place that year. We went down there to carry on the fishing business and to fish ourselves. Q. When you say that you carried on the fishing business, do you mean that you yourself fished ?—A. Yes. We went down to carry on a general fishing business, and if successful we were to have an in- terest in the business; but if the prospects did not seem to be good, we would go fishing, and we went fishing the whole year around the island. Q. What was the result?—A. The firm failed in the fall, and the general result was poor. We fished for mackerel ourselves all the year round. Q. What was the result of the mackerel-fishing off Margaree ?—A. We both of us caught 25 barrels; 124 apiece. Q. Where were you fishing ?—A. Close inshore. | Q. When did you go fishing again in the bay ?—A. In 1856. Q. In what vessel 7—A. The Emma J. Gott. . What did you do?—A. We fished nearly at the same places as previously. Q. You then fished, I understand, on Banks Bradley and Orphan, and at the Magdalen Islands?—A. We tried all over the bay; we caught some mackerel at the Magdalen Islands, some on Bank Bradley, some on Bank Orphan, and a few down off Cape North, ©. B. Q. What was your catch that year ?—A. Between 275 and 300 barrels. Q. What did you catch off Cape North ?—A. About 20 barrels; taken outside of the three-mile limit, I think. The land is so high there that it is hard to judge this distance. 'Q. Since then you have been inspector of customs at Gloucester !— A. Yes, . Q. You have had nothing practically to do with fishing since then !— A. No; save general supervision. ; Q. Asan inspector, generally interested in the Gloucester business _— a. te Okt: Q. As a general rule, speaking from what you see of the Gloucester business as inspector, has the mackerel-fishing fleet sent from there to the gulf increased or diminished in number ?—A. It has diminished largely during the last ten or fifteen years. : Q. How about the Gloucester fleet which has fished on the United States coast ?—A. It has been steadily increasing in number. Q. We have heard a great deal about the value of the inshore fishery in British waters; you have lived at Margaree Island, and have fished in those waters for years, and do you recollect noticing where the En- . 2254 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. glish fleet fished when you were in the bay ?—A. They always fished offshore. Q. And not inshore ?—A. No; during the whole year I was on Mar- garee Island, I never had brought to my notice one English vessel which fished inside of the three-mile limit or anywhere near there. In fact, the whole American fleet never caught, I would venture to say, 100 bar- rels of mackerel within the three-mile limit off Margaree Island, during that whole year. Q. And the English fleet fished with them ?—A. Their vessels always fished with our fleet during 1852 and 1853. There were quite a number of vessels in that quarter from Lunenburg, ce. Q. Can you form any idea of what the number of vessels in the En- glish fleet was, compared with the American fleet, when you had an oppor- tunity of close personal observation ?—A. Taking the whole English fleet in the bay at the time, it numbered, perhaps, thirty sail; in my judg- ment this was the case. Q. And these vessels fished with the American fleet outside of the three-mile limit?7—A. Yes. Q. And when you lived down on this coast, the American fleet did not fish inside of the three-mile limit ?—A. No; though we tried inshore all round. By Mr. Davies: Q. You were only fishing in vessels ?—A. Yes. Q. In 1852, 1853, and 1856; I suppose that you were in the war after- ward ?—A. Yes ; in 1861. Q. How long were you in the Army ?—A. A little over three years. Q. You state that you were under the impression that mackerel-fish- ing in the gulf had decreased of late years, and rather increased on your own shore ?—A. Yes. Q. Over what period of time would you like to make that statement extend ?—A. Say from 1867 or 1868, for about 10 years; I will state that positively. Q. You have examined Statistics, ii hope, before you have made this statement ?—A. I know all about it; it is my business to mix myself up in these matters. Q. What percentage of increase would you say there has been in the fishing on the American coast during the period to which you allude, since 1867 ?—A. I think the increase there has more than corresponded with the decrease in the bay. Q. Can you give an idea as to the percentage of the increase and de- crease 7?—A. I could not. ‘hey fish with seines on our shore and get a great amount of mackerel, and they cannot use these seines in the bay, from what I have heard. Q. Suppose we leave out of present consideration the years 1875 and 1876, would you then state that the fishing from 1867 to 1874 on the American coast increased materially ?—A. I am not prepared to answer that question. I never considered it, save as to the last ten years. Q. Then I understand your answer to relate more especially to the years 1875 and 1876?—A. No. Q. Suppose that the years 1875 and 1876 are struck out from our con- sideration altogether, would you then be prepared to state to the Com- mission that the fishing along the American shore had materially in- creased from 1867 to 1874?—A. I think it did—until this year, perhaps. Q. Materially ?—A. I should think so. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2255 Q. Do you know whether that opinion is coincided in by eminent writers on the fisheries ?—A. I do not know what eminent writers think about them at all. : Q. You do not know whether Professor Baird agrees with that opin- ion ?—A. No; I have talked with Professor Baird, but I do not know his opinion in this regard. Q. Are you able to state whether the statistics bear out that opin- ion ?—A. No, I cannot say. Q. How do you form your impression that between 1867 and 1874 your fishing on the American coast increased materially 7—A. I do not know as I said so. I said that during the last ten years the fishing business had increased on our shore and decreased in the bay. Q. I then wish to put to you a different proposition. Suppose you eliminate the years 1875 and 1876 from consideration, do you think that the fisheries on the American coast increased from 1867 to 1874 ?— A. I do not know about that. Iam nat obliged to answer it. Q. You decline to answer, do you ?—A. I say that during the last ten years—— Q. Stop a moment, please. Do you decline to answer that ques- tion? I understand so.—A. I do not decline to answer anything | un- derstand. Q. Has this year been a good fishing year on the American coast ?— A. In the spring, out south, there was a large amount of mackerel ; and late this fall, when we were coming from home recently, the mack- ere] had appeared in large quantities from Mount Desert down to Block Island; but during the middle of the summer they seem to have sunk or disappeared. Q. Has the catch this season been up to the average 7?—A. It has not. Q. Has it been much below the average ?—A. The catch has been be- low the average, I think ; but the mackerel have been lately about the same. Q. The reports are good as to the appearance of mackerel now ?—A. Yes, Q. And the catch has been much below the average?—A. I do not know about that, but I think so. Q. Has the catch in the Gulf of St. Lawrence this year been above or below the average ?—A. I should think that the catch there has been a little above the average, because a great many vessels have gone there this year, being induced to do so by false reports sent to show that there was a large quantity of mackerel down there. ‘ Q. You think that these reports were sent with a motive ?—A. I know that one vessel went down to the bay and came home.with 30 barrels of mackerel, and 7 barrels of these were taken while coming home, near Mount Desert. : Q. Do you think it possible that the absence of mackerel off the Ameri- ean coast had anything to do with the American fleet going to the bay this year ?—A. I think that they were led to go there by the dispatches Isaw; quite a number of them were stuck up in the insurance office in- forming the Gloucester fishermen that plenty of mackerel—large quan- tities of them—were in the bay ; which did not prove to be so. — Q. Do you think that the absence of the mackerel and the failure of the catch on the American coast in the spring had anything to do with the fleet going down to the gulf?—A. I think it might; thatis during the first part of the season, combined with those inducements which were held out to the fishermen. : Q. Do you think that one element which weighed with the American 2256 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. mackerel-fishing-vessel owners and the captains of the vessels was the failure of the catch on their own coast ?—A. I did not say so. Q. You think that this had nothing todo with it ?—A. I say it is not a failure; the fishing on the American coast this year has not been a failure, but dispatches received induced vessels to go to the bay. Q. I understand you to say that during the first part of the season the fishery was a failure on your coast ?—A. I said that during the first part of the year off Block Island, and out south, there was an abundance of fish. Q. You stated that the catch on your coast during the first part of the season, up to the 1st of July, was below the average ?—A. Yes. Q. Do you think that this fact had anything to do with your vessels coming down to the Bay of St. Lawrence?—A. I do not think so. I think that they would have made a good catch this year on our shore, had not the mackerel schooled during the night instead of during the day, as has been their usual custom. Q. Do you think that the lying dispatches had anything to do with their coming to the bay? Will you be kind enough to state from whom these lying dispatches came, and who posted them up ?—A. I can- not tell you anything about it. I did not say that lying dispatches were sent. Q. You said false dispatches were posted up with the intention of in- ducing your fishermen to come to the bay; did you not say that false dispatches were posted up with the intention of inducing your people to come to the bay ?—A. That is not what I meant to say. Q. Did you not say so?—A. I would not say exactly that this was what I said. Q. Now, I want to see what you do mean. You understand there were false dispatches posted up in the reading-room in Gloucester 7—A. Dispatches which proved to be false. Q. Can you state who they were from ?—A. I cannot. I think they were from those who sold supplies to American fishermen in Canso. Q. What makes you think so?—A. Well, I think I saw one stuck up on the bulletin-board in the reading-room in Gloucester. Q. Were they published in any Gloucester newspapers ?—A. No. Generally when they had any dispatch as to bait or fish in any direc- tion they telegraphed to Gloucester, and it was stuck up in the read- ing-room. Q. Can you state from whom any one of those dispatches came ?—A. I could not. . (J. You cannot give any one name ?—A. I could not. Q. Did you see any more than one dispatch that turned out to be false 7?—A. I don’t know that I did. Q. Can you give me the tenor or purport of that dispatch ?—A. ee of mackerel in the North Bay.” It was that, or words to that effect. q. Are you prepared to say that the substance of that was false, as they sent it that year?—A. I know the result has shown it so. The letters that have come home have reported a different story. Q. You are not prepared to say whether at that date there were plenty or not ?—A. There might have been; I don’t know. ; Q. Do you know what the catch has been this year in the gulf ?—A. do not. Q. Have you taken the trouble to inform yourself from statistics what have been the results, or what have been the importations into the AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2257 United States from the bay ?—A. I have not, unless it was an individ- ual case. Q. Well, although you have not taken that trouble, you venture to assert that this telegram was false ?—A. I venture to say it was not correct. Q. Although you have not taken the trouble to examine the statis- tics ?—A. Not the statistics, but the vessels arriving home, and owners who have received word from their vessels. Q. What vessels ?—A. The Ellen M. Crosby. Q. Is there any other ?—A. She caught seven barrels of mackerel and enough to make up 30 coming home. So the crew told me. .Q. Was she a seiner or a liner 7—A. A seiner. Q. Are you aware whether or not the mackerel are so close in that seiners cannot catch them ?—.A. I think the seining business in the bay will be a failure altogether. Q. Do you know the reason ?—A. The rocks and rough bottoms, as a general thing. Q. And has the fact that the mackerel are too close in anything to do with it ?—A. I should not think so; I should think they would fish inshore as well as out. Q. Notwitbstanding the depth of the seine?—A. That does not make any difference. Q. It doesn’t? Do you know the depth of the seines used on the American coast?—A. Yes. Q. Can one of those be used with advantage on the Cape Breton shore, at Prince Edward Island or Bay Chaleurs?—A. I think they could on the Cape Breton shore. Q. Can they on the other shores ?—A. On some they could. ' Q. Have you ever tried ?—A. No; I have never been seining myself. Q. Therefore you don’t know. Now, will you swear, or state to the best of your knowledge, that there were 50,000 barrels caught on the American coast before the first of July this season alone ?—A. No; I will not swear there were more than 100,000 caught. 1 don’t know any- thing about it. Q. And you venture to assert that the mackerel-fishing along that coast has been increasing. Did you mean this year?—A. I said that this year the mackerel had not been so plenty on our shores. Q. What year were you at Margaree?—A. 1804. Q. You were there in boats ?—A. Yes. Q. You were in Margaree 7?—A. Yes. ; Q. How. far would you go from it in boats ?—A. All around the island to the northward. : Q. How far from the coast ?—A. 3, 4, and 5 miles. “ss Q. Then your experience during that time will be limited to that area?—A. Wecould see down Margaree Island, Cheticamp, and Mabou. _Q. I would like to have you state again what is the result of that year’s fishing, 1854—I don’t mean your own experiment, because you didn’t catch but 25 apiece ?—A. Twelve apiece. Q. What was the result of the catch on the part of the fleet 7—A. I never saw a vessel that had got a spurt of 10 barrels—not any one ves- sel during the year. Q. But that is speaking with reference to what you saw.—A. Well, I know. It was my business to be out early in the morning. . I suppose you would not extend that to Port Hood?—A. As far as I could see. 142 F 2258 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. But you could not see Port Hood ?—A. No; we could see as far as Cheticamp. «. That was the only year you tried there ?—A. Yes. Q. Were there many boats that tried ?—A. About thirty for codfish. Q. Any boats for mackerel ?—A. No. They tried once ina while, and it was not a success. Q. In 1852 and 1853 did you try in Prince Edward Island ?—A. Yes. Q. Where ?—A. At Malpéque—abroad oft Malpeque. Q. Not within ten miles ?—A. No. Q. You didn’t go inshore at all?—A. No. Q. Did you go along the island shore within 3 miles trying to fish ?— A. Yes. Q. Was that the year reciprocity came into force ?—A. I don’t know when it came into force. Q. Did you in 1852 try to go along inshore ?—A. Yes. Q. Were you not afraid of cutters 7—A. No. Q. Did you know you had no right ?—A. I don’t know whether I had the right or not. Q. You tried ?—A. Yes. If we didn’t try we ran by vessels that were trying. Q. Did you try Bay Chaleur 7—A. I never was in Bay Chaleur. . Q. You never were along the west coast of New Brunswick. You caught them in 1852 at Malpeque, on the Magdalens, and Bradley. Did you in 1852 try Margaree and Cheticamp 7—A. Yes; all those years. Q. And that particular year?—A. Yes. 'Q. With what result ?—A. Nothing. @. Were there no mackerel there in 1852? Do you pretend to say there were none?—A. I pretend to say I heard of none being caught there, and we caught none. Q. How often did you try ?—A. Well, I suppose we ran round two or three times in the year. Q. Are you prepared to state whether other vessels took large catches or not in 1852?7—A. I don’t know. They might. If we had heard we would probably go there. Q. In 1853. was the result the same?—A. I don’t know whether the others caught any or not. Q. In 1853 you were in the bay and caught 275 barrels; you don’t know whether the other vessels caught around the coast or not, but you didn’t ?—A. We fished with the fleet. Q. Now I ask you whether in 1852 and 1853 the fleet caught any fish around Margaree?—A. We never caught any there. I could not say for the fleet. Q. If they fished with you you would know ?—A. They fished with us. Q. You would know, would you not ?—A. If we were up in Bradley. Q. You said the fleet fished with you around Margaree in 1852 and 1853?—A. Yes; there might be one ten miles and another fifteen miles. Q. But there was no fleet ?—A. It is hard to tell what you consider a fleet of vessels. Q. Do you consider that a fair answer, that it is hard work to tell what you consider a fleet ?—A. Yes; it is hard work to tell. Q. Was the fleet fishing with you or not around Margaree shore ?— A. There might be perhaps a dozen trying with us; that is all. Q. That isall. Then they were not with you?—A. They were scattered all round the bay trying to find mackerel. Q. You say there might be six vessels at a distance off? Is that all?— A. I cannot remember whether there were six, eight, or ten, a FE 4% AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2259 . Q. I understand the impression you wish to leave is that the fleet were not fishing with you ?7—A. The vessels were lying around from one place to another, but there niight be six or a dozen at the same time when we bove to. Q. What impression do you want to leave as to whether the fleet was fishing around you at Margaree or not?—A. We didu’t fish there long. Q. I do not care whether you fished there a day or a week. You can- not tell?—A. How can I tell whether they were fishing; there might be a whole fleet. ‘ Q. The reason I want to know is that I have the evidence here of men who did fish there. I want to see whether you state that fish were not caught there that year.—A. I say when we tried there was none. Q. You will not state whether the fleet was fishing with you?—A. A part might be. Q. What number?—A. A dozen vessels might run by us when we hove to,.and they would not heave to if they saw we were catching nothing. ‘Q. When were you first inspector of customs in Gloucester?—A. 1865, I think. Q. Have you been so ever since?—A. Yes. Q. What was the number of the fleet in 1865?7—A. There were 525 to 575 registered vessels. Q. From Gloucester alone?—A. Yes. — Q. Fishing-vessels, I mean?—A. No. Perhaps 400 fishing-vessels. I.am not positive about that. nae Q. Are there as many to-day ?—A. Gloucester, as I speak of it now, ineludes Rockport, Essex, and Manchester. Q. Say what it includes——A. Rockport, Manchester, and Essex. » There is one vessel or two in Manchester and none in Essex. * Q. Then 398 is the. number for Gloucester. Has that fleet increased or not ?—A.°It has decreased since that time, I think. Q. To any material extent ?—A. Yes, sir. Q. What would you say ?—A. Perhaps 10 or 15 vessels fall off, and then catch up again. ; Q. Does it now range about the same as it then did ?—A. I should judge it had fallen off. Q. How much ?—A. I don’t know. I did not take the pains to inform myself. I might have easily done so. Q. I refer to the fishing-vessels. How much have they fallen off; ten or fifteen ?—A. I should not like to say, because I don’t know. Mr. DANA. You.are inquiring as to the whole fishing-fleet ? Mr. DAvies. I am speaking generally first. ‘ : Q. I see here in alist of vessels belonging to Gloucester, published by John S. E. Rogers—do you know him ?—A. Yes. | . Q. Is he a reliable authority ?—A. I suppose he calculates to be as near | as he can get. | . Q. He says: The foregoing list of vessels enrolled in the district of Gloucester is made up to August, 1876, and comprises the names of five hundred and thirteen vessels, of an aggregate tonnage of 31,841.07 tons, which is an increase of fourteen vessels and 1,706.31 tons, as compared with the list of 1875. The new vessels which have come into the district average larger than those which have gone out, consequently the increase of tonnage is much larger, in . proportion to the increase of number of vessels, than the average tonnage of the whole dis- PL °°» — |! 2260 — AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. trict. The following is a statement of the aggregate of the whole number of vessels and tonnage in the district: Vessels. A Tonnage. 445 schoonersssisccss secs tos shoe cece ses ecpencceee niece des scutes suiceeciesas 30, 152. 15 eo YRCDIS Soe oe ae wees cota pe ccicba toe selocewbeecetowececscches Pec easatcs 182, 47 EZ S100PSecdccoscicess eeemes cewcesebiesceces seas tek wareascess-skeehesooss 818.78 S SLCAMOIS: [oo Sota cc ees cs Se swacmecucureuesesacee tse seus Uecaneseceseee 145.76 4S hoats: 5 225.).s2cesss ceweowns soe BSS Ee ant SS ROOR CEA ee oor emma re 541.91 DSi ceceocsceecsccascscae sane wo caescoeenccs ee eceseceae ee dacseeesccsee ue as 31, 84]. 07 They are divided among the five sections of the district as follows: GLOUCESTER HARBOR. Vessels. Tonnage. AOL SChOOnCIS =o ooc.cc Saee.c cw cacs cocesiste ce siee laelec coe cleece corseecs aces 27,651.51 BY RCU occ wate e tone oe onan ro cniaacsics lca tnicesclet crea tect eee ene 27.97 ee HlOOPBacescetee cares wece se jess sabes ese. cicig Wate set ucecaececeeeee se 90. 56 SMSLOAMOIB cava coe cco sa aeloe sss eose a cacaino oc en aaa cies eer os cman eee oesos 145. 76 Oi DOME know. Q. You think it takes about an average of ten days to go in and get out 7—A, Yes. ~ Q. What does it cost you to get this bait ?—A. It will cost us about $100 each time. Q. I don’t mean the cost of the trip, but of the bait ?—A. That is what I mean—$ 100. Q. How much bait do you use ?—A. 60 barrels, sometimes 50 and sometimes 60. Q. Each trip ?—A. Yes. Q. How many trips ?—A. Four trips. .Q. Are you now on your way from the Banks!—A. Yes, I am on my second trip now. : Q. These two trips how many times have you been im for bait !—A. The other trip I was in four times. This is the second bait I am now - for. I came in for bait and ice now. Q. Is this the first time this trip ?—A. Yes, this is the first time in from the Banks, but I took bait with me when I went out. Q. What did you catch the first trip this season ’—A. I had 146,000 pounds of codfish. Q. Is that a pretty good catch or not ?—A. A very good catch. _ Q. Do you consider it above the average or about it _—A. It isa little above. Q. Have your vessels all done pretty well?—A. The bankers have done decently well, but they have been a long time gone this year. Q. How is the bait obtained when you go in?’—A. They fish them sometimes in weirs, sometimes with seines, mostly altogether with seines. 2272 AWARD OF THE FISHERY’ COMMISSION. Q. Do you catch.the bait ?—A. We buy it from the natives there. Q. Do you employ any men to go to catch it for you?—A. Yes; we employ the natives. Q. I have never been there and would like to know: now supposing you went in, how would you proceed to get bait? What would you do ?—A. A fisherman would take his seine and go and catch it for us, and we would buy it. Q. Do you employ them ?—A. Yes; we employ them before they go Q. But do you agree to pay them so much?—A. We agree to give them so much for so many barrels of herring. Q. The Bank fishing, 1 understand, is increasing, and is pretty good of late years ?—A. Yes; I don’t know if it is increasing much. Our ves- sels get good trips there. Q. Now, with reference to the American shore fishing; has it increased, or is it decreasing?—A. I say it is decreasing. Q. Very much ?—A. Very much this year. Q. Taking three or four years, or four or five years back ?—A. It has been decreasing for the last four years. Q. Has it diminished to any material extent ?—A. Well, it has to a great deal. It is nothing like it used to be 13 or 14 years ago. Q. You say each trip in for bait cost you $100 ?—A. Yes; for ice and bait, port charges, and everything, light-moneys. I call everything $100. Q. I didn’t understand that they charged anything now for port charges?—A. They do; I paid $18 this summer, that is once a year. There are harbor-dues, water-rates, cleaning, &c. Q. How many barrels of bait do you take each time ?—A. Sometimes 50 barrels and sometimes 40. Some vessels take 60 barrels. Q. How much a barrel do you pay for that ?—A. We pay so much for the lot. It is just according to how the herring are. If they are plenty we pay less, and if they are scarce we pay more. Sometimes it is $1 a barrel, sometimes $1.50, and sometimes $2. Q. From one to two dollars?—A. Yes. @. Do you pay so much a barrel, or employ a man and pay him so much in the lump ?—A. We will employ a man that has a seine, and he will go catching herring for so much; it may be $30, $40, or $50 for all we want. If we want 40 barrels, we will give, say, $40; if they are scarce, perhaps more. He will take a seine, and perhaps be two or three davs looking after them. Q. You say, “I will give you $30 or $40 (as the case may he) to go and catch me so many barrels”?—A. Yes; that is the way it is done, and then sometimes we give $10 for ice. Q. Do you give any assistance in catching them ?—A. Sometimes we do. ‘ . You send some of the men?—A. Yes; sometimes wedo. It depends upon how he works himself. If he is a sociable good man, we give him help; if he is not, we let him do it himself. Q. Does that affect the price?—A. Well, we don’t say anything about giving him any assistance. Sometimes we give it. Usually they use drag-seines, and have to haul them ashore. Q. Well, how many vessels from Gloucester are now engaged in the Bank fishing ?—A. I suppose there may be 250 or 260. There are 488 vessels, I guess, last year on the register of Gloucester, almost 500 sail. They don’t all go on the Banks. I suppose 200 go on the Banks. The others are round the Georges and their own shores and in the bay. A great many go to the Magdalens, and a great many to the Georges. Q. You get your bait sometimes in Newfoundland and sometimes on ce it BO et rth dhe in hi es WADA on AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2273 here ?—A. We don’t come here for bait from the Grand Banks. It is when we are fishing on the Western Banks. From the Grand Bank we don’t come here at all. i Q. The prospects are for a pretty good season, are they ?—A. O, yes. Q. You always buy ice where you get bait, necessarily —A. Well, we cau’t buy ice sometimes where we get bait. Sometimes we get bait in the outer harbors where we can’t get ice. There is no ice between here and Canseau. If I don’t get it here, I have to go to Canseau. There will be places below here, towards Ship Harbor and other places, where I may get bait. Q. It is only of late years that this came up, this practice of going in for bait ?—A. Since ’72 or ’73, most of it. Now it is only the Glouces- ter vessels that go for bait and ice, and if they would all go and take salt bait and stay out and fish with it they would do better, because they don’t gain as much as they lose with the fresh bait, but if part of them go in for it they will all go. Q. Why is that 7—A. I don’t Know, I am sure. ° Q. Has not the fact that, when fresh bait is being used, the fish won’t take the salt bait, something to do with it?—A. Well, they used to do better, but the Gloucester people got in the way of going in for bait, and they are doing so. I think they are losing byit. If you lose 10 to 12 days each time, that is 40 or 45 days in the season. Q. But then, if you catch more fish while you are there ?—A. I say you will catch more, but don’t you see the time you are losing ? Q. I think you said you were two years in the bay for mackerel, one of them only the fall, and the other the whole season ?—A. Yes. In 1865 I was in the T. G. Curtis, from Wellfleet. Q. How much did you say you got?—A. 1,100 quintals. Q. That was a pretty good season’s work ?—A. Yes. @. When you fished in the bay, were there very many vessels there fishing then?—A. A good many vessels. Q. Where did you fish?—A. We tried East Point, and went from there to Point Miscou, then to Bonaventure, then further up in the bay. Q. Had you a license ?—A. I don’t know. I was not master of the vessel. Q. You tried up about Point Miscou and Bonaventure. Did you take anything there?—A. No; we didn’t get a great many there. Then we went to the Magdalens, between Magdalens aud East Point. That is . . Where we got the most. Q. Where else did you catch them beside ?—A. Some at the Magda- lens and.a few off East Point. Q. And around the shores of your island ?—A. Abroad off there. Maybe eight, nine, or ten miles off there. _ Q. And at Margaree ?—A. In the fall we did. We got some off Mar- garee aud Sydney. Q. How many did you get off Margaree and Sydney ?—A. We got 200 barrels off Sydney, iu the fall abroad off Sydney, between that and St. Anne’s. Q. How many did you get off Margaree?—A. We might have got them eight, nine, or ten miles oft, sometimes closer in. ; Q. Did you take any within three miles off Margaree ?—A. I don't think so. We might have caught a few, but none to speak of. Q. Are you quite sure? Can you recollect with sufficient clearness to enable you to state how many ?—A. We got most of them off shore. As far as I know, we got them all over three miles off. Q. Between Cheticamp and Margaree might you have caught 100 143 F 2274 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. barrels ?—A. We might have caught more than that. It might be 200 barrels. : Q. And then 200 off Sydney ?—A. Yes; we caught them there. Q. But you did not succeed at Prince Edward Island that year ?—A. No; nothing at all. Q. And at Point Miscou, you did not do anything?—A. No. (. What is the tonnage of your vessel 7?—A. This vessel, the T. G. Curtis, was about 80 tons, new measurement. Q. How many hands ?—A. Sixteen hands. Q. What was the tonnage of the vessels you fished in on the Banks ?— A. 60, 70, or 80 tons. This vessel I am now in is 70 tons. The one I was in last year and have been in for the last four years was 60 tons. By Mr. Dana: Q. Whatever fish you say you caught in 1865 at Margaree and Sydney was abroad off; that is more than three miles ?—A. Those two hundred barrels at Sydney, were more than five miles off. Q. You were asked as to the mode of getting bait, whether you em- ployed those men that went for herring. Do you pay them wages, or pay them after the fish are caught ?—A. Weemploy them before they go. Q. But you don’t pay them wages ?—A. Yes, we have to pay them. If be goes and loses two or three days we have to pay him. Q. But do you pay them wages, so much a day ?—A. No, so much for the herring. Q. Not by the time?—A. No. @. Nor in a round sum of money whether they catch or not. You don’t pay them except for the herring they catch 7?—A. That is all. I pay according to the quantity that I want myself. Sometimes he may haul 200 barrels, and I take what I want. Q. You don’t pay so much and take all he catches?—A. No, I take what I want, and pay him for what I take. q. You agree upon the price before he goes for them?—A. Yes. If he has them we take them. Sometimes when we get to Fortune Bay they have them. . Q. Then the first thing you do is, if they have them to sell, you buy them by the barrel and take them aboard ?—A. Yes, Q. And if they haven t them you agree upon the rate per barrel which you pay 7—A. Yes. Q. You tell him you don’t want more than so many ?—A. Yes. Q. You don’t pay them whether they cateh or not ?—A. Yes; sometimes, if 1 employ a man to go and catch them, if he loses three or four days sometimes I pay him. @. Are you obliged to do so or is it good nature 7—A. Well, I never have employed a man yet but what he got my herring. Q. According to your bargain you say you pay him for what hecatches? —A. For what we take. i Q. I mean that. And you won’t take any more than you have agreed ?— A. No. If it is one barrel I take it. Q. You go into port and want, we will say, 50 barrels. You can buy 30 and want 20 more. Now you tell him you want him to catch you 20 barrels, and just give him so much a barrel ?—A. Yes, that is agreed be- fore he goes. Q. And if he comes back with ten barrels, or but one, you give him so much a barrel for them ?—A. If he brings me ten barrels I pay him for ten ; and if he brings me one, I give him the money for one; if forty, I give him the money for forty. If he brings me more than I want, he can have them himself. ° ; AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2275 Q. Do you know much about fishing with pounds and nets on the shores of Massachusetts ?—A. No. I don’t know anything at all about pounds and nets. They have some pounds over there at Cape Cod. I don’t know anything about them. Q. But you know that from Gloucester all up and down the coast of Maine a great deal of inshore fishing is done with nets and seines and pounds ?—A. There are not a great many pounds on the coast of Maine. : ~ Are there on the coast of Massachusetts 7—A. There are at Cape od. 5 Q. They fish from the shores with nets and seines ?—A. Yes. Q. Do you know much about that ?—A. I have seen them hauling in their nets. Q. Has not that kind of fishing on the coast very much increased !— They have increased in the business, but the fish have decreased. The fish are decreasing all the time. Q. The number of fish caught?—A. Yes; but the business has in- creased. ; Q. How ean that be ?—A. I mean the vessels and the boats. Q. More vessels, boats, and seines are employed than there used to be ?—A. Yes. . Q. One word more about the people in Newfonndland. Do they de- pend upon the Americans for selling their ice and herring !—A. Deci- dedly they do. There is nobody else there that buys, except us. They don’t use any ice except what we want. There is no other nation want- ing the herring except the Americans, Q. Is it a sure thing to get bait there ?—A. It has been a very sure thing. It has always been since I have been there. Q. What about those vessels that are there so long and don’t get bait?—A,. Spending their time in foolishness, I suppose ; I don’t know. By Sir Alexander Galt: Q. About this Newfoundland bait; you have spoken of herring only, but we have heard here that there are caplin and squid ?—A. Yes. Q. Now, what do you do about those? Do you buy them ?—A. We buy the squid and caplin too. Q. And do you get them under the same sort of arrangement that you have described ?—A. No; we buy the squid by the 100 pounds, and the caplin by the barrel. Q. Do you catch squid yourselves ?—A. No; we buy them. By Mr.: Davies: Q. Do you ever assist in catching squid 7—A. No; we pay them forty or fifty cents a hundred. We are paying pretty high, and don’t feel like assisting them. If a man catches four or five thousand squid in one day at that rate he is doing pretty well. Q. One question more. Do I understand correctly that if you employ a man to catch herring, and he is unsuccessfal, you consider yourself bound to pay him ?—A. I would pay him, but I never had todo so. I never employed a man but what he caught them. No... 29; JOSEPH O. PROCTER, of Gloucester, Mass., merchant, called on be- half of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined, By Mr. Trescot : Question. You areanative and resident of Gloucester ?—Answer. I am. 2276 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. What is your business 7—A. The owning and running of fishing- vessels; taking care of their products is part of my business, perhaps the larger part, and other business connected with it. Q. How long have you been engaged in your business ?—A. I com- menced in 1841, as a boy 12 years of age, with my father. I was with him until 1848. He died in 1848, and I then continued the business. On January 1, 1849, I commenced business on wy own account, 19 years of age. Q. You have continued ever since?—A. Yes. Q. What species of fishing have you been engaged in?—A. Princei- pally codfish. But I have had some vessels for mackerel and halibut and all departments. Q. What fleet of vessels do you employ yourself ?—A. The average is about 12, sometimes 13 and 14, perhaps down to ten. I have had as high as 14, and have now 13. Q. Can you give me any idea of the character of your business for any past number of years? Could you, within a number of years, give me an accurate statement of the vessels and their results 7—A. I haven’t any figures to give you une results of the work in any department ex- cept mackerel. Q. How far back is that 1k Ihave from my books the figures to give the results of the fishing in British waters for 19 years. Q. You can use any memorandum you have prepared from your books, explaining to the Commission how you have prepared it, and I will hand it to counsel on the other side. How many vessels have you employed in the bay in these 19 years ?—A. They vary from 1 to 8. The highest number since 1866 has been 8 and the lowest 1. Q. Give me the number of vessels you have employed from year to year in that branch since 1866.—A. In 1866 I had 7; in 1867, 7; in 1868, 8; in 1869,.3; in 1870, 2; in 1871, 3; in 1872, 5; in 1873, 9; in 1874. 7; in 1875, 5; in 1876, 1; and in 1877, 1. Q. What has been the result of that. nineteen years’ fishing? State the amount, if you can, for each year.—A. Might I explain that some of those vessels have made two trips and some oue? I have the number of trips. Q. How many trips did you make, and how many barrels of mack- erel ?—A. 170 trips my vessels made; that is, beginning with 1857 and ending with 1876. By Mr. Davies: Q.. Can you give us the number of vessels from year to year, from 1857 down ?—A. I cannot answer that further back than 1866. By Mr. Trescot : Q. You say your vessels made 170 trips in nineteen years. What number of barrels did they take 7—A. 30,349. Q. What was the average number for those trips, running over the nineteen years 7?—A. 183 barrels; that is, packed barrels. Q. What was the average value of your mackerel during that time ?— A. The average value was $11.57 for 200 pounds of fish, exclusive of packing. Q. What was the average value of the trips? Give me a rough esti- mate of the result of those. trips, the average. Taking the average trips of that number of barrels at that average price, what was the result to you ?—A. I make the result as no profit, so far as pursuing the business is concerned. I consider the gross stock, the barrels of mackerel at that price, taking the charge for bait, and dividing as we divide the proceeds, ee ea Cee —<—<———— re AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2277 one-half among the crew, and one-half to the owners. The one-half to- the crew, where the vessel averaged fourteen hands, and taking the average time, ten weeks, on the trip, or two and a half months, make the wages of each man per month $27.64. The owner's half of the voyage is $968. Against that, pay insurance, commission to master, provisions, oil, fuel, salt to cure that quantity of fish, and fishing gear, the vessel’s running expenses, depreciation of vessel, and interest on investment, and those items amount to $1,096, which makes an average loss of $128. P Q. I would infer from this that in the nineteen years of mackerel-fish ing, so far as the mackerel-fishing itself is concerned, you have lost ?— A. There is a loss directly. . Q. It seems that in the nineteen years you have been sending vessels, and they have made as you say 170 trips, you have lost on the average $128 a trip. Now, bow can youexplain that you continued such a busi- ness as that ?—A. It may be partly explained in this way. These items that make up this cost are where the fitter owns tlie vessel and runs it. There are certain items here that we consider vessel charges directly and certain that are expenses of the voyage. There are certain items that are directly charges against the vessel. Insurance $1.25, running expenses $200, depreciation $100, interest or investment $175 ; in all $500. Thus those would be offset. If I being in the business, should charter a vessel, I would pay a certain price as charterer. In which case these items would be against the owner of the vessel. The charter of a vessel of the average tonnage we used would be $2 per month per ton. That would be a low charter. We may say that would be an average charter. It is as low as ever they are chartered. The average tonnage is 90, carpenter’s measurement, which, at that rate, _would make it $180 a month for a vessel. Take two anda half months, and the time occupied in fitting would be three months, and that would make the whole amount for the season $540, that would be for the use of the vessel for this voyage. These items and charges I make amount to $500, so these are within the amount that would be paid for the charter for a vessel] to pursue the same voyage. Q. But what I want to ask you is this: It is evident that your mack- erel-fishing is not profitable according to your statement. How is it that with so little profit, or rather with so much loss, you find it neces- sary to keep up the mackerel-fishery 7—A. There have been seasons, as will be seen, and as we all know, when there has been some profit in the mackerel business. While we were in the war the prices were very high. Those seasons there was a profit in the whole business, mackerel as well as codfish jointly. But for the series of years, taking the nine- teen years together, it brings that result. We haven’t been aware until we figured that the business stood just in that position. This is a part of our business—a small part. The business is largely codfish business. There are three or four months of mackerel-fishing during the warm months. We pursue cod-fishing six or eight months, and this business comes in after the men are tired catching codfish, and they go mackerel- ing. It is an easy business and they have got used to going In the bay fishing with lines. Some years we have good seasons and others poor, but taking the aggregate that is the result. an Q. You could not afford to pursue the mackerel fishing by itself, and you use it simply as supplementary to your other business, to keep your crews together and your vessels employed 7—A. We have to keep our vessels employed all the year in order to hold the men together. They are fishermen, and have no other business, and we have to keep them 2278 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION... employed to keep the business. Wefurnish provisions. There is a profit on that item to offset the loss. We handle those provisions and there is a slight profit on them. We handle the mackerel also, and in packing them we furnish barrels, and have a profit of thirty to thirty-five cents a barrel. Q. Then I understand that having employed your vessels in the cod fishery, you employ them in the off mouths’in the bay for mackerel, _ looking forward simply to keeping them entployed, and if possible guarding against loss, or making a little profit, but that the bulk of the profit that you make is in connection with the provisions and the hand- ling of the produce ?7—A. Yes. Q. So the mackerel fishery, as an industry, could not be prosecuted by itself with any chance of profit?—A. No; I could not continue in the business if we had nothing but the mackerel. Q. Could you form any idea of the relative yield of the mackerel fishery and the cod fishery that you conducted at the same time, or for any one year? Could you show the difference between the profit of the mackerel fishery and the cod fishery, which is your main business ?—A. The larger part of the product of my vessel has been codfish. Q. Could you say what proportion the result of the cod fishing bears to that of the mackerel ?—A. In ’75 I see the product of the mackerel fishery was about $14,000, shore and bay, and the product of the cod fishery $65,000. Some years it might vary. In 1865, during the preva- lence of high prices, we pursued the mackerel more than at other times. Q. Do you think your experience would be pretty much the same as that of other Gloucester men employed in the same business?—A. I have done about an average business. My vessels have been employed in the various lines of business the same as others generally. Q. As far as Gloucester is concerned the mackerel fisheryis really not a source to which they look for profit ?—A. That is so. Q. And it is a fishery they are obliged to keep up rather to keep their vessels employed and to preserve the crews than for any value attached to it?—A. Itis. If I mayexplain. We have had an excellent fishery on our shores, and within the last two years we have used facili- ties such as seines. We have altogether nearly 100 seines, and they sup- ply our markets with better fish than the bay fishery. I don’t know hardly an instance when they haven’t been sweeter and taken better in the market than the bay fish. With these facilities for catching mackerel with the seine, our market is supplied, so there is no great catch with the hook. We can’t use seines to catch mackerel in the bay with any success, and using the hook and line in the bay, as against the seine on our shores, is a very unprofitable business. @. You find it more profitable to prosecute the fishery on our own shores, partly because the expenses are smaller, and the fish better, and comparatively speaking you cannot contend with hand-lines, as against the use of seines on our coast ?—A. Yes. Q. Do you know anybody in Gloucester to any extent employed in bay-fishing, and entirely trusting to bay-fishing for results?—A. No; there is not any there, and never was. @. With regard to fishing in the bay, do you give any specific instruc- tions to your captains as to where they shall fish, or do you leave them to their own judgment ?—A. If we have free fishing, we leave them en- tirely to their own judgment. ‘ Q. Have you a fair opportunity of forming an opinion as to where they fish ?—A. I have. Q. Well, would your impression be that of the 19 years’ fishing you "ee AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2279 have recorded there had been much fish taken within three miles of the shore ?—A. My impression is that a very small part has been so taken. Q. Could you form an approximate idea of the proportion taken within in the bay-fishing?—A. You mean within three miles? Q. Yes?—A. From the best of my judgment, the knowledge I have where my vessels have been, and conversation with the masters of the vessels, I believe that not one-eighth of the mackerel have been caught within, I should say less, and I should not say any more. It is nearer a tenth than an eighth. Q. Well, you have referred just now to the time when the fishing was free. Did you take out a license while it was not free ?—A. I took oat a license while they were merely nominal, fifty cents a ton, and when it was one dollar aton. I didn’t take any when they were two dollars. Q. What was your object in taking a license?—A. My object was to feel secure in my property, not that we desired perhaps to go within three miles, but there was a doubt about where the lines were drawn. There was always a doubt, and to secure against an uncertainty, and to secure ourselves so that we would not be taken if we were five or six miles out, I should rather pay the money than have the anxiety. Q. Have you any personal knowledge of, the fishing grounds your- self ?—A. I have been over them but not fishing. Q. From what you have learned from the captaivs, have you formed any idea that there is any peculiar inducement to fish at Prince Edward Island, and that the Magdalens are unsafe ?—A. I have always con- sidered the Magdalens the safest place. Q. Do you know where the bulk is caught?—A. At the Magdalens, or between the Magdalens and Cheticamp. Q. Now, with your idea of the mackerel fishing. do you suppose that if the American fishermen were required to pay for the privilege of fish- ing in British waters they could fish with anything like profit to them- selves 7—A. .They could not. Q. That is, that any additional expense, added to what they have to bear now, would be simply to destroy the business ?—A. It would pre- vent their going. Q. You have been engaged also in the cod-fishing 7—A. Yes. Q. How many vessels have you employed, as a geueral rule ?—A. [ have nine now exclusively cod-fishing this year. All those vessels are employed cod-fishing. Q. Just explain. Start with one of your vessels, describe when she sets out and when she comes home, and where she is in the mean time. —A. Most of our vessels are vessels that are used on the George’s. Our vessels start the middle of January or the first of February for the George’s. It is boisterous weather and a rough place; but the men be- come hardened, and willing to venture; they are all on shares, and go for high lines; they pursue this fishing on the George’s until the first of July. We lave had all through this season 120 vessels; that has increased some latterly. Continuing on the Georges through the year is increasing. Eight years ago there was half as many vessels in the summer on the George’s as now, and more in the mackerel business. The ~ vessels that intend to go mackereling fit out in July, generally the Ist of July, and those vessels are vessels that have been on the Georges during the spring. We have one class of vessels that have been built a little larger, and they are adapted to the Grand Bank fishery. They are not uséd for mackereling at all. They continue the Grand Bank fishery during the season. Q. What do you do with them afterwards 7—A. They go home about 2280 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the Ist December. It is a continuous business, and we keep the men steadily employed. There are, perhaps, 50 vessels that start early in the spring to fish on our own shores, seining mackerel. They don’t pur- sue cod-fishing at all. (). Now, with regard to your codfish; how many vessels have youon the Banks now, and how many generally ?—A. Well, perhaps I can’t an- swer that distinctly, as most of my vessels have fished for codfish a large part of this season. One left her cod-fishing to go into the bay, and there is one that has been mackereling all the year. Q. I only want a general idea how you provide your vessel with bait, whether you take it with you or send into Newfoundland ?—A. The Grapvd Bank vessels? Within a year or two our men have got into the habit of going in and buying fresh bait, because it has not been on the Bank within two or three years. If half of them have fresh bait, the other half can do better if they have it. Formerly they used to use salt. bait with what squid they could catch on the Bank. They were caught there for a succession of years. Within two or three years they seem to have abandoned the fishing-grounds and gone inshore. Vessels that left home previous to three years ago did not make land until they re- turned. Q. As far as the experience of your vessels has gone, do you consider it wiser to fish with salt bait and keep on fishing, or to go in for fresh bait ?7—-A. So far as the quantity of the fish is concerned; I don’t think there was much difference if we used the salt bait. We could procure our fares. But our men are acquainted with one another; they can catch more fish with fresh bait while on the grounds alongside of ves- sels fishing with the salt bait than a vessel fishing with the salt. But while a vessel is going in for fresh bait the vessel with the salt bait is still continuing to catch fish, and so it is equal. Q. With regard to results, it is more remunerative than mackerel ?— A. Yes. Q. Is it so as a fishery or as the cod is handled after it is caught ?— A. It is not in the business of catching fish. After the fish are disposed of in their green state as they arrive in port, from the time they ar- rive until they go to the consumer, the handling of them gives us our business. Q. Then even the profits of cod-fishing are rather mercantile than from the fishing itself?—A. It is the profits derived from handling them, curing, drying them, and finding a market for them, and sometimes we get a chance of a rise, buying low. Q. What has been the average that your cod-fishing vessels have done? Can you take any one of them and show what it has done for a series of years ?—A. I cannot show what any vessel bas done in the cod-fishing business exclusively for any year. I can say taking her whole work. Q. Take any one of your vessels and explain what her work has been. —A. I have figures taken from my books to show the cost and annual expenses as well as the recepts of a vessel in the cod and mackerel fish- eries, Q. Explain that to the Commission.—A. The Joseph O. was built in 1868, and the cost of the hull was $6,175. The cost of rigging, sail, an- chors, cables, &c., all beyond the hull, and fitting her for sea, and the expense of the first year, running expenses, was $6,957, making a total of $13,132. Her earnings were $4,600, leaving the vessel to stand on the books $8,529, after one season’s business. Q. How many seasons have you carried her in that way ?—A. Nine, down to January 1, 1877. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2281 Q. At the end of nine years how did the vessel stand —A. She stands at $429,140, nine years of age, without depreciation, interest on money, and taxes. She stands that much debtor, and represents so much cap- ital as she is worth. The value in her policy of insurance is $4,100. This vessel has always run to the Georges, and has been in the bay in the summer. I have another vessel here that was built in the year be- fore 1867. It cost $6,540 for the hull. The figures are carried here just in the same way, deducting the earnings each year and adding the ran- ning expenses. The balance, dedneting the cost of running her, makes her stand last January at $13,462, without interest or taxes. Q. What would the interest be ?—A. I have not figured it. I suppose it would be six per cent. By Mr. Davies: Q. How many years does the statement run over ?—A. Ten years. By Sir Alexander Galt : Q. Do we understand that there is no interest on the investment in- cluded in this account 7—A. There is no interest in the account. By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: Q. The first account is in the mackerel business alone, an individual vessel, and this one is in the combined business ?—A. They are part of the season for codfish and part for mackerel. By Sir Alexander Galt : Q. Have they both been employed in the same business ’—A. The one on the left (referring to account) has been employed more largely in latter years on the Grand Bank with trawls, which made her more ex- pensive. Those three vessels were built after the war, when tke cost of vessels, of the raw material used, and running them for a few years, was higher than previous to the war. As far as my business is con- cerned, I owned six, seven, or eight vessels when the war broke out, which were low-priced vessels, and cost less previous to the war, and IL ran those vessels through those years, in which we were successful, and they offset some of the doings of the high-priced vessels. So if we had had nothing but those three vessels, I don’t know where 1 would have been—probably not here to testify. Those vessels will stand as well as the average of vessels about that time, and have done as well. By Mr. Foster: ~Q. What is the fair rate of interest on absolutely good security and the average taxes at Gloucester ?—A. The rate of interest has been about 7 per cent. bankable from 1862 to this year. It was 7,5; most of the time; it would average about 7. Now it is 6 per cent. Q. If you were making up an account to see how you stood, at what rate would you charge interest 7—A. I would make it up at 7 per cent. Q. Now as the taxes?—A. The taxes have been about 2 per cent. “They are $1.80 this year. Q. How is the property valued ?—A. At a little over three-fourths of its value. ; Q. Three-fourths of the auction value ?—A. Three-fourths of what we consider the value. Q. Take any of the years, and state at abont what amount those par- ticular vessels would be taxed 7—A. They would average from the time they were new till the present time $6,000 tax valuation. The tirst tax valuation of the Hattie S. Clark was $8,500. 2282 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. By Mr. Trescot: Q. From your knowledge of the business of Gloucester, do you con- sider that your business, on an average, has done as well as other busi- nesses of the sort ?—A. I think so. Q. You think it has done a little better,don’t you?—A. I have not failed yet, and a good many have. Q. What percentage of profit on your investment, including all ex- penses, do you think you have made? On the money invested, what percentage or profit have the people of-Gloucester made ?—A. We don’t make any profit. My vessels have not made more than their running expenses for five or six years—hardly any more. Take an average of eight years, my vessels have not paid their expenses. Q. How is it to be explained that some of the witnesses on the other side have stated here, that Gloucester, which was the great center of the fishing business, and an enormously rich town, had made all its wealth in the fishing business ?—A. We don’t live in any such town as you have described. Q. The town of Gloucester has improved, has it not ?—A. It has in- creased in population. Q. What has led to the increase of wealth, if there has been such, in the last fifteen or twenty years? Is your fishing business the chief sup- port of Gloucester ?—A. It is the largest business we do, but it is not all that is done in Gloucester to increase its valuation. If I understand what you are driving at, it is this: if we have an increase in the valua- tion on the assessors’ books, from what cause has that increase come? Q. Yes?—A. I have not looked at the valuation books, but I think we have an increased valuation, although I have no figures with me. If I recollect aright, the valuation is about $9,000,000, with 17,000 in- habitants; I remember when the valuation on the-books was $4,000,000. That was in the fifties. I think the increased valuation has arisen from the increased assessed value of the same property we had in the fifties— a large portion of it from the increased value of the same property. We have also an increased valuation from the products of our granite business ; we employ 1,000 men in the granite quarries. They have been developed. 1,000 men, with all the officers of the company, require places to live in; that makes property and adds to the valuation. The development of the quarries, with all the machinery employed, has added very largely to the valuation of Gloucester. We have had quite a large number of quarries developed within the last ten years, which have increased the assessed value. Gloucester has become a large sum- mer resort, and has a great many summer visitors; they have to have houses, and that has increased the valuation very largely. About ten good sized public houses have been built within the last five or six years, and filled with summer boarders. A very large number of fami- lies from Cambridge, Lowell, Boston, and other places have come down there and spent $3,000 to $5,000 on a house for the summer in the out- skirts of Gloucester. That has also added to the valuation. We have also improved our ship-railways; we have now six railways io use in Gloucester, and we draw in business from Newburyport, Portland, and other ports; and vessels come here for repairs, which makes work for mechanics. We have the best mechanics, best sail-makers, calkers, © and ship-carpenters which can be found. We are drawing business to Gloucester, while other places have decreased. We have nearly held our own in the fishing business, and we have grown in the business we have obtained from other sources. Q. So Gloucester does not, as has been said by the other side, repre- died AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2283 sent the accumulated wealth obtained from the cod and mackerel fish- ing during the last 15 or 20 years ,—A. I have not any answer to make to that. I don’t know what the other side bave said. Q. Has Gloucester grown more than towns in other countries _—A. No. Haverhill, Lawrence, apd Lowell have largely increased their val- uations. Q. To go back to the mackerel fishery. Judging from your list of catches, mackerel is a very variable fishery ?—A. Yes. Q. In calculating the profits on the mackerel fishery, is there any period within which to expect a rise and fall in the success of the busi- ness 7?—A. From my experience, there are years when we have reason to expect a better catch than other years, from the quality of the mack- erel and the body of it we find the year before. Q. What is that period ?—A. They are periodical. The large body of mackerel are of quite an even size, and they grow perhaps one inch a year until they reach twelve inches, when they grow not more than one-half or three-quarters of an inch a year; on reaching thirteen inches, they don’t grow more than half an inch a year afterward. We find the same body of mackerel increased in size as the years roll on, until they get to be a good size. As they increase in size they decrease in quan- tity. Then we may expect a new growth, which fish come along not annually but in periods of five or six years, when we find a body ot mackerel of small fish of even size; and when they get large enough to catch, as we can follow them along in the years we can expect to catch a certain kind for years. I have been through three such periods, and the mackerel have come along about as regularly as we caleulated. Sometimes there has been a deviation from the rule, but generally it has been as I have stated. Q. How about the mackerel market ?—A. The mackerel market does not increase, that is, the demand for mackerel does not increase. The price of mackerel from our experience will rule low. They are low now, compared with the quantity. The country does not seem to call for mackerel. There isa good call for cod, and a large consumption, but the demand for mackerel is limited, and there is less call for it than usual. Q. During the years from which you struck an average of about $11, you included the years of the war ?—A. I did. Q. Was there not an extraordinary demand during the years of the war ?—A, There was a very great demand and the prices were very high, owing to our inflated currency and the demand for the Army, which -took a considerable quantity. Those are the years we were suc- cessful, and the mackerel in the bay were the right size to bite. Q. Has not the Southern market for mackerel fallen off ?—A. Yes, very greatly. F Q. And there is no prospect of an increased trade ?—A. I don’t know any. Q. You bave no reason to anticipate any increase ?—A. They don’t seem to like mackerel as they used to. We cannot sell one-half what we could twenty-five years ago; we cannot find a ready market. I can- not tell the reason for this fact, except that the people, by the improved mode of transportation, are supplied with fresh fish, which they preter to salt fish, and I don’t blame them for it. Q. Have you had any opportunity of judging whether the value of fishing-vessels sailing from Gloucester has increased in recent years os A. The cost of building aud fitting out vessels has fallen off somewhat since 1867 and 1868. 2284 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Are the vessels generally insured ?—A. Our vessels are insured in a mutual office. We all insure our vessels, 300 or 400, in one office. Q. You are a director in that company ?—A. I am not a director this year. I have been connected with the company twenty-five or thirty years. The company has been thirty years in existence. Q. Have you been president ?—A. I have been president, or secretary and treasurer, during three-quarters of the existence of the company, which is thirty years. Iam not now an active officer, but only a stock- holder.. Q. Has there been any falling off in the amount of insurance of late years ?—A. The highest stock that was taken to cover the vessels dur- ing our inflated prices of the war time was $2,200,000. Q. Whatis it now 7—A. $1,600,000, covering our vessels with their outfits. . By Sir Alexander Galt: Q. Is the tonnage about the same ?—A. It is a little higher. The number of vessels is a little less, but the tonnage is a little higher than it was. Our vessels are now built a little larger for the Bank fishing. That is my impression. I have not the figures with me. There has been no real increase in the aggregate value of the vessels, but a decrease. The vessels, as they advance in years, decrease in value, and new ves- sels are put in at their fair value. By Mr. Trescot : Q. Are you familiar with mackerel fishing on the United States coast as well as in the bay 7—A. Yes. . Q. How do you think the two compare ?—A. The fisheries on our shores are far preferable and more profitable than the fisheries in the British waters, on an average. Q. Have you made any approximate calculation of the highest num- ber of mackerel-vessels in the bay during any year ?—A. I think I never knew over 200; that is the highest number I remember in my expe- rience, and I had occasion to know as much as anybody about it, because we had to keep the run of the vessels in the bay on account of the extra insurance we charged them in the latter part of the season. Q. Explain the extra charge.—A. We have a percentage which we charge vessels in ordinary business commencing at certain seasons of the year, and if a vessel is in the bay on the 1st October, and exposed, as we consider, to additional risk, we charge one-half per cent. extra, which is added to the premium note, and if she remains to 1st Novem- ber another half per cent. is added, making one per cent. extra premium. That is to cover the hazardous risk that is incurred by her being in those waters at that season. By Sir Alexander Galt: Q. How is it when vessels are on George’s Banks ?—A. That comes at an early part of the season, and our premium covers that. We com- mence the premiums at 9 per cent. for the year. We graduate accord- ing as the season advances. We reduce the premium one-half per cent. per half month; in January it is 8 per cent.; middle of January, 74 per cent.; at the commencement of February, 7; later in February, 74; and 6 on Istof March. Those vessels go in at that rate of premium on George’s or Grand Banks at that season of the year. Q. How about Bay St. Lawrence ?—A. The vessels do not go in there till lst July, and they go in at the same premium. -o ae AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION... 2285 By Mr. Trescot: Q. Can you form any idea of the largest number of your vessels which were in Bay St. Lawrence on Ist October any year ?—A. The highest number which paid the one-half per cent. extra was 175. It belonged to me to look that up. That is the highest number I remember. By Mr. Foster : Q. When was that?—A. I should say it was more than ten years ago. By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: Q. Do you mean to include all American vessels ?—A. No; only those from Gloucester. By Sir Alexander Galt: Q. Those were vessels insured in your office ?—A. Yes; and we cover all Gloucester vessels in that one office. By Mr. Trescot: Q. Could you say what is the largest fortune made in the fishing business in Gloucester 7?—A. I don’t know of anybody that ever retired from the fishing business with more than $25,000. I know one man who has retired, and his fortune is estimated at from $25,000 to $30,000. He is the only man who hasretired. They gooutin poverty notin riches. I remember settling up the estate of a man who had been successful, who was a hard worker, a fisherman himself, and who continued in basi- ness till he was sixty-five years old. It was ten years ago, at the time of high prices, and he had bonght his vessels in the fifties at low prices, and the whole estate realized $48,000. I don’t know any other estate obtained in the fishing business which has realized so much, and this estate would not have done so if he had lived five years longer. The vessels were sold at 50 per cent. more than their cost, and the wharf property at three times its value five years before. By Mr. Dana: Q. What did the wharf property net ?—A. $15,000, and it was sold two or three years ago for $9,000. By Mr. Foster: Q. How much was real estate in Gloucester worth in 1877 as com- pared with 1870, 1867, or 1866?— A. I should say 33 per cent. less. By Sir Alexander Galt: Q. That is not exceptional as regards Gloucester !—A. Not at all. By Mr. Foster : Q. How do you distribute the fish over the country !—A. We bave become ourselves distributors. Gloucester merchants have become middlemen. Formerly Boston used to take our fish in bulk and pack them and send them over the country. Now the orders are sent direct to Gloucester, and we cure and pack the fish in boxes and send it oat. We use 100,000 four quintal boxes a year, and scores of thousands of smaller boxes adapted for the business. 7 Q. Where are the boxes made?—A. Most of them in the State of Maine. They are sawed out in Maine, and nailed together in Gloucester. By Mr. Trescot: Q. Does that add to the price of the mackerel ?—A. Most of those “men are not interested in producing, but some are producers, and put 2286 * AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. themselves in as middlemen. Some are not producers at all, but do this business, and employ their own men, and buy on commission. Q. After the mackerel are landed, there is a class of men who pre- pare the mackerel for market which adds to the expense of the mack- erel?—A. Yes. } Q. Can you give the product of the Gloucester fisheries for any year ?— A. I have a printed statement here with me, which I believe to be as nearly correct as can be obtained. This printed return, which was made last January, shows the product last year; I cannot vouch for its accu- racy, but to the best of my knowledge I believe it to be about correct. Q. Read it.—A. It is as follows: The estimated products of the fisheries of the District of Gloucester for the year 1876 were as follows: 425,000 quintals codfish, $2,295,000 ; 101,032 barrels mackerel, $909,000 ; 30,000 barrels herring, $127,500; 40,000 quintals other dry fish than cod, $120,000; shell-fish, $10,600; 11,000,000 pounds fresh fish, $745,000; 275,000 gallons fish oil, $132,000; 2,750,000 pounds smoked halibut, $275,000; 8,000 tons fish manure, $25,000; miscella- neous, $10,000; total value, $4,648,500. Q. You were one of the committee which carried this petition to Congress against the Washington Treaty ?—A. I was there at the time on the committee. : Q. I will read you an extract from the petition which contains an estimate of the value of the fish product in 1870. It is as follows: That this picture is not overdrawn, let the following figures testify: Since the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty, and the repeal of the bounty laws, and the establishment of a duty of $2 per barrel on mackerel and 50 cents per one hundred pounds on dried fish imported into the United States, the business of fishing, thus protected even, has been by no means so remunerative as to encourage a large increase of the fishing -fleets in the hands of those engaged in catching fish alone. The produact.of ‘the: fisheries in 1670 was cs cav oa aouteee lest loos se ene eee 109% 716 75 Oct. 13. Pocahontas... 6 \csscscsacccas ceca sede seateescees 173+ 1,304 34 27. Billa: Osborne vocecercdcccsevendonwoes areca ees esiee 2372 1,567 95 BIR Martha & Bliza cc22cccccccsc ss csicee eee Sua eeaieeae 2192 1,455 15 29. Ocean od go: SS Wdalsccmissescciesceene cesses 128 1,634 11 Sept. 1. De Ao PIOORE ss. ches cece sovseesns aneusweneeecseuans 127 1, 480 70 16 Martha & Bligascsccs55.ccscciccccus ccescceosecese 146 1, 688 23 18. PMPOGic cose esses scee ce cae Bo OCR E RIC ee 140 1,782 80 28. Pocahontas. sicosic-einjcces csioaciecuisce cases ccececces 1384 1,439 07 Octal Lodge nc idcedesdascct pusaucescacees ee suecta 113 1,219 35 Oct. 19. Gontiledo oc. ic ccsciesctcclce vase es celeste eee cece aeeeee 1463 1,498 82 Nov. 13. Lancet: cc. sce es Wascweecoes ase sectescclaucaeeuaase 76 962 44 16. Alfarata occccc Wsaunn 124¢ §=1,314 08 30. Ocean Gem ..... Riva de/Saeelsaisiseeeeees ace sacaussvices - 76 853 05 31 E..A. Procter ...... Seemigace eaesive sackas'accsseeeeses 534 476 92 Sept. 8 PN POMAewcsccecien cs ee Kacswhaclsvetes saoseb den nua 534 664 14 18. BIQNOE wana tun dace wae Fevicsbassesnde sehctcan eed Cec 234 363 38 ‘ F Oct. 18. El en Maria. eee eee eee eee ee ee Pewee vue . 122} Fe 679 } 19. Olive Branch... éccccsesennus sane eecltana cates Saree us 54 739 ' 25 ROOISAT cscccak/aedk occuades Saipveaesibewerscesucceces 1514 = 2, 180 00 ' 29 Gontile:...c0s<.c ep 96 8. BOMOON Geo oe tac oe aye een seu eee nent are at one im Oct. 26. Morning Star ol, ripe i « 31. es . ? bert Ie . . € ‘ « 69 Nov. 4. MENON Ds ocacsteraaweesscncasetasens sauereieussss'ss 248 2, S12 14, MEN CCbie ace seloacs sce nacisvasseieeer/cccs ceccselscscivacs 214} 2. asada } (6) 1,424 15, 628 16 1864, | Oet.: 7. Sch. Ocean Lodge ...... 2.200. seccee cocnee ssecces cnccce Ar 3, = = Uhr Emporia... --- 2-22-22 ee cone cece ee cece ne cece ce eeee pa soar - | te ancet..<.-- seeeee Seeatias cuinacoec deeessiseeeane® = ae pe | 8. Martha/Qnd PilizGiccwccvaces aonsicaes scccieese ssueu'e . ast . pil 12. Morning Star .....--2-sccce cece cove cece cooessceces = eet ae 20. Ocean Lodge .----. ------ +++ -00 ce eeee ceeeeecteeeee 99 3.360 07 Nov. |. Lancet.-....-- EES tad eal a alle a slats -** Ong 2 779 79 3. Maytha andbiliza.c csciess cceccapeciiocnescccsesicacs se ary Be if Morning Star ..-.-. .----+ ee- eee cnet ee cree eee e eee ne tlie ann Os T. M. Loring... 0-200 ccccce connne cone ence cosecs oe rail: a 10. E. A. Procter ...--- eee cece ee cone cee ne cence cece oa > 579 00 16. Emporia...-.--- 0 ccc cee vecwee cacces cone cocns aicweess , (12) 3,346 37,256 49 ——S_S-_ 2308 1865. Sept. 4. Schr. Reunion .......... Sa tpscceredacsecacsesscanéiiuaa 20 ($3,970. 7 a IMOrIng Stal sccrcerhcesvieccececsene-raslacs= as aeons 274 3,496 81 vie Meno soso cicssccccsse co ccles em sslesee ees cece case 272 3, 371 00 iBe Deny B coos beDecE Co cbacseead aocnar modes chbess 215 2,965 15 22. Ocpanilicd re 7toss ce csecsaceoscacemecien sce sascere 244 4,167 39 26. Northern lirht- ciecncesieeee 4,595 53 16, 637 04 Cr.—By earnings..... Sid ewe camwiwaidels Moue eee be ee ne eer waaae 4,373 55 Balancelz. cists