=. = a ee pieoepes tak Set: B4 Tats peeteee eet — ts Hie Heh Hist Po) ele papers ietenet’ geaceceped erent Ki MN AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE HEARINGS AT WASHINGTON, D. C., JANUARY 21-25 BOSTON, MASS., JANUARY 31, FEBRUARY 1 GLOUCESTER, MASS., FEBRUARY 2 ST. JOHN, N. B., FEBRUARY 5-6 1918 PRINTED FOR THE USE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SIXTY-FIFTH CONGRESS, SECOND CONGRESS. WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1918 « CHAIRMAN OF CONFERENCE. Hon. WILLIAM C. REDFIELD, Secretary of Commerce. CANADIAN DELEGATION. Hon. JOHN DOUGLAS HAZEN, Chief Justice of New Brunswick. Mr. GEORGE J. DESBARATS, Deputy Minister of the Naval Service. Mr. WILLIAM A. FOUND, Superintendent of Fisheries. AMBRICAN DELEGATION. Hon. WILLIAM C. REDFIELD, Secretary of Commerce. Hion. EDWIN F. SWEDT, Assistant Secretary of Commerce. Dr. H. M. SMITH, Commissioner of Fisheries. Mr. ARNOLD ROBERTSON, First Secretary of the British Embassy, Secretary of Canadian Delegation. Mr. MAITLAND DWIGHT, of the Department of State, Secretary of the American Delegation. : Mr. EDWARD T. QUIGLEY, Assistant Solicitor Department of Commerce, Assistant Secretary and Legal Adviser of the American Delegation. COMMITIEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE. AND FISHERIES. HousrE oF REPRESENTATIVES. JOSHUA W. ALEXANDER, Missouri, Chairman. RUFUS HARDY, Texas. WILLIAM C. WRIGHT, Georgia. BDWARD W. SAUNDERS, Virginia. WILLIAM S. GREENE, Massachusetts. PETER J. DOOLING, New York. GEORGE W. EDMONDS, Pennsylvania. LADISLAS LAZARO, Louisiana. LINDLEY H. HADLEY, Washington. WILLIAM S. GOODWIN, Arkansas. FREDERICK W. ROWE, New York. JESSE D. PRICE, Maryland. GEORGE M. BOWERS, West Virginia. DAVID H. KINCHELOR, Kentucky. FRANK D. SCOTT, Michigan. WILLIAM B. BANKHEAD, Alabama. WALLACE H. WHITH, Jr., Maine. BARL H. BESHLIN, Pennsylvania. SHERMAN BE. BURROUGHS, New Hampshire. BENJAMIN G. HUMPHREYS, Mississippi. FREDERICK R. LEHLBACH., New Jersey. WILLIAM B. YANCEY, Clerk. i) De of. APR 24 4919 2 N 2 CONTENTS. Page Wetterzotstramsmnity tale eis sae = Se es ee SS sie ene alee VOLE UR a tthe 5 VEraERO VGC oH oy ars sien eas eeeiciche ic ete ro alr ee TOSS Noel s Ie AIAN a Hearings at Washington, D. C.: Mr. E. T. Chamberlain, Commissioner of Navigation............---. 11, 42, 46 Mr. George Uhler, Superv ising Inspector General, Steamboat-Inspection Genviceteas tack SRI OAL en oD Amiasth inl JL adnio ey a 27 Mr. Henry M. Loomis, United States Food Administration........-.-.-- 43 Hon. John D, Hazen, Chief Justice of New Brunswick, Canadian delegation. 51 Hon. J. W. Alexander, chairman Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives See hea eens Ms Ps aay ee Eee OE 53 Hearings at Boston, Mass.: Opening statement by Hon. William C. Redfield.......-.--..-.-......-- 60 Siatementabye Chien Justicesdazent a: secre hs ae sie Nene ote AEA 63, 103 Mr. William J. O’Brien, president Boston Fish Market Corporation. --.--- 66 Mr. H. C. Wilbur, commissioner of fisheries of State of Maine.........---.- 67, 92 Capte ME Nickerson, Boston Wobsteri Corte ie: 322 2ee ee ee 70, 92, 104 Mr: A. L. Parker, president of Boston Fish Pier Colt:....2.2.2.225-2..222 70, 175 Mr. William H. Brown, secretary of Fishermen’s Union.....-.--.------- a iL 124 Mr. John Burns, jr., Bay State Fishing CORTE TOS ON PRR OS ECE Pe 76, 155 Mr. Henry Otte, manager of marine department of Bay State Fishing Co. 80, 181 Mr. Arthur L. Millett, ‘fish commissioner of Massachusetts...........----- 85 Mr. Frederick L. Davis, president Gloucester Board of Trade.......- 88, 112,121 Capt..Carl C. Young, onGlouccsters 26) 6) TOP Ruane (PRs OH 88, 119 Mr. William F. Doyle, of East Boston............----- Seite 7 RalaNtaY PED potas cea 93 Mie, Temnlte Si Wallen gel, ort Teo eines oso acacecass uae occsuaboosecscareac 94 Mr. Joseph A. Rich, Bay State Pishins Covke Rane h Cee ei are ar 96, 105 Mrai@OmMeArnold.eNew-Hngland Bishi@o-feseh as eee. 22 eee ere 107 Mr. R. L. Patrick of the Vermont Fish and Game League.......-...-...- 113 Mr. Lius Leavens, Vermont Fish and Game Commissioner..........-.-.-- 114 Mr. D. A. Loomis, "Lake Shore Transportation Co-. ROUSE Bes bape Tug Mr. J. W. Titcomb, fish culturist of State of New York.. 115 Mr. Sylvester M. Whalen, secretary Boston Fishing Masters’ Association. Bipe 125 Mr. Alfred L. Young, J. A. Woumerk Cos eer sei rel ie Onis Pentre Fe 128 Mr. John G. Cox, Consolidated Lobster Co.....-.-..-...--.-20 00s 000s 0 -- 141 Mr. C. F. Wonson, Gloucester Saltiisins Conese see 2 oe ees spleen ean 149 Mrs\Georse Cakitzpatrick, Bostom- 2-2) aan es see. ea ye eel 157 MinpAtvieny lie Powells bostonsllopster Cossss9 es Soy ee ee eee 158 Miah JO7Elaresstish merchants = 555544555 ae sess Sa ets ae rat a Neh 158 ConeressmangWalltred swe Wutkimyol, Bssexss-52). 22.0.2. 205-5255 55. 160 Mra We Munroes Fills Shattuckecomes\Conss 2945 25. Sons nee see ee. 161, Mr. Gardner Poole, president Commonwealth Ice & Cold Storage Co... ... 164 Mrs Irving, Me Atwood, Consolidated) Weirl@o: -: -2-225..2...2--).2..-.2--. 171 Mr. A. L. Parker, president Boston Fish Pier Co................-..--.-- 175 Mr. W. A. Reed, ‘secretary GloucestersBoard of Drade: 22° -s2- 26.4... 2. 175, 181 Mr. Henry Otte, Tine NE Ee IBY Sie Iie COscoacaescasscopsccessosuocce 181 Mr. John M. Fulham, Boston Fish Market Corpora tomes eee el see G7 Mr. George E. Willey, president Boston Fish Market Corporation... -..- 182, 187 Closing statement by Chickusticewbazemea wasn. we cass os nen eme nen 188 Closing statement by Hon. William C. Redfield ........................ 188 4 CONTENTS. Hearing at Gloucester: Page. Opening statement by Hon. William C. Redfield. .............:.:.0.-... 192 Statement ny Chieti usticer Hazen ees ep ee ee eee eee 194 Mr. Frederick L. Davis, president Gloucester Board of Trade... .-- 198, 216, 277 Congressman WilliredawWe Gutkin ot Wssex ce 4255s oee) ce ee eee ee 198, 23 Mr. J. Manuel Marshall, owner of vessels sailing from Gloucester. ......- 199, 210 Capt. Ganls Cs Yiqum gs sens oes nc Obs cE ees 2 Seance oe aps oe OMS age 203, 269 Mr. Thomas A. Carroll, general manager Gorton-Pew Fisheries Co......... 203 Gant. George Hi Peeples: .< s eee oho ae soe eae ee 212 Camadism Coumtles so ies 5 Se ay cies ta. eis os 215 Capt. Benjamin A. Smith, vessel manager Gorton-Pew Fisheries Co. 218, 253, 277 Capt Blroy Prion. Sse. 52 es eee ee eae ce eect Se i SRS Sd eee 225 Mr. Alexander J. Chisholm, fish producer...-.................... eer 228 Gant. Fred Thompson 2: =: sco ape tee eee NE oS 231 Capt. Lemuel E. Spinney, captain and vessel owner......-.-.......---.-- ~ 238 Mr. Frank E. Davis, president Frank E. Davis Fish Co...............-... 241 Gant. .Peter Grant 205: 22 ee. Sone | eet a Oe eee 243 Capt: John” Matheson sic 232 3 So. SAE a a rg 245 Mr Orlando; Merchant, Walliam EH. Jordami@oms 2.4 <- =. eee 255 Mr. Charles F. Wonson, Gloucester Salt Fish Co...-..---.....---.-5-.--- 256 Cant Thomas Ma Nickerson, oh bucksport. Wiese ese ess eo ee ee 260 Mr. George J. Tarr, George J. Tarr Go! dealersan ols... 2222. 265 Mr. Henry E. Pinkham, Henry E. Pinkham Co., salt fish.............-... 267 Mr. A. L. Parker, president Boston Fish Pier Co.. ..-..:...<:-:-...----- 268 Mriioseph MCRhee ch 4. i ack fo aay Scie op ps ual A a ia as 269 Facts about, the’ “Seal?) in Halitasiharboneeecc a i4e eee le eee 273 Mr. E. Archer Bradley, vessel owner and distributor of fish...........-.- 274, 277 Information about sale of Gloucester vesselsy.:....2.-.-- 2.2. <2-.+2-455 276 Mire Jobn A Johnsons an agai ess Urey Cee are eee eee 280 Sienine of ithe Halifaxaoneementi <4. 526 S925 ee ee ee 280 Obtaining coalin'@anadaanwmpaorisn cc! gece cee ae a ee 282 Closing statement by Hon. William C. Redfield -.......-_.--..--.--...:- 282 Closing statement by Chief Justice Hazen...-.........+-.--.-<25:-52 65 284 Hearings at St. John, New Brunswick: Opening statement by Chief Justice John D. Hazen. -...-..-.....--.-.------ 288 Statement by ‘Hon. William:C. Redfield... 3s... 2 36 sos a eee 292 M. M. Gardner, W. C. Smith & Co., Lunenberg, owners of fishing fleet.... 293 Benjamin A. Smith, of Gloucester, Gorton-Pew Fisheries Co. .----...---- 305 A. H. Brittain, managing director of the Maritime Fish Corporation (Ltd.), general offices, Montreal; branches at Canso and Digby, Nova Scotia.... 306 S. Y. Wilson, manager Leonard Fisheries (Ltd.),; Halifax -....-.........- 311 Havelock Wilson, Canadian inspector cured fish. ...........-.----.------- 321 Harry Belyea, St-John., fishermam 2! 5 {cist soko Os a oe eee 323 Robert EB. Wilson, St. John; fisherman ..<6 2 soe ae ee 325 Walter Leonard, St. John, president of Leonard Fisheries (Ltd.)-....-.-..-- 326 John F. Calder, Campo Bello, inspector of fisheries. ..............-------- 330 John Jackson, South Wharf, cured fish dealer, St. John... .-..- eee 336 Re E.iArmstronge: secretary, St. Jobm..25 2. 535)-cc8 cage ces Be oe eee 308 H. B. Short, manager Maritime Fish Corporation at Digby, Nova Scotia... 340 Thomas Ferguson, steamship inspector, board of the Dominion of Canada. 355 Closing statement by Chief Justice Hazen <2. 5.4.2... 2)86 3 = ee 363 Closing statement by Hon. William C. Redfield... ....-.....-..---.-.---- 364 Bichibits 62-2 32. i a BG ec 0 5c oe tee A, Cone 365-382 BRR YN CH Seg ee i 8 oe 5 oir 0 aR RU Le 383-399 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. Marc# 22, 1918. My Dear ConeGressMAN: I have the honor to transmit herewith, for the information of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, copies of the reported hearings of the American-Canadian Fisheries Conference held in Washington, Boston, Gloucester, and Sirol: Ne 8: T am also inclosing an introductory statement briefly setting forth facts relative to the appointment of the commission by the United States and Canada, and the matters discussed at the preliminary meetings of the commission in the city of Washington, including various questions relative to the fisheries which the conference de- cided to consider. At the hearings in Washington, Boston, Gloucester, and St. John. several subjects came with special prominence before the conference. Chief among these were the limitations now imposed upon American fishing vessels in Canadian ports and the restrictions which American law placed upon Canadian vessels in our own ports. Of less general iunportance, but still having weight with the States of Vermont and New York, were certain existing “conditions in Lake Champlain. The hearings developed the fact that a large increase in the pro- duction of fish for the food supply of this country was both necessary and practicable, and that wisdom would provide for removing, as far as might be possible, the difficulties that hampered the develop- ment of the largest possible production. Following the hearings mentioned above the Canadian authorities courteously took the ini- tiative in removing, by the following Order in Council of February 18. 1918, the embarrassing conditions on Lake Champlain: Section 15 of the special fishery regulations for the Province of Quebec adopted by Order in Council of the 12th of September, 1907, shall be, and the same is hereby. amended by adding thereto the following subsection : °5. Fishing by means of nets of any kind is prohibited in Missisquoi Bay and in the Canadian waters of Lake Champlain.” Shortly thereafter. with the President’s approval, the Department of Commerce issued, on February 20, 1918, to the collectors of cus- toms the following order: To promote the vigorous prosecution of the war and to make the utmost use jointly of all the resources of the nations now cooperating. vou will permit, dur- ing the war. Canadian fishing vessels 2nd those of other nations now acting With the United States to enter from and clear for the high seas and the fish- eries, disposing of their catch and taking on supplies. stores. etec., under super- vision, as in the case of merchant vessels entering and clearing for foreign ports. except as to tonnage tax and other charges specifically imposed on entry from and clearance for foreign ports. (This order also applies to the Great Lakes and other lakes ane Waters on the Canadian boundary of the United States. See Exhibit AA. p. 383.) The effect of this hoe was to permit Canadian fishing vessels and those of other nations acting with the United States in the war to proceed direct with their cargoes of fish from the fishing grounds to our ports and also direct on the outward trip from the ports to the fishing banks. This action was in due course made known to the Canadian authorities. On March 8 an order in council was issued by the Governor Gen- eral of Canada, consisting, in part, of the following report pre- =) 6 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL, sented by the committee of the Privy Council and approved by the Governor General: The Minister of the Naval Service recommends, under the authority of the War measures act, chapter 2, of the Statutes of 1914, that during the war United States fishing vessels, in addition to their treaty rights and privileges, shall be permitted to enter any port in Canada without the requirement of a license or the payment of fees not charged to Canadian fishing vessels, for any of the following purposes: (@) The purchase of bait. ice, nets, lines, coal, oil. provisions, and all other supplies and outfits used by fishing vessels, whether The same are of a iike character to those named in this section or not: (0) re- pairing fishing implements: (¢) dressing and salting their catches on hoard ship; (@) the shipping of crews; (ce) the transsipment of their catches; (f) the sale thereof locally on payment of the duty. é The minister further recommends that the fees paid on licenses already taken out for the present calendar vear be remitted. These privileges are granted only for the period of the war by the above order in council, and apply to all Canadian coasts. A source of complaint on the part of the Canadian delegation had reference to the practice pursued by a number of American lobster- well smacks of catching lobsters off the coast of Nova Scotia just outside the three-mile limit during the closed season for lobster in ihe territorial waters of Canada. While the laws of Canada prevent Canadian fishermen from taking lobster during the closed season, American fishermen continued to catch them to the disadvantage and annoyance of the fishermen from the Maritime Provinces. The justice of the complaint was recognized by the American delegation, and also by witnesses engaged in the lol oster industry who testified at the hearings of the conference in Boston. As a result a bill ap- proved by the American delegation to the conference, having for its object the prohibition of this practice, was, at my request, intro- duced by you in Congress on February 25, 1918. (See copy on p. 57.) The promptness with which action was taken in these matters is indicative of the earnest desire on the part of both countries to elimi- nate all sources of friction growing out of the fisheries. The conference, with both the American and the Canadian dele- gates. in attendance, will hold a hearing in Seattle beginning April D4, proceeding from there to Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Ketchikan. Alaska, and on their return holding sessions at Ottawa. At these hearings in Seattle and other places in the Northwest, matters con- cerning the protection of the salmon in and around Puget Sound and the Fraser River, and also the protection of the halibut—the center of this industry being Seattle, Vancouver, Prince Rupert, and Ketchikan, on the Pacific—will be discussed. Furthermore, the mat- ter regarding the use of American and Canadian ports by the fishing vessels of both countries will also be taken up at these ‘hearings, as will also questions relating to the whale industry and to the order in council of Canada, with reference to the purchase of bait and land- ing of fish by foreign vessels at ports of British Columbia—having a direct bearing on the subject of fishing vessels putting in at Prince Rupert, B. C.—together with other fishery matters that may come to the attention of the conference. ; Very truly, yours, Witritam C. Reprierp, Secretary. Hon. J. W. ALEXANDER, Chairman Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. INTRODUCTION. During the past five years several questions of an important charac- ter developed between the United States and Canada in connection with the fisheries on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts which it soon became apparent must be given serious consideration. After considerable correspondence the Governments of the United States and Canada arranged to hold a joint conference “to reach, if possi- ble, a mutually satisfactory understanding as to the pending ques- tions concerning the fisheries on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and to report the result of their deliberations to their Governments as a basis for the subsequent negotiations of a formal agreement between them.” The Canadian Government appointed the following commission- ers to the conference: Hon. John Douglas Hazen, Chief Justice of New Brunswick; Mr. George J. Desbarats, C. M. G., C. E., Deputy Minister of the Naval Service; and Mr. William A. Found, Superin- tendent of Fisheries. The Government of the United States in turn appointed as commissioners Hon. William C. Redfield, Secretary of Commerce; Mr, Edwin F. Sweet, Assistant Secretary of Commerce; and Dr. Hugh M. Smith, Commissioner of Fisheries. Mr. Arnold Robertson, First Secretary of the British Embassy, was appointed secretary of the C: anadian delegation; Mr. Maitland Dwight, of the Department of State, was appointed secretary of the American dele- gation: and Mr. Edward T. Quigley, Assistant Solicitor for the De- partment of Commerce, was appointed assistant secretary and legal advisor. The first session of the conference was held on January 16, 1918, at the Department of Commerce, and at the suggestion of Chief Justice Hazen, Secretary Redfield was elected chairman. The con- ference held sessions on January 17, 18, and 19, at which the follow- ing matters were generally discussed : 1. Lobster fisheries in the North Atlantic—The Canadian com- missioners pointed out that American lobster well-smacks had adopted the practice of fishing just outside the territorial waters of Canada during the closed season for lobster fishing in that country. This not only caused irritation among the Canadian fishermen, but nullified the purpose of the closed season. The American delegates acknowledged the justice of the Canadian position, and Secretary Redfield requested Mr. Quigley to prepare a bill to be introduced in Congress to prevent the continuation of this practice. 2. Conservation of salmon tr and around Puget Sound and the Fraser River—This matter was generally discussed and the com- missioners of both countries realized the necessity of taking steps te preserve the salmon supply. The following resolution was adopted: That a committee be formed to prepare a number of regulations for submis- sion to the conference for controlling fisheries in and affecting the Fraser River and the waters contiguous thereto. ‘ § INTRODUCTION. Dr. Smith and Mr. Found were selected to form the committee, and were authorized to associate with them such others as they might deem desirable. 3. Fishing industry in and around Prince Rupert and Ketchi- Jan —The American delegates pointed out that the present regula- tions at Prince Rupert. under an order in council, placed an unfair burden upon the American fishing industry. The Canadians stated that this impression was based on a misconception of facts. The matter was deferred for further consideration at future sessions of the conference. 4. Equitable rules governing the use of Canadian and American ports by fishing vessels of both countries—The delegates discussed at length the question of the Canadian Government granting licenses to fishing vessels of the United States to enter its ports for further privileges than those granted by the treaty of 1818 (see Exhibit BB. p. 383) without charging a fee for the issuance of such licenses, and also the question of the issuance of a license to fishing vessels irre- spective of how they might be propelled, and that the issuance of such licenses be provided for on a permanent basis and not be con- ditional on annual orders in council of the Government of Canada. The Canadian delegates called the attention of the conference to the fact that under the present law in the United States Canadian vessels were forbidden to clear directly from American ports to the fishing grounds or to go into American ports from the fishing erounds. These important questions were left for more careful consideration by the conference. 5. Protection of halibut in the Pacific—The delegates agreed that some steps should be taken to protect the halibut fishery on the Pacific Ocean and took up the consideration of a resolution to accom- plish this end. 6. Pike-perch fisheries in Lake Champlain—The delegates agreed that some steps should be taken to prevent Canadians from net fish- ing in the Canadian portion of the lake. 7. Sturgeon fisheries—The delegates agreed that some action should be taken to preserve the sturgeon in both coastal and interior waters. 8. International protection of whales —It was suggested that the conference should also consider the protection of whales on the high sears. This matter was held over for further consideration. At the session of January 19 the subject of bounties paid by the Government of Canada to their fishermen was discussed, and the Canadian commissioners submitted a themorandum on the subject which showed that the amount paid was practically insignificant. A copy of the memorandum is attached. (See Exhibit A, p. 367.) Preliminary to the hearings which the conference decided to hold in New England and the Canadian Maritime Provinces, a notice was sent to the fishing industries interested that the following subjects were before the conference and would be made, among others, the subject of consideration : 1. That the modus vivendi (see Exhibit CC, p. 383) be extended to all fishing yessels, by whatever means they may be propelled; that it be applied to the Pacific coast as well as to the Atlantic: and that the annual fee be reduced from $1.50 per registered ton to the nominal sum of $1 per vessel; also, that the INTRODUCTION. 9 renewal of the licenses from year to year be not conditional on an order in council but form part of the arrangement itself. 2 Phat United States fishing vessels on both coasts be allowed to sell their fish in Canadian ports for the Canadian markets, subject to customs duty, as well as to sell in bond. 2 That Canadian fishing vessels be allowed to purchase bait and all other supplies and outfits in United States ports or waters on equal terms with American fishing vessels. 4. That Canadian fishing vessels be allowed to take their catches to United States ports and sell them there. subject to customs duties, if any. 5. That fishing vessels of either country visiting ports in the other be given clearance for the fishing grounds, if so desired. 6. That the United States prevent American lobster well smacks from fishing off the Canadian coasts during the close seasons for Jobster fishing on such coasts. At the suggestion of Secretary Redfield the conference invited Hon. Dunean U. Fletcher, ranking member of the Senate Commit- tee on Fisheries: Hon. Joshua W. Alexander, chairman of the House Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries; Mr. Eugene T. Chamberlain, Commissioner of the Bureau of Navigation; Mr. George Uhler, Supervising Inspector General of the Steamboat In-— spection Service; and a representative of the United States Food Administration to be present at the subsequent sessions in Wash- ington to give the conference the benefit of their views on matters coming before it. The testimony of these gentlemen, together with the hearings at Boston, Gloucester, and St. Johns and the exhibits considered appears appended hereto. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. HEARINGS AT WASHINGTON, D. C. Wasuineron, D. C., Monday morning, January 21, 1918. Mr. Eugene Tyler Chamberlain, Commissioner of Navigation, De- partment ‘of Commerce, United States of America, appeared before the conference at the Department of Commerce. Secretary Redfield, who was selected as chairman of the conference, presided. STATEMENT BY MR. E. T. CHAMBERLAIN, COMMISSIONER OF NAVIGATION. Secretary Reprretp. Mr. Chamberlain, the Canadian commission- ers have submitted, as you have heard, a suggestion which involves a matter which I understand to come within the scope of the navi- gation laws, and which is in substance that “in consideration for certain other matters suggested by them Canadian vessels be per- mitted to leave our ports direct for the fishing banks, wherever they may be, and to enter direct from the fishing banks into our ports.” Will vou tell the conference in your own language what the law is on that subject, giving its history in brief compass; what changes, if necessary, would have to be made in the law to carry out the sug- gestion; how those changes would be effected, and, in short, your knowledge and opinion of the matter as proposed; and after you have made your statement, or possibly in the course of it, the Ca- nadian commissioners are invited to ask any questions on the sub- ject that may occur to them, State the facts in your own way. Mr. Cruampertain. The law, Mr. Secretary and gentlemen, is a simple and ancient one. It is embodied in section 4311, of which I have several copies. | Hands a copy to each member.| The law is as follows R. S. 4311. Vessels of twenty tons and upward, enrolled in pursuance of this title (R. S. 4811-4390) and having a license in force, or vessels of less than twenty tons which, although not enrolled, have a license in force, as required by this title, and no others, shall be deemed vesseis of the United States en- titled to the privileges of vessels employed in the coasting trade or fisheries. That is section 4311 of the Revised Statutes, which is part of the act of 1793, and has been steadily in operation. Enrolled vessels are vessels that are over 20 tons; any under 20 tons are licensed and not enrolled. The enrolled vessels also carry a license which entitles them to engage either in the coasting trade or fisheries. The vessels under 20 tons have not an enrollment, but merely a license or annual document. So the section is comprehen- sive; it takes in ev erything. That is a restriction of the coasting trade and the fisheries to vessels of the United States, and that is the basic law; that is, you may say, the entire law on the subject. 11 12 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. It aims at rather more. This distinction between the coasting trade and the fisheries aims at rather more than the exclusion of for- eign vessels, because a vessel that is enrolled for the coasting trade I should say licensed for the coasting trade—which engages in the fisheries is subject to forfeiture, or, vice versa, a vessel licensed for the fisheries which engages in the coasting trade is subject to for- feiture. In other words, you have to live within your license. The statute is a part of the act of 1793, which really dates back to the first registry act of 1789. The policy of the time was, of course, in the first place, to develop the construction of ships in the United States, and, in the second place, to keep the trades absolutely dis- tinct. The reason for that, I take it, was that Jefferson and other men of those days were very keen on the development of the fisheries. — Jefferson, you may have noted, prepared quite a document on that subject when he was Secretary of State. The fisheries were from— I can not recall the exact date, but from very early in the history of the country up to well within the Civil War, in receipt of bounties on the basis of the size of the ship. If any of the members of the conference are interested in that subject, I covered it in a report some vears ago, but I did not bring it down with me. That was taken away in 1864, and as a substitute for the bounties. which had been paid up to that time, certain privileges—that of free, pure salt for curing the fish was the principal one—were granted. T am a little at a loss, Mr. Secretary, to know how to go on, be- cause, as I say, that is the basic law, and any other matter beyond that would be a matter of detail: but I do not know in which diree- tion your minds are turning, and if you will give me the benefit of a question or two, I will answer them. Secretary Reprietp. Proceed, Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Cuampertarn. The repeal or modification of that law is the only way to meet the proposition. The law, as you see, is an affirma- tion of a policy. Actual proceeding under this statute was brought | to our attention of late years; I think it was in 1911 in the case of the Coguet, the British steam trawler. I have the papers here. It came into New York and the captain announced that he wished, for reasons that were given that were related at the time—I don’t recall them now—to make several fishing voyages out of the port of New York. This being a Canadian fishing vessel, he asked if he would be allowed to do so. The collector said that unless he was instructed to the contrary he would not allow her to clear for the high seas, and we confirmed his position. That was in 1911. Secretary Reprietp. Mr. Chamberlain, is there any penalty at- tached to this law ¢ Mr. Cuamperiars. That matter came up at the time. and there is not. as a matter of fact, any penalty that is applicable. te Secretary Reprietp. Suppose then that a Canadian vessel did sail from a port to fishing banks and returned with a cargo of fish, what would happen 4 i Mr. Cuampertaix. There are two aspects of that. In the first place. there is the departure of the vessel, practically im defiance of the order of the collector, that she should not depart on that par- ticular voyage. It is quite proper for the collector to enlist the co- operation of a revenue cutter, a coast-guard ship, as they now eall them—to send one of those armed boats out and bring the ship back. That used to be not infrequently done a great many years ago, but AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 13 of course of late years there has been nothing of that kind at- tempted; probably there has been no occasion for it. But assuming that the vessel went in defiance of the collector’s orders, there is no particular penalty. There is a fine for departing without clearance, but that is merely $500. It doesn’t amount to very much, and in the case of the return of the vessel I don’t know just what could be done. I don’t know of anything. There is the prohibition of the law. The only way to meet the situation would be by invoking the forces of the Government, rather than any specific statute. There is an alien-tonnage tax that years ago somebody attempted to apply, not to a case of “just this kind but to one in some respects like it; but Mr. Brewster, I think it was, the Attorney General at that time, held that it had no application to this section; so it is hardly worth my while referring to it. Secretary Reprirup. Then, if ‘IT understand you correctly, the sub- stance of the law as it stands i is a declaration of policy ? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprrerp. Is there any power in any department of the Government to instruct the collector to allow such vessels either to clear or to depart without clearance? Also to permit her to enter without formal entry ? Mr. Cuampertarn. The general power over entry and clearance is vested, as you know, in this department. Secretary Reprretp. Does it extend to cases of that character 4 Mr. Crrampernatn. It was exercised in that instance. Secretary Reprrevp. Which instance do you refer to! Mr. Cuamperiatn. The case of the Coquet; exercised, I might say, after some reflection as to whether it was there or whether it wasn't. But it was assumed that the policy clearly carries with it the duty of somebody to give utterance to that policy in a specific case which may arise, and this specific case was right there, and it was certainly the duty of the head of this department, 1 rather than of another department. Chief Justice Hazen. Was that in New York? Mr. Cuamperuary. Well, the port isn’t important; it would come into an American port with a load of fish direct from the fishing grounds. Mr. Founp. The Coguet was a British vessel. Chief Justice Hazen. I understand that; it came to an American port with a load of fish, and then it cleared right directly to the fishing ground ¢ Mr. ~ CHAMBERL: ‘in. She wished to clear. Chief Justice Hazen. She wished to clear, and did you allow her to 4 Mr. Cuampernarn. She did not, but she cleared subsequently for a Canadian port, which was quite proper. Chief Justice Hazen. Then you wouldn’t allow her to clear for a fishing ground ? Mr. CHaMBerarn. No, sir. Chief Justice Hazmn. In what way did the head of this department exercise control Mr. Cuampertarn. The collector said that he would refuse unless instructed to the contrary, and my recollection is—there is no need 14 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. of my trusting to my recollection on that. With your permission, Mr. Secretary, I will read this letter, which seems to be of September dpe Oude (Communication of Sept. 1, 1911, from Charles Earl, Acting See- retary, to collector of customs. New York City, read by Mr. Cham- berlain. See Exhibit B, page 367.) Mr. Cuamprriatn. That in spite of its absurdity. Secretary Reprievp. In the event of his having left without clear- ance a fine of $500 would be automatically imposed. Mr. Craarsernary. If you ever got him again. Secretary Reprrevp. Precisely. My. Cuampernatn. Please bear in mind that it is permissible, you know, to send an armed vessel after a vessel that leaves without clearance. I doubt whether it would have been done in this case. Secretary ‘Reprievy. It is also a fact, is it not, that the Secretary of Commerce was authorized to mitigate or to cancel fines of that character ? Mr. CuHampernarn. Oh, yes. Secretary Reprievp. It is under that phase of the law, is it not, that the vessels are acting in coastwise trade upon the Lakes, one that we have recently instructed certain vessels belonging to His Majesty the King of Great Britain to be permitted to leave and enter the port of New York without clearing and without entry ? Mr. Cuampernaryx. Yes, sir. So far as the coasting law is con- cerned, a special law was passed for allowing permits in that. Mr. Founp. May I ask if you are familiar with the ruling which was given by the collector of customs possibly two years after that ? I am not stre as to the time, but quite subsequently to that. It was the ruling in which he refused to allow a vessel to come in from the high seas with the fish. Mr. Cuampernat. I think I have that here. Of course the two would go together, at any rate. Mr. Founp. The latter case went a bit further. You see, in his case there was a duty on the fish in the United States. He came in, and there was no objection to his selling the fish on paying the duties, but after the tari#t had been removed, then the other question arose, and the collector of customs at Boston said that he wouldn't be allowed to go there with his fish at all, direct from the fishing ground. Mr. Sweer. Had he started from an American port? Mr. Founp. The Coguet was a British steam trawler that was fishing under contract for so much per pound for all the fish that were delivered to a certain Canadian firm. She went out on a fish- ing trip during the winter and couldn't get back to Canso from which port she was fishing on aceount of ice. She consequently went to New York with her catch and couldn’t get back. She got a good price and wanted to come back again. That was the whole thing. But there was no question raised then es to her going there. The only question then was to make her lose the time to go back to a Canadian port from there before proceeding to the fishing grounds: but, subse- quently, when the tariff was revised and free fish came on, the col- lector of customs at Boston intimated that no Canadian fishing vessel or foreign vessel would be allowed to go into Boston from the fish- ing grounds with her fish. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 15 Mr. Sweer. Without any regard to the port from which she had started ? Mr. Founp. Yes. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. That was in 1914, I think. Secretary Repririp. Will you put the matter in the record, please? (Letters of the collector of customs, dated June 4, 1914, and of Commissioner Chamberlain, dated June 5, 1914, read. See Exhibits C and D, p. 368.) Mr. CuampBertarn. I don’t know whether that is the case you have in mind. Mr. Founp. That covers it entirely. Chief Justice Hazmun. It would be correct, sizing up the situation as the law stands at the present time, that a Canadian vessel that has sailed from a Canadian port and caught a cargo of fish can not take that fish directly into a port in the United_States and sell it there, and that a Canadian vessel that is in a United States port having sold its cargo of fish can not get clearance for the high seas. Mr. CuHampertarn. That is undoubtedly the policy, and while there might be some difficulties, as I have indicated in the physical application of force or in any method of stopping it, that would certainly be the aim of the law. And it is our policy to try and carry that out as best we may. Chief Justice Hazen. You say that is the policy, but isn’t that the law to-day ? Mr. CHamprrtatn. That is the law; but, as I say, the method of carrying it out is not as clear as it might be. Chief Justice Hazen. I am asking whether that is not the law ? Mr. CHaMBERLAIN. Quite so, in my understanding. Chief Justice Hazen. So that it is unlawful, therefore, for a Ca- nadian fishing vessel to leave, say, the banks with a cargo of fish and to enter at an American port without going to a Canadian port Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes, Sir. Chief Justice Hazen (continuing). In the meantime. And it is unlawful for a Canadian vessel to leave an American port and go directly to the fishing grounds. It must go to a Canadian port, enter there, and then clear from there? Mr. CuHampBernatn. That’s my understanding. Secretary Reprretp. Is there not even more than that involved? Is it not a fact that she must not only physically go from our port to a Canadian port and thence to the fishing grounds and also from the fishing grounds to a Canadian port before she comes to our port, but must she not also go into the Canadian port in both cases in order to comply with our law—change her character from that of a fishing vessel to that of a trading vessel ? Mr. CHamperntain. That is undoubtedly so. It ceases to be a catcher of fish and is an ice box. Secretary Reprreip. She changes her character from a fish-catching vessel to a fish-transporting vessel. Chief Justice Hazen. Would you allow me to ask you this, Mr. Chamberlain? Perhaps it is an unfair question, but in what way would it be to the disadvantage of the commercial interests, or the fishing interests of the United States, if a Canadian fishing vessel was permitted to clear from an American port right to the fishing grounds? 16 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Mr. Cuamperiain. Well, is that a question? Chief Justice Hazen. Perhaps not a fair question. Do you object to an answer, Mr. Secretary ? Secretary Reprirup. I have no objection to the question. If there is any disadvantage, Mr. Chamberlain, known to you, there is no objection to your stating it. Mr. Cuampernain. I might say that I am not familiar enough with the general commercial interests of the country to give a com- petent answer. Of course, on the face of things, as a commercial proposition, it doesn’t help at all. It doesn’t help at all a system of this kind, but you must get back of that to the original purpose of the act and that whole scheme of laws. Secretary Reprievp. This law was passed on what date? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. 1798. Secretary Reprretp. At that time, is it not a fact that all vessels of war of the United States were wooden vessels? Mr. CHAMBeErRLAIn. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprrerp. And the wooden shipbuilding was carried on wholly upon the Atlantic coast of the United States? Mr. Cuampertarn. There was’t any Pacific coast; it was there, but not in our occupation. Secretary Reprrevp. The answer is “ Yes”! Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes, sir. Secretary Repririp. Now, are you able to say upon what portion of the United States that shipbuilding was carried on at that time? Mr. CuHampernain. The North Atlantic coast. There were a few small vessels built as far down as the Chesapeake Bay, and farther down, perhaps. Secretary Reprrerp. When you say “the North Atlantic oo are you able to give any closer limit than that ? Mr. Cramepernain. New England and New York, and I don't think there is anything in New Jersey, and a little on the Delaware and Chesapeake, perhaps. Secretary Reprrexp. Is it a correct understanding of the fact to say that the shipbuilding of the period was carried on in New. England and New York? Mr. Cuamperntaty. You would have to take in the Delaware, I think. Secretary Reprrecp. From what source was the United States Navy of that period recruited for its seamen / Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. It was altogether an American Navy, you know. That is, the personnel of ‘the merchantmen and the other vessels were all American. It wasn’t until the Civil War that the law was repealed, requiring two-thirds of the crews to be Americans. Secretary Repriep. That throws light upon the matter, but it isn’t quite an answer to my question. : Mr. Cuamprrnary. Will you state your question over again? Secretary ReEprimxp. From what source was the Navy and mer- chant marine of that period recruited ? Mr. Cuamperiatn. From the maritime population which was in the seaboard States. Secretary REDFIELD. Well, did that include the fishing vessels such as there were at that time? AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. ily Mr. CuHampBertain. Oh, yes. Secretary REprrevp. Other than the fishing fleet of the time, was there any source from which the merchant marine and the Navy of the country could at that time be recruited? Mr. Cuampernain. The fishing feet was not large in proportion to the merchant fleet, so I can’t quite gather your question; can’t quite gather the dvift of it. Secretary Reprieip. What I am trying to get upon the records is the exact facts regarding the circumstances under which that law was passed; whether it was in its purpose intended to be applicable to a condition that has since passed away or not. Mr. Cuampernarn. It was intended to a very large extent as a military measure. Secretary Reprrerp. To supply a source from whence the Navy und the merchant marine could be recruited under conditions which by law required that recruiting to be confined to American citizens; that is a fact, isn’t it? Mr. CHampBeriarn. Yes, sir. Of course, there were not any steamers at that time; now you have a lot of those. But if I may resume where I was Secretary Reprrevp. Go ahead. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (continuing). The conditions have very mate- rially changed since the days of which we were speaking, because a very large part of our fishing population, as you gentlemen are all aware, at the present time, is not American population at all, it is not American-born population, and a very considerable part of it is not naturalized. Now, the Commissioner of Fisheries can speak with much more exactitude on that subject than I can, but it is within the general observation of us all that on the New England coast there are a lot of Portuguese manning our fishing fleets. In some parts of Massachusetts they make up almost the entire fishing popu- lation. Then, too, in some parts of the coast, the southern part of California, there are a large number of Japanese, out in Honolulu there are quite a number of Japanese, and singularly enough, we developed only a few days ago, you may recall, a statement that in ene place—I don’t recall whether it was San Pedro or not—there were about two or three hundred Slavonians, who were theoretically, at least, enemies of the United States, and the question was whether these men could fish or could not. The fisheries now, instead of be- ing nurseries of the American seamen, as they were designed to be, and as in point of fact they were before the Civil War, have ceased to have just that relationship te the national defense. Secretary Reprisyp. I would like to ask Mr. Found if he is able to say what the procedure is as to cost and time required to transfer a Canadian vessel from her fishing character to her trading character. Mr. Founp. I am afraid I can’t answer that question with full exactness. I don’t know whether it would be competent for a fishing vesse] to come in with her fish on board and transfer herself into a merchant vessel with these fish still in her hold or not. I am in- clined to think that it would be. A fishing vessel operates under a license with us and a commercial vessel under a register, and she could come in and take out a register, which would be a matter of not more than a few days. 51950—1 16 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCR. Mr. Cuampernarn. Well, is that a question ? Chief Justice Hazen. Perhaps not a fair question. Do you object to an answer, Mr. Secretary ? Secretary Reprieip. I have no objection to the question. If there is any disadvantage, Mr. Chamberlain, known to you, there is no objection to your stating it. Mr. Crameprriarn. I might say that I am not familiar enough with the general commercial interests of the country to give a com- petent answer. Of course, on the face of things, as a commercial proposition, it doesn’t help at all. It doesn’t help at all a system of this kind, but you must get back of that to the original purpose of the act and that whole scheme of laws. | Secretary Reprrevp. This law was passed on what date? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. 1798. Secretary Reprreip. At that time, is it not a fact that all vessels of war of the United States were wooden vessels? Mr. Cuampernary. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprrevp. And the wooden shipbuilding was carried on wholly upon the Atlantic coast of the United States? Mr. Cuampernarn. There was’t any Pacific coast ; it was there, but not in our occupation. Secretary Reprieip. The answer is “ Yes”? Mr. CuampBeruatn. Yes, sir. Secretary Repripip. Now, are you able to say upon what portion of the United States that shipbuilding was carried on at that time? Mr. CHampertaIn. The North Atlantic coast. There were a few small vessels built as far down as the Chesapeake Bay, and farther down, perhaps. Secretary Reprrexp. When you say “the North Atlantic coast,” are you able to give any closer limit than that? : Mr. Cuampertarn. New England and New York, and I don't think there is anything in New Jersey, and a little on the Delaware. and Chesapeake, perhaps. Secretary Reprrexp. Is it a correct understanding of the fact to say that the shipbuilding of the period was carried on in New England and New York? Mr. Cuawperrtarx. You would have to take in the Delaware, I think. Secretary Reprrevp. From what source was the United States Navy of that period recruited for its seamen ? Mr. CuHamperiain. It was altogether an American Navy, you know. That is, the personnel of the merchantmen and the other vessels were all American. It wasn’t until the Civil War that the law was repealed, requiring two-thirds of the crews to be Americans. Secretary Reprrerp. That throws light upon the matter, but it isn’t quite an answer to my question. Mr. Cuampertarn. Will you state your question over again? Secretary Reprimip. From what source was the Navy and mer- chant marine of that period recruited ? Mr. Cxampertarn. From the maritime population which was the seaboard States. Secretary Repriexp. Well, did that include the fishing vessels such as there were at that time? AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. dk Mr. CHAmBertain. Oh, yes. Secretary ReEpFie.p. Other than the fishing fleet of the time, was there any source from which the merchant marine and the Navy of the country could at that time be recruited ? Mr. CHampernain. The fishing fleet was not large in proportion to the merchant fleet, so I can’t quite gather your question; can’t quite gather the drift of it. Secretary Reprisrp. What I am trying to get upon the records is the exact facts regarding the circumstances under which that lav was passed; whether it was in its purpose intended to be applicable to a condition that has since passed away or not. Mr. Cuampernarn. It was intended to a very large extent as a military measure. Secretary Reprretp. To supply a source from whence the Navy und the merchant marine could be recruited under conditions which by law required that recruiting to be confined to American citizens: that is a fact, isn’t it? Mr. Cuamperrnain. Yes, sir. Of course, there were not any steamers at that time; now you have a lot of those. But if I may resume where I was Secretary Reprrevp. Go ahead. Mr. CuHamBeErnAIn (continuing). The conditions have very mate- rially changed since the days of which we were speaking, because a very large part of our fishing population, as you gentlemen are all aware, at the present time, is not American population at all, it is not American-born population, and a very considerable part of it is not naturalized. Now, the Commissioner of Fisheries can speak with much more exactitude on that subject than I can, but it is within the general observation of us all that on the New England coast there are a lot of Portuguese manning our fishing fleets. In some parts of Massachusetts they make up almost the entire fishing popu- lation. Then, too, in some parts of the coast, the southern part of California, there are a large number of Japanese, out in Honolulu there are quite a number of Japanese, and singularly enough, we developed only a few days ago, you may recall, a statement that in ene place—I don’t recall whether it was San Pedro or not—there were about two or three hundred Slavonians, who were theoretically, at least. enemies of the United States, and the question was whether these men could fish or could not. The fisheries now, instead of be- ing nurseries of the American seamen, as they were designed to be, and as in point of fact they were before the Civil War, have ceased to have just that relationship te the national defense. Secretary Reprierp. I would like to ask Mr. Found if he is able to say what the procedure is as to cost and time required to transfer a Canadian vessel from her fishing character to her trading character. Mr. ee I am afraid I can’t answer that question with full exactness. I don’t know whether it would be competent for a fishing vesse] to come in with her fish on board and transfer herself into a merchant vessel with these fish still in her hold or not. IT am in- clined to think that it would be. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. ee Capt. Nickerson. Well, I simply wanted to say, as long as this point is up, that we wanted a vessel built down there and brought over here, and the Canadian Government refused, except under a certain license, and we have not yet discovered what kind of a license was necessary. That boat is being built at Clarks Harbor; and I think the department answered my first request by sending me a copy of the order and said that the license was necessary, and it also stated in the letter that this act would show where to obtain the license and in what way, and it didn’t. Then I put the matter into the hands of Mr. Fielding, who is working it up now. But at the present time the boat can not come from Clarks Harbor to the United States—not because the United States Government is against it but because for some reason a regulation in Canada forbids it. Mr. Sweer. Undoubtedly a war measure, the same as we are now putting rulings into force for war purposes. I suppose it is simply arule a ~pplied owing to war conditions. Mr. Brown. Well, I haven’t much more to say, gentlemen, except that IT am looking at this from the fishermen’s standpoint, from the - standpoint of the wages of the poor man—the laborer—and I feel that if the wages are ‘cut down or the price of fish is cut down to a very great degree, while other commodities are not cut down, it will drive a great many men out of the business. If we could get cheaper bait, cheaper grub, cheaper ice, ete., from the owner’s stand- point as well as from the fishermen’s standpoint, we might be able to drop the price of fish a little more. A short while ago some gentle- men appeared in front of Mr. Endicott, in connection with the food situation, trying to see if there was any way of getting cheap fish, and I think the gentlemen on the dock have complied to the best of thei ability with suggestions that have been made, in order to give cheap fish. But they will answer for themselves, I suppose, after awhile. We catch them, and they have the selling part. But I don’t think that side of the thing would be a benefit, or that alone wouldn’t be enough, with the situation that would arise if we let the Canadian steam trawlers come in here in this way. I don’t think the Canadian schooners would bother coming here very much. If they could get a good market in their own country, I don’t think they would come. But take the steam trawlers, carrying 240,000 and 250,000 pounds of fish, they would probably be attracted by a good nae here, and I think, as I say, that that would hurt our men, because the wages of the fishermen there are not as large as the wages we are getting here in American ports, and it might result in reducing our wages, ‘instead of making things a little bit better for us. Secretary Reprieip. Mr. Found, what can you say about the wages paid on Canadian vessels? Mr. Founp. I would like to be clear as to whether fishing erhoonene or steam trawlers are referred to? Mr. Brown. Steam trawlers. Mr. Founp. You mean to say that the wages on steam trawlers operating from United States ports are lower than on those operat- ing from Canadian ports? Mr. Browy. Higher. Mr. Founp. That the wages are higher on this side? Mr. Brown. Yes, sit. 74 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Mr. Founp. Can you tell us what the wages are, operating from here? Mr. Brown. Well, I was just talking to a man around a week ago— in fact, talked with two young fellows who came from Canso, in regard to the matter. In fact, I think Mr. Otte or Mr. Nickerson have a letter showing the situation in regard to steam trawlers in Canada. J understand that they are getting $30 a month and $7 a thousand, where they are getting $40 and ‘$7 here, and I think with the bigger price for fish here they make more money on the per- centage end of it. f Chief Justice Hazen. You think a larger price is obtained for the fish here? Mr. Brown. Yes. We get $40 a month steady wages on the steam trawlers. We simply go out and have no watch system outside, only in name. We work from 25 to 50 hours night and day, until we get that trip of fish out, dressed, and put down in the hold, and there is an enthusiasm for it. They are getting a percentage on the catch, which makes the men work longer hours than they would at steady wages of just so much. If they had only those, they would simply . demand six hours on and six off—the same as sailors. But when you are giving them a percentage also, they catch all the fish they can and dress them and put them in in good shape. Chief Justice Hazpy. That same percentage svstem is in practice on Canadian vessels ? Mr. Brown. Yes, sir; but the wages are a bit different. Mr. Sweer. Is that $7 a thousand based on the price the fisherman get for the fish in the market. Mr. Brown. Yes. sir; $7 on every $1,000 of stock—the whole catch—seven-tenths of 1 per cent. Mr. Founp. I have something here that I would like to get on the record, Mr. Secretary. I have not before me an exact state- ment of the wages paid on Canadian vessels, but I do have before me a letter from one of the biggest steam trawlers operating out of Canada—out of Halifax—the writer stating that he has to pay 10 per cent more wages than prevail on this side. But T haven't the exact figures. We can get those when we go to St. John. Chief Justice Hazen. This is from S. Y. Wilson, of Halifax, the Leonard Fisheries, Limited. [Handing letter to Chairman Redfield. | Secretary Reprievp. I will read from this letter sent from Hali- fax, Nova Scotia. dated January 26,1918. It is from the Leonard Fisheries, Limited, and is signed by Mr. S. ¥. Wilson. “The captain and mates on Canadian steam trawlers are paid from 4 per cent more than on the fleet operation in United States,.as they are invariably men of large experience in European waters. The steam trawler Baleine, which we are at present outfitting, has been pronounced by one of Gloucester’s most successful captains as superior to any other steam trawler on this side of the Atlantic.” The commission will take pains to get as fully as it can, both from this port and Gloucester, and other United States ports, as well as from Canadian ports, the exact facts as to the operation of these vessels, and will welcome now any further lght that can AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. GS be thrown on the relative cost of operation of these ships. Myr. Brown, we will hear from you further, if you wish. Mr. Brown. Well, that letter may be all right. I guess the English laws on steam trawlers give the captains and mates of the trawlers a good amount, but that the crews get the poorest amount. Chief Justice Hazen. Have you any evidence to support that statement, that the officers get more than on the American side, but that the crews do not eet. as much ? Secretary Reprrevp. The chief justice asks you if you have any evidence to support your statement that in Canada they give an excess to the officers, but take it out of the men, which I understand is the sum and substance of your statement ? Mr. Brown. Oh, the men get a less percentage than on the Ameri- can vessels, I understand. Seeretary Reprieip. Have you any evidence of that—actual facts? Mr. Brown. I would have to get Mr. Burns to corroborate that statement. He would have the fioures i in his office. He is more in touch with those people than I am, as a common man. Secretary Ruprieyp. Well, we shall be very glad indeed to hear from Mr. Burns. Chief Justice Hazen. Mr. Brown, you have referred to the cost of supplies. Have you made any comparison of the cost of supplies required on board these fishing vessels, in Canada and the United States? Have you a list showing the different costs? Mr. Brown. No, sir; I haven’ t—only T suppose that 75 per cent of the men that go out of Boston and Gloucester are Canadians and Newfoundlanders, who come across here, and they tell me that more is paid here than for Canadian vessels. But as far as the facts and figures are concerned, I havent got them. JI think, however, that there would be no trouble in getting them. Chief Justice Hazen. I simply wished to find out if you had made any comparison of the cost—the prices paid in Canada and in the United States for food and materials used in vessels? You have stated that the cost is greater in the United States than in Canada, and I wanted to know what the figures were. My statement. of course, is not evidence; but my information is that the cost of those supplies entering into fishing vessels is fully as great, and in some cases greater, on 1 the Canadian side than on this side of the line. I thought, perhaps, you might have some figures to show whether or not that was correct. Mr. Brown. No. Chief Justice Hazen. You will try to get them, of course ? Mr. Brown. Yes. Secretary Reprrevp. I would say, Mr. Brown, that now or later— at any time when you get hold of definite figures, or when anybody here gets hold of definite figures—we shall be more than glad to have you send them to Washington to be made a matter of record in Washington. Mr. Sweer. I did not understand you to say whether you attach any advantage to American vessels haying such privileges in Cana- dian ports as have been referred to here to- day—with $1 license annually per vessel. Would there be a material advantage to our 76 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. American fishermen on power or steam vessels in being allowed to go into Canadian ports and have the privileges there that Canadian vessels have ? Mr. Brown. Why, in the way I have referred to, there would be in connection with this license matter. It would save $75 to $80 a year on the crew. Secretary Reprietp. Apiece ? Mr. Brown. No; the whole crew. Then, sometimes, in hard weather, when a vessel has been out three, four, or five weeks without taking a seine, it could go in and get supplies. They might have 10,000, 15,000, or 20,000 pounds of pretty good fish, and could go in and have it taken care of; and, then, they could’ go out on the banks again instead of lying on the banks for nearly two weeks more catching fish—by which time those fish would be very old before coming to Boston. In that way Boston would be more of a fresh- fish market, and people would be able to get at all times fresh fish on the market. Mr. Sweer. Weighing the advantages and the disadvantages, is it your judgment that it would be more for the interests of American fishermen that the Canadian vessels should not be permitted to come into our ports? We have been talking about American vessels being kept out of their ports. Of course, it is a question of such permission being granted on each side. Mr. Brown. From my standpoint—from the men’s standpoint, representing the fishermen of New England—I think it would be a benefit to make both America and Nova Scotia harbor places, to leave in those clauses; that what Chief Justice Hazen has said would be all right as far as our end of it is concerned, in that respect. STATEMENT BY MR. JOHN BURNS, JR., OF THE BAY STATE FISH- ING CO., BOSTON, MASS. Mr. Burns. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Brown has asked me to substanti- ate his figures of comparison of wages paid on the Canadian trawlers as compared with our trawlers here. It may be asked, before I get through, if I can substantiate those. I can only do it in this way: That it is a fact that the officers of trawlers from Canadian ports are paid a larger wage or the compensation is greater than on our boats here. At the same time the crews get a less amount. Those figures I have in my office. But, representing the Bay S State Fishing Co., which is primarily a producing company, I believe it would be more or less harmful to throw the ports of the United States open to foreign ships producing fish. We are placed, I think, under many disadv rantages, Whether or not this is a war measure, whether or not it is proposed that the arrangement be made simply for the duration of the war, it seems to me is a very important question. As to the cost of operating, we get most of our nets from the other side. We are paying 60 per cent duty on our nets at the present time. Those nets could be shipped, I suppose, from England to Canadian ports without that duty. That is a very big item in the cperation of our ships. We do business by the year and not by the trip. and if our market at spasmodic intervals was to be lowered AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. et or partially destroyed, our grand average would not be what it is to-day. Altogether I think it costs us—well, I haven't the figures exactly, but I think it costs us—one-half more to operate in this country than it would cost the Canadians. So, if they come into our waters and enter our ports, as suggested, speaking from a partisan standpoint, I think it would be harmful. secretary Reprisytp. Mr. Burns, have you ever figured what the difference in cost per hundred pounds per annum is for operating a Canadian trawler as compared with those of your own? Mr. Burns. No; [ have not. I have had no opportunity to do so. Secretary Reprietp. What proportion of the price that you obtain for the fish is represented by the wages of the fishermen? Mr. Burns. Well, I could figure that accurately. Mr. Brown has stated that he paid the men a certain scale and bonus and paid the officers another scale and bonus. It goes from the lower paid men up to the captain, all scaled according | to the bonus. Secretary Reprievp. Have you ever had placed before you an actual table showing the actual cost of operation of a Canadian trawler ? Mr. Burns. I have not. I have seen the scale of wages and bonuses. Secretary Reprievp. Yes. Is there any difference in the method of operating vessels which would offset in any degree the difference in the rate of the men? Mr. Burns. I didn’t get that. Secretary Reprrerp. Ts there any difference in the way of operat- ing the vessels which would in any degree offset the difference in the wages paid? Mr. Burns. Not that I know of. Secretary Reprizrtp. How many men do you operate on a beam- trawler ? Mr. Burns. Twelve. Secretary Repristp. Is the difference in the wages of the crews made up or more than made up by the difference in the wages paid the officers? Mr. Burns. You mean the general scale, the way it works out in comparison ? Secretary Reprizip. Yes. Mr. Burns. I think it is pretty close. Secretary Reprietp. So you think the total wage paid per annum per vessel would be approximately the same? Mr. Burns. Works out about the same; not much difference. Secretary Reprimtp. Then, what other cases are there operating to your disadvantage, as compared with a Canadian vessel? For ex- ample, is the price “of coal greater here—under ordinary conditions, not to-day ¢ Mr. Burns. Well, I can only answer that for during the war. I can not say what the prices of coal might have been in comparison. Secretary Reprietp. Of course, we are not speaking in reply to your suggestion, in regard to a war measure at all, but are talking about a permanent measure. Would it make a material difference if the duty on the nets were reduced ? Mr. Burns. It would, a great deal. 78 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Secretary Reprrenp. Who are the manufacturers in this country of nets of that character ? Mr. Burns. There are none. Secretary Reprintp. Then, what do you understand to be the pur- pose of the 60 per cent duty ? Mr. Burns. It is simply the classification that we are placed under. These nets are classified with hair nets, for instance; come under the same classification. I shouldn’t like to see a woman wearing one, but nevertheless that is the classification they come under. Secretary Reprretp. Have you made any effort to obtain a reclassi- fication in connection with that matter? Mr. Burns. We have. We have been working on it for some time. Secretary Reprimetp. Then, would it or would it not be a matter of relief to your industry if that could be revised ? Mr. Burns. I should say that it would be. Secretary Reprieip. I would ask the Chief Justice what the facts are regarding the relative costs of those nets in Canada and the United States? Chief Justice Hazen. I don’t know. I was going to ask the witness what a net costs in Canada and what it costs in the United States. Perhaps he does net know. Mr. Burns. IT could not say what they cost in Canada, but would refer to Mr. Otte, who is in charge of that and who could perhaps give u ssome idea of the actual cost. Whether he knows what is being paid in Canada or not. I don’t know. What we must do here and what, it seems to me, would be of great advantage to our ports along the Atlantic coast, would be to build up as large : a fleet as possible. I would say that at the present time the United States—I suppose it was felt that it was absolutely necessary—have taken four of our steam trawlers from the port of Boston to protect against mining, ete. Tf it did not have those trawlers the Government would not have any mine sweepers. They have been mine sweeping for a year and have been taken away from us with nothing to replace them. We would have been able to bring in millions of pounds of fish if we could have used them. Secretary Repripiy, I shall mention that fact to the Secretary of the Navy Mr. Burns. Of course, we need protection. If we are going to be encouraged in building up an independent fleet, whether it is for merchant marine or for the fishing business, we must have a certain amount of protection. There is no question about that. We need protection on the coast and we need fishing vessels, and the question is to be considered whether this is going “to work detrimentally to the independent building of ships going from the United States ports. Of course, we need those vessels. I don’t know what they would have done without us. Of course, our New England ports must be protected. I would now like to call upon Mr. Otte to tell us what he knows about the subject. Mr. Founp. The nets you speak of are those used on the trawlers? Mr. Burns. Yes, sir. Mr. Founp. Do you know the comparative value of those nets in both countries ? AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 79 Mr. Burns. No. Secretary Repriexrp. How big are they / Mr. Burns. About 90 feet across. Commissioner Founp. T understand that these nets are only manu- factured at the present time in the old country. Practically all of them are imported by Canada and the United States from Great Britain ; but the others, gill nets and lines, are practically all imported by us from the United States. Secretary Reprretp. Do you pay duty to the United States, Mr. Found? Is there’a tariff that you have to pay for the nets vou get from the United States, in Canada ? Mr. Burns. Not for fishing purposes. Secretary Reprrevp. You buy your nets in the United States and get them in free of duty? Mr. Burns. Yes. The nets and lines, I think, are practically all imported from the United States—these other nets and lines. Chief Justice Hazen. I understand on those that the price paid is the same in the United States and Canada. I would like to ask Mr. Burns one question. In the case as put it was suggested that the American vessels could buy their supplies in Canadian ports. You are paying 60 per cent duty, or say there is a duty of 60 per cent on these trawler nets, and vou say they are imported into Canada free of duty? Mr. Burns. No; I didti’t sav that. Chief Justice Hazen. Perhaps vou said they might be. I thought you said they were. : Mr. Burns. No. I kept away from that question because IT don’t know about it. Chieti Justice Hazen. That is, you do not make the assertion be- cause you do not really know. But, of course, in the case put by the Secretary, if United States vessels are permitted to purchase supplies as the Canadians do, in Canadian ports, they would be able to pur- chase nets in Canada at the same price as Canadian vessels? Mr. Burns. Yes. Secretary Rebrizip. That is the proposition. Chief Justice Hazmn. And perhaps your Government would con- sider removing the duty, as it does not protect anvbody. Secretary Reprretp. I suppose the proposition is clear that if the Canadian Government opens its ports to motor vessels, steam vessels. fishing vessels, and removes the license of $1.50 a ton and substitutes a nominal license of $1 per annum per ship, that would carry with it the privilege of purchasing supplies of every kind and nature in Canadian ports, at the price there prevailing. So vessels of each Government would have the advantage of the prices in the ports of the other. Ifa thing, therefore, was cheaper in Canada, it would be bought there; if it was cheaper in the United States, it would be bought there. Mr. Brown. In reference to the last question the gentleman asked me, I think there was a misunderstanding in regard to Canadian vessels coming into Canadian ports and American vessels going into Canada to sell fish. Mr. Swerr. Not only to sell fish, but for all purposes. Mr. Brown. I thought I made myself clear, as far as the fishing is concerned, would like to see the same old rule go on. 80 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Chief Justice Hazen. Of course, if the present modus vivendi were discontinued, not extended, that would simply throw the thing back to the treaty of 1818, so that American vessels could only enter our ports for four purposes—shelter, repairs, wood, and water. What would you say, then ? Mr. Brown. Well, all I can say is this, Mr. Chairman and gentle- men, that our “American capitalists might have to make up the needs of American fishermen—supplying more bait—putting the bars down in a way, so that we could get all the fish we wanted in Massachu- setts waters, bays, and rivers, and wouldn’t have to go to Nova Seotia for much hait. STATEMENT OF MR. HENRY OTTE, MANAGER OF THE MARINE DEPARTMENT OF THE BAY STATE FISHING CO. Secretary Reprrenp. You heard what Mr. Burns said about the nets ? Mr. Orrn. I think the question was relative to the cost of the nets to-day. Secretary Reprrerp. Yes: that was one question. Mr. Orrs. In round figures, I think a net to-day costs $260. Secretary RepFrevp. How big is the net? Mr. Orrr. One hundr ed and twenty feet across the mouth and with a depth of 180 feet. It is commonly known as No. 1. Secretary Reprretp. Do you know what the price of a similar net in Canada is to-day ? Mr. Orre. I do not. Secretary Reprrenp. Is it not a fact that any disadvantage, 1f there be one, would be removed if you were free to buy them in Canada and outfit a vessel from there in that respect, if you desired to do so? Mr. Orre. There would be a saving on the cost of the nets, although I will say that we enjoyed free entry of those nets under the Panama Canal act until such time as the Secretary of the Treasury revised that rule and made a different ruling, the net being put on a 35 per cent basis under clause—I don’t remember what it was now. Secretary Reprieup. Is that the amount of duty to-day cent ? Mr. Orrs. Then, the same department revised the ruling again and classified nets under a class which covered hair nets and such finery, which is being protected at the present time. Secretary Reprreip. In what wa Ly and before whom? Mr. Orr. Before the Customs Board of Appeals, and I believe it comes up in April. Secretary Reprrerp. How long has that ruling been in effect, Mr. Otte? Mr. Orre. That ruling has been in effect since, I believe—well, this is simply hearsay—but about a year, perhaps. Secretary Reprretp. How many nets have you bought during that year, Mr. Otte? Mr. Orrr. About 150 nets, and as many spare parts which, if put together, would make a similar quantity. 3) per AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 81 Secretary Reprienp. On which the 60 per cent duty has been involved ? Mr. Orre. Practically. Secretary Reprievp. And about what is the consumption of nets? Mr. Orrz. The eye consumption, I thinix, is 15 nets per annum per vessel, and with 7 vessels there would be 84 to 100 nets per annum. Secretary Reprienp. So you wish me to understand that those you have bought under the larger duty would approximate a year and a half’s consumption ? Mr. Orrr. Yes; I should say so. Mr. Burns. And you might mention the chances of loss. Mr. Orrr. Oh, yes. We had one shipment that never arrived, owing to unfortunate circumstances. The vessel was lost at sea while they were in tr ansportation, and we figure that from the time an order is placed it is 6 to 8 months before we receive a delivery of the goods. Secretary Reprievp. In that respect is there any difference be- tween yourselves and the Canadians? Mr. Orrer. se don’t know, sir. Mr. Burns. Our whole fleet consists of seven boats, operating. Mr. Onin 7 am talking about seven boats operating. Secretary Reprietp. W hat, in detail, so far as you can give it, in the relative order of their importance, are the disadvantages under which you labor in competing with a Canadian vessel of “the same size and type? © Mr. Orrr. I can speak only relatively as to the actual increased cost of operation of our own vessels. As to the exact comparative increased cost of our vessels as compared with Canadian vessels I have not posted myself sufficiently to anwer that question in the manner you would ‘like. I can not give you the relative operating expenses of the Canadian vessels, because I don’t know. Therefore I can not give you the comparative disadvantages or advantages that might accrue if the steam trawlers received the privileges of entering Canadian ports either for selling, refitting or getting supplies. Secretary Reprietp. Do you “think it would be advantageous to you to have the privilege of entering Canadian ports and having the same freedom therein that the Canadian vessels have ?. Mr. Orre. I can not say, as far as steam trawlers are concerned, because in the past 12 years’ operation of our vessels we have used our natural home market, which was capable of supplying our fleet in such a manner as to keep them operating as nearly 100 per cent of efficiency as it was possible to do so. Secretary Reprievp. Have your vessels never had occasion to enter Canadian ports and apply for special licenses 4 Mr. Orre. We have only had occasion to do so in emergency. One case I remember, where the chief engineer was injured at sea and received aid at Halifax; and there was another occasion, perhaps two or three in the life of the company, on account of weather con- ditions. Then, two of our vessels out of Canso and Digby cooperated down there last summer in connection with producing food for the allies. 51950—18—— 6 82 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Secretary Reprrevp. Do you confirm what Mr. Burns said, that it is a fact that on the Canadian vessels the officers are paid a nigher compensation, but that the crew are not paid quite as large a com-. pensation, and that upon the whole the total wage cost would be approximately the same? Mr. Orre. I would not personally confirm that as a fact. I would say, from such meager knowledge as I have obtaimed, that that is the case. Secretary Reprretp. What coal do you use on your ships? Mr. Orre. Bituminous. Secretary Reprreyp. From where? Mr. Orre. From New River mines or Pocahontas mines, West Virginia. Mr. Burns. From anywhere. Mr. Orrr. But at present we are getting what we ran. Secretary Repripyp. Anything you can get, I suppose. Mr. Orrs. It is called “coal.” Secretary Reprrenp. Have you any knowledge whether you have to pay more or less for fuel than a Canadian vessel ? Mr. Orrz. Yes; I have. In one particular instance, m the month of November, brought a new vessel froin Manitowoc, Wis., to Boston, and a vessel stopped at Port Hastings for coal. T believe, if I remember the figures correctly, the price was $6.75 a ton there. We were paving at that time $9.25. While the price of our coal at $9.2 seems a great deal more than the $6.75 at Port Hastings, in my epinion the quality of the coal I received at $9.25 was such that it was probably one-third cheaper than the other. Secretary Repriep. Speaking now of Pocahontas coal? Mr. Orrz. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprienp. $9.25 is pretty high for Pocahontas coal in ordinary times? Mr. Orre.. Very high. Secretary Repririp. How high would it run in ordinary times as to price? I have used a great many thousand tons of it myself. Mr. Orre. In the vicinity of $4—as low as $3.75 for bunker coal: This is a different proposition from rail coal. Secretary Reprietp. Yes; but even then you speak of the Poca- hontas coal as the cheaper coal? Mr. Orrn. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprietp. So there would be no disadvantage against you on the ground of fuel there? Mr. Ovre. No. Secretary Reprieip. Are you able to state any other respects im which the Canadian vessel has an advantage over you, particularly if the bars were removed and you were free to go into any Canadian port, if you saw fit, and buy at their prices? Would there then be, in your judgment, any disadvantage to you; and if so, what? Mr. Orrn. Why, I have not seen the necessity arise for our fleet to enter any Canadian port for any purpose, outside of what I have re- ferred to in the brief statement I have made. Our operation for years has been wholly confined to American ports, and perhaps for that reason I have not made as close a study of what might occur. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 83 Secretary Reprrerp. That 1s undoubtedly correct, but it was not quite my question. ~ Mr. Orre. Perhaps I did not quite get it. Secretary Reprievp. Assuming, under the pr oposed plan, that you are free to go, if you wish, into a Canadian port, if you find it to your advantage to do so, so that whatever price a Canadian trawler gets in its own port is open also to you, and vice versa, under those circumstances what are the disadvantages under which you would labor? Mr. Orrr. Does this question cover the sale of the products? Secretary Repriretp. I am talking about the operation of the ves- sel, now. It would also be a fact, however, that if there were an advantageous Canadian market you would, under those circum- stances, be able to take advantage of it, and if there was an advanta- geous American market you would be able to take advantage of it. T am speaking of an entirely open arrangement. Mr. Orre. I doubt if it would work out. I do understand that at the present time, however, there is a Canadian duty on fish brought in by an American vessel of a cent a pound and that, of course, would be a disadvantage to American vessels. Secretary Reprieip. Of course, that is a sales proposition. I am referring to the operation of the ship. Mr. Orre. T thought you meant that we would have a market in Canadian ports for the fish. Secretary Reprrenp. Well. of course, you would have the oppor- tunity to take advantage of that market, if it existed. Mr. Orre. It couldn't exist, under the duty conditions. Secretary Reprrevp. That would depend on the market prices. Mr. Orre. Well, they would still have the advantage of us, with the duty. Secretary Reprietp. Well, of course, we can change our own duty at any time we see fit. Tariffs are not involved in this discussion. Mr. Orrn. I understand that, but that is a point of fact to be con- sidered. I don’t understand whether there would be an advantage one wavy or the other, materially, under your question. Mr. Sweer. It oceurs to me that perhaps in Canada, as well as here, gentlemen engaged in the industry will give us their impres- sions as to the expense of operation, etc. That would be a very natural thing to do. I want to ask you if there is anybody here that you know of, engaged in the industry or otherwise, who could make out for us a statement of actual expense of operation, going back, perhaps, for several years, taking in normal conditions rather than war conditions, so that we might then get the same figures, perhaps, from Canadians, and make a more just comparison than is possible from hearing the impressions of people stated. Each side, perhaps, may have a _ tendency to consider that its own relative ex- penses are more than those of other people. There may be an im- pression on their part that they are at a disadvantage and on our part that we are at a disadvantage, and perhps if we had the exact figures we would find that the equality was much greater than we could imagine. Is there anybody you know of here who could give us figures “of that kind, making a sort of statement that we could put mto the rocord ? 84 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Mr. Orre. In connection with sailing vessels, I think several con- cerns in Gloucester would be competent to give you statistics dating several years back on sailing vessels. I believe there is a possibility that the Bay State Fishing Co. could also give you figures on the operation of steam trawlers. Secretary Reprirevp. I would like to ask you or Mr. Burns this question. We fully understand the privacy that prevails in busi- ness matters, and there is no désire to make such matters public where there is no right or wrong involved at all. But can you not furnish us something of this nature? We have in our Lighthouse Service one hundred and forty and odd vessels operated, and we have the exact cost of wages, fuel, supplies, repairs, every other item, per mile run of every ship, so that we can tell precisely, taking each ship of one size, for example, precisely what such vessel costs per mile run in any year back, for 8 or 10 years; and we can tell, therefore, whether the ship is economically operated, where the work is of a similar character to that of other ships. Can you furnish us something of that nature, which, if furnished, would be confi- dential as far as the commission is concerned? J must, of course, let evervthing we have be made clear to our Canadian associates on the commission, but as far as publication is concerned, if the matter were one of privacy, for any reason, it would not be made public. Mr. Orrr. I doubt if we would have as elaborate figures as you have described, because we have never had the facilities at hand to go into details in that way, in building up from small beginnings to what we have to-day. But we would be glad to give whatever in- formation we can. Mr. Sweer. [I understand that what you have said refers particu- larly to trawlers ? Mr. Orrr. Absolutely. Mr. Swerr. And not to other kinds of fishing vessels; and you say that the advantage of going into Canadian ports, that sort of thing, does not apply to traw lers as to the other vessels. Is that w hat you say? Mr. Orrer. Yes, sir. Mr. Sweer. They don’t use bait, so that privilege would amount to nothing. But there are other kinds of fishing engaged in by people of our own country quite extensively to which the advantage would be greater than to trawlers of admission to Canadian ports? That is true? Mr. Orrr. Yes; but I couldn’t talk on that subject. Secretary Reprietp. Mr. Burns, will you furnish us with a table of operation costs on the basis suggested ? Mr. Burns. Mr. Secretary, we shall be very glad to do what we can. Our records are pretty public. We don’t “try to deceive any- body, although the United States Government might at other times seek to indict us for what they now ask us to do. “That would seem to be a contradiction of theirs. But we shall be glad to give you our operating costs. Of course, we don’t want to have too much get to our brothers the Canadians, because they are bound to be our com- petitors ultimately. But I can not understand how it would help the commission, for the reason that there have been very few steam trawlers operating out of Canadian ports. It is only recently that AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 85 they have been operating—I think a matter of a couple of years. The first year of the war they were operating very little, and now they have several more trawlers, either chartered or owned by Canadians. These trawlers are coming over here under charter. I don’t know whether they are working independently or not. But that is where the great competitive factor is coming, mostly from the other side. It was our impression before the war that it cost us twice as much to build a trawler as it cost in England, and that was one heavy setback—what it cost us to get a vessel ready for sea. But if those figures would be of any service to you I have no doubt our com- pany would be glad to turn them over to the commission. Secretary Reprreip. I ask you to do so, Mr. Burns, with the under- standing that, while they will have to be known to our Canadian col- leagues on the commission, they will not be made public in this country or in Canada without your consent; and, in general, I will say, too, gentlemen, that if there are facts which in your judgment bear upon the discussion of any of these questions in which there is no principle involved that requires their public use they can be handed in confidence to the commission and will be made known to all of its members, but the confidence will be respected. STATEMENT BY MR. ARTHUR L. MILLETT, OF THE BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS OF MASSACHUSETTS. Mr. Minuerr. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question, for information, if I may. I would ask if it is in the province of this conference to decide anything regarding a proposed extension of the 3-mile limit to 12 miles on the part of Canada, on the beam trawlers ? Mr. Founp. Extend it from 3 miles to 12 miles? Mr. Mrizerr. Yes. Secretary Reprietp. That is a matter new to me, Mr. Millett. Mr. Founp. If I may explain that, as far as Canada is con- cerned, it apples entirely, and can only apply, to trawlers operat- ing from Canada as a base. Canada’s jurisdiction, internationally, of course ceases at the territorial limit of 3 miles from shore. But with a view to protecting certain inshore boat fishermen during cer- tain times in the year, in cases where certain of our trawlers would otherwise be dragging up their hand lines, we have refused privi- leges to our own trawlers unless they undertake to fish not closer than 12 miles from shore at certain times in the year. Of course, that prohibition could not be extended to vessels beyond the Canadian jurisdiction. Mr. Minierr. I take issue with you in that matter, because I have personal knowledge of a steam trawler belonging to the United States sailing out of Boston, making a catch, going to Halifax, and being obliged by the collector at Halifax to sign a paper to the effect that he would not do that sort of thing. He was asked to sign such a paper for the year. Mr. Founp. That is, a trawler operating out of Halifax? Mr. Miuterr. No. Mr. Founp. Then it is quite obvious that it was beyond the right of any officer in Halifax to do that. He would be going beyond his rights. That is a regulation that is only applied, and can only be apphed, to Canadian vessels. In fact, I think I have the regulation here. 86 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Secretary Reprisyp. While Mr. Found is looking for the regula- tion, Mr. Millett, you say you have personal knowledge of that? Mr. Mitierr. Yes, sir; knowledge first hand from the skipper, the captain of the vessel. Secretary Reprietp. You mean that the skipper told you so? Mr. Minuerr. Yes, sir. : Secretary Reprietp. So that is your first-hand knowledge, the statement of the skipper? Mr. Minuterr. Yes, sir. Secretary Repriszp. What vessel was it? Mr. Minzerr. The Seal. Secretary Reprretp. When did this take place? Mr. Minterr. Within six weeks, just after the Halifax disaster. Secretary Reprieip. Give us the full statement of the captain, all the details, bearing in mind, of course, the fact that in view of the statement the commission will call upon the collector at Halifax to state his side of the case. Mr. Mriuerr. Yes. Secretary Reprieip. In order to have the record complete and not ex parte. But will you be good enough to state all the facts as the captain stated them. By the way, is the captain here ? Mr. Mitixrr. No. Secretary Reprievp. Well, state the case as fully as you can. Mr. Minrerr. [ think it was something like this. The captain put into the port of Halifax some time after the disaster, not knowing anything about the disaster. Of course he was cast down by the calamity. In the course of his business he went to the customhouse, and he tells me that while there the collector ov the deputy, I won’t say which, but I think he said the collector, produced this document and asked him if he would sign it. The captain asked him what it was, and they talked it over. He was asked to sign this agreement not to ish within 12 miles of the Canadian coast for a year, and in reply he said, as he tells me, “ My friend, Mr. Collector, 1 can not tie this vessel up. I do not own her. There is a couple of hundred thousand dollars here at stake. But I will tell you what I will do. I will be a good fellew about it and sign it for this trip if that is any good to you,” which he did. Secretary Rrprienp. What was the consideration for the agree- ment ? Mr. Mintierr. None. That is why I ask you, Mr. Secretary, sittine here in this matter, to take that into consideration. Secretary Repriip. Certainly. Then I understand your state- ment to be that without any consideration at all a Canadian officer asked the captain ef an American vessel to enter into an agreement not to fish in waters that both parties knew were not under the jurisdiction of Canada ? Mr. Mirierr. Yes, sir; within 12 miles. Secretary Reprretp. And you accept that statement as probably correct, Mr. Millett? Mr. Mrnterr. I should have no hesitancy in doing so, sir—know- ine the man. Secretary Repriexp. And is it not a fact that the agreement when signed was null and void? AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 87 Mr. Minterr. That is what I don’t know. I am not a lawver. Secretary Reprrerp. Is it not a fact that if-we required such an agreement in the port of Boston from the captain of a Canadian vessel, he would tear it up, and that there would be no power under the law to enforce such an agreement ? ° Mr. Mistery. I don’t know about it. Secretary Reprieitp. But, pardon me, isn’t that fundamental, this beimg a case outside of the territorial limits? : Mr. Muwerr. Well, I didn’t know but what the collector was try- ing to enforce the 12-mile provision of the North Sea convention; and, if so, I thought it is a matter that might be taken up here. Chief Justice Haznn. There is no such intention on Canada’s part. Mr. Miunterr. Well. that is a matter that was brought to my at- tention, and I thought that this would be the time to thresh it out. Mr. Founp (reading) : The master of every sfezm trawler at any port on the Atlantic seaboard of Canada shall befere departure come before the collector of customs, or other proper officer, and deliver to him a report outwards under his hand of the destination of such vessel, stating her name, country and tonnage, the port of registry. the name ef the master, the name of the owners, and the number of the crew, and such other particulars as are demanded by such officer. The report outwards shall also contain a declaration to the effect that the naster of the steam trawler, in consideration of the clearance granted by the officer of customs, undertakes and agrees to restrict all steam operations by such steam trawler fo waters which are at least 12 miles distant from the nearest shore on the Atlantic seaboard of Canada, during the calendar year in Which the clearance is granted. That is a regulation made under the authority of the customs act on the 6th of April, 1915, and that was amended so as to apply from January to May 1 in certain waters. Mr. Minunrr. How can they ask an American skipper to sign that. Mr. Founp. If that was done, no doubt it was a mistake on the part of the collector of customs at Halifax. The reason for the regulation, as far as Canada is concerned, is undoubtedly the reason that has been stated. That is, these trawlers were operating around near the coast, largely for haddock. There were hand-line fisher- men operating trawls, as has been stated, and they. were having their trawls torn up by the steam trawlers. But in the case of vessels other than Canadian vessels, operating outside the three-mile limit we have no power to stop their doing it. But there were vessels operating from Canso and other Canadian ports—Canadian ves- sels—and it was to contro! those during that particular time of the vear that the regulation was made. Myr. Minzerr. I will say that there are other men in the room who can corroborate my statement, and so I have brought the matter up. As is well known, there are places like Cape North, Ingonish, and Seatteree, where the chances for American fishermen to fish are very valuable. If we ave going to have some such limit as this put on it we should know it. There is a great deal of spring fishing there, as well as at other times in the year. If we are going to be kept 12 miles off, you know that we can not go 12 miles off and get fish. Chief Justice Hazen. We have no power to keep your vessels or the vessels of any other nationality 12 miles off the shore. We have a right to do so within 3 miles of our shores, the same as you have SS AMBRICAN-CANADIAN FISHERILS CONFERENCE. the right to keep others away from your shores for a distance of 3 miles, but that is all. Mr. Minnerr. That is what T thought. Chief Justice Hazen. We have no jurisdiction to do otherwise. Seeretary Reprrenp. T will ask a further question at this point, inasmuch as Mr, Millett has brought the matter up, so that we may have i perfectly clear in our minds. Mr. Chief Justice, is it not a fact that if the Canadian collector of customs at Halifax made such a requirement it was null and void when it was made? Chief Justice Hazen, Absolutely. Dr. Sarr, I would like to ask this question while the matter is up, in order that T may be perfectly clear about it. Tf this regula- tion of the Canadian Government is intended to apply only to Canadian vessels, what is the significance of the requirement that the master of such vessel shall sign this paper, giving the name of the vessel, the country of the owners, the tonnage, and other items, which indieate that some other country than Canada may be involved? Mr. Founp. The trawlers that were operating at that time oe longed to some extent in Great Britain and were operating under a agreement of sale of catch to certain firms in Canso. Therefore, this was worded so as to apply to such vessels, operating from a Canadian base, as such. The only way we could get at these trawlers would be when they came back again with their catch, So it was intended to cover those vessels coming in and out from a Canadian port. STATEMENT OF MR. FRED L. DAVIS, PRESIDENT GLOUCESTER BOARD OF TRADE. Mr, Davis. Mr. Chairman, T only rise to confirm partly the report made by Mr, Millett relative to this trawler. T got the same informa- tion. I think Mr, Millett failed to make one statement relative to this, which gives the real pith of the whole matter. It is that this vessel went into H sins for water and was refused the water unless the captain signed this agreement. He was out of water and he went in to replenish his water, and was refused the water unless he signed this seamen, and he refused to sign it for more than one trip. He said, * Tam the captain on this vessel for this trip and don’t know ees about what is proposed further than this trip. I don’t know what the owners may want to do with the vessel. I will sign it for this trip, because T have no intention of fishing, anyway.” Secretary Reprrevo. Where does vour information come from? Mr. Davis. From the owners and the captain. Secretary Reprivip. Where did the owners get their information ¢ Mr. Davis. T presume from the captain. STATEMENT BY CAPT. CARL C. YOUNG, OF GLOUCESTER. Capt. Youre. Mr. Chairman, the captain was Henry Atwood, and that is the statement he gave me. Of course, I know him very well. He went in for water, and when he went to the customs they asked him to sign this document not to fish inside the 12-mile limit for : year. The steamer was the Seal. Dr. Sarvra, OF Boston? AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 89 Capt. Youne. Of Gloucester. Secretary Reprietp. And did he tell you who the officer was who made that request ? Capt. Younc. No; because when we go to the customhouse at Hali- fax we don’t try to find out about who ae! officers are. Of course, there is another thing that ought to be taken into considera- tion, and that is that this was at the time of the disaster at Halifax. Secretary Reprrenp. Was the captain sure that the particular per- son who made this request knew that it was an American vessel ¢ Capt. Youne. Yes, sir. The captain is a pretty fair business man, has been in the business for a number of years. Secretary Reprrevp. How long had he been on ‘that job? Capt. Youne. This was his first trip on the job. Secretary Reprretp. How long had he been fishing? Capt. Youne. Oh, fishing pethaps 20 to 25 years. Mr. Burns. I have no doubt that everybody here in the fish busi- ness will vouch for Capt. Atwood’s integrity. Secretary Reprieip. There is no question about that, not at all. But the thing that astonishes me is that the ¢ captain, with his experi- ence, should not have known that this could not be done. I take it that everybody who has had anything to do with the sea at all vars know that a document like that after it was signed would not be worth anything, that it could be immediately torn up and ae no power would exist anywhere in the world to enforce it. We have just heard the honorable Chief Justice say that. The thing is on its face so foolish, so absurd, to my mind, as to bear on its face evidence that it was a blunder of the man, the individual. Certainly every seafaring man knows—and I know myself, because, although not a seafaring man, I have had to do with seafaring men for many years—every seafaring man I ever had to do with knows that the right of a nation to enforce its domestic laws cease at 3 miles offshore. If the United States, through Congress, passed a law regulating what should be done outside of that 3-mile limit, and should instruct the Department of Commerce to enforce it, and we did enforce it through our officers in this court of Boston, it would be perfectly worthless. No nation on earth can do a thing of that kind; and IT am a little bit surprised, gentlemen, that none of vou appears to have told the captain so. Mr. Davis. I don’t think it is so surprismg, Mr. Chairman. When our men go down into Nova Scotia waters with their vessels and go into harbors, they feel that they must live up to the rules. Secretary Reprrevp. Well, that was not a rule. It was null and void. Mr. Davis. That is all right, but we have had trouble there, a good many people have had trouble there. When a thing is put up to. you, you do the best thing you can. If you teleoraph to the United States for any + assistance, you are held up for awhile. Secretary Reprienp. Another question—he refused to sign the paper ? Mr. Davis. For a year. Secretary Reprrevp. Did he get a clearance? Mr. Davis. He did. Secretary Reprre.p. How do you account for the fact that he got a clearance after he refused to sign the paper? 90 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Mr. Davis. He signed the paper for one trip. Chief Justice Hazen. Made a compromise. Secretary Reprietp. So we understood that there is in existence this document signed by the captain agreeing for one trip not to do this? Mr. Davis. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprrevp. It must be an existence, im: the customhouse in Halifax, I suppose. Chief Justice Hazen. Without any question, the official at Hali- fax made a mistake. This paper will probably be found on the records. : Secretary Reprrevp. In the meantime I think you can take the assurance of his honor the chief justice that there is no power on the part of any Government to do stich a thing. Mr. Foun. And officers will be so instructed that there will be no repetition of it. Capt. Youne. What would it mean, taking outa license in Canada? Chief Justice Hazen. It would mean that any fishing vessel rep- resentative would go to any customhouse on the Nova Sastin or New Brunswick coast, pay a dollar for a license, and that that would entitle the vessel to sell fish and entitle it to the same privileges that our vessels have. Capt. Youne. Can it sell fish free of duty ? Chief Justice Hazen. The question of duty is not being raised here. The question of tariff is one for each country, and it is not being raised in this inquiry. | Capt. Youne. Well, that is the question. Can we sell fish without duty there? What is the reason why you ask us to pay a dollar license fee for our vessels? I would like to have that explained. Chief Justice Hazen. We are giving you a privilege in our ports and are doing it by way of license for that merely nominal sum, $1 a year. ‘apt. Youne. But you put a restriction on us by a license. Why Hei have it the same as in America—come into our ports and do just as vou lke? T-believe in that. But why not do the s same to us down in Canada ? Chief Justice Hazen. Would you have objection to paying a doliar for a license fee? C Pk Youne. But there is no duty on fish in America. What is the reason why you want to charge us a dollar? That is a question we can not understand in Gloucester. When the board comes down there they will want to find out the reason for paying the license fee. For instance, if you don’t want to give us a license, you haven’t got to do so, and then you might are to take the license from us ‘to morrow, and you could do it. It has been done. Secretary Reprimitp. I understand that the difficulty in your mind is in having to pay a dollar a year? Capt. Voune., Yes; isn’t the dollar at all; not the dollar, but the principle of paying the dollar for the license. Chief Justice Hazmn. You see, one of the difficulties in the matter at the present time is that there is a treaty. Under that treaty you have the right to come into our ports for certain purposes. It is proposed, by making an agreement, to override that treaty. There- AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 91 fore we say to you, “ Come into our ports and have all the advantages we have.” hat is what is proposed; that is what is being discussed here. I don’t say that that will be agreed to here or that we will agree to it. There is simply an attempt being made to arrive at a proper agreement between both countries, we representing our fish- ermen and your commissioners representing yours. There must be a mutual agreement, must be mutual concessions, of course. So we say, “ Here is the treaty, which we can override by an agreement. If you will pay a dollar a year as a license fee, you can come into our ports and enjoy the advantages that our vessels enjoy. As far as amount is concerned, it makes no difference whether it is a dollar or a cent. The idea is simplv to allow the American vessels to come into our ports. Capt. Youne. But under the treaty we must enter and clear. Chief Justice Hazen. This whole thing is a matter for considera- tion, of course. It is a very proper question for you to raise, Captain, and a proper question for consideration. Capt. Youne. It handicaps all fishermen a little bit. We go into a Nova Scotia port for bait, and then we also have to buy a license. Chief Justice Hazen. Let us see how this would work out, prac- tically. You go and enter when you visit ports—go to the custom- house é @apt. Youne. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. And when you enter you say that you want a license, and hand over a dollar and the collector hands you a license. Is there any delay about that? Capt. Youne. Sometimes a little delay. Chief Justice Hazen. How much? Capt. Youne. According to where you are. Chief Justice Hazen. You have to have some delay in making the entry, anyway ? Capt. Youne. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. And in making the entry you have to see the collector or the officer there, and he issues the license. So I don’t see why that makes any additional delay. Mr. Sweer. Your point is that it is not done in one country and has to be done in the other? Capt. Youne. Yes; I like to get fifty-fifty. | Laughter. | Chief Justice Hazmn. You have raised a proper question, Cap- tain. Mr. Sweer. And, in the final analysis. I would like to raise this question: Whether it is advisable for either country to require a license to be given. It might be better to eliminate it entirely in both countries. Chief Justice Haznn. Yes. Secretary Reprretp. Before leaving the subject let me simply repeat what Mr. Found, the superintendent of fisheries in Canada, has said here, that if it shall appear that the customs officer in Hali- fax made a mistake—and it is admitted to be a mistake, if it was done—he will be instructed not to imake similar mistakes in the future. and similar instructions will be given generally to the cus- toms officers. ; 92 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Ma. Mintuerr. Of course, it was not a matter of any consequence to me personally. It has come to my attention, and T simply brought it up here. Secretary Reprivip. And we are glad to have you bring it up. Chief Justice Hazen. It is one of those things that causes a cer- tain amount of irritation and annoyance, and should not have oe- curred. Steps will be taken to prevent anything of the sort in the future. Mr. Burns. And we should take the disaster into consideration and excuse it. Of course, everybody was probably worked up at that time. FURTHER STATEMENT BY CAPT. M. H. NICKERSON. Capt. Nickerson. Mr. Chairman, will you allow me to say a word at this time? I think it is absolutely necessary to maintain the integ- rity of the old treaty. There is an old instrument dating back to the days of George IIT, just 100 years ago. that is in full force to- day, and the modus vivendi was merely a rider which suspended its full operations, as has been explained here. Now, if the Canadian provi- sion should admit an American fishing boat to those privileges with- out the payment of a nominal sum of $1, it is clear that that would be overriding the whole treaty, which Canada is not competent to do, as the United States and Great Britain were the only signatories to that convention. I think that view of it is correct. Mr. Chief Justice ? Chief Justice Hazen. I think that is one view of it, Captain. FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. H. C. WILBUR. Mr. Winscr. Mr. Chairman, I understand from what has been stated here that Canada has a restriction which it attempts to enforce outside its territorial limits against its own trawlers through a restriction in connection with the issuance of a license. That has been coupled here with the statement of the order or regulation which was read by Commissioner Smith, in regard to the master of the vessel giving to the authorities the name of the vessel, the coun- try, and so on. It seems to me. as I heard that read, that the cus- toms official im Canada construed the law as his mind understood it. He really acted in accordance with the letter of the law, as it reads, although he was mistaken in his application of it. But this is the suggestion I have in mind now relevant to that question. If Canada can enforce such a provision, by refusing to license trawlers unless they agree to comply with it, at certain times in the year, why is that not in the interests of the fellow who goes in for hand lining. and why could not something of the sort be done here? In talking about trawlers, we have perhaps overlooked the other fellow. Now, I do not understand that that restriction in regard to the 12-mile limit is violated by the Canadian trawlers, if they submit to that condition, and I believe in this era of good feeling, in which it is proposed to deal with questions that have been bothering the people of both countries a good deal in the past, it might not be well for this country to take some action along that line. We will all, then, be im the same boat, and the hand-liner will be protected. If they can protect their hand-liners up there by a mere restriction apply- AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 93 ing between the 3-mile territorial limit and the 12-mile limit, why can not we do it? The trawler is not harmed, and certainly the ~small fellow is protected. Mr. Sweer. I think that is an excellent idea. STATEMENT BY FORMER STATE REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM F. DOYLE, OF EAST BOSTON. Mr. Doyus. Mr. Chairman, I simply desire to call the attention of the commission and of the Secretary himself to the lobster situa- tion. We have heard statements here in regard to the situation on the Maine coast and in Nova Scotia. I think the only way that the lobster business can be kept going, the only future for the lobster business, hes in a permanent understanding between both countries as to what size lobsters can be caught. Maine has a 103-inch law; Massachusetts has a 9-inch law. I believe the future of the lobster industy, if it is to have a future, hes along the Nova Scotia coast. But Canada, Nova Scotia, have canneries taking lobsters but 4 or 5 inches long and canning them for export. Those are the lobsters that should be saved. Secretary Reprretp. Where is that? Mr. Doyte. I have been there and have seen it myself, personally, all over Nova Scotia. I have seen them canning 4 and 5- inch tinkers, millions of them, Mr. Secretary, and there lies the future of the lobster industry. We are the port of entry for the lobsters of Nova Scotia, here in Boston, and Boston is practically the export market for the lobsters of the world. I think, while there is the present feeling now existing between Canada and our country, a feeling which I hope will always con- tinue, and while this commission is ; existing, something will be done. I hope both countries will honestly get ‘together, and then there will be some hope for the future. Look into ‘this matter of the can- ning of tinkers. I know the chairman of the fish commission in Massachusetts, because I had the pleasure of serving in the legislature, and I served on the committee in which he was interested. He could tell you of hundreds of crates of lobsters that he has handled himself that have come to the Boston market, with tinkers, which have been dumped overboard, quite recently. ‘Tl certainly think the present situation should be corrected. I don’t know the disposition of the bill that was before the Fish Commission. Secretary Reprieip. Perhaps Mr. Millett can inform us in regard to that. Mr. Mitterr. I would say that there were 36,000 lobsters of illegal length, some berried lobsters, and those were put overboard at various points along the coast, at regular lobster fishing spots, so that they might grow—37,000, if I remember aright, that did not come up to our 9-inch law. They came from Nova Scotia. Secretary Reprietp. Can you define the word “ tinker,” Mr. Doyle? Mr. Doyrr. Anything under 9 inches. Secretary Reprirevp. This raises an interesting point. I have had occasion personally to see a good deal of this situation in connection with lobsters. 94 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Mr. Doris. You will see the sort of thing I ie referred to all along the Nova Scotia coast. I happened ‘to be entertained by a distinguishe: | friend there, who served in the Canadian Parliament, und I saw a good deal of it. Chief Justice Hazpn. There is no question about it; along parts of the Nova Scotia coast there 1s no size limit, but the season is short. In many places their only chance to dispose of lobsters is by canning them, as they do not have access to the New England market. The time is approaching when canning will be abolished altogether at points to this side of Halifax. Mr. Dorie. It will have to be. Chief Justice Hazen. Tt 1s that sort of thing that has caused the condition of affairs about Passamaquoddy Bay, in New Brunswick. sut there are places that I could point out to you where they will have to allow canning or the lobsters will be of no use at all, places too far away from centers to which they might be transported. . For instance, there are places along Northumberland Straits and Prince Kdward Island, and along parts of New Brunswick and the Gaspé coast. Mr. Doyun. I think that is absolutely right; but if they will pre- vent canning anything below 9 inches, it will preserve the industry. Secretary Repriztp. That is, your criticism is directed not against the canning industry in those cases, but against the size of the lob- sters canned ! Mr. Doyxe: Yes; it stands to reason that if they are going to take lobsters 4,5, or 6 inches in length, tinker lobsters, and can them, you will see the same results that you have seen around Passamaquoddy Bay, that the lobsters will disappear, because Nova Scotia now fur- vishes practically all the lobsters. The same thing will happen in Nova Scotia that has happened elsewhere. Secretary Reprienp. Thank you, very much, Mr. Doyle. This is very helpful. STATEMENT BY MR. FRANE S. WILLARD, LOBSTER DEALER, OF. OF PORTLAND, ME. Mr. Wittarpv. Mr. Chairman, there are no people any more inter- ested in this matter than the people downin Maine. The great trouble is that there is a conflict of laws im regard to the lobster industry. I think we ought to have a Federal law on the subject. I have been in the lobster business for a number of years and have seen it gradu- ally going to pieces. The law down in Maine is all right if you can enforce it, but you have to have the different States and conntries get together on the matter, in order to get anywhere. Under the present situation the business is simply being driven to Boston and New York. It is going away from Maine altogether. IT would sug- gest that the lobster industry be made the subject of a Federal law and that it be enforced. Then everybody will have to be on equal terms. Secretary Reprievp. I think. in view of what Mr. Willard has said, and in view of what Mr. Doyle and others have said, that this may be the proper time, before adjourning in a few minutes, to sav AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. G5 something which will express our view of the seriousness of the lobster situation. We are ready to cooperate with money and with men in almost any way to keep the lobster industry gommg. We run a hatchery now at Boothbay Harbor, in Maine, which, from a certain point of view, may be said to have had a measure of success. We are quite prepared at Washington to consider asking for RU ay and for funds to do more, if there can be some reasonable cooper: tion in New England on the subject. But, and this is the point, we are also being forced reluctantly to consider whether, in the absence of effective laws effectively enforced, we are not coming close to the time for the application of a mandatory law of Congress, which may or may not have been called to your attention, which requires that the ar States cease to spend money, cease operations, wherever State laws are not sufficiently enforced to protect a fishery in the judgment of the Commissioner of Fisheries. In such a case, then and there we are mandatorily instructed to stop operation, and we have had in the back of our minds the question whether we must not stop the Boothbay lobster hatchery. We have it at the moment under serious consideration. I do not speak of that in any sense, I will say to you gentlemen who are interested in the lobster business, as a bluff.. In Texas we failed to find the State laws sufficient to protect our officers in the full and free discharge of their work, under the provisions of this mandatory law, and insuflicient to provide protection for one of our principal hatcheries, and we closed the hatchery. It is idle now, and the plant has been transferred elsewhere. We found in Maryland, at Havre de Grace, the laws of Maryland insufficiently enforced to protect the shad industry, and we have closed the shad hatchery at Havre de Grace. Observe, this is not a matter of choice with us. It is a mandatory Jaw. and we have no choice. The moment it becomes clear that State laws are insufficient for the job or are insufficiently enforced we are prohibited from spending money to encourage the fishery. That is a very unfortunate state of affairs. I personally know a number of the poorer men who make a living out of their little motor boats on the coast of Maine. I have known them for many years, and have seen many of them grow up from childhood and go out on their first trips. But they are losing their livelihood, and it seems that it may be necessary for the United States Government to take its hands off unless we can agree upen laws good enough or well enough enforced to make it possible for the U nited States Gov- ernment to continue. (A recess was taken from 12.50 to 2.30 p. m.) AFTERNOON SESSION. ‘ The hearing was resumed at 2.30 o’clock p. m., Chairman Redfield presiding. Secretary Reprrenp. The meeting will please come to order. I am informed, gentlemen, that there is a delegation present from the State of Vermont which desires to present certain facts with regard to the fisheries on Lake Champlain. Are those gentlemen here now ? (It appeared that the delegation referred to had not vet appeared.) 96 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. STATEMENT BY MR. JOSEPH A. RICH, PRESIDENT OF THE BAY STATE FISHING CO. Secretary Repririnp. Is Mr. Joseph A. Rich, president of the Bay State Fishing Co., present ? Mr. Ricw. He is, Mr. Chairman, but is not president. I am con- nected with the Bay State Fishing Co. Secretary Reprrevp. Mr. Rich, the commission is very much inter- ested to get your viewpoint on the matters we were discussing this morning. I think you were present, were you not? Mr. Rieu. Yes, sir. . Secretary Reprimitp. We shall be glad to hear what you have to Say. Mr. Ricw. There is the point that Capt. Young brought up. Will you read the first paragraph of those six points? Secretary Reprievp. This is not intended, by any means, to be inclusive or exclusive. The first memorandum was: “ The proposed extension of the Canadian modus vivendi licenses to American fish- ing vessels, by whatever means they may be propelled, and the reduc- tion of the annual fee from $1.50 per registered ton to the nominal sum of $1 per vessel, and that the renewal of the licenses from year to year be not conditional upon an order in council of the Government of Canada, but form part of the arrangement itself.” Mr. Rrcw. That does not say that they shall be subject to the same laws and regulations as Canadian vessels, but simply names what they will have for that $1. Secretary Reprrevp. Of course, this is only understood to be a condensed statement of the thing, and we shall be very glad to re- celve from you suggestions as to the form it should take. That is what we are here for. My. Ric. T am only expressing my own opinion. Secretary Reprretp. And that is what we wish. Mr. Rion. Well, that sounds like a big advantage, but it simply means a few dollars less. Of course, it is an accommodation, and it is worth something. Secretary Repriety. It is understood by the commission to involve the extension of rights not now suggested to motor or steam vessels to those vessels. In other words, they are not now free to enter at all, except upon some special emergency: and this, as we are in- formed, would extend to practically the entire sea-going fleet the privileges now accorded to but a few vessels of that fleet. Mr. Rieu. That would be some advantage, quite a little advantage. and would be worth something. Secretary Reprretp. What advantage would that be, in your judg- ment, as a business man ? Mr. Ricx. Well, vessels that are going there and paying the pres- ent amount wouldn’t have to pay so ) much money. If it is extended to motor-driven vessels, vessels driven by other power than the wind, those vessels are increasing all the time, and there would be that many more vessels to take advantage of this for whatever it is worth. Secretary Reprievp. Then, aren't there other advantages, arising for instance, from purchasing their supphes in whatever port they wish, the shipping of crews w herever they are to be obtained, the transshipment of fish in bond through to the United States, and the AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 97 selling of fish in the Canadian market whenever it might be found expedient to do so? Wouldn’t those advantages induce a consider- able number of vessels to go there if the tax were removed 4 Mr. Ricu. Why, it is not a question of tax. The vessels have been going there and taking advantage of it, and paying the tax. Secretary Reprievp. Yes; certain classes of vessels have found it worth doing, have they not? Mr. Ricu. With sufficient advantage they would pay the tax. The greater proportion of the fleet is at “the present time. or will be in ‘he near future. equipped with auxiliary power—crude oi] or gaso- line engines ens that advantage to that many more vessels. Secretary Reprrevp. The object, the purpose we want to see achieved—and we would like to get your opinion whether it is a desirable purpose—is to make just as completely as possible an ab- solute mutuality of interests, so that an American vessel entering a Canadian port shall receive the same treatment that it will receive in our ports or vice versa. Mr. Ricu. In reading over the terms and articles of the proposed agreement it seems, in “the light of a trade, that we have some ad- V antages to offer the Canadian fishermen, and the Canadiin Govern- ment also have some adv antages that they can offer to us. That is about it, isn’t it—that it is in the nature of a trade? Secretary Reprrenp. Why, in the nature of one offsetting the other, certainly. The question is whether this is a good bargain to make. Mr. Ricu. That is a matter of opinion, whether it is a good bar- gain to make. Secretary Reprrevp. That is what we want to find out. Mr. Rice. When it comes to opening our ports to vessels of Can- adian registry to get clearances such as have been referred to, etc.. in exchange for the same rights to American vessels in Canadian ports, it merely means swapping a market of 10,000,000 people for a market of 100,000,000 people. Secretary Reprretp. Well, on the American side isn’t there some advantage in having the use of the Canadian ports for whatever purposes American captains may desire ? Mr. Ricu. As I said before, that is, in my opinion, of consider- able advantage, but isn’t the other side of the thing to be considered, that in return for the opening of a market of 10,000,000 people you are opening up to them—to vessels of Canadian registry—a market of 100,000,000 people? Secretary Reprretp. Well, our ports are now open to vessels bring- ing their fish here. Mr. Ricu. As merchantmen. Secretary Reprierp. Yes; as merchantmen. There are certain ob- stacles in the way, as we know, that this would remove. That is. they can not go from Boston or from Gloucester direct to the fishing banks or the Atlantic, although the law seems to permit them, as a matter of fact. to go from the Alaskan ports, on the Pacific. to the - halibut banks, without going to a Canadian port. Of course, the whole question is, whether there is any material advantage in the whole proposition. The Canadian fish are now admitted free. large HGH 0s $f tO 7, AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. quantities of them. Do we, or do we not, wish, in view of the con- cessions they suggest, to have the largest and freest possible move- ment of food of this kind? Is it advantageous? That is the point. You gee, it can be looked at from several viewpoints—from the point of view of the fishermen, from the point of view of the fishing-vessel owner, the fish dealer, ér the factor, or from the point of view of the man who eats the fish, Mr. Ricn. There is no question that the people of the United States want cheap food and plenty of it; that they want it as cheap as they can get it; and that is what we e all want, looking at the matter from the standpoint of the producer during normal times. These times are not normal. But during normal times it is common know ledge that sritish built steam trawlers, taking them for an illustration, can be built and operated for something like o0"per cent ‘of what jwe could operate the fleet over here. Tf that trade is carried out, that - you have outlined here, it means that when the times become normal, as they were previous to 1914, British steam trawler owners can take a fleet of travlers, bring them to Canada, put them under Canadian registry, send them out with Canadian crews, fish on the Georges, or any of our local banks at certain seasons of the year, bring y the fish to B oston, and that the American fleet would be handi- capped by 50 per cent cost of operation in building and handling, as compared with them. I don’t think the American fisherman asks for any charity, but you can not say to him, “ Go ahead and produce fish,” and then submit him to that 50 per cent handicap while doing it. Secretary Reprrevp. Isn’t it a fact that they can do that to- -day. and how far an this handicap you ¢ Mr. Rion. I don’t think they can to-day, because of abnormal con- ditions in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I think the prices of materials down there now are practically as high as they are here. Secretary Reprrevp. I don’t mean under existing economic condi- tions, but under the present law there is nothing to prevent the very thing that you speak of happening? Ma. Ricw. Previous to 1914. if that trade you now speak of was in force, it would have meant placing practically a 50 per cent handi- cap on American vessel owners and fishermen. In other words, to produce the same fish under the same conditions, we would have had io Invest $150,000 against the other man’s $100,000. Of course. that is guesswork, and T don't suppose vou want me to do any guessing here. Secretary Reprisip. This law was passed in 1914? Mr. Sweer. The Panama Canal act was passed before the war, and that was modified about a month after the war commenced in Europe so as to apply to all vessels, not only those built within five years, but all vessels, so that American registry, as the law stands to-day, is granted to a vessel of foreign construction. So the Canadian would have no particular advantage as the law stands now over an American or over a citizen of the United States in regard io the construction of the vessel, as we can buy our vessels in the same markets that they buy theirs. I was going to ask you if, under those circumstances. it would not be merely a question of wages or a ques- tion of operation. Mr. Ricu. Didn’t that proviso apply exclusively to merchant ves- sels, principally owned in the United States, the biggest part of them AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 99 owned in the United States, and built a short time previous to the time when the act was passed? It didn’t apply to fishermen, did it? Mr. Sweer. Oh, yes. It applied to all vessels, as I under- stand; but as originally passed it apphed only to vessels con- structed five years, I think, previous to the passage of the act. But within-a month after the war began in Europe that five-year clause was eliminated entirely, and as the law stands to-day Ameri- can registry may be granted to any foreign-built vessel for any pur- pose, as far as I know. Mr. Ricu. I don’t care to question that, but are you sure, for any purpose? As I remember at the time, it was for merchant vessels and not for fishing vessels. I looked it up at the time. Mr. Sweet. According to my recollection no distinction was made. 1 think Mr. Quigley, our attorney, may recollect about that, whether the Panama act ‘applied to fishing vessels. Mr. Qureiey. I think we have the Panama Canal act here. I will look at it. (See pp. 105-106.) Secretary Reprretp. Fish became free, Ma. Rich, before the war began, with the Underwood tariff in 1913 Mr. Ricw. Sure. Secretary Reprrenp. So that the Canadians have been free, with power vessels, and vessels of every kind, to bring fish in free, before war conditions arose. Mr. Ricu. I was not speaking of the tariff, but of the war condi- tions. Secretary Reprirevp. Long before the war fish were free. Mr. Minrerr. I would like to hear that statement again from you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Reprrenp. I say that fish were free under the Under- wood tariff. Mr. Mirierr. Fresh fish? Secretary Reprievp. I am not speaking of salt fish. Mr, Ric. In regard to the tariff paid, I think Canada buys her gear in the same pla e we do. We pay a 60 per cent duty, coming TAG the United States. I think there is no duty on fishing gear going into Canada, is there? Chief Justice Hazen. That is correct. Mr. Ricw. Except 7 per cent war tax. Mr. Mirrerr. This indicates 43 per cent on trawl gea Chief Justice Hazen. But if vour vessels come fate our ports and buy supplies there they will pay just the same price as Canadian fishermen pay. Perhaps, also, you can influence your Government, as there is no industry here that is protected by this particular duty, to abolish the duty. It is enly-a source of revenue. Mr. Rrcw. But doesn’t a part of this mean exchanging the market of 100,000,000 people for a market of 10,000,000 people? Secretary Reprieip. Pardon me, is that quite so? That is not quite the fact, is it, because already fresh fish is free in this market. It is not a question of exchanging a market of 10,000,000 people for a market of 100,000,000 people. By the present law fresh fish is free in this market. So I don’t think that is a correct point of view. Any Canadian vessel that sees fit—and they do see fit and come here con- stantly—ean bring its cargo of fresh fish into Boston or Gloucester to-day, and they bring a great many million pounds of it in. Now, 100 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. we are not altering that condition at all. It is simply a matter of saying to them, “ You may sail direct to the fishing grounds from one of our ports instead of having to sail first to Y armouth and then to the fishing grounds.” They may come direct to Boston also from the fishing grounds, instead of coming first to Yarmouth and then coming here. Mr. Mn. Lerr. Do I understand that millions of pounds of fresh fish are coming into our market here free from Nova Scotia ports? Secretary Reprieyp. What is your record on that, Dr. Smith ? Dr. Smirn. I could not eive it offhand. Secretary Reprienp. But it is a fact that millions of pounds are coming in free ¢ Dr. Smivu. Yes; very large quantities are coming in. Secretary Reprrerp. I would like to ask Mr. Millett in what re- spect he questions that ? Mr. Miuurrr. Do I understand the statement to be that millions of pounds of fresh fish are brought in here free? In the first place, { understand that they are expected to change their registry before coming in. But I would ask the conference to make a statement in regard to that matter. Secretary Reprievp. Do you question the fact / Chief Justice Hazen. What is the question you raise ¢ Mr. Minrerr. About fresh-fish trips into Boston. Secretary Reprievp. I do not know at present whether the million of pounds IT have spoken of have come into Boston or not, but we do know that many millions of pounds of Canadian fresh fish are coming mto the United States. Mr. Burns. In Canadian bottoms ? Secretary Repripup. Canadian-caught fish 7 Commissioner Swrer. Of course, a great many are brought in on the Pacific side. Secretary Reprievp. I am informed that 20,000,000 pounds have come in. I shall be glad to have further information on the subject. Mr. Ricu. There are hundreds of thousands of pounds of fish that come to Boston, fresh and frozen fish, the year round, winter and summer, free, but they come in merchant vessels and on railoads and steamers. Secretary Reprrevp. T understand that. I am “04 attempting to make a technical point nor to trip anybody up on a technical point. We are here not to give information, but to get it, to learn and not to teach; but the fact remains that Canadian fresh fish comes in large quantities into the American market. IT am not concerned in the question whether technically it comes on the fishing vessels, in a dray, by canoe, or by airplane. That is a technical question. We are only discussing at the moment whether there is free access to this market for Canadian fresh fish. Is anybody going to question that fact? If so, let him rise and let us see what the facts are. Does any- body doubt that fish, Canadian-caught fresh and frozen fish, comes free into the Aa of the United States in quantity? Is that questioned ¢ Mr. Burns. Mr. Secretary, has it not been the law that no fishing vessel could come direct from the fishing grounds ito Boston ? Seeretary Reprizip. Tam not discussing that question. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 101 Mr. Burns. Well, if it is a technical point arising under the United States law, and one that might. if necessary, be regulated, I had an idea that the question might be raised here and might be discussed. Secretary Reprietp. It is a perfectly proper question to raise and to discuss, but it is not the question that is being discussed at this time. Mr. Mitierr. This is a matter of the most grave import to the fishing interests of this country, all the way through. We, as mem- bers af the commission on fish and game of Massachusetts, realize it perhaps more than anybody else. it had not intended to say a word on this matter seriously outside of raising any point that I thought might help you in your work, but I do want to quote from this. The first knowledge we had that this thing was even coming up was contained in a letter dated the 24th of January, just the other day, from Washington. That arrived here the 26th or 27th, so vou can judge how much chance we have had to prepare ourselves on any- thing. That letter was sent to the commission on fish and game, and.I understand was also sent to different firms and different boards of trade in Boston and Gloucester. My friend from Vermont here, Mr. Titcomb, got the same letter, and they got the same thing in New York. This enumerates six questions or points. Now, our ex- istence depends on this thing. Secretary Reprietp. Well, what is your poimt, Mr. Millett? Mr. Minuerr. If you will allow me to continue just a second I will point it out to you. You see, we are required or asked to cis- cuss these six questions. Now, I have not seen any chance to discuss these questions in any way, shape, or manner. You have taken the whole matter up in a general way all the way through, and the minute a man gets up and says something he knows something about he is mmmediately squelched. Secretary Reprievp. Mr. Millett, I think you owe the commission an apology. Mr. Minterr. Well, I apologize now, Mr. Secretary. Secretary Reprretp. Your apology is accepted, provided you do not repeat ‘the offense. What you have said is unworthy of an officer of the State of Massachusetts, and is not consistent with the truth. The first thing I said this morning was that there was no limit as to the time and the nature of the discussion. Mr. Mitterr. We are trying to get ahead—— Secretary Reprietp. If you will please let me sav a few words more—there has not been and will be no effort to limit discussion. It has been invited and is now invited, fully and freely. But the commission is here to get the truth, and the only w ay to get the truth is by hearing what is said by those who appear, stating what they understand the facts to be, and then discussing the matters that are brought up. You are now breaking into a discussion of a subject at this moment, and breaking the whole current of the discussion of that subject; and in doing that you also undertake to cast reflections on the good faith of the conference and to accuse it of bad manners. Mr. Mincerr. I do not do that, sir. Secretary Reprimyp. You certainly did. No man _ has _ been squelched. Every man is permitted and will be invited to say what he wants. Your imputation is an unworthy one. No time limit has LOY AMBRICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFRRENCR. been placed on the conference—one week, two weeks, three months, or four months. You may have all the time you want. You are not lim- ited to to-day or to this place, and any such intimation as you have made is entirely unwarranted and is quite unworthy of an officer of the State of Massachusetts, sir. We were discussing with Mr. Rich a very distinct phase of this question—the question whether, as he stated it, this proposition, in short, was one which opened the markets of 100,000,000 people on the one hand to the markets of but 10,000,000 people on the other hand. To that suggestion I raised the question whether it was not the fact to-day, in substance, that our market is at the present time open to Canada. That was the only subject at the time being discussed. We were not discussing the nature of trading vessels, the nature of fishing vessels, but the mere fact as to the market being open. That was all. Upon the discussion of that question, if you will pardon me, you broke in with a matter of irrelevant concern at this time. Iam not concerned, and said so, nor is the conference concerned, with the method of entering that market. But I think the fact stated is unquestioned. I think it is not true that this proposi- tion makes such a change in the situation that it can be truthfully suid to open the market. The fact is, as I understand it, at the pres- ent time, and IT shall be glad to have Mr. Rich correct me, that fresh fish now comes from Canada to the United States free of duty. 1 think nobody rises to question that fact. T think the fact is that fish comes here—Canadian-caught fish—in large quantities. Does any- body question that? Now, if that is the truth, if fish is free to-day——— Mr. Mitnerr. Fresh fish. Secretary Reprinip. We are talking about fresh fish, and nothing else; we are not talking about chestnuts or boiled eges. We are talk- ing about fresh fish, and it is not necessary to remind us constantly, please, of the subject we are talking about. Tf that is true, that fish is now free, and if it is true that quantities of fish are coming in now, whatever the way im which they come in, is it then true to say, is it correct as a matter of judgment to say, that this change is of such a character that it can be correctly described as opening the markets of L00,000,000 or 110,000,000 people as against those of 10,000,000 peo- ple? That is the subject we are talking about. Mr. Miuurrr. Mr. Secretary, if T have offended vou in any way, or if you take it in that way or if your board takes it in that way, I offer my abject apology. But I want to state in extenuation this fact: Tam very much interested in the fisheries. T have made a very full and complete study of them for 28 years, as my friend, Dr. Smith knows T am wrapped up in the subject. I try to look at it not simply from the standpoint of the fisherman, of the owner, but from the standpoint of the State of Massachusetts. If I have erred, sir, T beg your pardon. Secretary Repririp. That is very satisfactory. Chief Justice Hazex. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me, if I may be permitted to say so, that we are getting a little away from the point at issue. Fresh fish is brought into the United States at present not only from ports in Canada, but from Newfoundland and from every other place. From our returns for 1915-16 T find that the fresh fish brought into the United States that vear, from April 1, 1915, to March 3 L916, was as follows: 2.574.900 pounds of cod: 31,229,300 pounds of herring; 4,583,600 pounds of mackerel ; 6.278,300 pounds of lobster; ),797.100 pounds of smelts. Tam referring only to the figures for fish AMERICAN-CGANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 103 in Atlantic ports, not the Pacific ports. This 1s fish brought into ports along the Atlantic coast of the United States, free of duty, under the Underwood tariff, which went into effect, as you will rec- ollect, in October, 1913. It was not an agreement between the two countries at all, but was in the interest of the people of the United States, as a matter of domestic policy, without any question of agree- ment or quid pro quo. Fresh fish were placed on the free list that year, and have been continued on that list ever since. FURTHER STATEMENT BY CHIEF JUSTICE HAZEN. Now, I think the manner in which the questions here have ar Isen should be borne in mind at the present time. This is a conference of representatives of both countries, in which the question of the ad- mission of fish free into the United States foi Canada is not an issue, because fish is already so admitted into the United States as a matter of domestic policy of the United States. The question has arisen whether the privilege of taking out such licenses as are now given under the modus vivendi in Canada should not be extended to all vessels of the United States, no matter how propelled. But I repeat, as I have already pointed out, it must be berne in mind that the United States in making fish free was considering simply its own domestic interests. It did that because it thought it was in the interests of its own people. There is no certainty of any such policy continuing. A different policy might be put into effect at any time by the existing government or a succeeding government. Th: at being the case, there are other matters that should be considered. and the other matters that we poimted out should be considered are those that have already been suggested. There is the question of extend- ing the modus vivendi leenses to any American vessel, no matter how propelled. On the other hand, we point out that if fish from Canada are admitted here free that does not give to our fishing vessels the right to bring fish in here and clear again for the fishing grounds on the high seas, then returning here before going to a Ca- nadian port. Having caught their fish they have had to go to a Ca- nadian port and then transfer their catch to a trading v essel, or have to take out registry as a trading vessel before coming to an Ameri- ‘an port. This has caused delay; and then, having brought the fish into an American port, they could not clear again for the fishing grounds. The result of the correspondence between the Department of Commerce in the United States and the Department of Naval Service of Canada was a suggestion by your Government that a conference be held to consider these matters. The question is whether an arrangement can be made that is of advantage mutually to both of us, fair and reasonable. We have thousands and thousands of people in Canada who will think that Canadian interests are being absolutely sacrificed if the modus vi- vendi licenses are extended. There are probably people in your country who think American interests will be sacrificed if a modifi- cation is made of the navigation laws or customs laws. It is, of course, desirable that an arrangement be made between the two countries that will possess elements of stability. because to-day a United States fisherman has no right of a permanent character in Canadian ports at all. Year after year when the bill to extend the modus vivendi has been introduced it has been criticized, and at 104 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE any time the extension of the modus vivendi may be refused, and if that should happen the United States fishermen at once go back to the rights conceded to them and agreed to under the treaty of 1818, under which an American fisherman can only go into a Canadian port for the humanitarian purposes of shelter, repairs, wood, and water. Therefore, the question naturally arises whether a mutually beneficial arrangement can not be made, one that is fair and right to the interests of both countries? We say nothing about the tariff. Your Government can at any time impose a tariff upon fresh fish, and it is up to our Government to abolish the tariff of 1 cent a pound, which I do net think is of any importance to our people to-day. In this matter I speak person: ally, of course. The matter of tariff is simply left where it is, as a matter of domestic policy in the goy- ernment of either country. But we would be making an arrange- ment that we thought was desirable for both parties, and if it is agreeable to both to arrive at such an arrangement it will remove a great deal of friction and make things much easier and more pleas- ant in every way—at least, I should hope that would be the case— for fishing vessels of both countries. The question simply boils itself down to that in a nutshell and nothing else. FURTHER STATEMENT BY CAPT. NICKERSON. Capt. Nrexerson. Mr. Secretary, might I be permitted to offer a suggestion right in connection with this third point? First, the Canadian interior is now mostly supplied from the decks of British beam trawlers, landed at Hawkesbury. forwarded for the most part by the Intercolonial Railroad, the Dominion of Canada, of course, paying part of the freight charges. Except the port of landing, no point in the maritime Provinces provides for transit over the line within their limits. The corporations interested and directly con- cerned have their headquarters in Montreal or some city farther west, and presumably in Europe. As a local industry this branch of the business 1s not of paramount importance. Second, the fish areas adjacent to the western coast of Nova Scotia he closer inshore and are more productive than the banks of the east- ern shore of the belt. The products in this part of the Province, whether landed from beam trawlers, schooners, or small boats, could be forwarded to Montreal and points west through St. John or Port- land with less than half the time and expense that is necessary by the established route. The fish could be put down at its destination with no shrinkage and in prime condition. Local dealers would de- rive something from the handling of these goods and the other pro- vineial forwarding port would profit in like manner. Now, this being the case, would it not be advisable for the Cana- dian Government to open the highway for this routing thr ough the Canadian Pacific or Grand Trunk and thus effect a great saving of time and expense, beside giving our inland fish-eating population the real article, almost alive and flippmg? Then the Hawkesbury trawlers could devote themselves to fishing for the European supply and the Nova Scotia boats could fish for the home market, develop- ing it more efficiently from year to year, thus avoiding the competi- tion, if nothing more, arising from running their fish to Boston and flooding the market of the New England producers. AMERIGAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 105 Secretary Reprreitp. My. Rich, dropping for the moment the mat- ‘ter of lobsters, it appears that something in excess of 48,000,000 pounds of Canadian-caught fresh fish entered the markets of our Atlantic coast. in the year “between April 1, 1915, and March 31, 1916. I am now looking for information. I have no information on the subject myself and know nothing about it. In what sense would it be irue that the plan whereby Canadian vessels would come direct into American ports and would go direct from American ports to the fishing grounds, as they are now doing upon the Pacific coast, would be opening the markets in a sense in which they are not now open? Having the facts as they have been stated before von, in what sense would that be true, if at all? STATEMENT OF JOSEPH A. RICH—Continued. Mr. Ricn. Why, I can only cite, perhaps, what might be done. We never know what is going to happen. Secretary Reprievp. I want to get your opinion. Mr. Ricn. If it is true that in normal times they can build steam- ers in England for practically 50 per cent of what they can be built here—— Secretary Reprrenp. Excuse me; you know you can buy those ves- sels and use them in our trade. Mr. Rieu. Under Canadian registry. Secretary Reprirevp. fF think not. We are looking into that. Ex- cuse my interruption and go right on. I am sorry to have inter- rupted you. J suppose you meant that that would give them a de- cided advantage as far as it went. Mr. Ricu. If we could build a vessel as cheaply as a British-built vessel could be built in normal times, I don’t see that they would have any advantage over us in that respect. Secretary Reprrevp. Would your experience lead you to think, if forty-three and odd million pounds of fresh fish per annum is now coming into Atlantic ports, that a change ace a Canadian ves- sel, instead of going from the banks to a Nova Scotia port and trans- ferring its cargo i a trading vessel, or having its registry changed to that of a tr rading vessel and then coming down to an American port—in other words, a change whereby that vessel would come di- rect to Boston from the fishing grounds—would involye a very large increase in the amount of fish brought in that way? Mr. Ricu. In the future; ue: si. Secretary Reprireip. Why? Mr. Rrow. Why, in normal times there will be more British beam trawlers than they will know what to do with, and they will try to charter them in Canada and have them come here. There will be nothing to prevent their being put under Canadian registry. Secretary Reprrerp. They could do that before the war. Mr. Rien. They didn’t have entry into our ports before the war. Secretary Reprrevp. The same entry that they have now. The point I am trying to get at is simply the difference between the ex- isting practice and what is proposed. Under the existing practice, the ports being located here and the banks there [indicating on map |, the vessel goes from here to here, and then there, and then here again. That is, she travels on the three sides of a triangle. Under the pro- posed arrangement, instead of traveling that exceedingly great clis- 106 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. tance, she might travel simply on the hypothenuse of a triangle. Now, if under present conditions the vessels bring in from Canada 43,000,000 pounds of fresh fish te our Atlantie ports, to what extent, in your judgment, would that be increased by what. is proposed ? Can you say that it would be largely imereased / ’ Mr. Rren. Why, in my judgment it would be in the matter of a few years largely, hugely increased. Secretary Reprrenp. What would the effect of that be, in your judgment, upon the markets of the country ? Mr. Rice. Fish would be cheaper, which everybody wants. Secretary Ruprieip. So I understood you to believe that the mass of the American people would be benefited by that proposition ? Mr. Ricu. There is no doubt of it. Secretary Reprrenp. There is no doubt, in your judgment, that that would be for the advantage of the largest part of your fellow citizens ? Mr. Ricw. No doubt there would be more fish and the prices would be controlled absolutely by the law of supply and demand. Secretary Repriznp. Is it conceivable, in your judgment, that the demand might largely increase if the supply could be largely in- creased ¢ Mr. Ricn. It certainly would. Secretary Reprirenp. You think the people of the United States might be induced to eat as large a percentage of fish as the people of Great Britain ? Mr. Ricu. We are almost the smallest fish-eating people in the world. Secretary Reprierp. And if we increased our consumption of fish per capita to that of Great Britain, would it involve a great increase in the demand and in the necessity of a large supply to meet that demand ? Mr. Rie. An enormous increase. Secretary Reprrenp. Into the millions of pounds. would it, Mr. Rich? Mr. Ricir. T haven’t the figures in mind, but the per capita eon- sumption ot the British Islands is much more than it is here. Secretary Repririp. Five times as great as ours? Mr. Ricu. T had the figures. The consumption there is a ereat deal more. Secretary Reprieitp. Approximately five times, I understand. So, if we were to cultivate our market for fish in this country isn’t it a fact that there are not to-day sufficient vessels to meet the demands? Tf we should raise our consumption up to the point of Great Britain’s consumption to-day, isn’t it a fact that there ere not enough vessels in the Canadian and American fleets to bring the fish in? Mr. Ricw. Phat/is’a fact, sir. Secretary Reprinip, So is it a fact or not that we are dealing with an industry that is capable of indefinite expansion ? Mr. Ricw. It is. Secretary Repriretp. That is so. is it not ? Mr. Ricu. Yes. Mr. Sweer. I would say, Mr. Rich, referring to this registry law, that it was made to apply to vessels engaged in foreion trade. It doesn’t say anything about fishing vessels one way or the AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 107 other, but it does say that vessels engaged in coastwise trade can not he admitted. What these vessels would be considered as being if this plan were carried out Tam not quite sure. Mr. Quiciey. A trading vessel coming from a Canadian port to an American port would not be considered as being in the coastwise trade, and if it should merely go from an American port to the fishing banks, as suggested, w ithout going to a foreign port, T should Say that it would still not be considered in coastwise trade. So I think there would have to be legislation on the subject. Mr. Ricu. J should say that a vessel coming along the coast, under foreign registry, and clearing from one of our ports for the fishing erounds, a vessel coming to Boston and really doimg a coastwise business, could not be considered as doing a foreign business under that act. STATEMENT BY MR. 0. M. ARNOLD, PRESIDENT OF THE NEW ENGLAND FISH C0. Secretary Reprienp. Is there anybody here connected with the halibut interests of the Pacific coast ? Mr. Arnotp. Mr. Chairman, O. M. Arnold, of the New England Fish Co. Secretary Reprirup. Have you ever heard that the fact that fish- ing vessels on the Pacific coast are obliged to go from an American port direct to the fishing grounds has injured your business ? Mr. Arnotp. Not a mite. Secretary Reprrenp. You never heard of that ¢ Mr. Arnoxp. No, sir. ; Secretary Reprieip. You have considerable interests on the Pacific coast ? Mr. Arnoup. We have, both Canadian and American. Secretary Reprievp. Will you give us an idea in a general way of the extent of those interests? Mr. Arwnorp. I would say that I could give you some idea of the situation out there for the past 18 or 20 years. I couldn’t give the exact time, but about 20 years. I can say something about the growth of the consumption of fish in Canada. When we first went out there you couldn’t sell one cargo of fresh fish through the western part of Canada. It is 20 years since we were established in Vancouver, the New England Fish Co. Chief Justice Hazen. 1894. Mr. Arnonp. And at that time, speaking of the increase in the consumption of fish through western Canada, there was no sale at all through there for fish ; couldn't sell them; didn’t have ‘any call for them at all. We started in there with two vessels that we chartered, the Catalina and the Coquitlam, and at first we made hardly any headway at all. But after awhile we did better and commenced to build American vessels out there, and pretty soon increased our trade to a million pounds. In 1908 we established a Canadian branch. Since that time we have increased the trade through the Canadian consumption of fish 100 fold—more, 300 fold. Secretary Reprienp. That is, you have increased your Canadian market for fresh fish 300 fold over what it was at the time when you started in there ? LOS AMBRICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFRRENCE., Mr. Arnoup. Yes; and that was done by hard work, and we had the Canadian Pacific road with us, getting them to eating fish out there through western Canada. Secretary Reprienp, Of course, it might be imereased 300 fold and still be small. Mr. Arnoup. Well, it is pretty good now. They are using a big pile of fish now. If the people of the United States ate fish in the proportion to which it is eaten there, we couldn't get fish enough to suply them any way. Secretary Reprieiy. This aueson is one of peculiar interest. You have in mind the fact that a Canadian fishing vessel passing north from British Columbia TREN the Inward passage is obliged by our law to run into Ketchikan, our port, that there she takes her departure technically for a Canadian port, but actually for the fishing grounds? Mr. Arnxoup. Goes to the fishing grounds; yes. Secretary Reprivnep. And on the Pacific coast, to your own knowl edge—TI would like to have you confirm me in this if T am right. or tell me if T am wrong—an exactly contrary condition exists in that respect to what exists on the Atlantic coast: that that contrary con- dition is the one that exists on the Pacifie coast in connection with the fresh-halibut trade, and that that is the condition which would also be established here by this proposed memorandum ? Mr. Arnoup. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprieup. That is a fact? Mr. Arnotp. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprirenp., Now, have you found that arrangement to work harm to your interests, either American or Canadian, out there? Mir. Amnon. Tt has not. It has worked to our advantage. Secretary Reprinup. And in the presence of that condition has your business grown ? Mr. Arnonp. Our business has grown every year watil the last two vears, and the only trouble now is the scarcity of fish, that is all. Secretary Reprinnp. Is it or is it not a fact that in the distribution of fish the Canadian vessels are permitted—even required—to go directly to the fishing grounds from the American port? Is that a fact that vou would e@ive any weight to it in your operations ¢ Mr. Arwoup. Yes. If that were not allowed we would have to go back into a Canadian port. It would take longer, but we would have to do it. Secretary Reprrenp. And you prefer to have them go to an Ameri- can port ¢ Mr. Arnonp. Yes. Secretary Repriniup. And your fishing concern prefers to have vessels go direct from an American port to the fishing grounds? Mr. Arnonp. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprienp. Why ¢ Mr. Arnoup. It saves time, and time is money. We also-have an office at Prince Rupert, and have a place there—a Canadian branch there—and if the vessel should have to go to Prince Rupert to clear for the fishing grounds, that would mean a distance of 60 or 80 miles each way, and that would take too much time. By using that time on the grounds fishing, we can get a good many more fish. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 109 Secretary Reprietp. Is there anybody here who would like to ask _ this gentleman any questions This is an important phase of the case. Mr. Arnoxp. [I will say that T am in favor of this proposition as representing the New E ngland Fish Co. Secretary Reprrewp. That is, you approve this proposed arrange- ment ¢ Mr. Arnoxp. Certainly. Secretary Reprirny. Do you have any vessels on the Atlantic coast Mr. Arnorp. No. Secretary Reprienp. Your fleet is entirely on the Pacific! Mr. Arnonp. A Pacific fleet; yes, sir. Secretary Reprivip. And it comprises both American and Ca- nadian vessels ? Mr. Arnoup. It does. We just lost one of our steamers. We now have only one steamer that is an American vessel, and have seven Canadian. Secretary Repripip. Are your vessels among those required under certain conditions to go into the Canadian port of Prince Rupert Mr. Arnoxp. Our steamers? Secretary Reprietp. Your vessels of any kind. Mr. Arxoup. We do have the privilege of going in there; ves. Secretary Reprienp. Do you use it? Mr. Arnoto. We do not. We go into Ketchikan, and then to Van- couver. Of course, we would use the privilege to go there if occasion required. Secretary Rupripip. Have you had experience with an order in council, which has been referred to, which w ou require you 1 case you went into Prince Rupert to get bait to go back to Prince Rupert to sell your catch ? Mr. Arnotp. No. We have had nothing of that kind. You mean with an American vessel ? Secretary Reprreip. Yes. Mr. Arnoxp. No. Secretary Reprienp. Do you know of ulite existence of an order in council to that effect ? Mr. Arnotp. No. We have never fel that occur to us. Secretary Reprietp. You don’t use Prince Rupert, yourselves? Mr. Arxoup. We use that for our Canadian branch, although our American vessels have been in there and shipped fish in bond. Secretary Reprrenp. In going there to ship fish in bond by the Grand Trunk Pacific do you buy bait and supplies there? Mr. Arnoxp. No. Secretary Reprienp. Why not? Mr. Arnoup. Get plenty at Ketchikan. Secretary Reprimrp. The places are 80 or 90 miles apart? Mr. Arnotp. Eighty or ninety miles. Secretary Repriep, Can you buy as cheaply at Ketchikan as you ‘an at Prince Rupert ? Mr. Arnorp. I don’t think there is much difference between the two places—pretty high in both places. Secretary Reprisip. Is it not a fact, to your knowledge, that American halibut vessels go right by the American port of Ketchi- LAG) AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. kan and go to Prince Rupert, because of certain advantages of Prince Rupert ? Mr. Arnoutp. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprietp. Why co they do that? Mr. ARNOLD. Go there and ship fish direct from there, and that saves their going to their home port, Seattle. Secretary. Reprietp. Mr. Arnold, do you regard the American market as being, or do you know the American market to be, sub- stantially open ‘to fresh fish caught by foreign vessels ? Mr. Arnotp. I do. It comes in free now. Secretary Reprrevp. And are you availing yourself of that free- dom in your business ? Mr. Arnoip. Certainly am. Secretary Reprie.p. You find no restriction upon. it / Mr. Arnotp. None at all. Secretary Reprieip. Do you understand ‘that the proposed ar- rangement here in any way alters or enlarges the freedom of that movement 4 Mr. Arnowp. I think there would be a benefit. I am speaking now of what you asked me in regard to the west coast. Secretary Reprreup. As a 1 New England man yourself, experienced in fisheries, what reason is there for thinking that this proposed change, if made, would be an injury to New “negland / Mr. Arnoup. I think it would be a benefit. Secretary Reprienp. Why? Mr. Arnoup. Because we would have a chance to get more fish. I am speaking for the public as a whole. 1 think, speaking for the country as a whole, we would have more fish and cheaper fish, and we are all looking for cheaper food. Secretary Reprieip. Do you think it would be possible to largely increase the American demand for fish food ? Mr. Arnorp. I do, by opening the market to Canada—I mean, letting the Canadian boats land fish here. Secretary Reprreip. Do you think it would be possible to increase the American demand for fish food by deliberately cultivating a liking for fish food to an extent greater than it is now used 4 Mr. Arworp. I think it would create a liking for it. Where the prices of beef and everything else are going so high, and where the price of fish also is going so high, to get more fish in would bring the price of fish down. Secretary Reprietp. Is or is not the consumption of fish in the United States the smallest per capita of any of the great nations! Mr. Arnocp. It certainly is. Canada, I think, is a much larger consumer, according to the population there. Secretary Repririp. Do you know how much larger the average consumption of fish in Canada is than in the United States ? Mr. Founp. In Canada, 29 pounds per vear per capita. Dr. Surrn. Then the relative per capita consumption of Canada as compared with the consumption of the United States would be as 29 to 18? Secretary Reprrenp. What is the consumption of Great Britain, Mr. Found? Mr. Founpn. Before the war, in Great Britain, it was about 56 pounds. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. leslal Secretary Reprietp. The fact being, therefore, that 1f we could increase our consumption of fish to “the point. of consumption of Great Britain, which consumes 56 pounds of fish per capita per an- num, that would be more than three times the number of pounds per ‘apita per annum that we now use. Is that your understanding of it, Mr. Arnold? Mr. Arnowp. That is my understanding of it. Secretary Reprimip. One thing more, Mr. Arnold. Have you had any trouble in connection with calle storage on the west coast / Mr. Arnozp. In what direction / Secretary Reprrenp. Well, have you found that proper cold-stor- age facilities were provided for you at Prince Rupert? Mr. Arnoup. We have none at Prince Rupert. I will say that in Prince Rupert. our branch there, 1 don't think they have had any trouble in getting the fish frozen. Secretary Reprienp. Doesn’t the Canadian Government subsidize cold-storage ee Mr. Arxoup. I don’t know whether they do or not 4 Secretary Reprieip. Is there any objection to other parties build- ing cold-storage plants in Canada? Mr. Arxoup. I couldn't tell about the condition at the present time. I know that we built ours in Canada. Our agent out there would probably know more about that. Seeretary Repripip. But you did build a cold-storage plant of your own ? Mr. Arnoxup. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprrenp. Any objection to building it! Mr. Arnoxp. Not at all. Secretary Reprrevp. You havent heard of any objections on the part of Canada to Americans building cold-storage plants in Canada / Mr. Arnotp. We didn’t find any objection to our building there. Secretary Reprrevp. And you are operating one there? Mr. Arnoup. Yes, sir; and one at Ketchikan, Alaska. Secretary Reprienp. There is a free and open market for fish in Prince Rupert? Mr. Arnoxtp. There is; yes, sir. Secretary Reprienp. And your buyers and sellers operate freely without restriction ¢ Mi. Arnoup. They bid on them the same as they do here. Secretary Reprieup. Thank you very much, Mr. Arnold. We will now take up the Lake Champlain question, I think, if the repre- sentatives of that section are here. I will say now that at any time statements of any kind may be filed with the commission, in addi- tion to the statements that may be made to us here or ally. Com- munications may be addressed to me as Secretary of Commerce at Washington, and I shall be delighted to see that they are made a part of the records of the commission. We invite anybody who may not be prepared now to say what he may wish to say, or who may later desire to present facts to the commission, to write to us at Washing- ton, and I shall see that such communications are made a part of the record of the commission. If further hearings are desired here, we ED AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. shall arrange to hold them here, until everybody has had an oppor- tunity to be heard in such a manner as he may wish to be heard. We want to give the very broadest and fullest opportunity to all. FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. FRED L. DAVIS, PRESIDENT OF GLOUCESTER BOARD OF TRADE. Mr, Frep L. Davis. I would lke to ask to be referred to the law relating to the purchase of foreign vessels to be used in the fisheries. Will you kindly inform me where I can find that 4 Secretary Reprievp. I understand that that was passed im 1909. I said to Mr. Rich that an examination of the law showed that it applied only to vessels engaged or to be engaged in foreign trade. No reference is made to the fisheries one way or the other, but it says that it does not apply to vessels engaged in the coastwise trade. But it makes no reference to the vessels engaged in the fisheries for or against, one way or the other. Mr. Davis. That practically means that we can not apply it to vessels engaged in the fisheries, doesn’t it! It looks that way ¢ Mr. Quieiny. Yes; it looks that way. Mr. Davis. Since the war, haven’t there been orders, in council or otherwise, of the British Government which have prevented the sale of vessels under British registry to other nations, or their registry 1 other nations ¢ Secretary Reprinip. There have been regulations in regard to yes- sels issued by every nation engaged in the war without exception, not excepting our own. Chief Justice Hazen. You have practically a similar regulation in the United States. : Mr. Davis. Exactly; and I was wondering how the problem was to be worked out, if vessels couldn't be bought or transterred. pecnehity Rerririnp. Well, that is a war measure, entirely. Capt. Nickerson. A transfer of flag is not permitted. We had a communication m regard to the subject, i in regard to the vessel being built in Canada, that I spoke to you about, that a license could be obtained, but it didn’t say by application to what quarter. The ques- tion arose in connection with the transfer of a small boat from Clarkes Harbor to Boston, and it was interdicted by the Canadian Government unless a special license were taken out. — Chief Justice Hazen. I think Capt. Nickerson is absolutely right. It is not absolutely prohibitive, but can be done by special permission. Mr. Sweer. Probably the board there has some such authority as our Shipping Board. Chief Justice Hazen. Yes; done by the department of marine. Secretary Reprieip. The same thing can be done in this country, and has been done. Capt. Youne. Will this hearing take in Newfoundland 4 Secretary Reprizip. No; we are not discussing Newtoundland. Commissioner Hazen. I understand that Newfoundland will not discuss it, that they are pertectly satished. Secretary Reprimip. I understand that our friends from Vermont, who are interested in the Lake Champlain situation, are here, and we shall be pleased to hear from them. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. US: STATEMENT BY MR. R. L. PATRICK. OF THE VERMONT FISH AND GAME LEAGUE. Mr. Parrick. Mr. Chairnian, I represent the Vermont Fish and Game League. I wish to take only a few minutes’ time upon this matter. I realize the fact that the question of nets and seines in the Canadian waters of Lake Champlain is perhaps a trifling matter compared with the other large questions you will be called upon to regulate and decide. But one -of the objects of this Vermont Fish and Canc League is propagation and conservation of fish; and, gentle- men, if there was ever a time in the history of this North American Continent when Canada could ask a favor of the United States or when the United States could ask a favor of Canada, it would seem to me that the time is the present, when our boys are fighting side by side with your boys, and when both countries are linked together in an effort to win a world-wide war for democracy. With the present good feeling that seems to exist between the two countries. for that reason, we feel that we now have a right to ask that the seining or drawing of nets in Missisquoi Bay be discontinued. and we hope this - request “will receive impartial and careful consideration and will be granted. Vermont and New York States prohibit seming in all the waters of Lake Champlain in those States for practically 250 miles along the shore line, and is it right that this seining should be allow ed in Canada at a time when ‘the fish are going through their particular witers for spawning purposes? The prohibition ‘of netting in Lake Champlain has had a fine moral effect on the public and, of course, has in the end enhanced our shore property value. Again, our own Federal Government maintains. and has for 25 years at considerable expense, a pike-perch hatchery at Swanton, which is near by, and have hberally planted the pike-perch fry in Lake Champlaim. [Is it just that some Canadian fishermen should reap the harvest of that effort / We hear a great deal now of conservation and propagation, and I think, perhaps, those words mean as much to us now as they ever did. Is it an act of conservation to allow the seining of pike perch during the months of March and April? Just at that time there are thousands of pike perch taken out of the Canadian waters of Lake Champlain and soid in American markets. I am bold enough to state that I think that is an act which is a crime against the laws of nature. I think the policy which exists in the Canadian waters of Lake Champlain is a destructive policy, while I feel that the policy now being pursued by New York State and Vermont, in not allow- ing seining, is a constructive policy. So I believe there are at least three or four reasons why we have a good right to ask for a dis- continuance of this seining. First. Vermont and New York States prohibit it. Second. Our own Federal Government maintains a fish hatchery right near this contested property and distributes the fry and the eges there. Therefore, it does not seem fair for the Canadians to reap the full benefit of that. Third. Because of the fact that conservation should be recognized. It is a momentous question now, and it is not an act of conservation to take pike perch just before their hatching time—spawning time. 51950—18—— § 114 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Fourth. I feel that there should be a constructive policy in Canadian waters just as well as in the Vermont and New York waters. There are other men here representing Vermont and New York State who will give you much more definite information than I can; but I assure you, gentlemen, that Vermonters are deeply interested m this question, and we shall await your decision anxiously. Secretary Reprretp. Are there any other members of the “Vermont delegation who would like to add to what Commissioner Patrick has stated? STATEMENT BY MR. LIUS LEAVENS, VERMONT FISH AND GAME COMMISSIONER. Mr. Leavens. Mr. Chairman, I can say little, except in corrobora- tion of what Mr. Patrick, of our game league, has already stated. From correspondence and conversation with gentlemen from all over our State and New England, I may say that our people are very much interested in the development of the inland waters of Lake Cham- plain as a source of supply for food and game fishing. Because of that fact, in 1912 the practice of granting licenses for drawing seines in those waters was discontinued by the State of Vermont. New York State, likewise, discontinued that practice. We have also in the work of the department cooperated with the United States bureau in their work at East Swanton. They have » station there where pike-perch are taken and stripped for hatching purposes, and we have tried to cooperate in making it possible for them to do it cheaply, by granting permission to take and sell the coarser fish to pay for the expense of taking the pike-perch for stripping. We have also operated a hatching station at Burlington, and we have distributed in the lake about 50,000,000 pike fry each season, in cooperation w ith the Federal bureau. i have with me a map of the seining grounds of Missisquoi Bay, showing the Canadian boundary, which the commission might like to look at for their information. The situation on the Canadian shore at Missisquoi Bay causes great dissatisfaction to the people who own property along the American shore. The result is constant essure brought to bear at each session of our General Assembly in the State of Vermont to go back to the policy of granting licenses for seming. Of course, if ‘Vermont goes back to that and erants sein- ie privileges 1 in Missisquoi Bay, they must be granted to all parties ng the shores of Lake Champlain in New “York State as well. “York will then, of course, take up the practice again, and so all Cur pesca of propagation and conservation must be done over a gain. Wor these reasons we believe that we are justified im asking this honorable commisison to give the matter of seining on thfe shores of sisquoi Bay serious attention. STATEMENT BY MR. D. A. LOOMIS, OF THE LAKE SHORE TRANSPORTATION CO. Mr. Loomis. My. Chairman, I have very little to add to what has already been stated by my predecessors. I am engaged in the opera- tion of hotels and steamboats on Lake Champlain. Our business is AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. a8 5) largely that of a tourist character, and among the tourists a large number are hook-and-line anglers. Their attention is attracted to Vermont because of the hook- and-line angling in Lake Champlain. The continuation of the seming has had a very serious effect on the hook-and-line fishing. As a food proposition. this question probably does not enter into the consideration of your honorable board, but it does appear to us that we are warranted in coming before you and asking that some- thing be done in this matter. simply as a matter of justice. Vermont and New York are here, with their 250 miles of shore line, as against the Canadians, with some 10 or 12 miles. There are to be considered the expenses we are incurring annually for the propagation of the fish against not one dollar being spent by the Canadian Government. Therefore, it seems no more than right and just to our people and to the anglers at large who participate in this hook-and-line angling that this practice of seine fishing in Canada in the fall and spring— the spring particularly, that being the time when it is the most harmful—should be discontinued. Statistics can be furnished | vy my friend, Mr. Titcomb, as to the quantity, ete. STATEMENT BY J. W. TITCOMB, FISH CULTURIST OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. Mr. Trrcomp. Mr. Chairman, T have been delegated by the State of New York to appear in response to your invitation, and perhaps it pond be proper for me to say that I was commissioner in Vermont - about 18 years. .I was first appointed in 1891. At that time it was the Canadian custom to issue licenses for fishing both spring and fall, and on the Vermont side during the run of pike-perch, while this seine fishing was going on in Canada, it was not lawful to even fish with a hook and line. That was a very narrow law on the part of Vermont. We got it changed so that they could do hook-and-line fishing in Vermont. and I visited the Canadian authorities and tried fo persuade them to stop fishing in Canada. J was unable to get any assurances from them of uniform action, and I recom mended | to the legislature that a bill be passed so that Vermont could issue licenses whenever they were issued in Canadian waters of the lake under the same terms and conditions. The following spring we issued, f think, 31 licenses. That map there shows where those seming grounds are on the Vermont side. You see they are very close together. The fishing im the spring is done through the ice by a very unique method, which is used there in Canada, I think devised by a Vermonter. The seines are 130 or 140 rods long, so you see that they cover a very large portion of the bay, extending across from both sides. On the Ca- nadian side there are four nets operated directly opposite the mouth of the Missisquoi River, which is one of the principal rivers which the pike-perch ascend for the spawning function. During that spring those 31 nets on the Vermont side sold about $6,000 worth of fish. T may seem to be inconsistent in another posi- tion I have taken. I attended a hearing in Syracuse, where Iw as trying to persuade three sportsmen’s organizations to assist us in connection with legislation, and favored the removal of carp and other rough fish from Clyde Lake and other lakes in New York. ——— aw, 116 AMBERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. The commission in New York is trying to do all it can to help the National Food Administration and to help along in the war situation in connection with fish supply, and it is proposed to get the carp out of the lake as soon as possible. Looking at the matter from the standpoint of a fish culturist, the carp is not as valuable a fish as the others and are better protected naturally than others, because they don’t take the hook and line, and it is unlawful to use the net. So the netting proposition was advanced in connection of those fish, and we tried to get the support of these organizations, explaining the advantages of getting these fish to help win the war and at the same time help improve the fishing situation by getting these enemies of the bass out of the water. So I want you to understand that our position in getting these fish where we can, and getting as many as possible, is not along the line of interfering with fishing in the future. I think the expression “letting down the bars.’ which has been going around, is unfortunate. We are simply trving to make our rules as liberal as possible in the interest of the public at large at the present time. But here on Lake Champlain there are millions of dollars invested in summer homes and hotels, and certainly some- thing should be done in the way of protection. The wee perch is looked on in this lake as a game fish. It is one of the few places in the country where the pike- perch is regarded as n game fish. It is a great thing for that section to have people able to catch them. The Federal bureau was induced to put in a hatchery there, and the State put in a branch at Burlington to help it along. As the commissioner from Vermont has stated, every session of the Vermont Legislature members are elected on the fish issue. They come down there and are willing to trade on every other bill that goes into the legislature in order to get votes to put this seining back in practice. Of course, they have a strong argument, that just over this imaginary line people are allowed to take these pike out of the waters at the season when they ascend to spawn. The pike have the habit of leaving Vermont from all that portion of the lake, following up the Swanton shore and up Missisquoi Bay, up Pike River, and then down to Vermont again. Massachusetts passed a law prohibit- ing the sale of the pike-perch or fish caught 1 Missisquoi Bay in that manner, and New York tried to do the same thing, tried to force you people to get in line by that method. But the result is that your fishermen ship fish to Montreal and then reship them here, so that they do not appear to come from Missisquoi Bay. So it is pretty difficult to whip the devil round the stump. Missisquoi Bav elects representatives on the issue, also, the same as is done on our side. Your fishermen elect members of Parliament by campaign funds on this issue, and the same thing is done by fishermen in Vermont in connection with the Vermont Legislature, and men on our side assist in helping your members of Parliament to get elected, to keep up fishing on that side. So you see the thing is all mixed up. Commissioner Hazenx. It may get higher up than you. Mr. Trrcomus. I can’t tell you about that. But that is the situation. and it isa matter of common knowledge. Of course, Vermont night be persuaded at the next session of the legislature to go back again, and there you are. Some men think they are making themselves pretty eood fellows by voting for that sort of thing, and then others ‘vill try to have New York do the same thing. If these efforts are AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. tale successful you would see what would happen, that there would be no restriction at all the whole length of the lake. If they were allowed to seine there, after a few seasons you couldn’t even catch a bull head. New York would not even have to pass any legislation in the matter to allow the use of these nets. The State could issue licenses at any time to net Lake Champlain. But conservation is the policy of the day, and certainly something should be done in this matter by con- certed action. We trust that you can take the matter up, represent- ing both countries, and do something to remedy the situation on Lake Champlain. Attempts have been made to use nets also in the Richeheu River, through which the fish from Lake Champlain also ascend some, but we do not intend to issue any licenses there. We are going to stand by Vermont on this question, and our appeal to you is to get into line and join us in this movement. Let me tell you a story in regard to the situation in Canada. You are familiar with the fish known as the whitefish, locally called ** shad.” I, when I was the humble conunissioner of Vermont, got an audi- ence through one of the representatives higher up in the country to talk with your Minister of Marine Fisheries, and I appeared before him and said, * You are issuing licenses to catch whitefish during the spawning season and we want to stop that, if possible.” He said: “ No; we dont allow heenses for whitefish during the spawning season. You are entirely mistaken.” I told him that such licenses were issued, and he immediately called upon Mr. Prince. T am sorry that Mr. Prince is not here, so that I can get the joke on him. Mr. Prince came in and produced one of the licenses, and said: “We are issuing licenses to catch fish in Missisquoi Bay, but this license reads for catching shad.” and the Minister of Marine and - Fisheries dismissed me, saying, “That is all; we are not issuing licenses to catch whitefish, and you can go.” But they were not catching shad; there is no such fish in the lake, and men of your in- telligence know that there is not. But that is one of the times when they put it over on me. Now, let us give and take in these matters. In this particular case I hope it has been presented in such a way that you can understand the situation. The fishery is comparatively unimportant. It gives only a few men a monopoly of the fishing. If we can get the rough fish out of the lake without inter fering with the fish that bring these people into the region and that have brought in property there, so that it has iner eased. from a very small, nominal value to an immense amount, increasing the wealth of the surrounding country by bringing in beautiful homes, well and geod. But when you issue licenses to just a few landewners you are not making it general enough. On the Vermont side, if we were going to give fishing privileges, they ought to be opened to anyone in ‘Vermont who could pay for the license, and the same in New York, and if the method were not pur- sued of seining to the shore it would be easy enough to do it. They fish through the ice with nets, setting their shanties opposite us. and sometimes the shanties stick over our line at the mouth of the Mis- sisquoi River. The present state of affairs is not right, and I think you will cooperate with us with the idea of having uniform laws. One more point. As soon as the Federal hatchery went in the fish- ing began to improve, and the State put in a fish hatchery and the 118 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCR. Federal Government furnished the eges to stock it; but they dis- tributed so far away from that section of Canada, where whisky isa little cheaper than it is down here, that many of our pecpie were not able to get up there and are not getting the benefit of it. When it comes to the financial part of it—the statistics of revenue derived from the fisheries—winter before last I took the statistics of the fish and line fisheries through the ice, and those fishermen fishing 15 feet through the ice, having some recreation and pleasure at the same time. were making $10 to $12 a day. Chief Justice Hazen. You allow fishing through the ice? Mr. Trreome. Yes, s} . ; Chief Justice Hazen. Y ou think that is not destructive ? Mr. Trrcoms. No. We can stand that. Mee is different from these nets that have been referred to, and it is open to everybody. Your people can fish through the ice in our w ere and New Yorkers ean. Many whom T meet there im the summer do not have an op- portunity to do so, but this gives an oppertunity for recreation and remuneration to a lot of people at a time of the year when they are not occupied tilling the soil. The farmers’ boys can then go out and male some money and can havea good time. Then | referring to that section of the map where the seining grounds are] the men there who own the shores and those seining are employed as guides in the sum- mer, and the revenue they can derive—the livelihood they can obtain fron. that souree—will be much more permanent and will last through a much longer season than the revenue they get se av sea- ‘on during the seining period, and their occupation will be more permanent if these waters are protected. The fishing there is for pike-pereh especially, but they take everything. The fishing for white fish, which vou call “shad” in that particular locality, tales in other kinds of fish than the white fish. T have here reports and What IT have written on the subject during the period of my admin- istration there, from 1892 to 1900, giving the statistics of the fish- eries of Vermont State. The revenue never ran over $6,000 a vear, and that is divided up among a few people. The value of the hook- and-line fisheries on Lake Champlain—the intrinsic value of the fish themselves, independent of the sentimental value which increases the value of property and brings in all this tourist tratlic—far ex- ceeds any revenue which comes from the net fishing. I thank you very much. Chief Justice Hazpx. Ave there any other States that border on the waters of Lake Champlain except Vermont and New York? Mr. Trrcomp. No, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. And has all fishing been abolished there? Mr. Trrcoars. Al] net fishing. Chief Justice Hazen. Net fishing. as well as seine fishing? Mir. Trrcomp. Yes. sir; every kind. Chief Justice Hazex. So the only fishing that is permitted is by hook and hne? Mr. Trrcomp, That is all. Mir. Founn. I would ask the gentleman if he will be kind enough to send to me a copy of the laws in this matter? I find that the copy of the laws which T had occasion to refer to the other day was dated 1909. Mr. Trrcomp. T shall be pleased to do so. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 119 Chief Justice Hazen. We have listened, gentlemen—especially Mr. Found and myself, the Canadian members of the commission— with very much interest to what has been said by vou gentlemen from New York and Vermont, and I have no hesitation in saying that I think they have made out a very strong case. It occurs to my mind that the case they have presented is analogous to the case that was presented this morning with regard to the preservation of the lobster along the coast of Nova Scotia, where we are endeayor- ing to protect the lobsters by means of a closed season, and are to a considerable extent hampered in our effort by people who come and fish just outside the territorial limits and carry the lobsters away. In the case we have just heard apparently New ‘York and Vermont have refused to grant licenses for seining, and yet the Canadian Goy- ernment permits seining in Missisquoi Bay. an arm of Lake Cham- plain, to which the fish resort for the purpose of spawning. I have no hesitation in saying to you gentlemen that I think that condition of affairs is not right. I think, in view of what you have said, that the matter will be taken up by the Canadian department dealing with fisheries, and I feel that they will be impressed. as Mr. Found and myself have been impressed. by the facts presented. IT think very little time will elapse before the question will be fairly met. with the idea of preserving the fish in the lake. While we have not heard what may be said by the people on the Canadian side with regard to this matter, it appears to us at the present time that this fishing by nets should be abolished and that only fishing by hook and line should be allowed. In that way the fish will be preserved and those waters will continue to be a source of delight to tourists who enjoy the fish- ing. I think in the long run such action as is suggested will be very much in the interest of all. Secretary Reprreip. Is there anybody who desires to present any other phase of the question’ We are very much indebted to the gen- tlemen from Vermont who have come here upon the matter and to Mr. Titcomb for their clear presentation of the case. Is there any- body now who desires to present facts here on the larger questions concerned in the Atlantic fisheries? FURTHER STATEMENT BY CAPT. CARL C. YOUNG, OF GLOUCESTER. Secretary Reprieip. I would like to ask Capt. Young for some in- formation in that connection. Is it not a fact, Capt. Young, that the larger proportion of the Gloucester vessels are power vessels now— motor vessels ? Capt. Young. Yes, sir; a great many of them are power vessels. Secretary Reprrerp. How - many sailing vessels would you say still remain ? Capt. Youne. Oh, perhaps 40 or 45 or between 40 and 50, perhaps. Secretary Reprietp. What is the total fleet of Gloucester, as far as you know ? Capt. Youne. In the neighborhood of perhaps 100 large vessels which go down that way to fish. Secretary Reprretp. Can you give the commission a rough esti- mate of the number of persons engaged in the actual fisheries of Gloucester ? 120 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Capt. Youne. It would be pretty hard to say, but I think between Gloucester and Boston the number would be in the neighborhood of 3,000 men. Secretary Reprietp. In the two ports ¢ Mr. Brown, do you think that is about right? Mr. Brown. About 3,500. Secretary Reprrevp. About 3,500 altogether ? Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprrevp. Can either or both of you tell me what the average earnings of those men are? Capt. Youn. Well, the last two years have been very big years for fishing and the crews have made great wages. They can not be com- a) with the years previous to those. Previous to the last. two ears the fish industry of Massachusetts was not a very good industry, eh was very, very low. and a good many firms and vessels have gone out of existence. T really think if we had not had these two pros- perous years there would have been little fishing out of Gloucester to-day. but those years have helped usa great deal. Secretary Reprrenp. Are the crews of the vessels United States citizens ? Capt. Youne. To a great extent. I think 50 per cent or better than 50 per cent are American citizens, or are becoming American citizens every clay. Secretary Reprimyp. I want to be sure that I do not misunder- stand you. I gather that 50 per cent, or nearly 50 per cent. of the crews are not American citizens? Capt. Young. Yes, sir: I think vou are pretty nearly right about that. Secretary Reprierp. Of what country are they citizens? Capt. Youne. Nova Scotia, Canada. Newfoundland. some Nor- wegians and Swedes, and some Portuguese—Portuguese to a great extent. We have a good many Portuguese in Gloucester.t Secretary Reprietp. You have no subjects of Austria and Hun- eary? Capt. Young. There may be one or two. but we don’t know it. | Laughter. | Secretary Reprietp. Mr. Brown, how do you understand the situa- tion in that respect ? Mr. Brown. There are two Germans on the bricks now; can not go fishing. Secretary Reprizip. I mean, about the general situation ? Mr. Brown. I figure that there are about 75 per cent aliens in the fishing industry, or more—that is, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Por- tuguese, and what we call the Dutchmen. Secretary Reprretp. What do you call Dutchmen ? Mr. Brown. Swedes, Norwegians, Danes—all those we call Duteh- men—class them as one. Secretary Reprretp. Many Italians? - Mr. Brown. No: the Italians have w hn! we call the mosquito boats: catch herring. Chief Justice Hazen. Have you any Japanese? Mr. Brown. I think there is one in Gloucester. Secretary fabs Not a larg ge [eo 1 See letter of Dr. Smith on this subject, Exhibit DS AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. pq Capt. Younce. We have in Gloucester a good many married men who have families in Gloucester and who live in Gloucester and are bringing up their children here—come pretty nearly being American citizens. These last two years have been very prosperous years for all sailors, and the crews have made some money. I think I can safely say that the crews have made perhaps from $700 to $2,000 a man—very few $2.000, but some have made almost $2,000. Secretary Reprrevp. $700 to $2,000 4 Capt. Youne. Yes. sir. It varies a great deal, but they have made a very big year’s work. Now. what we call the Portuguese vessel in Gloucester is where the vessel has no power. He goes fishing in the winter time on the shore, brings fish into Boston fresh, going out ene or two days, and supplies the best fish that the market eats. In the summertime they go down to Quero or Western Bank, stake ice, bait, supplies, and everything from an American port, Gloucester: eo direct from Gloucester to the banks, and don’t go into Nova Scotia to buy a license. I don’t think one of the 20 vessels has bought a license in Canada—not one, to my knowledge. Secretary Repriewp. I understood—perhaps incorrectly, and you will correct me if I am wrong—that the mere matter of the form of a license, quite apart from the fee, is something that the men do not hike. Is that the fact? Capt. Youne. Yes, sir; precisely. Secretary Reprierp. It is quite important to get that feeling. Tell us more about it. What is it that the men object to? Capt. Youne. Well take it this way: When you go in and buy a license, you buy something. It is like a license for anything else. You buy your license and somebody has a hold on you. If you have a license—for instance, under a license to- day I would go into Canada with a trip of fish and would want to transship them to America. The first thing they would have to send to Ottawa to get permission for me to ship them home in that way. Mr. Founp. With the license ? Capt. Youne. Yes. Mr. Founp. No. Capt. Youne. Oh, yes. (Capt. Young later, at the Gloucester hearing, said that it was not so; that he had been mistaken.) Secretary Reprienp. It will be a good idea to have this cleared up, Captain, because we know you believe that is so, and we want to be sure what the situation is. Mr. Founp. The license covers the privilege of purchasing bait, ice, semnes, lines, and all other supplies, outfits, t transshipments of catch, employment of ship crews, and so on. That is the privilege you receive by getting the license. i FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. FREDERICK L. DAVIS, PRESIDENT OF THE GLOUCESTER BOARD OF TRADE. Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, I suppose matters pertaining to Glou- cester will be heard where they can be discussed in the presence of a Gloucester audience ? Secretary Reprietp. Certainly. 122 AMBRIGAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Mr. Davis. We shall be pleased to have matters concerning the (Gloucester people heard where Gloucester people are present to listen, so that they can give any information or ask any questions that might suggest themselves. Secretary Reprivrp. Do you understand, in the case that has been referred to, acting under a license, that there is some law peculiar to Gloucester which requires sending to Ottawa for authority / Mr. Davis. I do not know about the situation in that respect. Secretary Reprienp. | do not understand that there is a peculiar law in Canada for Gloucester. Chief Justice Hazun. No. : Mr. Davis. My point was simply that Gloucester people will be present at the hearing in Gloucester and will be able to state their side of the cate and to deal with all these facts as they apply to Gloucester fishermen. That is the only matter T have in my mind. Mr. Founp. I would suggest that one of the Gloucester captains have his license with him when we go to Gloucester, so that that question may be set absclutely at rest. Mr. Davis. I would ask what the question is? Mr. Founp. Capt. Young has just stated that a United States fish- ing vessel having a modus vivendi license, going into a Canadian port to (ransship fish into the United States has to first, notwith- standing having that license, wire to Ottawa to get permission from Ottawa to do so. Mr. Davis. That. I understand, is correct, although T don’t know that it 1s correct. Mr. Founp. My request is, as T have not a license form with me and so many Gloucester men probably do have it, that one of them have a license present to-morrow when we go to Gloucester. Mr. Davis. I think that has been done, but it may be another case like that of the man who signed the paper in Halifax, that has been referred to here. Chief Justice Hazen. Will you have the goodness to ask some Gloucester captain or vessel owner who has taken out one of these. inodus vivend? licenses to have it there to-morrow ? Mr. Davis. I have one, but it is last vear’s. Chief Justice Hazen. I understand that last year’s would be the same. ; Secretary Reprinip. Of course, no man’s opinion would be worth anything if the license explains itself. That is the real evidence on the question—what the license says Mr. Davis. I think, notwithstanding, that that is the case, that they have had to get such permission. Chief Justice Hazen. Permits have been asked for by vessels that had no license, and that were therefore delayed. They have feared that their catch of fish would be destroyed if they had to 20 to a Massachusetts port, and they have gone into a Canadian port and asked to ship in bond to the United States. That has been eranted. Those are cases where a permit has been asked for. But T would be very much at sea if T were told that a vessel which had taken out a license that gave it the right to transship fish to the United States in bond had not been permitted to do so. If we had a license, that would show at once what the fact was. Of course, AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 123 he would not be allowed to sell fish in Canada. His license does not give him that privilege. Secretary Reprienp. That is a matter that is involved in the pro- posed permit. Chief Justice Hazen. We have allowed fish to be sold in Canada under certain circumstances. We have allowed it to be done. Mr. Davis. Of course, where the men could not get a better price here and would have to pay 1 cent a pound duty there, they would prefer to sell here. For instance, the price might be 3 cents a pound there. where the fish was worth about 10 cents a pound here. Chief Justice Hazen. Sometimes there are cases where vessels have been delayed. where they have a few fish and where they don’t want to sell to the United States, but come to us and ask permission to sell fish in Canada, for their own advantage, and we have given them the permission in nearly every case—special per- mission. That is not covered by the modus vivendi license; but under the modus vivendi license they have the absolute right to take their catch to a Canadian port and ship it under bond to the United States port. Capt. Youne. Of course it is a small matter, anyway. STATEMENT BY MR. SYLVESTER M. WHALEN, SECRETARY OF THE FISHING MASTERS’ ASSOCIATION OF BOSTON. Mr. Wuaten. I am secretary of sie Fishing Masters’ Association of Boston, an association composed of captains of fishing vessels both from Boston and CLOTGEs Nag largely offshore fishermen. So far as I have been able to learn, sir, the members of the crews of offshore fishermen aril the captains and owners are absolutely op- posed to this proposition of allowing Canadian vessels to come into American markets without restriction. When the American fishing industry or the United States fishing industry is spoken of here there is really no such thing ip a way—in this way. The men who actu- ally go out and catch the fish on the vessels are not United States men. As has been hinted here before, I venture to say that nine- tenths of the fishermen on American vessels, offshore vessels, I mean, are Newfoundlanders. Nova Scotia men, and French Cana- dians, at least nine-tenths of them. As for the skippers of those ves- sels, they are United States citizens, but there again they are almost invariably Newfoundlanders. You will find the facts in that respect to-morrow down in Gloucester. The men who go into this offshore fishing year after vear, season after season, and the captains, almost without exception, are Newfoundland men. If you want the facts about that, I can give you some of the names. There are Capt. Norris. Capt. Brophy, Valentine O’Neil, Capt. Watts, Capt. Parsons, Felix Hogan, and 50 others. Invariably they are Newfoundland men. Secretary Reprieivp. But American citizens? Mr. Wuaren. Yes, sir; because they have to be American citizens. But their crews are not, and I venture to say that nine-tenths would be a small proportion of the men who are not only foreign born, but who have not even become citizens. Occasionally a man will take out his first papers and will go along and do nothing more. The vast 124 AMERICAN-CANADIAN ‘FISHERIES CONFERENCE. majority do nothing of the kind. That is why I say, gentlemen, that 1s not a United States industry, as such. . Now, what is going to happen if Canadian vessels are allowed to come in here without restriction and sell their fish? What are these American vessels going to do? Where are they going to get the men? That is the question. You can not count on American boys going to sea. They never were fishermen and never will be. We have got to rely on Newfoundland men, Nova Scotia men, French Canadians, to man the vessels, and they are not going to man the vessels here if Canadian vessels are going to be allowed to come in here without restriction. Why should they? The Canadian vessel will be as well off as an American vessel, and w hy will these men need to ship on American vessels the way they are doing now? The result will be that American vessels will be tied up to the wharf, and Canadian vessels will be coming in here and enjoying the market. The American vessels can not get crews to man them. I don’t see any answer to that, gentlemen. Secretary Reprmenp. Doesn’t that depend to some degree on the demand for their services / Mr. Wiaren. Even now it is difficult to get crews to go on Ameri- can vessels. : Secretary Reprietp. Why is that? Mr. Waren. Not enough men here. Secretary Repriexp. Haven't the wages paid on the merehant marine under en circumstances had ‘something to do with that? Mr. Waren. I don’t believe so, six. FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. WILLIAM H. BROWN, SECRETARY OF THE FISHERMAN’S UNION. Mr. Brown. Would you like to have me answer that / Secretary Reprieip. I wish you would. Mr. Brown. The reason I have found for the shortage of men on the offshore fleet is that the season is over with mackerel and quite: a lot have gone home, French-Canadian and Nova Scotia fishermen. They go home to their families for from three to five months. Another reason is that we have got hundreds of men in what they call the mosquito fleet, guarding our shores, men shipped out of Gloucester. Gloucester fishermen went into what was called the patrol service, and we have, as far as I can get the facts and figures from the men, in the last four months, around 250 men as soldiers drafted. I went up to the statehouse last Friday, upon the invita- tion of Mr. Putnam, of Washington; on the fish board. Mr. Endi- cott called me up there to see Mr. Putnam, and I explained where I could put at least 20,000,000 more pounds of fish a year into con- sumption if I had the men. We have the vessels, and I think the Gloucester representatives and owners will tell you how many ves- sels we have alongside the wharts in Gloucester. But there is a lack of men. We can get the captains. Quite a number of men go as men who could go as captains if we could get the crews to go. But the expense of a captain taking a vessel is so large, and he has to lay around on the bricks for a couple of weeks or three weeks looking for a crew, that he is spending money and not making it, and he is up against that additional expense. I told Mr. Putnam and Mr. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 125 Endicott about the situation for the last three months or more, and they asked me what class of fishing I was in. December 18, I think, I got a communication from Gen. Crowder. that deep-sea eines would be classed as marimers and would naturally go into class B 4. That is the information we got at the Buffalo convention, and I think there is the same idea in Gloucester, because they are putting them in B 4. Boston is a bigger place than Gloucester, and they don’t know here. exactly what a fisherman is, what he looks hke even. They think he is a queer fellow. But Gloucester is a fishing place, and they know what a fisherman is and class him as a mariner; 95 to 98 per cent are young fellows, because an old man can not do the arduous work that a fisherman has to do, especially on deep-sea vessels. I was asked for a copy of Gen. Crowder’s ruling, and I sent it, and they sent a message to W ashing- ton in regard toa ruling on deep-sea fishermen, and I got an answer back Monday or Tuesday that we were not classed as mariners, but we could take class D 2 of deferred classification and industrial purposes. It is a hard job. I have sent three men up to Judge Cohen’s board yesterday, and was up myself, to find out what 2 mariner was, and what a deep-sea fisherman was. You don't have to go into the woods to catch deep-sea fish, but you go to the deep sea. and 2 mariner must be a man who goes to sea for a livelihood; whether he goes as cook, as fisherman, or on oe yridge as captain he is a mariner. But a sailor and a seaman are two things. A seaman is a man who follows the sea, whatever his vocation is: a sailor is a man who navigates or helps Tee the vessel on deck. But our men are going to be drafted, and I have written a letter, with a copy of the letter T wrote to Mr. Putnam, at W ashington, to our president, Andy Furuseth, whom I think the chairman knows ver y well. But that is the situation in Gloucester. In Boston they have more leeway. That is the reason for the shortage. FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. SYLVESTER M. WHALEN. Mr. Wiaten. Well, the fact is that there is a shortage, and if that thing goes through we couldn't get crews to man the Rrescels. Secretary teprieLp. The difference would be, if I understand the matter correctly, that a vessel starting from the Banks, instead of going to Canada and there changing her character from a fishing to 2 trading vessel, then coming to Boston direct, with that loss of time, could come direct to Portland or to Boston, without travel- ing both sides of the triangle. That is the difference that is proposed. Now, can you suggest why, if that were done upon the Atlantic coast, it would work out as you now say, in view of the fact that for 10 or 15 years vessels have gone direct to the fishing banks from Ameri- can ports on the Pacific coast, and that result has not happened there? Mr. Wuaten. | know nothing whatever about Pacific coast con- ditions. I do know something about conditions here, something about the fishing that is done from Boston and Gloucester. I simply put. myself in the position of Newfoundland men or Nova Scotia men, who, instead of doing as they now do, going to the States, to Boston or Gloucester, and shipping on a vessel here, would simply ship on one of their own vessels down there. They would have just as good 126 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. a chance of making a dollar as they have here, under these proposed conditions, and why should they come here? Would you or I come here under the cir cumstances, or would we stay with the people with whom we have ties, our friends and relatives! What would you do yourself under those conditions ? Chief Justice Hazen. You want to bear in mind that this con- ference has no reference to Newfoundland whatever, Newfoundland not being a party to the conference. Mr. Wuaten. I understand; but what effect would this new ar- rangement have on a Newfoundland fisherman? Wouldn’t it have the result of a greater shortage of men being shipped here, if ships coming from Canada were given the same ‘treatment in American ports that American vessels would have? What reason would there be for coming here and shipping on American vessels rather than on Canadian vessels? What inducement would there be? Chief Justice Hazen. What inducement is there to-day ? Mr. Wuaten. The fact that they make more money down here. That is the reason why they are here. Those Nova Scotia men are not down here because they love the scenery around Boston and Gloucester, but because they make a good dollar out of it. They do not come Hote because they love to go to sea from here. Whenever they have a chance, as M1. Brown says, they go home. There are a lot ‘of them down there now. When there is hard weather for a few months, many of them go home. Secretary Reprrenp. And your idea is that our vessels would he idle ¢ Mr. Wuaten. Yes, sir; and I am making an appeal to the Ameri- can representatives on the commission along this line. Secretary Reprienp. And in that case the supply of fish would drop off ? Mr. Wuaten. If it was carried out, the fishing industry around 3oston and Gloucester, what we have here now, would be transferred to Canada. Secretary Reprievp. Is the Canadian fieet sufficient to handle the: business, sufficiently large to supply the entire demands of the United States? Mr. Wwaten. I don’t know, sir. Secretary Reprirenp. Don’t you think that has a very important bearing on the matter? Is it not a fact that men go for economic reasons where they can get the best wages? Mr. Wuaten. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprierp. And an American vessel owner will try to keep his vessel in use, so that it will be profitable? Mr. WuHaten. Certainly. Secretary Reprietp. And therefore, if he is unable to get men at one price, he will pay as much more as is necessary in order to keep the vessels running ? Mr. Waren. If he is able to. Secretary Reprrerp. And if there is a shortage of men and a de- mand for fish? Mr. Wuaten. He would be at a disadvantage compared with a British vessel—would have to pay more. Secretary Reprreitp. Why ? Mr. Wuaren. Because they are drifting toward the British vessels. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. V7 Mr. Brown. It is not a question of wages entirely in the fishing industry. It is supply and demand that makes prices. If the Ameri- can owner is to beat the Canadian owner in getting men, he will have to give the men higher wages, and in that. respect he will be ata disadvantage. He would not get as much money out of the business as a Nova Scotia vessel. For instance, take two or three thousand dollars worth stock of fish, and we will say that a Nova Scotia vessel was on quarters and the American owner couldn’t get any crews. He would have to put his vessel on fifths. That is to say, he could only take a fifth of that catch for his part, where the Nova Scotia captain would take a quarter. You see, the American vessel would have to meet the Nova Seotia vessel on an equality in the matter of wages and shares. Secretary Repripip. I confess that it seems a little bit dificult to understand how, with the increasing demand of the country for fish food, any arrangement possibly can exist whereunder vessels capable of catching fish. and made for that purpose, having owners desirous of making money by using those vessels, can possibly he idle. Let us suppose that it is not fish at all. Here are two factories making cot- ton cloth, substantially alike, and in difference places, and there is a huge demand for their product. Can you conceive of any circum- stances under which one of those factories, against the wishes of its owner, is going permanently to he idle with a great demand for its products and with the owner anxious to run it and a market ready to hand, because of any possible shght difference in wages? Isn’t it perfectly clear that the owner under such conditions w vould simply adjust himself to the circumstances and keep running? In other words, with this country taking scores of millions of pounds of fish and increasing its demand every day, is it possible to conceive of cir- cumstances under which there will not be an active demand for everybody who can catch fish ? Mr. Wxaten. Don’t you think that would be kind of raising the ante on the American owner? If the Canadians ran into Gloucester fresh fish, and the American owners could not get the crews, they would have to raise the inducement to the crews sufficiently to get the men to go on those vessels. Secretary “REDFIELD. Possibly. Mr. Wuaten. Don’t you think that would be handicapping the American by requiring him Lo pay more than the Nova Scotian ? Secretary Repriznp. But do you suppose that the Canadians would be backward in demanding better treatment on their side? It it as broad as it is long. Mr. Wuaten. Tam assuming that the Americans and the Cana- dians would be put on the same footing. I have got some letters from men in Nova Scotia who went down home after the mackerel season was over, to see their families, and now they can not get back. One in particular wrote me a letter and asked me to write and let him know when any skippers were going down that wanted a couple of men, and to tell the captain to call into Lockport or down in Yar- mouth—he didn’t care which—and they would take a train and ship. But they can not get across now, as the bars are put down. So when the season starts. if there are no Nova Scotia fishermen coming over, how are we going to get the men here to furnish these million pounds 128 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. of fish next season? Where are we going to get anybody to run the mackerel fleet if they won’t let anybody come over 4 Chief Justice Hazen. I suppose it is hardly fair to say that they are not coming over. They are not conscripting them. Capt. Nickerson. No; but I think they are collecting head money. I think they collected $30,000 in Yarmouth a short time ago. But. a course, it is a dead setback, and what effect it will have next veal T don’t know. (The hearing was adjourned at 4.45 o’clock p. m. to Friday, Feb- ruary 1, at the same place, at 10 o'clock a. m.) Frsruary 1, 1918—10 a. mu. Secretary Reprieip. The gentlemen will please come to order. Mr. (Quigley, I will ask you to make a note to insert into the record at ee stage of the hearing, when they can be obtained, the records from the United States Customs Service, or from the Bureau of Foreign ma Domestic Commerce, of the actual importations of fresh and salt fish into the United States from all countries for a period of five years past for the purpose of comparison. (See Exhibit V, p. 380.) And make a note at this pomt also in the record that I have asked Mr. Found, of the commission, to obtain from the Canadian customs authorities a statement for the record of the commission of the im- portations of fish into Canada from the United States, say, for a period of five vears also. Mr. Young—I don’t mean you, Capt. Young; you have a technical title—the gentleman behind you, if you will excuse me. I am looking forward to the pleasure of hearing from you again, Capt. Young. Mr. Young, do you care to make a ‘statement to the commission con- cerning the offshore lobster fishing? I would be glad, first of all, if we might have your full name and the name of ‘the concern which you represent. STATEMENT BY MR. ALFRED L. YOUNG, OF THE FIRM OF J. A. YOUNG & CO. Secretary Reprretp. Proceed in your own way, Mr. Young. Mr. Youn. I am very glad to have the opportunity to make this statement. I think that I was the original exploiter of that proposi- tion of fishing for lobsters outside of the 3-nnile mit in Nova Scotia. It was quite accidental on my part, and it was not what I set out to do. T have been in the lobster business all my life; my father, my grandfather, and my great grandfather before me were in that business, so that I have got a little back of me to bring the spirit down to the present time. [ always have had the impression, through study and observing the wavs of the lobster, that it was not an inshore fish; that it could be found offshore on the shoals or wherever ground fish was found— feeding ground, hard bottom of kelp. I always had the impression there were lobsters there, and IT got so after a while that I was quite eager to find out for myself if it was so; but I couldn’t find any lob- ster fishermen that would take the initiative and go for a long while. T finally got a man from Maine who was a practical lobsterman. and AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 129 he agreed to get a crew if I would fit out a vessel, which I was very elad to do. And I sent him off on what is known as Cashes Bank, which some of the fishermen here can tell you about better than I can. It is off of Yarmouth, about a hundred miles off from Portland. Tt is a small bank, a small fishing ground. And they did find lobsters there; they found a lot of lobsters there. . Secretary Reprretp. What bank did you call that 4 Mr. Youne. Cashes Bank. Secretary Reprietp. It is not on this map which we have here. IL take it that it is a small bank. Mr. Youne. A small bank; but I think these fishermen know all about it. It is a very small bank. We found lobsters there; they found nice lobsters thereand forasmall place there were lots of them. The greater part of them were egg-bearing lobsters. They went out there in July or August, I think, and the greater part of them were ege-bearing lobsters. They also reported that the water was chock full of halibut and codfish, and that the top of the water was very thick with these newly hatched lobsters. That proved the theory that I had that lobsters could be found on these banks—these feeding grounds for fish. They did very well there, but they had to stay there a week or more to get the trip. When they came home—they were Maine fishermen, and they had been accustomed to go lobstering in the morning and get back to their homes at night, and they didn’t like that staying out there for a week fishing, they were not used to it and they would not go again. One of the fellows aboard was a Woods Harbor, Nova Scotia, man. He was a young fellow and had been a fisherman. He came to me and was quite eager to try it again, and [ let him go the next year—let him take the vessel, and he got a crew of Woods Harbor men. He went out there and they found that they soon fished that bank over, as it was a small banle and then they drifted to the eastward and finally to the Seal Island grounds, which was their own home fishing ground. And when they got there that was something different from what I wished to exploit. I wished to satisfy myself that the lobsters were off on the banks in the sea, not so near the shore as that. I knew they were there—every lobsterman knew they were there. They finished there and did fairly well. I kept it up for two or three years, had a little trouble with the Canadian Government, and it was not profitable. The lobsters were not plenty enough—it took too long to make the trip. They could only make about two or three trips in the year, because weather conditions do not allow fishing later than the last of September, and there was no market for the goods here until after the Ist of July, and it was not profitable. — It has been exploited to a considerable extent since by different ones, but they have gradually given it up. The crews were alto- gether Nova Scotia men that were acquainted with the grounds. I did get them to go off the South Channel here once and try it on the shoals there, but they either were not acquainted or they did not give it a proper trial and they did not find the goods. Now, that is simply my experience, What I think in regard to the lobster question is that what we want is a Federal law. We have been trying to get a Federal law. 51950—18—— 9 130 AMBERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. I think the best thinkers among the lobster people know that that is the only proper thing. The laws of the various lobster- producing States are different. We used to have a 104-inch law in Massachu- setts, we had it in New Hampshire, and we have it now in Maine. Nova Scotia lobsters used to come through here and go through into Rhode Island—where they did not have that law—and there they were scattered throughout the country, taking the business right away from Boston; and that rather cot on the nerves of us lobster dealers, so that we joined with the fishermen and demanded the 9-inch law in Massachusetts, against ow better judgment; but we have got it to-day and have had it for a number of years. Now, those lobsters stop in Massachusetts and they are scattered through- out the country from Boston. New Hampshire finally came to a 9-inch law. Of course, there is a demand created among the lobster- eating people for those 9-inch lobsters at the present time. There are times of the year when a 9-inch lobster is more valuable than a larger lobster. There has been a considerable drain made on the Maine lobster fishery, on the 9-inch lobsters, contrary to the laws of that State, not alone by New Hampshire and Massachusetts dealers and smack men, but by their own dealers—the Rockland and Port- land dealers have been as much im it as we have; and they have all got places in Boston; and they come here with those lobsters and they are scattered all over the country from here. That is wrong. Leoking at it from the perpetuation of the lobster standpoint, it is wrong—it 1s altogether wrong. We know it. The lobster business is oradually vetting away from us. Lobsters to-day are a great luxury. Why, we pay—I should hate to tell you what we paid yesterday. You probably know we paid nearly 50 cents a pound at wholesale to get lobsters here. That is pr ohibitive so far as e eating goes. Tt ought not to be so. A proper law would be. to my mind, a 104-inch Federal law, and the same law in Nova Scotia, and in two or three years, I believe, it would put the lobster business back on its feet. For a year or two it would be a hardship, because most of the lobsters now run under 10$ inches; but, I think, after a few years lobsters would be from 104 inches up. and they would breed faster from that length up, and we would in a shert while have more lobsters. Chief Justice Hazen. I judge from your remarks that you are in favor of a law that would admit no lobsters into the New England market, or into the markets of the United States, for sale, of less than 104 inches? Mr. Young. I certainly am in favor cf a law of that kind, provided we have the law the same everywhere. Chief Justice Hazen. You say that would have to be a Federal enactment? Is it not a fact that in the State of Maine the law now prevents the catching of any lobsters of less than 104 inches? Mr. Youne. It is so. Chief Justice Hazen. In the State of Maine? Mr. Young. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. Now, what other States on the Atlantic seaboard are there in which lobsters are caught? Mr. Youne. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Con- necticut, and New York State, and some few in New Jersey. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. eal - Chief Justice Hazen. Would it be possible to get those different _ States to pass a law similar to the law which now exists in the State of Maine? Mr. Youne. I hardly think so. The possibilities are Just the other way. Pressure is being brought to bear on the State of Maine to change their law to a 9-inch law. Chief Justice Hazen. But has the attempt been made with the other States? Take Massachusetts, for instance. Has the attempt been made to have a law passed that no lobster shall be sold in Massa- chuetts which is less than 103 inches? Mr. Youne. It has been, and we used to have that law on our books here. We used to have a 104-inch law in Massachusetts; but, as I say, the fact that these lobsters from Nova Scotia down to 9 inches came through Massachusetts and went to Rhole Island and were dis- tributed throughout the country from Rhode Island—from Newport par ticularly —took it out of the hands of the Boston dealers, and we did not consider it hardly fair. They came right through Boston and went by us, and we not be allowed to handle them. Chief Justice Hazen. If a law were passed preventing catching along the southern shore of Nova Scotia and Passamaquoddy Bay lobsters of less than 104 inches, what effect would that have upon the situation here in the Eastern States? Lf a law of that sort were passed in Canada, would it have the effect of inducing the States you mention, do you think, to pass similar laws? Mr. Youne. It might have that effect. It would so far as the im- porters of lobsters are concerned. What I mean, the dealers. You know politics enter into this thing a whole lot—have in Massachu- setts. The fishermen want to catch the short lobsters. Chief Justice Hazen. They have votes? Mr. Youne. They have votes, and they have representatives in the legislature that are catering to those votes. A part of the pressure brought to bear which changed our law here was the fact that they had a 9-inch law in Rhode Island when we had a 105-inch law here, and it resulted in bringing those lobsters across the line into Rhode Island and shipping out from there. Chief Justice Hazen. When was the change made in the law from 104 to 9 inches? Mr. Youne. Some time ago. I don’t know just how long ago. Chief Justice Hazen. I want to tell you how that worked in my Province in New Brunswick. The law, so far as the county of Charlotte is concerned, which is the county which is divided from Maine by the St. Croix River, including the islands of Grand Manan, Deer, and Campobello—all those islands are in the county of Char- lotte—in the county of Charlotte and in the county of St. Johns, which adjoins the county of Charlotte on the eastward, there was a law by which no lobster of less than 105 inches should be taken, and a few years ago the lobster fiishermen of St. Johns County came and made a very strong representation that the size of the lobster that could be brought into the Boston market had been reduced from 103 inches to 9 inches, and that it was in the interest of the lobster fishermen—it was in the interest of all—that the length should be reduced to 9 inches there. In the county of Charlotte they stuck to 10$ inches, as they are doing in the State of Maine. That shows 182 AMBRIGAN-GANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE, how one thing leads to another, just as you have told us about Rhode Island influencing the decision here. Then your change of law here influenced the action of St. Johns County. Mr. Youna. And then the fact that the change of law here induced New Hampshire to change her law two or three years ago. Chief Justice Hazen. And your view is that this would have to be done by Federal enactment, isn’t it, Mr. Young? Mr. Youne. I think it would. T think so, in order to get it unani- mous in the various lobster-producing States. It has always been put up to us that it is a question of State rights, and that the States are jealous of their meghts and would not give them up to the Federal Government, and we have been told it would be impossible to have a Federal law. Shief Justice Hazmn. There would be very great hostility, I sup- pose, on the part of many of these different States to the passage of such an enactment by the Federal authorities ? Mr. Youna. Well, that may be so. TI believe Rhode Island and Con- necticut would bitterly oppose it. Chief Justice Hazmn. You have been in the lobster industry for a great many years, Mr. Young, and your father and grandfather be- fore you? Mr. Youn«. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazmn. In view of your experience and what you know about the business, do you consider that the lobster industry, if it is to be saved from destruction, is in need of special protec ction at the present time ¢ Mr. Youna. Well, there is no question but what lobsters are grow- ing less and less all the time, and if you are going to save it you have got to protect it; and I don’t know how you are going to protect it unless you make laws. We have always had laws, as I say, for ¢ good many years, but it seems as though every law was unpopular, or if we had it for one State we didn’t have it for another, and in spite of our laws lobsters are growing less and less. In Maine they have the 10-inch law, and they fish them all the year round when they can, but still they find more lobsters there than in any other State. Chief Justice Hazen. Is there any close season for lobsters in the other States vou speak of ? Mr. Youne. I think there is a close season in Rhode Island; there is a per iod when there are no lobsters there. They have a close sea- son in some of the eastern parts of Maine. A good many years ago Maine did have an experiment with a close season for 10 to 12 weeks in the summer time, but it was not popular and was given up. Chief Justice Hazen. Is there a period of the year during which the importation of lobsters into Boston is forbidden by law? From anywhere? TI mean, have you a law here in Massachusetts or in Boston which prevents the importation of lobsters into your State at certain seasons of the year? Mr. Youne. No, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. So that, therefore, it would be correct to say that you can have lobsters in Boston all the year round if you are able to get them? Mr. Youne. We do. We have them the year round. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 133 Chief Justice Hazen. Have you given any attention to the subject of the artificial propagation of lobsters? Mr. Youna. I have in a general way. I have been at the several propagation stations in Maine, the one at Woods Hole and the one at Gloucester. Chief Justice Hazen. What is your opinion in regard to the ef- fectiveness of those stations ? Mr. Youna. I don’t think they are effective. That is my personal opinion. Chief Justice Hazen. Do you think it would be possible to main- tain the lobster industry or to restore the lobster industry by means of close seasons during the year at different points along the coast and by means of lobster hatcheries? Mr. Youne. I don’t think that would restore it. If you will al- low me, I will tell you why. Chief Justice Hazen. That is exactly what I want to know, Mr. Young. Mr. Youne. As I say, that was tried in Maine a good many years ago for a period of 10 or 12 weeks—whatever it was—and at the end of that period. the fishermen were all allowed to put their lobster pots out, and they put them out, and they got great lobster fishing for a few weeks, and then it went back to normal again. In other words, I believe that if you had a period of the year when there was a close season—it is a good deal like this in Nova Scotia at the present time—they get good fishing when they start out, but along toward the end of the season the fishing slacks away. And the fact that the lobster-fishing industry in w estern Nova Scotia is a great deal less than what it used to be is to my mind some proof that it is not a success—the close time. I would sooner think that a 104-inch law would be more effective. They have that in Maine, and, as I say, they fish there all the year round, and in most places in Maine, I think, they get lobsters when they fish. Chief Justice Haznun. Then, if I understand your opinion, Mr. Young, it is that the most effective method of protecting the lobsters would be the passage and the enforcement of laws preventing the catching of lobsters at any time during the year of a less size than 104 inches? Mr. Youne. That certainly is my opinion. Chief Justice Hazen. And your opinion is that if a law of that sort were passed and were enforced there would be no need of close seasons and no need of lobster hatcheries Mr. Youne. No; I think nature Chief Justice Hazun (continuing). Which is somewhat experi- mental, anyway. Mr. Youne. I think nature is more effective than any artificial means. Chief Justice Hazen. What is your idea of fishermen catching berry lobsters? Mr. Youne. They should not be allowed to catch them. Chief Justice Hazmn. If every lobster is a berry lobster, they shouid be compelled to put them back into the water? Mr. Youne. We have laws to that effect now. Chief Justice Hazen. Are they enforced ? 134 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Mr. Youne. Yes and no. No; I should say they were not. They are in some instances. The Government and the State at various times has bought these egg lobsters and returned them to the waters again. Of course, I am not a fisherman, but I know there are a lot of those lobsters come to the market at various times. Chief Justice Hazen. Have you had any experience with the tak- ing of lobsters and confining them in ponds? I mean mature lob- sters and confining them in ponds until they are right and have de- posited their spawn, berries, and then placing them back in the sea again for that purpose ? Mr. Youne. Why, I have personally got lobster ponds in the State of Maine myself, and I have made a practice of putting lobsters in those ponds ‘for a great many years past. Your Nova Scotia lobsters are put in that } pond, and Maine lobsters, too. We put them in in the spring of the year, and we take them out and market them in July and August. We put them in again in the fall and market them again at this time of the year. We can’t keep them in those ponds over their moulting season, when they shed. That is impracticable. But as far as putting egg lobsters in the pond goes, we put, as I say, - your Nova Scotia lobsters in there in the spring of the year and take them out in July and August and find a whole lot of new berry lob- sters. Lobsters if taken care of and looked after properly would certainly add a whole lot. Chief Justice Hazen. What do you do with those lobsters after you take them out of the pond? Mr. Youne. We sell them to the Government, and a good many in the State of Maine, at Booth Bay Harbor, where the hatchery is Chief Justice Hazen. And what does the Government do with them? Did they take the berries from those and hatch them in their hatchery, or did they take the lobsters just as they were and de- posit those berries and put them back in the sea ? Mr. Youne. They have always taken those lobsters in the summer time and carried them over until the next June, as the lobster car- ries the berries a year, and then they hatch them artificially in jars and deposit them when they are a few days old. Chief Justice Hazun. Now, do you think that better results could be obtained by getting those berries and hatching them artificially than would be obtained by taking that lobster and putting it back into the sea and letting it deposit those berries in the way that nature intended ? Mr. Youne. I think that is the proper way. Chief Justice Hazen. You think that is the proper way? Mr. Youne. To my mind. My impression is that that would be a proper way. Chief Justice Hazen. We have been experimenting with lobster hatcheries in Canada for some time—a good many lobster hatch- erles—-and the fishery officers of the department, I think, entertain very grave doubts as to the effectiveness of that. That is true, I believe, Mr. Found? Mr. Founp. Yes. Chief Justice Hazen. Now, you spoke of the minimum of 104 inches as being your opinion of the right minimum size. That no lobsters should be caught under 104 inches. May I ask you if you AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 135 have given any consideration to the question of a maximum size? Tt has been represented to us that while a lobster of 9 inches will have a certain number of berries, those berries increase enormously as the lobster gets larger, and a lobster of 123 inches will have berries running to almost fabulous numbers. Have you considered whether, in addition to havi ing a minimum size of 104 inches, it would be well to also have a size beyond which a lobster can not be caught? A maximum size 4 Mr. Youne. I have thought that over a great deal, and theoreti- cally it sounds good, but practically it is a hard thing to do. Now, it 1s 2 hard thing to measure a lobster anyway. Some ‘States measure it by the length of the lobster from the bone on its nose to tlie end of its tail, and other States measure it from the bone on its nose to the end of the body shell. Chief Justice Hazen. Which way do you call the carapace meas- ure? Do you know that expression ? Mr. Youne. No; that is beyond me. The back-shell measure, I presume that is. That is better than the other way. But there is a measure in Rhode Island that has been exploited lately which is better than either of them, to my mind. Chief Justice Hazen. When you pou of the 10} inches, you mean the measure along the total length? Mr. Youne. The whole length. Chief Justice Hazen. I think they speak of it in the department as the carapace measurement. Mr. Youne. The whole length of the lobster from the end of the bone on the body shell to the end of the bone on the middle flipper of his tail. Chief Justice Hazen. Now, to come back to my question. Do you think there should be a maximum as well as a minimum size? Mr. Youne. No; I do not; because, as I say, it is impracticable for the fener man to measure the lobster on both ends. I think, if you will let lobsters come to 104 inches, they have been matured, and they will breed, and there will be enough of them escape to continue breeding. Chief Justice Hazen. Well, I understand you to say it is not prac- ticable to measure. It is practicable to measure under 104 inches, and why isn’t it pre acticable to measure for over 124 ! or 13 inches? Mr. Youne. Well, that is true. But we are in a water all the time trying to measure them 104 inches. Chief Justice Hazen. You would simply make the water a little hotter, I suppose. Mr. Youne. You would make the water hotter, and we will be subject to more persecutions, I might say. A fisherman has hard work to measure lobsters in a dory out there when there is a little roll on; and if he had to measure them on both ends, it would be quite a proposition. Chief Justice Hazen. I judge from what you have said, Mr. Young, that you were the pioneer in this well-smack business that has caused us trouble in Canada. Mr. Youne. Well-smack fishing in Canada? eae Justice Hazen. You have given the business up, I under- stand ¢ 136 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Mr. Youne. I have. Chief Justice Hazen. Do you know how many are engaged in it now ¢ Mr. Youne. I think there were three or four smacks off there last year. I don’t know just how many. Chief Justice Hazen. Do you know how close they come up to the Canadian territorial waters? Mr. Youne. That I don’t know. The captain and crew know more about that. I think they go pretty close. Chief Justice Hazen. Do you favor that practice? Mr. Youne. I do not. Chief Justice Hazen. You are opposed to it?” Mr. Youne. I am opposed to it. Chief Justice Hazen. You don’t think it is a proper practice when there is a closed season in Canada for others to come there and he outside the 3-mile limit? Mr. Youne. It is not right; it is not fair. As I say, it is the captain and the crews that did it. Chief Justice Hazen. You tried it for experimental purposes, as far as I can find out. Mr. Youne. My intention was to go out onto the banks in the sea, such as Cashes Bank, and there must be a lot of territory out on the fishing banks where there is a hard bottom with kelp on it, with feeding ground, where there must be lobsters. But there is no way of getting them. Chief Justice Hazen. Would you favor enacting a law to make illegal the practice of well smacks going there and fishing outside the territorial waters, or opposite to them, in Canada, at a time that the Canadian laws make it illegal to fish in the territorial waters ? Mr. Younc. I certainly would. I would favor a law of that character. I say it is not fair. Mr. Founp. I would merely like to ask Mr. Young if he has ever considered, in connection with the double standard which was sug- gested, a possible effect on the larger standard of fixing the size of the ring of the trap. Mr. Youne. Well, I don’t believe that would be effective. You would find some pretty good sized lobsters in the fishermen’s dory— they will get caught. Mr. Founp. It would not be perfect, but wouldn’t it result very largely in controlling Mr. Youne. T never thought so. The practical men, the lobster fishermen, could tell you better than I. Chief Justice Hazen. Could you, in your opinion, Mr. Young, by prescribing the width between the slats of the traps—could you by that means regulate the size? Mr. Youne. I don’t think so. Chief ak Hazen. That is, vou would have it wide enough to let the small ones craw] out? Mr. Youne. That has been exploited. J think they Wate a law in Connecticut now that the bars shall be 2 inches apart. I don’t think it is practical. Chief Justice Hazen. The lobster refuses to escape ? lend AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. ULSy7 Mr. Youne. When the lobster gets into the trap he stays there. Chief Justice Hazen. And he doesn’t crawl out through the aper- tures in the trap? Mr. Youne. He won’t crawl out. If the fishermen jerk the trap he goes over sideways and he comes into the dory. Chief Justice Hazen. You don’t think that would be effective, then, as a practical measure? Mr. Youne. I think nothing but a 10$-inch law would be effective. Mr. Sweer. I think you rather intimated that you thought there was some better method of measuring. Did you not? Mr. Youne. Oh, I was going to say that the State of Rhode Island—I saw a measure down there that seemed to me as though it would be good. That was a measure from the eye socket of the lob- ster to the end of the bone on the body shell. Now, the eye socket is so placed that it can’t be changed, and I don’t see how they could shrink very much. You know the bone on the end of the body shell will shrink some, but that eye-socket measurement is better than any thing which you have got now. Mr. Sweer. What would the length be in that form of measure- ment to correspond to the 103 inches? Mr. Youne. Well, it would be considerably smaller than the block measure which is used now. Just what it is I don’t know. Perhaps somebody here can tell. Dr. Smiru. Mr. Young, coming for a moment to the double- standard measurement, I would like to ask you what, in your opin- ion, would be the effect on the lobster trade say, Boston—ot a prohibition on the sale of lobsters below 9 inches and over 103 inches? Mr. Youne. Well, what the people demand for lobsters, what they rant more than anything, is a lobster that will average from a pound to a pound and three-quarters. Dr. Smiru. What will be the length of a 14-pound lobster # Mr. Youne. A lobster weighing 12 pounds would be somewhere near 11 inches, I should say. We used to figure that a 104-inch lob- ster weighed about a pound and a half. And a 9-inch lobster will weigh not quite a pound—perhaps average a little less than a pound. The double-standard law from 104 to 13, I should say, would be as small as I should want to see it. Dr. Smiru. Let me ask, what proportion of the lobsters handled in the trade in Boston run over 12 inches in length ? Mr. Youne. Why, at certain seasons of the year we have more than others. The early summer—in June—our lobsters from certain places, run pretty large. We have what we call a lot of jumbo lob- sters. We have certain places in New Brunswick where we get Jumbo lobsters at certain times of the year. But they are not a popular lobster to- day on the market. I think the average lobster. as I say. will weigh somewhere about a pound and a half to 2 pounds. Dr. Surry. Would there be great harm done to the lobster trade of Boston if there were a prohibition on the sale of lobsters over 12 inches in length? Would a great shortage result from such a prohibition ? Mr. Youne. There would not be any more shortage than is coming along now. But it would be very hard pulling just the same. It is 138 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. getting worse and worse now. We have a little time in the spring where there are lots of lobsters; the rest of the time lobsters are a luxury. Dr. Smrru. In view of the fact that these very large lobsters are not in such demand in the trade, and in view of the facet which the Chief Justice has brought out that these large lobsters pro- duce an infinitely greater number of eggs than the lobsters of smaller size—the increase being in geometrical progression, as a mat- ter of fact—it has been suggested that it would be proper, in order to conserve the present diminishing supply and to attempt to restore the former abundance of the lobster, to prohibit the catching and selling of lobsters, say over 12 inches in length. (What would be your own judement as to the wisdom of such a measure ? Mr. Youna. Well, I personally think that a 10$-mch law would be enough. Of course, if we stop catching lobsters altogether for a period of 5 or 10 years we would have more lobsters. Tf we did not catch lobsters over 11 inches long, we would have more, to be sure. But from a practical standpoint, I think a 10$-inch law, properly en- forced, would be enough. That, I think, has been illustrated in the State of Maine. In spite of the fact that there have been hundreds of thousands of lobsters taken out of that State the last few years, the lobster fishing is good in the State of Maine during the season. Dr. Smirn. It is, however, a fact, I believe, that the present catch of lobsters in Maine is about one-fourth what it was 20 years ago? Mr. Youne. I think likely. JI think very likely. Dr. Sari. And the only reason the fishing is possible is that the fishermen are pews three, four, or five times as much per pound as they did 20 years ago. Mr. Youne. Bute as a matter of fact, they have been taking chicken lobsters out of the State of Maine we 20 years, anyhow. They have been taking lots of them every year. Not ‘people foreign to the State T don’t mean, but people in ee right in the State have shipped them through. Shipped them through into New York before we ever had a 9-ineh law in Massachusetts, and made a business of it. Dr. Sarre. We do not. know whether the general lobster fishery as conducted on the coasts of the various States can be regulated through Federal enactment; but it has been suggested as one of the numerous measures that have been recommended to save the situa- tion that there be established on the coast of each of the lobster- producing States a zone or area in which all lobster fishing should be prohibited for a term of years. What, in your opinion, would be the effect of such legislation as that ? Mr. Youne. Well, I think if you were going.to do it, stop it altogether; not any particular place, net any particular locality. I think the lobster comes inshore and goes offshore—crawls offshore. Dr. Smirn. It was for that very reason that it was suggested that areas be established on the coasts of the various States, be- cause any prohibition of fishing in those areas would affect the abundance of lobsters there and not have any influence on the con- tiguous parts of the coast. So that if yau found an area where the lobsters had been so much depleted that fishing was scarcely profit- able and established therein a close season of, say, three or five years, you might be able to do something to restore the industry. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 139 Mr. Youne. Well, that might be so. But they have zones in Maine where they do practically that same thing, only it is for certain months of the year—in the eastern part of Maine. Dr. Smrru. Your own statement has shown that the short season or closed time does not have much effect, because immediately on its expiration the fishermen resume ope ‘ations on a much larger scale and negative the results of the close time. Mr. Youne. That is my idea of it. I think if you are going to make a zone in Massachusetts you had better cut Massachusetts right out altogether. But it would not be hardly fair to the people, per- haps, to allow other States to do lobster business and not allow Massachusetts to do it. Secretary Reprietp. Mr. Young, are you sure that the number of vessels engaged in this offshore well smack fishery is not over four? Mr. Youne. I am not absolutely sure; no; but I don’t think there were over four there last year—or five. Secretary Reprreip. Do you-know whether those vessels which en- gaged in it last year found it profitable or not ? Mr. Youne. I don’t think they did, because I have had the owners of those vessels tell me they wouldn’t send them there again—some of them. Secretary Reprietp. Do you regard, then, that offshore lobster fishing is practically a dying industry ? Mr. Younc. Why, I think so; but there may be somebody come along who wants to exploit this, probably. Some lobster fisherman may want to try it. Secretary Repriexp. Is it, in your judgment, of sufficiently serious volume to have any marked weight upon the supply of the industry ¢ Mr. Youne. I don’t think so. What few they catch ave way outside the 3-mile limit. It looks big to the fishermen in shore w sho can’t get out, and it makes them feel bad. I don’t blame them; it is a hard proposition. I should like to see it stopped, really. Secretary Reprigip. Mr. Young, 1 is it or is it not the fact that the difficulty with the business is not only the difference in the laws of which you speak, but in the fact that such laws as there are are not strictly enforced Mr. Youne. Certainly. Secretary Reprierp. It has been suggested that a Federal statute, for which there is precedent in existing law, be passed which would prohibit the entrance into any port of the United States or the trans- mission in interstate commerce within the United States of any lobster caught in contravention of any State law or of any law of another country. W ‘ould or would not such a law as that be, in your judgment, effective Mr. Youne. Why; I oe it would provided we had a law here— for instance, if we had a 103-inch law in this country and we could stop the importation of lobsters of less than 10} inches into the coun- try I think it would be a good thing. ~ Secretary Reprienp. Well, the lack of enforcement of the law means, does it not, that whatever the length permitted by law, lob- sters shorter than that are caught and sold? Mr. Youne. Yes. Secretary Reprreup. So that the law which I speak of—its effect would be, first, for example, to prohibit their entrance to this port; 140 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. and second, if they got into the port would prohibit their being shipped out of Massachusetts, and would stop such violation, would it not? Mr. Youne. Certainly. Secretary Reprizip, But as vou think of it, does it seem to you an effective measure ? Mr. Younc. Why, yes; it would be right along those lines. But don’t you know that a lot of these short lobsters that are used are used at the seashore? ‘They are caught right there and held right there. Any of you gentlemen who go to the State of Maine in the summer time know that. You go down there and eat short lobsters. Secretary Reprietp, Of course, the Federal statute can not oper- ate within the State, but it could prohibit the entrance of short lobsters ito any port and their transmission out of that port. So that, for example, it would stop the shipping to New York from this locality, or would stop the entrance into the port of New York of any vessel carrying those. I will ask Dr. Smith if there is not a precedent for such a law already existing in connection with the sponges from Florida. Dr. Smiru. That seems to be a similar case, where it has been found necessary, in order to save the supply of commercial sponges on the coast of Florida, to prohibit the destruction of sponges less than a certain number of inches in diameter, and the law reaches such offenders by prohibiting the landing at any point in the United States of anv sponges less than a certain size. Mr. Youne. Well, the greater part of the lobsters coming into Boston go out of the State—that is, a good proportion of them— and that would be effective and it would stop the inclination to bring them in if they couldn’t ship them out. Secretary Reprietp. Have you any idea, Mr. Young, of the aver- age earnings of the Maine coast lobster fishermen, or on the Massa- chusetts coast? Mr. Youne. Why, I haven’t an accurate idea. I had a fisherman in the shop the other day from Maine, and he is as good a fisherman as any man, I suppose, and he told me he stocked $2,400—$2,200— the year before last. Then he goes on to tell me that considering the expense of his gear and lobster traps, and his boat, I would be. sur- prised to know how little he had left for himself when he got through. But I think he is above the average Secretary Reprieny. Did he tell you what he had left? Mr. Youna. No; he didn’t tell me. Chief Justice Hazen. How many months in the year would he engage in fishing? Mr. Youne. Probably start in the Ist of May and fish up to Thanksgiving time. Per haps the middle of December Chief Justice Hazen. That is November. Mr. Young. The in of November or the first of December. Per- haps the middle or the last of November, if the weather kept good. Chief Justice Hazen. Engaging in fishing a little over seven months, then? Mr. Youne. Seven months. Secretary Reprietp. Would you favor a request on the part of the Food Administration, backed up by the Bureau of Fisheries and operating through the State committees of defense in every State AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 141 and the food administrator in every State, SDP euanes to the people of the country to cease buying lobsters for a period ? Mr. Youne. I should not favor that, because I am in the lobster business. Secretary Reprizip. Thank you. Mr. Youne. I don’t know why that would be necessary. [f a men will eat a lobster, he won’t eat a piece of beefsteak. Perhaps it eosts him more money. But if he eats lobster, he is conserving some- thing else that is a luxury. And if he can afford to buy lobster and pay for it, why let him buy and pay for it. He is saving something else which is really necessary. Chief Justice Hazen, Saving beef or bacon. Secretary Reprintp. Saving beef or bacon; yes. Mr. Youne. Saving beef or bacon. Secretary Reprietp. I only mentioned it to get your idea as to what was possible. Mr. Youne. It is possible. It is a luxury which can be gotten along without. Secretary Reprrevp. But isn’t it a fact that the country ought not to get along without any productive industry which can be saved ? Mr. Youne. That is true. Secretary Reprietp. And the point of view ought to be, should it not, putting the industry upon a permanent basis? Mr. Youne. If we can do it. Secretary Reprievp. If it can be done. Mr. Youne. I would like to see it done that way. Secretary Reprrevp. I can remember very well, Mr. Young, when, at my house in Maine 15 years ago, I could get all the lobsters I wanted at 25 cents apiece; I can’t do it now. Chief Justice Hazen. Down in the maritime provinces all you had to do when the tide was out was to go around with a hook and pull them out from under the rocks. Mr. Youne. I know 15 years ago you could go down in Maine and buy them for 50 cents a dozen. Secretary Reprrevp, Thank you very much, indeed, Mr. Young. STATEMENT BY MR. JOHN G. COX, OF THE CONSOLIDATED LOBSTER CO. Secretary Reprretp. Mr. Cox, what is your business ? Mr. Cox. Connected with the Consolidated Lobster Co. 5 Secretary Reprretp. How are your operations conducted, Mr. ox ? Mr. Cox. Our operations are conducted mostly by smacks. We send out after lobsters. Secretary Reprretp. Are you sending out some of these well smacks to the Nova Scotia coast, Mr. Cox? Mr. Cox. Yes. Secretary Reprretp. How many are you sending? Mr. Cox. What do you mean? By fishing on the outside? Secretary Reprrevp. Yes. Mr. Cox. We had two in that operation last year. Secretary Reprietp. Are you going to do it again this next summer ? 142 AMBRICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE Mr. Cox. No, sir: we are out of the business. We are out of it. No more. Secretary Reprienp. Why ¢ Mr. Cox. Well, we didn’t find it Saas last year, so that we have quit. I can tell you faithfully we are all through on that line. Secretary Reprrenp, Who else is in the ‘Builess if you don’t mind saying? If you do, don’t say. Mr. Cox. In this same line you spoke about? Secretary Reprrevp. Yes. Mr. Cox. I believe there is only one more. The Boston Lobster Co., I think, operated one smack there last year besides ours. Secretary Reprievp. Am I correct, then, in understanding from you and from Mr. Young together, that you had two, and the ‘Boston Lobster Co. had one, and Mr. Y oung had one, and that was all last year ? Mr. Youne. Excuse me; I had none last year. I haven’t had any for a number of years. Secretary Reprrevp. IT beg your pardon; T didn’t mean to misrep- resent you. Then there were only three last year? Mr. Cox. Only three, I guess, last year. Secretary Reprirnp. Now, search your memory, Mr. Cox. We want to get the facts—that is all we want. Three was the limit, was it, last year, so far as you know ? Mr. Cox. So far as I know. Secretary Reprienp. And are the gentlemen of the Boston Lobster Co. here to-day to speak for themselves? Mr. Cox. I don’t know, sir. Secretary Reprirecp. Is there anybody here representing the Bos- ton Lobster Co. ? A Vorcr. I can get them here if you want them here. Secretary Reprizup. I think it might be very desirable, inasmuch as this subject has taken this comparatively new phase that has been explained by Mr. Young and Mr. Cox. I think it would be as well to get the whole thing. Chief Justice Hazen. It is well to get the whole business. Secretary Repririy. It affects the situation in certain particu- lars and makes it clearer than before. I want to say that we appre- ciate your testimony and Mr. Young’s very highly. You did not find the business profitable. What is the reason for that, Mr. Cox? Mr. Cox. Well, on account of the size of the lobsters, for one thing. The very large lobsters we got up there in that locality—they are great big lobsters and hard to sell, for one thing; and another thing, the crew don’t get enough to make it pay. Dr. Smrru. You mean the native fishermen did not get enough to make it pay or the men you sent on the vessel from Boston? Mr. Cox. Well, I would say that. those are all native fishermen that we had in these vessels. They all came from the Provinces: Seeretary Reprivnp. Did you have American officers on your vessel ? Mr. Cox. Yes, sir. They were naturalized; yes, sir. But they are all, practically, from their own country, or from the British Provinces, and from that locality near where they fish. They leave AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 143 their traps there and after the close season, in June, go down and start in with their own gear. Secretary Reprrtp. Is the capital invested in your business American capital ? WisCox. Yess sir. Secretary Reprietp. And are the active owners of your business native-born Americans / Mr. Cox. Well, I wouldn’t say that they are all native born. Secretary Reprietp. What I want to get at is, whether it is in any degree a fact that natives of Canada have come here and are op- erating this business, using their fellow countrymen there in the way I speak of, by taking possible advantage of American citizenship as masters of vessels? Mr. Cox. Well, they are all naturalized. Secretary Reprievp. The captains, of course, have to be. Mr. Cox. Yes; but the other crew were not. Secretary Reprretp. Are you a native-born American ? Mr. Cox. No, sir; I was born in Nova Scotia myself, in 1859. Secretary Reprreip. I congratulate you on being a year younger than I. What is your outlook at the lobster business, ‘as you see it now, Mr. Cox? Mr. Cox. Well, my views are practically the same as Mr. Young’s, who just preceded ne. I think we ought to have a Federal law. Secretary Reprretp. Would you favor a law which would pro- hibit the entrance into an American port of lobsters caught contrary to the law of any State or country, and also which would prohibit their transportation in interstate commerce / Mr. Cox. Is that just coming in from Nova Scotia? Secretary Reprritp. No; I mean this, to explain it: Let us sup- pose a man catches an 8-inch lobster, or any lobster which is contrary to the law of the place where he gets it and then goes offishore for several days and meets accidentally a vessel offshore, and brings it into the port of Boston, or the port of Gloucester, or any other port. The suggestion is to enact a law which would prohibit those goods thus caught contrary to the law of the place where they w ere taken from enter ing the port in the first place; and if by any acci- dent they got in would prohibit their being shipped out of that port in inerstate commerce beyond the confines of the State. Mr. Youne. Well, if the Federal law was passed so that the meas- ure was the same in each and every State it would cure the whole thing, wouldn’t it? Secretary Reprmip. That is exactly what the object of it would be. Mr. Cox. To provide a law which would have the same bearing precisely everywhere, which would be *enforced by an entirely im- partial authority from without, and which would have the double bearing of prohibiting, first, and preventing so far as humanly possi- ble, the entrance into any port of the goods unlawfully captured: and secondly, if they should have entered, would prohibit their move- ment in the commerce of the country outside of the confines of any State. That would be the purpose. Such a law, if enforced, you would regard as effective? Mr. Cox. Yes; I think it would be. Mr. Sweer. And you would favor it, would you? Mr. Cox. Yes, sir. 144 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Dr. Suiru. Mr. Cox, what would be your idea of the nature and scope of a Federal lobster law ¢ Mr. Cox. Well, I think the measure should be the same in each and every State. That would be better for all concerned. Dr. Smirn. Are you prepared to suggest what that measure ought to be? : Mr. Cox. Well, I think a 104-inch lobster—I think they ought to come to that. Dr. Smirn. And you would have that apply to the States to the westward where a 9-inch law has always prev vailed ¢ Mr. Cox. Yes, sir. Mr. Sweet. Have you ever considered the matter of a maximum size, Mr. Cox? Mr. Cox. No; I have not. Chief Justice Hazen. Have you had any experience in connection with artificial propagation of lobsters ? Mr. Cox. No: I have not; no, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. What would be your opinion as to the efficacy of a measure which would require the ring through which the. lobster goes into the trap to be not less than a certain size, and that would provide a space between the slats large enough to enable a lobster not 9 inches or 104 inches to escape. - Mr. Cox. I don’t think it would be practicable. Chief Justice Hazmn. Why ? Mr. Cox. Well, on account of—as far as Mr. Young said, they pull them up there; they get them anywhere; they hang on the sides or somewhere. Chief Justice Hazen. Well, if you have the ring of proper size at the entrance to the trap, how could a larger lobster get in? Mr. Cox. Well, they don’t get in now, I suppose. You would catch about the same size they do now, I suppose. Chief Justice Hazen. No; but you have the ring made so that the lobster larger than 104 inches can’t get through the ring. How could any larger lobster get through ? Mr. Cox. That is a pretty hard question to answer. Chief Justice Hazen. Well, I suppose a lobster goes through head first, doesn’t he ? Mr. Cox. He goes through either way. Chief Justice Hazen. Wouldn’t it be possible to regulate the size so that a lobster over that size wouldn’t get through ? Mr. Cox. I don’t think so. Chief Justice Hazen. You don’t think it would be possible? Mr. Cox. No, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. I don’t understand the reason. You are a practical man in the business and I am not. But what is the reason it would not be? Mr. Cox. I think a lobster that would go into that rng would go in there anyway. I don’t see where the ring would cut a great deal of figure. Of course it would in a certain way; but a 12-inch lobster would go in there if the ring was as thick as a 7 or 8-inch lobster. Chief Justice Hazes. Wouldn't it entirely depend upon the size of the ring? Sd ee a AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 145 Mr. Cox. Yes; it would. Chief Justice Hazen. A 7 or § inch lobster could go through a ring that a 12-inch lobster couldn't go through, couldn’t it ? Mr. Cox. Yes; I think so. Chief Justice Hazen. I am trying to get some information on this subject, because it is said that is a Way you can regulate the size. Mr. Cox. I don’t believe it could be regulated that way. Chief Justice Hazen. You don’t believe it could, from your ex- perience? Nov. do you think it is possible Mr. Youne. I would like to answer that question myself, Mr. Chair- man. Lobsters are like men—some are long and lanky and some are stout. Now, you must consider that. Chief Justice Hazen. There is a general average, though, I sup- pose. Mr. Youne. There is a general average; yes; to be sure. But you will catch a lot of lobsters you don’t want to catch, and you won't catch those that you do want to catch. But as long as there is any bait in the trap he will get his claw in that ring and will get his claw in the trap and come to the surface—as long as there is any bait in that trap. It is pretty hard to regulate it by the ring or the width of the slats. Another thing on the width of the slats—if the fishermen are honest and put the slats on dry and then put the traps in the water they will swell. It is pretty hard to judge by that. It would be awful hard to regulate the width between the slats on those lobster traps. Chief Justice Hazen. Do you agree to that, Captain? Capt. Cart C. Youne. Yes, sir. Dr. Suirn. Mr. Young, may J] ask you a question? Assuming a hungry lobster desires to get into a trap for the bait, the ring “of which is not much greater in diameter than his own diameter, is there a possibility that such a lobster would become jammed and would prevent the trap from fishing? Mr. Aurrep L. Youne. Why, I suppose that is a possibility, but not a probability. Dr. Sirs. Not a probability / Secretary Reprrerp. Well, isn’t it a fact Mr. Young, you say that when there is bait in the tr ap the lobster will try to eet mM any way. Tf he can’t get in the ring he will get in the side or he ‘will hang on to the trap and be pulled out of the water. Mr. Youne. It is a fact; we know it. Secretary Reprievp. It is a fact, isn’t it? Mr. Youne. You catch the best lobsters on the outside of the trap, sometimes. Secretary Reprieip. I have seen it 50 times. Mr. Youne. Certainly. Pull them up with the trap and take them off in the boat. Mr. Focunp. It may be of some interest to merely state some ex- periments that were carried on up on the coast of Nova Scotia in regard to the efficacy of regulating the space between the two lower laths on either side. We set some traps so arranged, baited, and put others with no bait in them; put lobsters in them and put them out. We found in the instances in which the traps were not baited that all the lobsters that were small enough went out. And so in the trap where the bait was out the lobsters went out. And it may also be 31950—18—— 10 146 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE, stated that following that experiment—though it was not adopted in Canada and has not been yet—that Newfoundland took it up two years ago, and Newfoundland is following it to the present time and using it as of very material advantage as controlling the minimum size of lobsters that may be taken. That is the existing law in Newfound- land. Secretary Reprieip. There was one interesting matter brought out in the testimony of Mr. Young and Mr. Cox which I want to be sure and understand correctly, and that is that when the lobster passes a certain size he is not as marketable. That, I think, is the faet. Mr. Youne. Yes, sir. pages ary Reprrenp. And about what size would you put that? ir. Youne. When a lobster is 3 pounds or over we do not want ical not like to take him, Secretary Reprievp. I would like to ask Dr. Smith 1f lobsters larger than that are not the most productive ? Dr. Smire. A lobster weighing 3 pounds is two or three times as productive of eggs as one weighing a pound and a half. Secretary Reprisup. What does that mean in figures, approxi- mately? Go outside the facts—imagine a 4-pound lobster. What will that produce in eggs as compared with a pound and a half lob- ster ¢ Dr. Smirn. I can work it out for you in tabular form very quickly. or every increase of 2 inches in size there is double the number of eges produced. Secretary Repp 1ELD. So that you mean by that Dr. Surry. Say, starting with a 10-inch lobster, which we will assume nroduces 10,000 eggs, a 12-inch lobster will produce 20,000 eggs and a 14-inch lobster will produce 40,000 eggs, until you get the maximum, which is something over 100,000 eges. Secretary Reprieup. The interesting part of that, it seems to me, is to be found in the fact that the lobsters which are of the least commercial value are of the largest value for reproduction, Dr. Suiru, For keeping up “the supply. Secretary: Reprietp. That is a very important fact, if it is a fact, Mr. Young. Mr. Youne. May I ask the doctor a quecuon® Would it be more valuable to liberate the lobsters up to 10$ inches than it would to save those over 15 from a propagation standpoint! 2 Dr. Surrn. Well, at the present time the productive capacity of the lobster scales 1s much greater for the smaller lobsters, be- cause those lobsters are much more numerous. In normal times, before man had begun to make his depredations, it was the larger lobsters on which the future supply depended. So that if we could secure anything like a reestablishment of the normal by any protec- tive legislation which was feasible, then the future lobster supply, in my Opinion, ought to be safeguarded by the protection of these older lobsters, which have the least market value. Does that answer your question ? Mr. Youne. Yes. What I have always thought was that a lob- ster—if you allow a lobster to get to 104 inches, he has had time enough after maturity to produce his kind once or twice, and it would be more effective, considering the large number that would re- produce, than to save those over 18 inches. I can’t help but, think AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 147 that if you kill all your chickens you can’t get any old hens some day or other. If you catch all your small lobsters, you will not get any old lobsters over 13 inches a little later. That is my point. Secretary Reprisup. That is a good point. Has the gentleman come from the Boston Lobster Co. ? | No response. | Pending his coming I want to raise another phase of the subject having to do with the general proposition which we are studying on the matter of the mutual relations of the Canadian and American vessels. I am. a little bit surprised and very much interested not to hear any- one raise the matter of the Canadian bounty upon fishing. I would like to ask Capt. Young whether that is, in his mind, an important factor. Capt. Cart C. Youne. I will take that up in Gloucester to-mor- row. To my mind it is not such a great factor. Secretary Reprrevp. It is not such an important factor? Capt. Youne. No. I do not really think so. I do not really konw how large it would amount to to-day, but I was talking in regard to that the other day, and I thought it amounted to pretty nearly $10 a ton per vessel. Secretary Reprreip. That is the reason why I am bringing the matter up. Chief Justice Hazmn. After the abrogation of the treaty of Wash- ington there was an arbitration for injury done to the fishing, and the result of that arbitration was an award of $5,500,000. Of that amount $1,500,000 went to Newfoundland and $4, 000 000 came to the Dominion of Canada. The Parliament of Canada decided to make a fund of that, and it was invested at 4 per cent, and the in- terest was to be paid every year for the encouragement of deep-sea fishing and the encouragement of construction of fishing vessels. And it amounts to this: $160,000 is divided every year among all those people engaged in our fisheries. No fishing vessel can get over $80—the most it can get is $1 a ton up to $80. The men on the fishing vessel—_the most they have ever got—it varies—t} he most they have ever got is $6.15. ‘The boats get. $1 apiece. Those engaged in the boat “fishing get $1 apiece for each boat and the men engaged in the boats something like $4.25. Sometimes it runs down as low as $3 something. It varies with the number of men engaged in the business. I have heard this matter discussed as being a large bounty. I have heard it discussed that a bounty was paid on the catch of the fish, as is the case with France. The men go out from France and get a bounty from the French Government. But the Canadian bounty is what I have told you. There is no $10 a ton; the most is $1 a ton, and that is limited to vessels of 80 tons. Capt. Youne. I beg your pardon; I know better, because I know there is no vessel that gets over $100. I meant when If said that, $1 aton. Did I say $10 a ton? That is where I made a mistake, because I know it was $1 a ton. It is from $8 to $12 for the boat. Chief Justice Hazun. No; each boat owner gets $1. Capt. Youne. From $8 to $10. Chief Justice Hazen. No; it doesn’t amount to that. Each mai on a boat gets from $3 odd to $4 odd, each man on a vessel gets from $5 odd to $6 odd, depending on the number engaged in the industry. Of course, the total amount can never exceed $160.000, or 4 per cent of the $4,000,000, which was Canada’s share paid by 148 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. the United States, you understand, under the arbitration which fol- lowed the treaty of Washington. Capt. Youne. Well, I meant all right. Chief Justice Hazen. There is no doubt about that; you always mean right, Captain. You have convinced us of that. Secretary Repriptp. Now, there are certain other suggestions: which I should like to make for your consideration and for the in- formation of the commission, asking you to advise us of the facts, either now or later at the session of this afternoon, if you have any facts or know of anyone who has any facts which bear upon the inatters which are before us. It is the information of the commis- sion in a very general way that the food supply of Great Britain from fishing has been cut in half by the war, or more than cut in half by the war. Chief Justice Hazen. It is not a third. Secretary Reprreip. The chief justice corrects me and says it 1s only about a third of what it was; that substantially the entire trawler fleet of Gre at Britain, with such additions as they have been able to make to it, is occupied in the war; that there have been very serious losses to that fleet of vessels destr oyed by mines, torpedoes, and by naval operations generally; that in addition to that the fleet has been under wear and tear and the war has made impossible the up- keep to any normal degree for a period of nearly or quite three years past, and that that condition still continues; that the shipbuilding capacity of Great Britain is overtaxed with the demands of the navy and of the merchant fleet; that for a considerable period after the war the shipbuilding industry of Great Britain will necessarily be severely taxed in order to restore the merchant fleet to its former di- mensions. Incidental to that you, of course, know that so great has been the demand for shipbuilding in Great Britain that, although the war has been in progress and her navy in active use during the war, it is officially, I believe, published that the navy of Great ‘Britain i 1s to-day double the size 1t was three and one-half years ago. Conse- quently, the commission have this general information: That the fish- ing fleet—the steam trawler fleet I am speaking of now—ot Great Britain is in a condition where it is quite unequal to the demands made upon it for food, and that the close of the war seems likely to find it, 1f the war shall long continue, even jess equal to meeting those demands. The people of Great Britain have made great sacrifices in the way of their food—greater than we have yet dreamed of mak- ing—and they must look forward to a considerable time following the war in which it will be necessar y to restore this fleet to its normal dimensions, which will take a considerable time, if you remember the demands, to build some millions of tons of merchant shipping at that time. I am not telling you all these things to inform you; I am speaking of them as the information which in a very general way is before us. I am not making an official statement of fact, but simply summarizing briefly the information we have, in the thought that there will be those among you who, having knowledge of the matter, may yourselves inform us later as to whether in any degree these things are right or wrong, incorrect or correct. The apparent situation that is brought before the commission, then, is one in which it does not seem to be physically possible to have any very rapid or any very large entry from the ‘other side of AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 149 any new element in the genie competition of the North Atlantic from the source that I have suggested. If that is true, to the extent it is true it is a very important factor in the matter that we are dis- cussing. And I think perhaps it would only be fair to say, in behalf of the general fishing fraternity at large, that there perhaps is no more wonderful story, full of romance, “ot heroism, of self- sacrifice, than that same story of the English trawlers in the North Sea during the three winters and summers that have gone by, when, without re- gard to their own safety or comfort, they have fought the fight in which you and I are just as much interested as they, at a fearful cost to themselves, and without thought of life or anything of the kind. It is one of the most heroic stories in the world—that of these merchant fishermen called into this very terrible service. They are becoming more familiar with German mines than they were with the fish which it was their habit to catch. But it has a bearing upon the general economic situation of the world. 1 want to ask if there is anybody here who is able to inform the commission as to the extent to which fresh fish are brought into Boston or Gloucester from other countries than Canada. Is there brought in here any quantity of fish from Newfoundland ? Mr. Grocre E. Wray. I think through the bureau we could give you the figures of the imports from Novo Scotia—in fact, all points—of fresh fish for any period you might like. Secretary Reprretp. I think we can get the customs records, and have asked for them. But what I want to get at very candidly is the extent to which this proposition we are discussing, of allowing Canadian vessels to come from the banks direct into Boston or else- where and to go back direct to the banks—the extent to which that really comes as a factor in the normal operation of the business. Now, if we have got plants enough—American plants enough— to supply all the demands of this” country, that is one thing; if we have not, that is a very different thing. If we need for our own food supply to call upon other countries for supplies of fresh fish, and are doing it, then the question whether we will facilitate in a small degree the movement of that supply is very different from what it would be if we had an abundant oversupply and were simply adding to the facilities in the way I speak of. Now, is it not a fact that fresh fish, or fish of some kind, is imported not only from Newfoundland but even from across the sea? Is it not a fact that fresh fish is imported—or fish—either fresh fish or salted fish, is imported from the Irish coast into New England? Isn’t that a fact? It is, is it not, sir? Mr. C. F. Wonson. Yes, sir. STATEMENT BY MR. C. F. WONSON, REPRESENTING GLOUCESTER SALT FISH CO. Mr. Wownson. I was waiting for the commission to come to Gloucester; I was simply a spectator, and I would rather be a lis- tener than to talk. But your remarks give me an idea, and I think I can, from my standpoint at least, furnish a little light. We in Gloucester have conveniences as a very large distributor ‘of fish food, particular salt-fish foods, but we have not, and have not had for some hittle time—and from the indications now under the new demand 150 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. which has been created by the Government publicity—we have not the facilities for supplying the material. There is no question about that; and I think that when you come to Gloucester to-morrow, you ‘gentlemen, you will get unanimous testimony to that effect. That must be the honest presentation. We have not the material ; we have not the conveniences for securing the material from our own American vessels. The raw material must come from outside, both fresh and salt. As a distributing center I think we have the plant sufficient. We can do a very much larger business than we are doing at the present time. The unprecedented demand which has been created from one cause and another—principally, I think, from the publicity work of the Government—has been such this year that none of the plants in Gloucester, even the largest, have been able to supply anywhere near the demand. My own plant, which supplies wholesale a half million dollars worth of fish products, has turned down this present year more business than ever, and that business in itself 1s twice as much as the business has ever developed in any year previous in the last 18 years. It has been a peculiar situation. The demand for the product has been such, and so in- sistent, that jobbing houses have been apparently willing to pay almost any price—any asking price. The ordinary demand from regular customers has given each house so much business that few, if | any, of us have been desirous of any new business. And time after time, in replying to a request for quotations, prices have been named to-customers that were extortionate, and, I will tell you frankly, simply because we did not want the business, But we couldn’t refuse them—the order came back. Now, that is the condition generally, and it is a condition that is not going to be materially affected after this war is over. The country is being educated, thanks to the United States Government, that fish is a pretty good thing to eat. We people in the fish busi- ness—and I, like my friend here, have been in it all my life, and my father and grandfather before me, and we have not had the business brains enough to educate the people of this country in re- gard to fish. Right in my own town of Gloucester, a fishing town, you would think that everybody there would eat fish even “out of patriotic feeling for the business of the city. -On account of the present condition and high price of other food products very many of my personal friends have asked me to send them over a box of fish, and I do so readily. This is something that happened only two nights ago. The cashier of one the banks, sitting in the board of trade rooms, said, ‘““ Have you got any more of that fish?” And I said, “ Yes; but you haven’t used up all IT sent you last week?” “Yes,” he said, “it is all gone; everybody that comes in, my wife serves this fish ‘to them, and they s say, ‘ Where did you get that nice fish ; never had anything like that before’; send me over twice as much.” He said, “ Prior to that box of fish I got from you—and I @ot it because everybody was talking fish and I thought it was about time for us to help out the situation by eating some fish—but,” he said, “ prior to that box of fish I got from you we hadn’t had any fish in our house and had not served any on our table for three or four vears.” Now, what do you think of that, gentlemen? And that was not fresh fish, it was cured fish. And that is being done all over the country. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Ip Chief Justice Hazen. I think the people throughout the country have forgotten how to cook salt fish. There is nothing more de- - jicious. Mr. Wonson. True. That is one thing we have failed to do in the salt-fish business. The fr Bane fish people have been wiser, and they are distributing all over the country pamphlets, recipes, ways of cooking fresh fish. We, the ee people, have done it in a small way, but not generally. We haven’t made it large enough. That is the trouble now. Most people don’t know how ‘to cook it. It is a little more trouble, I will admit, to cook a piece of salt fish pal- atably—not only in the cooking but in the pre paration and the serv- ing—than it is to take a nice sirloin steak and throw it on the griddle: but if it is done right, gentlemen, you have one of the most delicious dishes you can find anywhere. Chief Justice Hazen. I entirely agree with you. Mr. Wonson. Now, gentlemen, from a personal standpoint in my own particular business, I want material. I do not care where it comes from: give me ma iterial. And I will put out the goods, sell the goods. It is a selfish standpoint. But in the larger aspect of it I believe it is for the benefit of the country as a whole. and that is what I am working for. I will sacrifice my ‘personal ambition or any personal monetary gain for myself if any man can show me that it is for the good of the countr y. And thisis. And if there was any- thing that pleased me dast night at the banquet it was to hear an official of the United States Government put the thing right down on a good, square, cole basis. That is the way I like to hear a man talk. And, Mr. Secretary, you can rely upon me every time; and there are a lot of us that will back you right up. Now, get the facts— and that is exactly what you are doing. You are getting the facts, the way you are proceeding, to settle the thing. If it hurts me, I will stand for it—and everybody else will. We have to get over this idea anne because we are interested in a particular line it has got to be protected to the exclusion of every other citizen of the United States. That has been done too long, and it has been bad for our country. TI tha nk vou, gentlemen. By the way, I have not given you a chance to ask any questions. I will answer any question you ask, if I can. Dr. Surra. Mr. Wonson, are you the owner of any fishing v essels ¢ My. Wonson. NG sir. Iam a curer and a distributor. Dr. Saar. You have been the owner of fishing vessels? Mr. Wownson. Only of small boats, and never remunerative. If have always gotten out of it justas quickly asT could. But properly handled v esvel ownership is very remunerative. The fact that it was not so in our case was our own fault. We sent vessels for years out of @incecters sc large fleet. as you know, Mr. Smith. I guess we had not educated the trade up to eating fish: we outted the market on our own salt fish; paid the vessels not thing. The crews on the co- operative plan made very little; they couldn’t maintain themselves and families. We turned around because we hadn’t developed the trade. We scold ie goods without any profit—hardly enough to pay overhead expenses. And it was one of the most pitiable things that ever happened. Gloucester, which was an old fishing town, having developed 15, 20, or 25 individual firms. all vessel owners ose fel- Jews worked from dayhght to dark—economic: they 152 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. ran those vessels for years and years and at the end went bankrupt With an investment of anywhere ‘from $50,000 to $200,000 or $300,000, and went bankrupt simply because we didn’t know enough about the business to develop the demand so that people were willing to pay a fair price for a first-class food product. Secretary Reprreto. Mr. Wonson, are you familiar with the city of St. Louis? Mr. Wonson. I don’t know but very little about western cities. Secretary Reprienp. Do you know how fish is sold in St. Louis? Mr. Wonson. Salt fish, you mean ¢ Secretary Reprrexvp. Any kind, Mr. Wonson. No; I can’t say that I do. Secretary Reprievp. I am not making a special point about St. Louis, but Iam simply speaking of it as a typical inland city. Has there ever been, to your knowledge, since you have been in the fish business, any definite attempt on the part of the business at large to cultivate continuously a market for fish in a city like St. Louis? Mr. Wonson. None whatever in my whole recollection. Secretary Reprreyp. Well, now, do you suppose that the cotton merchants send their traveling salesmen to sell cotton @oods? They do, don’t they ¢ Mr. Wonson.. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprrecp. Don’t you suppose that the steel mills send their traveling salesmen to St. Louis to sell steel ? Mr. Wonson. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprretp. Well, is it a fact, then, that there has not been an attempt on the part of the fishing interests that you repre- sent at large to take the same methods that have been used by other American industries to establish their products in these great central markets ? Mr. Wonson. Yes; I must have misunderstood your question. That has been done. We send out traveling men Secretary Reprrevp. Yes, I know; but are they sent out—and this 1S quite import: int, it seems to me—are they sent out for the purpose of training the community in the use of these goods, or are they sent out to individual customers whom you w ant to @et an order from ? Mr. Wonson. Yes. That is what I thought you meant. No, not to any degree; but if you will allow me a wor d I will say that we have one concern in Gloucester which has done that to a more or less extent. The present Gorton-Pew Co. started in business—Slade Gorton Co.—iniroduced a specialty, and they did that successfully. They proved the eflicacy of that method. They would send out mis- sionaries and workmen and create a demand from the consumer, from the householder, for their business. Secretary Reprizip. Was it a successful enterprise ¢ Mr. Wonson. Very; indeed. . Chief Justice Hazen. Have you sent out people who gave demon- trations of the methods of cooking salt fish ? Mr. Wonson. It has not been done to any extent. I think im a verv small way through buyers by the Gorton-Pew people. It has been done more by cooking schools in different sections of the country, and they have taken over our product, samples, and have demon- strated what could be done with them. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 1538 Secretary Reprievp. It is possible, in your judgment, Mr. Wonson, to add to the demand for fish food on the part of the country’s population ? Mr. Wonson. Why, it has scarcely been touched, Mr. Secretary, I think. Secretary Reprierp. You regard the opportunity as open there ? Mr, Wonson. Oh, yes. Secretary Reprrevp. Well, suppose that each familv in the Tnited States were induced to use a pound a week more fish. Figuring on 20,000,000 families, you would have approximately 80,000,000 pounds a month more fish consumed. Are there facilities known to you to exist to supply that demand 4 Mr. Wonson. Not in this country. Secretary Reprrep. Or in Canada? Mr. Wownson.. No, sir. Secretary Reprretp. Are the facilities available from any source 4 Mr. Wonson. Not anywhere; no. Secretary Reprimip. And yet is it not the fact that such a state of affairs would still mean that we were eating about only one-third the amount of fish food that other nations eat / Mr. Wonson. Surely. Secretary Reprisip. That is the fact, is it not ? Mr. Wonson. It is, undoubtedly. Secretary Reprrevp. Then do the commission gather from what you say that there is an untouched opportunity available ? Mr. Wonson. Almost. Secretary Reprrevp. Practically a virgin soil. Mr. Wonson. Almost, sir. It just requires energy and efficient management. But as you made the statement, I think, yesterday or last night—while the Government was per fectly ready to supply the men and the money to develop this demand, you wanted to be assured of our power to produce the goods. Secretary Reprietp. Produce the eoods. Mr. Wonson. You were just right. We can’t do it to-day. Secretary Reprirevp. We are ready to put on a man and get in behind the proposition of adding to the fish-food demand, but we must be reasonably certain that now or in the near future there will be created the means of supplying that demand, otherwise we will be in a very peculiar position of creating a demand for which there was no supply. Now, T was thinking something of my own experience while on this question, and to my mind—I may be wrong; I want you to correct me if T am—this is a very much larger ques- tion, twenty times larger question, than the admission of all the vessels of the world to American ports. The one is by comparison trivial; the other is by comparison enormous. If we are right in thinking that there exists an unused possibility here, then the serious question 1s, How and where are we going to get the means for filling the demand? Now, I can tell you “that I know that in the city of Washington there are families that are, so to speak, specializing on rabbits to-day. They do not want to buy meat—the meat supply is scarce—the fish, when you pay 40 cents or 50 cents a pound for hali- but, as is charged in the retail market, is expensive, and I was in a family a short ‘time ago where they soberly were buying canvas-back ducks, which are common on Chesapeake Bay, relatively, because they ibsye! AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE, were cheaper than fish and cheaper than meat. Now, these are the big things. If it is possible, as we think it is—and we have had some experience introducing fish food ourselves—you find no diffi- culty, Dr. Smith, in introducing fish food ? Dr. Smrru. None whatever. Secretary Rupristp. Has your propaganda in putting fresh fish on the farm—in the pond—been taken up willingly? Dr. Suir. It has been taken up with avidity. Secretary Reprietp. There is an enormous demand. I speak of the plan which you may have heard of—of saying to the farmer, “Make a little pond on your farm, dam any old brook you have got and get a pond; or if you have got a pond, clean it out; we will furnish fish to stock your ‘pond, and all we will ask you to do is to tell us how the old thing works ”—and that is seized upon. And we are taking fish from the Pacific and bringing them into the Plains States, and we can’t begin to supply the demand. Trainloads won’t supply it. There is a “demand, so far as our experience goes for anything. We are running fifty-odd hatcheries in different parts of the country and there is an untouched field here. I will mention now something that New England people smile at, and that is the old, despised, New England dogfish, which is now on the market as grayfish. I suppose the largest order for canned fish ever placed in the United States was placed for an order of gray- fish—43 carloads in one order. An entirely new project. And all we could fill out of that order was 800,000 cans, because we couldn’t get the tin cans. That shows what is possible to be done. To- day the steamers are coming into American ports bringing whale meat, which is absorbed at good prices by the Pacific coast, where it is served on the tables of all the leading hotels im Seattle, San Francisco, Portland, Los Angeles, and San “Diego. A Vorce. What is it served as? Secretary Reprrevp. Whale meat. And in my home, the cook that cooked and served whale meat on my table two weeks ago doesn’t know to this day that she wasn’t cooking beef. Now, i these things are true—and Mr. Wonson confirms them in a meas- ure—then all we have to do in this country is to get busy to find the means of meeting the demand. For I take it that no demand of the kind ever grows less, that the taste for fish food has never in history been known to go off when once established, and that if we can bring the American people up to one-third of ‘the standard of Great Britain it must mean for the fishing ports of the country the most strenuous life they ever knew. So that instead of saying, “Thou shalt not,” must they not in self-defense say to ev erybody who can bring a ash in, be it in a canoe or what not, wherever it may come from—South Africa, Canada, Ireland, Liberia—wherever it comes from, “For God’s sake bring us every fish you can get, because we are going to need it all”? But all we can get for years to come is not going to be sufli- cient. Now, candidly, I am afraid I am going to make good on my proposition if I can find the man. We have got the money. But I am afraid that in six months we will be up against it. We sent a man 1,000 cases of grayfish to Baltimore, thinking @ they would last all season. He sold them in a week. It was gone. “Tam afraid that at the end of six months we will be right up against an eni- AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. - 155 bargo because there are not physical means sufficient in Canada and the United States taken together to furnish the material that the country will call for. Now, a hope I am wrong, and I am not making a speech here. I want to get the truth, and you know it, probably, better than I. We just see one end. FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. JOHN BURNS, JR., REPRESENTING THE BAY STATE FISHING CO. Mr. Burns. Speaking of what this country requires, more par- ticularly on the fresh fish, it seems to me that we have not 20,000,000 families to draw upon. We are necessarily confined to certain ter- ritory in the shipment of fresh fish. We get some small shipments as far West as Chicago on fresh shipments. But most of our native codfish, so to speak, come in here in the old-fashioned sailing ves- sels and our steam trawlers, are landed at the port of Boston, and are distributed in this vicinity. They go at certain seasons of the year as far south as Baltimore and ‘Washington in limited quantities, New York at the present time is a good-sized market, and Phila- delphia and through Pennsylvania and Connecticut and the New England States. That takes the bulk of our fish. Now, it is abso- lutely impossible to reach many points beyond that region, Therefore, naturally, we are confined in a smaller territory than the whole of the United States for the distribution of fresh fish. That, of cou does not apply to Mr. Wonson, because he is in the salt-fish business. They can be landed as long as they have the facilities for handling them and can be sent to any distant point. But as far as concerns the fresh fish, which is the business of Boston, we have to be very careful on the overproduction. At the present time anything can be sold at good prices. Taking into consideration the fleet equipped to do an y fishing, we have working out of Boston 10 trawlers—or we will say 94 traw vlers, as one of them will not catch a full share—and that has been about the average number of steam trawlers occupied in the business for several years since we have been doing business. In 1917 these nine vessels produced about 33,000,000 pounds of fish. Now, we have under construction steam trawlers that naturally would be occupied in fishing that are now taken by the Government, the Navy Department. We would have added vithin the next 12 months or thereabouts 29 new steam trawlers. That is calling those now taken.by the Government as new. In other words, we have seven trawlers which the Navy is using as mine sweepers. We have under construction, which are about “ready for launching, 22 steam trawlers, for the most part of a much larger type than the vessels we are now fishing, with the exception of the two Gorton-Pew vessels, which are of the full capacity. That is 29 against 10 that within the next 12 months I believe will be sailing out of the port of Boston. It is a tremendous increase, figuring that 10 vessels produce 33,000,000 pounds. Now, that is a very delicate, perishable article of food, and we simply can’t reach distant points with it. It has got to be cured or otherwise taken care of before we can go much beyond the Missis- sipp! Valley, and they will use very limited quantities. ‘The southern fisheries, as you all know, have been practically destroyed for want of men and equipment. The past year or so Gloucester has sold out 156 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. its fleet because they couldn’t man them successfully. It was not profitable for them to man their vessels, and therefore, as I under- stand it, they have sold some 120 vessels within a short period that might be producing fish to-day. And from an investment standpoint we certainly have got to be more or less careful that we don’t over- produce and cause these vessels to fish without gain. We must have an mdependent production; there is no question about that; and an overproduction at a price that they couldn’t fish successfully at would be the worst thing that could happen to the industry. It cer- tainly would not attract capital to the extent of the construction of 22 new trawlers. The business has got to be made attractive for people to invest their money in it. The vessels that.are being built to-day are costing approximately $150,000 to build. Secretary Reprieirp. Before you leave, Mr. Burns, there is one thing I want to ask. You can reach with fresh fish as far as the Mississippi River ? Mr. Burns. In limited quantities. Secretary Reprienp. And how far south? Mr. Burns. We have gone as far as New Orleans this past winter, but very unsuccessfully. The fish are now in cold storage in New Orleans and in one or two other States in the South. The fish that we shipped in the green state did not meet with any satisfaction. Secretary Reprretp. Now, this seems to be, then, the fact: That Great Britain uses in normal times, with a population of about 45,000,000, 4,000,000,600 pounds of fish purchased on the fresh fish basis. We use, with a population of 100,000,000, rather less than half that amount—2,000,000,000 pounds of fish. Now, in this area that you can reach by your own statement, you have seven-tenths of the entire population of the United States. You have 70,000,000 of people. Consequently, it would seem possible to increase the sale if we have the goods to sell very largely before we reach any- thing like the proportions that Great Britain uses. Great Britain, with 45,000,000 people, uses 4,000,000,000 pounds: in the area you can reach you have 70,000,000 people, and yet in the whole country . we use but 2,000,000,000 pounds. It would seem as if, should we reach the same level of consumption that Great Britain reaches IT don’t know that we can—if we did, however, you would have three times, within the territory you speak of, the sale of fish that now exists in the whole United States. Now, why is it not feasible to make some marked attempt in that direction? Oh, Mr. Burns, your 29 vessels, and 29 more, and a third 29 more, would be swamped out of sight by the demand of 70,000,000 of people if the demand among those 70,000,000 rose to half that which it is per capita in Great Britain. And you would have to count as Grimsby counts trawlers—not by the dozen, but by the hundred—in order to meet that demand. That is what seems to me to be the sober truth; now, if it is not the truth I want to know it. Now, isn’t this also the truth? That a fresh fish store, adequately equipped and given six days in the week for the sale of fresh fish and sea food generally, is most uncommon bevond the Allegheny Moun- tains. How many of us know of the existence of one? Now, I am in the center of the fishing industry of the country and I am speak- ing to experts in this line. How many of you know of the existence of such a store? There may be many, but I never saw any. How AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. IL many know of the existence of a fresh fish store, adequately equipped with storage facilities, anywhere west of Pittsburgh? Isn’t it a fact, or is it a fact, that the fish business is done on Friday morning by the butcher? Isn’t that the fact throughout that west- ern country? It may not be so, but I ask for information. Isn’t it feasible to put in the mouths of the miners of Pittsburgh the same kind of fish food that they were accustomed to eat before they left Europe? It is not done. Isn’t it feasible to do it? Now, these are questions which affect the Department of Commerce. I am ready to get in and help to do those things, and put men on the road to meet that situation. STATEMENT BY MR. GEORGE C. FITZPATRICK, OF BOSTON. Mr. Firzparricx. I would like to ask you a few questions in re- gard to your statement. Secretary Reprrevp. I am not making statements; I am asking questions. Mr. Frrzparrick. I would like to ask, in view of the fact that this statement has been made, two or three things. What are those 29 trawlers going to do in the meantime? What does the bureau stand ready to do? Are they ready to run a train of refrigerator cars down on the pier-—— Secretary Reprretp. One at a time. Will you have them answered ? Mr. Firzparricx. For instance, when 10 big trawlers come in, would it be possible to have a train of refrigerator cars come down on the wharf? Secretary Reprienp. I told Mr. Burns last night that if he would agree—that if this thing were taken up on a large scale I would personally go to the Director of Railroads and do my best with him, and I thought I could say trains would be put in position to run from Boston to Chicago as were needed. But I can’t do it unless | am go- ing to be assured that the traffic is to be obtained. Mr. Firzearrick. For instance, here is the men that enter into the consideration for the working out of that problem. If those vessels bring in that fish, and it is not used on the profitable days, these men can’t get compensated. Would the authorities at Washington stand ready to advocate a pension to the fishermen that have fished for 25, 30, or 35 years, so that they would feel that at a certain time in their life they would be provided for, the men that take the chances? I put in a good deal of time at the fish pier, and I observe things where improvements could be made. But the conditions surround- ing the fishing industry—the men engaged in the business have not had the opportunity. They are there from daylight until dark at night trvine to economize, and the business has been carried on for 25, 30, or 35 years, and I never heard of a man retiring yet with a dollar, hardly, from the business. Plug day after day. Now, you want to have those fishermen go out and give their youth, vitality, intelligence—such as it is—and then when they get to be 45, 50, or 55 years old they are thrown into the scrap. Secretary Reprrevp. Mr. Fitzpatrick, pardon me. Mr. Powell, of the Boston Lobster Co., has very kindly come and has waited some minutes, and I feel it is my duty to let him speak now. TI will say that I was not making any suggestion of throwing anybody into the scrap. All that is being done is, as business men, to see if there 158 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE, is a business opportunity, and if so, we are ready to spend the Goy- ernment’s money in helping to develop it. That is all. Is Mr. Powell in the room ? STATEMENT BY MR. AVERY L. POWELL, PRESIDENT OF THE BOSTON LOBSTER CO. Secretary Repririp. Mr. Powell, we are interested to inquire what your experience has been in fishing for lobsters off the Nova Scotia coast with the well smacks. Did you have a number of smacks run- ning down there last year? Mr. Powrnzi. No, sir; we did not. I had one four years ago— three or four years ago—and I took her off. Last year I didn’t send her. In fact, I don’t have any intention of sending her any more. Secretary Repriniup. Why not? Mr. Powetn. Well, there is nothing in it. The fishermen couldn't make money enough to make it pay. Secretary TSaanena p. Why was that, Mr. Powell ? Mr. Power. Well, it took too long for a trip, and the lobsters they caught were undesirable—they were large; they were either large or small, and not very desir abe to handle—and they were so lone on the trip a lot of them died, and finally we gave it up. And, in fact, my smack was lost, anyway, last year. I took her off before she was lost, anyway. Secretary Rrprrecp. To what extent has that business been done, to your knowledge, Mr. Powell? Mr. Power. Well, it has been for three or four years. Secretary Reprieup. How many vessels have oe engaged in it? Mr. Powenn. Well, I think the first year there were three or four. Three. And the next year I think there were four, and then three. I think last year that Mr. Cox was the only one that had a smack down there, as far as I know. Secretary Reprienp. You regard it as a dead industry ? Mr. Powrnn. It is. I don’t think anyone would care to go down there for lobsters. 5 Secretary Reprievp. Mr. Powell, would you favor a law which would prohibit the entrance into any American port of fish caught contrary to the law of any State or country, and which would further prohibit the movement of those lobsters thus unlawfully caught in interstate commerce ¢ Mr. Powetn. Why, yes; I think I w ould. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprimip. Do you think that such a Federal law is nec- essary to the protection of the industry ? Mr. Powetn. I think that there should be a Federal law or some uniform law between all the States so that there would be no intring- ing on any of the States. Secretary Reprrevp. I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Powell. STATEMENT BY MR. F. J. 0°’HARE, FISH MERCHANT. Mr. O’Hare. My business is to represent all the fresh-fish business in Boston, and my experience has been for 55 years catching and sell- ing fish. I think that the sooner we open the doors wide open to all countries the better for the United States. I believe that the Presi- dent’s declaration for a democratic world is the right thing—not 1 corporation or 10 corporations or 50 corporations. Let the people AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 159 get out and rule all the countries. That is what it is coming to, in my opinion; and the sooner it gets to that the better. 1 remember when we had free trade with Canada before on herring and other fish. We were buying stock in there then for less than they could buy it. You ask me why—why it was? We put down cash there to pay for the goods, and we sent our vessels in there and we bought herring anywhere from 25 cents to 50 cents a barrel less than the people down there could buy it, for the reason that we went down with cash and we paid the fishermen cash. Down there they were taking the fish and putting it on the books and paying them in food. Now, I have been in favor of free trade, gentlemen, ever since I went fishing at 16. IL went into the United States Navy very shortly after the Civil War, and I have been in every country of the world except India. I have been in Melbourne, and have made some in- quiries there about the fishing industry there, and I found there that they have prohibitory taxes on their books which stop any American vessel or American corporation going there. I found out they prob- ably would give me a permit for one or two years, not longer than that, but after that they charged me 30 per cent. T said, “That is prohibitive .” They wanted a ‘fishing industry there. One company went from London there, and one went from Scotland, and each one failed for the reason that they couldn’t do the business there. But they are singing out all the time about fish—fish being so high. They can’t get fish. They have been trying to get them. The Gov- ernment over there has spent over $500, 000,000 or more. They found the banks and the fish, but couldn’t get any company to go there and do the fishing. You spoke about rabbits a while ago. There they destroy the rabbits all they can. Every day probably there are 50 rabbits destroyed in the city of Melbourne. I have been there and know all about it. Secretary Reprrevp. I am afraid that I erred, Mr. O’Hare, in in- troducing the subject of rabbits. Mr, O'Hare. You spoke about increasing them here; they are very good food; they are all right. You can live cheap down there on rabbits. And there are some very good lambs down there—the best I ever ate. The beef wasn’t so good. And talking about this coun- try, Mr. Burns makes the statement about 29 trawlers. In Grimsby I think there are over 150. I have’been in all of those countries. 1 am the youngest man here, but the oldest in experience. I am only 70, but expect to live some years yet. I hope you will look at this in a broad spirit, not in a mean spirit. This country has grown large enough in my time to go out and defend itself against any country in alll business propositions of any kind. And I am much surprised that the young men here should get up and talk about the difficulties of this thing and that thing. f nent fishing 15 years, and I will defy anybody to put me down. And I am selling fish 37 years or more. And I am not all in yet. And yet there were some of the men when I started in business— there were then about 15 dealers, and some loved me so much they weouldn’t sell me any goods unless they charged me 2 cents a pound extra. And two or three years afterwards “they were glad to call me off. And I am just the same to-day as I was s then. I am not afraid to fight everybody and everything. I believe the sooner we throw down the bars and open the doors and do business with the world the better it will be for us. 160 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE, Secretary Repripnp. I think we owe Mr. Burns an apology for having imterrupted him. Mr. Burns. Since I am interrupted, I will stop mght here. Mr. M. A. Nickerson (of the Boston Lobster Co.). May I be allowed to make a new and very carefully considered statement Secretary Reprinnp, Wait just a minute, please. I will ask Con- gressman Lufkin, who is here, to speak to us, if he desires to do so. I do not wish to be understood, from what I said, as urging any sudden, rash or immediate overthrow of any existing business, or any attempt for somebody or anybody that wants to build a great shipyard and go very largely into immediate construction. Nothing so rash and radical as all that. Least of all, to be understood as inplying any eriticismi——not in the least. But simply this: To offer a suggestion for what it may be worth. It may be worthless; let it be so shown. ‘That is the way we learn. But merely to offer a suggestion as to what seems a possibility, and a possibility more or less confirmed by the experts, the @entlemen who are here. We are here, not to urge any cause, not to “promote any propaganda, we are here to study a "aubyéet in all its phases, little and large, and to listen and to think and to learn, I do not know whether there are quite as many vessels sold from nes as Mr. Burns speaks of. We have the record of all the sales and they show from Gloucester, each year singularly enough, 11 ships for the last four years. That is all. And the total number of vessels sold of all kinds is not ye as large as Mr. Burns fears. Does Congressman Lufkin care to say : word ? | STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN WILLFRED W. LUFKIN, OF ESSEX, MASS. Mar. Lurnin. Mr. Secretary and Commissioners: I have come on here from Washington to receive information rather than to give it. I suppose that whatever your commission Jaa eat will require legislation by the Canadian Parliament and by the American Con- eress, and LT wanted to hear what the commission had to offer; and also—which ts rather important with men holding elective posi- tions—what my constituents have to offer. So that I think for to- day T will simply sit stall and listen, and T understand you are going to Gloucester to-morrow and I shall probably listen a great deal there also, and perhaps with a keener ear. Secretary Rueprienp., State Senator Brown is here, and if he de- SIVes: A Vorcr. He has gone, Secretary Reprinup., Tam sorry not to have given him an oppor- (unity earlier, but I think he will be with us to-morrow at Gloucester, Chief Justice Hazen. You spoke about being in the fish curing business and distr ibutine business, Ma. Wonson. Do you export any cured fish to points outside the United States? Mir. Wonson. Not directly, but some others export cured fish to South and Central America—Porto Rico. Chief Justice Hazen. Is that any considerable portion of your business ? Mr. Wonson. Quite considerable, particularly this year. Secretary Reprimip. What is the style of your business? Mr. Wonson. The Gloucester Salt Fish Co _AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 161 Chief Justice Hazen. What are the fish you export, chiefly ? Alewives? Mr. Wonson. Oh, no, sir; dry fish. Chief Justice Hazen. But don’t you cure alewives and sell them ? Mr. Wonson. Yes, sir. We do not get alewives in Gloucester. They come from the surrounding districts in the rivers and are handled and put up and sold for export through New York exporting companies. Chief Justice Hazen. What are the fish that are exported from Gloucester down to the West Indies and South America ? Mr. Wonson. Haddock, pollock; more or less codfish; but the larger proportion is what we call the scale fish—the haddock and hake and pollock. Chief Justice Hazen. Would there be any demand for that class of ground fish in the American market ? Mr. Wonson. Yes, sir; differently cured. Mr. Sweer. It might interest some of us, Mr. Wonson, to know what kind of fish you introduced to your banker friend. Mr. Wonson. The very best codfish. No; I will tell you about that. It was not. I will tell you a little story about that if you will listen for a minute. The first lot that he bought was a slack salt cod- fish. It is rather a tough-fiber fish, but a very excellent flavored fish, and anyone who has ever eaten one, if he can procure One of those again that is properly cured, he will prefer it to anything else. But the kind of fish that he spoke of so highly was the Georges codfish, which to-day means a high-grade codfish. Secretary Reprrerp. The conference will now adjourn, to meet at 2.30 at this place. AFTERNOON SESSION. The conference was resumed at 2.30 p. m., Chairman Redfield pre- siding. STATEMENT BY MR. W. MUNROE HILL, REPRESENTING THE SHATTUCK & JONES CO. Secretary Reprizvp. Mr. Hill, will you be kind enough to give your full name and address? Mr. Hinz. W. Munroe Hill, of Shattuck & Jones, Faneuil Hall Market, fish business. Secretary Reprrecp. What is your specialty ? Mr. Hinz. We are distributors of fish to what we call wholesale consumers—ainstitutions, clubs, and hotels, and families. Secretary Reprievp. Fresh fish ? Mr. Hin. Fresh fish; yes, sir. Secretary Reprrevp. How far do your operations extend, geo- graphically ? Mr. Hirx. Our farthest shipment to-day is Denver. We ship fresh fish to Denver. Secretary Repriexp. Is that a regular matter with you? 51950—18——11 162 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Mr. Hinui. We have a standing order for two shipments a week— less than 100 pounds each shipment—perhaps 50 or 60 pounds each shipment. Secretary Reprizritp. And southward? How far do you reach there? Mr. Hiri. We do not reach very far south; no, sir. We send some salt fish, though, into Georgia to the winter resorts. Secretary Reprretp. Is the tendency of the market toward an in- creasing demand for fish food, Mr. Hill? Mr. Hinz. Yes, sir; ; very much so. Secretary Reprretp. What general statement can you give the com- mission that will indicate the drift of the business? Mr. Hinz. Why, I should think—speaking roughly—that our de- mand was perhaps 50 per cent increased. Secretary Reprietp. In how long has that growth taken place? Mr. Hint. Well, that particular percentage since the meatless day. Secretary Reprrevp. Is it your judgment that the growth of the consumption of fish is ofa permanent character ¢ Mr. Hiri. In my opinion it is; yes, sir. Secretary Reprieip. Has there been any indication, to your knowl- edge, of any tendency to abandon the use of fish food after adopt- ing it? Mr. Hin. No, sir, I feel that the education that they receive in the use of fish an extra day, and in using more of it, that they will keep using it, they will know more about it than they have before and see the value of it. Secretary Reprietp. Well, as you operate your business, are you proceeding on the basis of a pr obable increase in the demand? Mr. Hirt. Yes, sir. emereny Reprietp. Do you have any difficulty in obtaining a supply ? Mr. Hitx. Well, just now, of course, is our rough weather. That is the only handicap that we have. Secretary Reprretp. Are you familiar, from personal knowledge, with the consumption of fish in Great Britain, Mr. Hill? Mr. Hixxy. Well, only in a general way—that I have read that they use a great deal of it there. Secretary Reprieip. Do yeu know why they do? Mr. Hiri. Well, in my opinion, I suppose that possibly it was fairly easy for them to get it, and they have been educated in a way to know the value of it; that is, educated to like it and know about it. Secretary Reprrevp. Has your attention ever been called to the or ganization of the fish business i in Great Britain ? Mr. Hirt. It has not; no, sir. Secretary Reprietp. Do your know whether it is organized on a national basis or not? Mr. Hit. I do not know, sir. Secretary Reprieip. Is it your judgment—can you imform the commission whether, if the fish business in this country were pro- vided with an assurance of regular supply and ample and regular transportation, that a considerable increase in the volume of business is possible ? Mr. Hix. I think so; yes. sir. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 163 Secretary Reprievp. Is the matter of regular transportation vital to the business? Mr. Hit. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprietp. At present are you embarrassed by transpor- tation ? Mr. Hinz. We are having a little trouble on western shipments; yes, si. Secretary Reprietp. Are you taking steps to increase your business im the interior ? Mr. Hiiu. Yes, sir. We have even sent a man out there. Secretary Reprievp. Sent a traveling man? Mr. Hitz. Yes. And we within a year have had one or two brokers—something we have not done before—in large cities. Secretary Reprimrp. Interior cities? Mr. Hit. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprietp. Such as, for example? Mr. Hitz. Cleveland. Secretary Reprrevp. Have you undertaken any educational lines of work? Mr. Hirux. I have lectured before colleges on the different ways of preparing fish. That is, not cooking it, but dressing it; showing the shrinkage that there was in dressing, and the seasons of the year that the fish are more plenty and in the best condition. And I have done that once or twice with colleges; they have requested me to do it. I personally feel there is quite a field for that sort of work, in the way of educating people as to how to handle fish, and the time of the year that certain kinds of fish are better than others. Secretary Reprretp. What college in Boston? Mr. Huu. Simons College. Secretary Reprimip. And where else ! Mr. Huw. I am going to lecture next Friday at the Garland School on Chestnut Street, in Boston. Secretary Reprievp. Then do you regard work of that character— among the women’s colleges, I take it, you mean ? Mr. Hirxu. That is all I have done so far; yes, sir. Secretary Reprirexp. Do you regard work of that character as promising from a business standpoint ? Mr. Hit. Yes, sir; I think it is very beneficial. Secretary Reprretp. Do you think that propaganda of that char- acter, conducted in connection with the schools of domestic economy . throughout the country, would be fruitful ? Mr. Hitt. I do, sir; yes, sir. Secretary Reprievp. I would like to ask Dr. Smith of the commis- sion if, in connection with the work of the Fisheries Service, there has been a spirit of cooperation shown by the teachers in household economics 4 Mr. Smiru. Some of the most effective work we have done in putting before the consuming public these new and neglected fishery products has come from the schools of domestic science of Cornell University, the University of Illinois, and various other institutions of that kind. The women have rendered invaluable aid in that work. Secretary Repriretp. So far as your knowledge goes, Mr. Hill, do you know whether the large interior centers of the country are 164 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. properly equipped for the handling of fresh fish on a considerable scale ¢ Mr. Hinz. Well, my opinion would be that they are not properly equipped to handle it, as you say, on a large scale; but I think— you are speaking on this matter of education—I think they would take it up very readily if they felt that they could get their supply somewhere nearly regular and uniform; for instance, if they were planning to have fish on Friday, that they could feel that the goods would arrive at least a day or two beforehand, so that they could plan to have them. Secretary Reprimip. So that, if I understand you correctly, the certainty of the supply and of the transportation of the supply are two necessary elements to that very large development ? Mr. Hitu. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprintp. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Hill. Is there anybody else who would like to ask Mr. Hill a question? | No response.]| Thank you very much, indeed, Mr. Hill; it is very kind of you to come. STATEMENT BY MR. GARDNER POOLE, PRESIDENT COMMON- WEALTH ICE & COLD STORAGE CO. Secretary Repristp. What is your business, Mr. Poole? Mr. Poors. President of the Commonwealth Ice & Cold Storage Co., in connection with the handling of frozen fish. Secretary Repriztp. Of course, your business is very largely, if not almost wholly, in connection with freezing fish and the storage of fish? Mr. Poors. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprretp. Are you connected with the Food Adminis- tration in any way, Mr. Poole? Mr. Pootr. I have been since August of last year representing Mr. Fowler, who is Mr. Hoover’s assistant in the fish division of the Food Administration. JI have represented him wholly on the fish, representing this New England district. I have been called on sev- eral occasions to Washington on conferences. Secretary Reprrenp. Are you able to say whether there has been a gradual increased demand for fish food within recent months? Mr. Poorer. Yes; a very material increase in demand. Secretary Reprienp. Can you give us any idea as to what the in- crease has been? Mr. Pootn. In this district, the State of Massachusetts, we learn from our local food administrator—tI believe those figures were com- piled by his department—the hotels during the month of Novem- her, taken as an example, were able to conserve 3,000,000 pounds of beef in this section, substituting to a large extent fish. The hotel men report that their increase in the consumption of fish during that period was about 50 per cent over the previous year. I do not be- lieve those figures will bear out for the entire district in the matter of consumption and distribution, because, unfortunately, we have had a very severe winter, and with the shortage of fish, generally speaking—fresh fish in this section—we have been unable to supply the demands. However, we have had, fortunately, a fairly large supply of frozen fish. Those fish have been practically 80 per cent AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 165 distributed and have filled in the gap during this period of extreme scarcity of fresh fish. In Boston we freeze as public-warehouse men. That is to say, the company with which I am identified do no merchandising. We depend upon the disposition, the ability, of the men on the pier to freeze certain products during the producing sea- son. This year we have frozen—handled frozen—about 18,000,000 pounds, in our plant, of fish; about 10,000,000 pounds of that fish have been shipped over seas for the British Government and for, I believe, the allies. Some of that has gone into England, and a large amount into France. About five millions of that was sent over the line from Canada and mobilized in Boston to take advantage of our refrigeration space, sailing from here from time to time; the balance has been frozen here in this market on a contract which was placed here by a Cana. dian company who held a contract with the British Board of Trade, leaving 8,000,000 pounds which we have handled for domestic con- sumption. I think most of the freezers in Massachusetts—I might say New England—are operated on an entirely different basis from ours. On Cape Cod, for instance, the freezers are owned and op- erated by merchandising companies. They have frozen on Cape Cod this year in the vicinity of 12,000,000 pounds of whiting. I think this is the largest amount of fish frozen in this section of the United States. Strange to relate, only less than 100,000 pounds of these fish will be sold and distributed in the New England sec- tion during this year. They are shipped entirely to the West and South. You can imagine, with our increased transportation difficul- ties, it has been some job to get these fish off the cape. I think at the present time perhaps three-fifths of them have been moved. It is very necessary to get these fish into the market during the con- suming season, as it is to get all of our frozen fish disposed of during the consuming season. It is no advantage to carry fish over the 12 months’ period, as we have the 12 months’ cold-storage law in this State. I believe we should have a Federal cold-storage law covering this matter. On Cape Cod this whiting business has developed in a very few years. It is a kind of fish known very little of or eaten very little. The nature of it is soft. It is not shipped in the fresh state. However, I believe that whiting, being frozen early from the water, direct out of the traps on Cape Cod, are perhaps as fresh as any other variety that can be put upon the table of the consumer in this country. Yet through lack of education, perhaps, our own peo- ple do not eat it here in New England. We have started a campaign recently, due to the effort of our local food administrator, in an attempt to bring this to the attention of our own people and educate them to eat it, principally because other varieties in the fresh-fish market have been so high that it was feared there was a class of people perhaps who were not able to get fish at times. We have visited some of our large industrial centers, some of us, and took whiting, and we have interested families, commit- tees—committees on public safety—and so forth, to the extent that they have helped in advertising whiting, bringing it before the peo- ple; and during the last month a considerable increase in demand im New England has been noted from those centers, only illustrating that very little effort in the educationa! line will move these varieties. We have found also that people perhaps are more apt to complain 166 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. about high prices of fish. In sifting down their complaints we find that they have been in the habit of. ‘demanding a luxury variety of fish—halibut, salmon, sea bass, and so forth. In near ly every case— I will say 90, per cent of the cases—I have investigated for our food administrator it has been shown conclusively that “the people are not educated in the use of or in the eating of the cheaper varieties. Pol- lock is not used very largely in this ‘section ; ; It is shipped largely to the South, to the Philadelphia market, to New York, and bey ond. There is very little hake used here. People are not educated in these varieties. However, those people that do know of pollock sometimes owt eat it because they have a prejudice against it. They have heard something about it. I have an instance in mind I can cite of a local market during the season that pollock is very plentiful, putting on a special on a certain day and advertising pollock at very cheap prices. I think it was 4 or 5 cents a pound, “possibly 6 cents. They were unable to sell any. The next day they tagged it up as Boston bluefish and charged 12 cents for it, and they Gleaned it out almost immediately. Now, we have made an attempt through our local food administration to educate the people in the use of these cheaper varie- ties. We have had a great many criticisms—have had criticisms through some of our newspapers for our high prices. That again was due to lack of education. We are perfectly willing at all times to take the newspaper men under our wing, take them on the fish pier and give them a feed of the various varieties of fish and educate them. Secretary Reprmip (addressing newspaper men). You had better go, gentlemen. Chief Justice Hazen. We have been there and can recommend it. Mr. Poors. There is a great field for this line of work. I am myself particularly interested in it and have done a considerable amount of it, not only for our local food administrator, but for the United States Food Administration. However, I believe that we are going to solve the problem some time through the larger use of frozen fish. We were speaking this morning of the limited area over which we can transport fresh fish with safety and keep it fresh under ice. That is very true. In these times it is very trying in shipping car- loads, perhaps, of fresh fish, or barrels or boxes of fresh fish in this section, even to nearby points. We are getting very serious delays. We are getting embargoes from time to time of necessity. We are even havi ing our Fall River line, operating to New York, at times discontinued, which is a severe handicap to the fresh-fish question of Boston. We are having embargoes to Philadelphia, alae and Washington points, making it almost impossible at times to reach these sections with fresh fish. During these times it would take very little of an increased production and over supply to make it very difficult to move in a given period the supply of fish that might arrive here in the summer months during our periods of plenty. Mackerel, for instance. Of course, during those times the men resort to the freezers. And it is well that they do. They put away through the producing season. I know this particular year it has been most fortunate that we have had the supply of frozen fish. We have had agitation in this State; we have had a great deal of adverse criticism from various sources. In one particular case—I think there were several—some of the newspapers advocated throw- ing open the doors of the cold-storage plants and dumping this AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 167 frozen fish out for the people. It is very apparent what would hap- pen if we did that. It is very apparent what would happen if we attempted to move this tremendous quantity of fish during the pro- ducing season through fresh-fish channels. It would be impossible. If we were not fortified with this tremendous stock which we carry in the wintertime all varieties of fish foods would be in the luxury class. We have seen days—we have seen three days running this very winter when we have not had one arrival on the fish pier. Dur- ing those times our dealers have resorted to their stocks of frozen fish. Now, I believe the time is coming, and I know Dr. Smith will tell you of the work Dr. Pennington is doing along those lines, advo- cating the more general use of this means of handling fish, and espe- cially under the “circumstances of the embargo handling frozen fish shipped in refrigerator cars. Frozen fish shipped in “refrigerator ears will stand up at this season of the year for a great length of time; it can not be injured because it is packed in boxes and packed in refrigerator cars where the temperature is held at a very even point. It would be impossible to ship those fish and distribute them through these various centers throughout the United States—an un- limited area. Of course, that is being done largely on the Pacific coast with halibut and salmon. A great deal of that product comes from the East. I have been identified with the halibut industry for a great many years, having spent some eight years on the Pacific coast in that industry. During those years, in the early years of my ex- perience; very little halibut was sold in the interior of the country. Chicago possibly would handle two cars a week, and at times with difficulty. To-day Chicago is a distributing center for a tremendous amount of halibut, being shipped in from Canadian points—Prince Rupert—and from points in our own country. They distribute that fish through the entire section of the Middle West. We have heard at times that it would be impossible to distribute this fish in the summer, even in cold-storage cars. I must confess I was of the opinion that it was not practicable. However, this year has demonstrated that that can be done to a large extent, because of all this 5,000,000 pounds which has been shipped in here from Canadian points, 90 per cent of it came through during the very hot weather of this past summer. I believe the development of this business will produce a better refrigerator car than aa which we have available for fish service to- day. T think it is a matter that we could well apply ourselves to in connection with your department. I believe we are not offered proper facilities at present for the movement of this product. I believe the frozen- fish business is going to grow, and I believe it is going to solve a great many of our pr roblems in the distribution of fish. Boston is a large distributing center for both fresh and frozen fish of the various ground fish v arieties; Cape Cod is a freezing point for whit- ing and mackerel. The State of Maine produces and freezes a lar ge amount of herring. Boston produces a great deal of herring, but some years there is very little of it frozen. We have had some diffi- culty through State legislation restrictions which made it impossible for some fishermen to supply our vessels with a supply of bait. Those restrictions now have largely been removed through the efforts of the food administrator in this section, setting an example for our whole Atlantic coast section. Some of our States have restrictive 168 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. laws on their books which make it impossible to produce certain varieties of fish during the period of most plenty. However, that situation I am not familiar with. Under the circumstances of this present period it is necessary that we have the restrictions removed, and they have been ee I don’t know that I can add anything further, Mr. Secretary. I will be very glad to answer any questions. Secretary Reprimtp. Mr. Poole, what “would be the effect upon the market in its present condition of demand if the supply of fresh fish from Canada were cut off. Mr. Pootn, At the present time, coming into the season you might expect shipments, our market would be shorthanded on some varie- ties. However, I find if fish are scarce with us on account of the elements they are scarce with our brothers across the line. Secretary Reprinip. Taking the statement that about 438,000,000 pounds of fish came into the United States from Canada on the Atlantic coast in the last year, I take it we can agree that that fish came in because it was needed ? Mr. Pootr. Yes. Secretary Reprrenp. It did not come in for any other reason. Suppose that supply of 43,000,000 pounds a year were cut off. Would the effect be to enhance the price of fish in the American markets? Mr. Poour. IT think our price is governed by the law of supply and demand; naturally if you shorten the supply or increase the demand the price will rise. Secretary Reprimiy., Do you think that the consumption of fish in the United States is capable of a considerable expansion through education generally throughout the country ? Mr. Poour. I do; yes, sir. Secretary Reprimnip. Assume for the moment that such education takes place and that there is no material increase in the supply. What, then, in your judgment, would be the effect upon the price of fish ¢ Mr. Pootrn. I think were we to increase our demand materially above our supply, naturally it would place most of our varieties in the luxury class. Secretary Reprirup. Then is it not the necessary conclusion from your experience and from what you have told the commission, that the process of increasing the consumption by education must go hand in hand with the process of increasing the supply? Mr. Pootr. Yes. Secretary Reprienp. From all sources, Mr. Poouw. The fish business is a peculiar one. It is very hard to regulate either. We can’t put our finger on the man that wants to eat fish to-day; we don’t know—he may want to eat it to-day, or he may not; he may want to save his appetite until a week from to-day. On the other hand, we can’t put our finger on our supply at any one time. We here have million-pound days, we have days when we have less than 100,000. It is very uneven. It makes it very difficult at times to move the supply through our regular chan- nels for those reasons, Secretary Reprieup. Is it not a fact that vour reserve of fresh fish acts as a moderator of that very condition ? AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 169 Mr. Poorn. It does after we educate the people against this preju- dice also. Secretary Reprmeup. Is there anything in the fish business, to your knowledge, Mr. Poole, which corresponds to the distributing equipment possessed by the meat packers ? Mr. Poouz. No; I can’t say that we have an organization or the facilities for distr ibuting fish, either fresh or frozen, that the meat packers have. Secretary Reprietp. It appears to be the fact—if I am not correct in this statement, i will be glad to be corrected—it appears to be the fact that when the packing and shipping of fresh fish became a great industry, or perhaps I would better say, in order that it night be- come a great industry, and at the time when it was sought to make it a great industry, the business was found to lack the equipment nec- essary for regular and safe transportation of a perishable product, and that out of that has grown the familiar refrigerator car which everybody sees in every freight yard and the depots throughout the country bearing the familiar names of the packers with which we are all familiar. Is it not singular that nothing corresponding to that system of distribution has taken place with fresh fish or frozen fish? Mr. Pootr. We have one company, I think, operating in the United States on similar lines—the Booth Fisheries Co., with headquarters in Chicago, and they have some 50 branches throughout the United States. I think they have a line of refrigerator cars. I think their system more nearly equals that of the meat packers. They can do that practically, having these branches. Their facilities are correct for distribution because of these branches, and they operate in all sections of the United States. Secretary Reprrevp. Has that, to your knowledge, resulted in an increase in the distribution of fresh fish by those methods? Mr. Poors. I think it has on fresh-water fish, not on salt. Secretary Reprrevp. Do they make a specialty of fresh-water fish ? Mr. Pootr. They do. Secretary Reprretp. That has, then, so far as the nature of their product goes, resulted in an increase? Mr. Poorn. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprietp. Are you sufficiently familiar with the general frozen-meat industry to be able to say or to express an opinion. for the commission as to whether, in your judgment, the methods of dis- tribution which we have mentioned have been a considerable factor in the distribution of fish throughout the country ? Mr. Poors. Yes; I think they have. The product is very different to handle from fish. Fish are shipped under ice; beef shipments are chilled. ‘There is not the element of danger in transportation. Secretary Reprrerp. I think I understood you to say—or perhaps I inferred from what you said, Mr. Poole—that you thought it possi- ble that a better car could be devised for the purpose of handling either fresh or frozen fish ? Mr. Poor. Yes. Secretary Reprretp. Have any steps been any such car? Mr. Pootr. I think Dr. Pennington has made some suggestion—I think Dr. Smith might answer that question. 4+ taken toward devising 170 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Beceiay y Reprrevp. Dr. Smith? Dr. Smirru. There have been experiments along that line, sir, but I am not sure they have been given practical effect yet. Secretary Reprievp. I would like to say here that if anybody con- nected with the fish interests in Boston desires assistance along the line of designing such a car we should be very glad to put at their disposal, without expense, skilled refrigerating engineers of the Bureau of Standards of our department to conduct any series of ex- periments, at Government cost, in order to work out the result that might be satisfactory. We are cooperating very closely, as I think Mr. Poole probably knows, with the American Society of Refrigerat- ing Engineers. Nothing can give us more pleasure than undertaking to “aid with our scientific staff in the design of an improved car, if that is thought necessary. Mr. Joun Burns, Jr. If I may add just a word. As Mr. Poole has said, Dr. Pennington has made an exhaustive study of the re- frigerator car. She is one of the best fishmen we have in this coun- try. She certainly knows all about refrigerator cars. You can count them up to 140,000, and when you get to 141,000 she will tell you it is of a certain design and will carry stuff with certain efh- ciency. Secretary Repriztp. Where is Dr. Pennington ? Mr. Burns. The last I heard she was in Pensacola. Secretary Reprietp. Mr. Poole, I want to change the subject, if I may, for 2 moment, and ask if you know of any restrictions which are imposed upon American cold-storage concerns operating in British Columbia or Canada; and if so, what ? Mr. Pootr. I don’t know of any, and I take it from ietenone given by Mr. Arnold yesterday that his company, at least, was allowed to operate—in fact, I know was operating in Canada and Vancouver, freezing and shipping fish. Secretary Reprievp. Is it not a fact that Mr. Arnold’s companies, operating as you describe, are Canadian companies? Mr. Poote. He has one Canadian company—the Canadian Fishing Co., and he also has the New England Fish Co., an American com- pany, both in Vancouver. I think that the American company is operating freezers. Secretary Reprrevp. Have you, yourself, visited the Canadian cities of the West, on the Pacific coast? Mr. Poon. I have. Secretary Reprretp. In connection with the cold-storage business in any way ? Mr. Pootn. No. Secretary Reprievp. Are you fa umiliar with the conditions under which the plants there operate ? Mr. Pootr. Somewhat. Secretary Reprierp. I ask these questions, Mr. Poole, to be quite candid, because the suggestion has been made to the commission— so far as we are able to find, made sincerely, but apparently in error—that there were some restrictions, some inequalities, imposed by Canadian law upon American concerns operating cold-storage plants in Canadian territory. I want to know very candidly if you know of any? AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. legal Mr. Pootz. I think that might apply, although I am not suffi- ciently informed, perhaps, to make a statement. T think that might apply to Prince Rupert. Secretary Reprreip. Yes; that is where it is said to apply. What do you mae about it, Mr. Poole? Mr. Poorer. I don’t know that I am able to say much on that. I know very intimately people operating the cold-storage company at Prince Rupert, which is a Canadian concern. I understand they have a subsidy. Secretary Reprisnp. Yes: it is subsidized. Mr. Poorer. I know that the American boats, as was shown here yesterday, have been landing their fish, salting their fish, at Prince Rupert. Secretary Repripup. Do you know whether there is an American cold-storage plant there ? Mr. Pootr. There is not, I believe. I don’t know of any. Secretary Reprrevp. I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Poole. Is Mr. Wheeler of the Booth Fisheries here? A Vorce. I think he had to go away this afternoon, Mr. Secretary ; I heard him say so this noon. Secretary Reprirtp. Is there anybody representing the Booth Fisheries here this afternoon? |No response.| Is there anybody here who is connected in any way whatever with the Lake Fisheries, or who is interested in any firm representing the interests? [No re- sponse.| Is there any one here who represents the freezing plants upon Cape Cod—those connected with them in any way? STATEMENT BY MR. IRVING M. ATWOOD, REPRESENTING THE CONSOLIDATED WEIR CO. Secretary Reprierp. What is the name of your business, Mr. - Atwood ? r Mr. Arwoov. Connected with the Consolidated Weir Co. Secretary Reprrevp. Where is the plant located, Mr. Atwood ? Mr. Arwoop. Our plant is located at Provinceton, and fish at other places on the coast. Secretary Reprimip. And what class of product do you handle? Mr. Arwoop. Why, mostly the so-called seasonable fish, such as the herring or the mackerel and weakfish, and other kinds of what we call the seasonable fish. Secretary Reprmip. Do you include whiting in that? Mr. Arwoop. Whiting, yes. Secretary Reprre.p. W here is the w hiting sold ? Mr. Arwoop. The largest market for whiting up to two years ago was through Pennsylvania and a part of New York State, and Mary- land. About two years ago, as I remember it, whiting was sent farther West. Last winter, 1 understand, that whiting was sold in the western part of South Dakota. Then the market oradually has broadened. Secretary Repriryp. How long since that market started ? Mr. Arwoop. We started freezing whiting somewhere about the year 1902, which was the first w hiting, or practically the first whiting, that was frozen. 172 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Secretary Repriip. Was there any market in America then, or did you have to make one? Mr. Avwoop. We had to develop our market, which we did in con- nection with certain commission houses in the city of Philadelphia. The whiting first started, as T understand it, through the sales agents through the mining districts of Pennsylvania, selling it to the for- eign people there—the Lithuanians, the Polanders, ete.—it being a fish somewhat similar to those they had been used to. T saw some Whiting in Seranton, Pa., in 1907. T can’t say that they looked very appetizing after laving out on the stand with the coal dust all over them, but they were all right and ret viling at that time, T think, at 5 cents per fish. Secretary Reprrevp. That reminds me of a young fellow that used to get lunch with me in New York when T was a clerk at $10 a week, who bought mackerel for 10 cents a fish. Chief Justice Hazen. What is the weight of a whiting ¢ Mr. Arwoon. Our whiting this year average somewhere around 14 ounces, just under a pound, although we do catch a small portion of our whiting up to a pound and a halt. Secretary Reprrenp. And do IT understand you to say that the business has steadily grown, Mr. meer Mr. Avrwoon, Yes: in the last two years it has grown very rapidly. Secretary REDRIEL pb. Until now, I rec al your saying that the mar- ket reaches as far as North Dakota. Mr. Arwooo. ae T don’t remember just the city, but last No- vember Dr. Pennington was telling me about a town, T think in the western part of South Dakota, that they had whiting last year. Secretary Reprrery. And how far South? Mr. Arwoop. T have known of whiting been sent to Denver and Norfolk. I don’t know how much farther South and West than that. Secretary Reprrenp. And that business has been created in 15 years in a product which up to that time was hardly used at all? Mr. Arwoop. Very little used, except in certain local fishing places. The total production of the Cape last year was estimated around. 14,000,000 pounds. Secretary Reprievp. Now, do you regard it as probable that some similar intelligent effort applied to other fishes, given to stand- ard fishes, would show a somewhat similar. though perhaps not as great a result ? Mr. Arwoop. IT think so: yes, sir. Secretary Reprreip. What T want to get at is, whether the thing we are talking about this morning is a reality or a dream. Tf over x continuous period intelligence and action is put upon the education of the people in fish foods generally, do you think it would show a marked imerease in the demand ? Mr. Arwoop. T don’t believe any of us can realize what increase ean be shown. | Secretary Reprrep. Your judgment is, then, that you would hesi- tate, as an experienced man, to put a limit on the increase? Mr. Arwoon. I think T should; yes. I know we started in—take the situation of pollock, which is very small and has been little worked upon. T think anybody in the fish market in Boston has seen a marked increase in the use and demand for pollock in the last three years. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 1b7(33 Secretary Reprienp. How long ago is it, gentlemen, since the flounder was not a very generally “sold article of food ? Mr. Arwoop. I think somewhere around 8 or 10 years ago they started using the beam trawl for flounders down off the southern part of the Massachusetts coast in the so-called V ineyard Sound, and since that time they have developed, not so much in that territory, but in the markets of New York particularly, a very large demand, so that flounders to-day are bringing prices that a few years ago were un- heard of or unthought of. Secretary Reprrevp. Now, I would like, if I might, to just have you hear from Dr. Smith, as bearing upon what you have just said, Mr. Atwood. Up to the time of which Mr, Atwood speaks, there was no established fishery for flounders; it was neglected; and we are now planting over 1,000, 000,000 a year, and I think I can ‘say that the continuance of the industry depends upon that planting. Dr. Suir. In the inshore waters of Massachusetts. Secretary Reprieip. So far as the inshore waters are concerned. Mr. Arwoop. I might say, Mr. Secretary, that I think for a year or two prior to that the Italian fishermen commenced fishing for flounders for the Boston market with a fair degree of success, ‘about 12 or 15 years ago the small boat fishermen going out with one or two men a few miles off shore. Secretary Reprrevp. It would seem by putting these things to- gether—I think it impresses the commission so; if not, they will say so—that wherever intelligent activity has been put upon any branch of the fisheries business, where brains and character and knowledge have gotten in behind it, even where it had been totally neglected, the result has been rapid and immediate—almost immediate—and large. Is that substantially true, Mr. Atwood? Mr. Arwoop. Yes, sir; I think it is. Secretary Reprietp. Do you regard that process as stopped ? Mr. Arwoop. No. I have had in cur own particular business, I might say—the wholesale business in Boston that I am also con- nected witl e used the mails a good deal with the retail trade, and we have really found surprising results as to what was possible by simplv intelligent weekly advertising through the mails, once you began to push any particular variety of fish. T think it was two or three years ago we froze at Provincetown—I don’t remember how many, but I should say around 30,000 or 40,000 of the tuna fish. Most of them were fish from 50 to 75 pounds each. And we started in through the winter, and inside of a comparatively short space of two months sold the whole of them through Massachusetts, New York State, some in New Hampshire and Vermont, to people I doubt ever used them before. As evidence of that, one man wrote back, after he had his first lot, “ Why, they are red ; I thought they were cream white, judging from the looks of the can from the Pacific coast.” But we had sufficient repeat orders to show that that advertising was successful. I think it was a success in that case. And from our experience on a number of other varieties little used that we have tried, I don’t think there is much doubt about the success of the proposition. Secretary Reprretp. Is that tuna fish the one that used to be described as the horse mackerel ? 7A AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Mr. Atrwoop. They used to call it the horse mackerel. Secretary Reprrenp. I can remember being carefully brought up to think it was carrion. Dr. Smiru. Is it not a fact, Mr. Atwood, that 15 or 20 years ago, when these same horse mackerel were running in the traps of Cape Cod, those fish were always thrown away ? Mr. Atwoop. W ell. I wouldn’t say just exactly the number of years—I think perhaps you have a better knowledge of that than I do; but there was a time when they were considered a nuisance and they were glad to get rid of them in any way. And to-day, this last year, and even the year before, the price that our fishermen have got for these same fish compares very favorably with most any fish we catch, simply by freezing them and establishing a market for them. Last year the first tuna fish that came into Boston, if I remember rightly, was sold at 15 cents a pound to a wholesale jobber in the city of Boston. Dr. SmiruH. You perhaps know that the flat rate for the smaller fish of the California coast, used in canning, is $80 to $100 per ton to the fishermen. Chief Justice Hazen. Mr. Atwood, have you had your attention directed to the manufacture of fish waste as a food for cattle and for poultry ? Mr. Arwoop. No; I have not, directly. I have spent a very limited amount of time on the subject of fish waste, but with the engineering firms with which I have talked, and with the amount of waste which we have had at our Provincetown plant—I have not looked into this for over a year, but up to that time the engineers told me then they did not consider it a feasible plan, and so we waited until we could get a larger and more regular amount of waste to handle. You see, our fishing at Provincetown is very fluctuating. We will go for a week and perhaps have catches larger than we can handle, and then we may go for two weeks and not have any whatever. So that on that account I never went deeply into the question of the manufac- ture of fish waste for any purpose whatever. Secretary Reprievp. Is there any place along the Atlantic sea- board of the United States where the fish waste is so manufactured ? Mr. Arwoop. Not that I know of. There are places where it is manfactured into fertilizer, but not for food for cattle or poultry. Mr. Grorce E. Witiey. I think down in Maine they are doing it to some extent. Secretary Reprrerp. Manufacturing it into fish meal, Mr. Willey ? Mr. Wiiey. Into fish meal; yes. Chief Justice Hazen. That is manufactured into cattle food and poultry food ? Mr. Witter. I think so. That has come in the last year or two Chief Justice Hazen. I wonder if there is any gentleman in the room who can give us information on that subject. Secretary Reprrevp. I can say that the Director of Markets of the State of California, Mr. Weinstock, has recently placed in the hands of the Commissioner of Fisheries a letter to him from a prac- tical fish operator on the Pacific coast, who has for a considerable period—I should say, about the time Mr. Willey mentions—been making his fish offal and refuse into meal, which he has sold to AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 175 poultry farms with entire success. He sells all he can make. And the statement, as I recall it, in the letter was that the fish wastes of Alaska which could be thus utilized, now wasted, were worth at the market price of the meal to-day $8,000,000 per annum. STATEMENT BY MR. W. A. REED, SECRETARY GLOUCESTER BOARD OF TRADE. Mr. Reep. Mr. Secretary, I have experimented with clam meal merely for my own information. Chief Justice Hazen. What has been the result of your experi- ment ? Mr. Reep. The matter was called to my attention while in Alaska, and merely for curiosity I secured about three or four buckets of the large clams and put them behind the little stove in the shack for about three or four weeks and let them dry naturally, and then I secured a little coffee roaster which we had in the house and ground and ground and ground, and every day when I didn’t have anything else to do I would grind a bit. I put them in an ordinary Royal bak- ing powder tin can without any preparation or without any adding anything to them, and I brought them on one trip with me, and brought them east with me. I kept that can under observation for a year and a half for the purpose of ascertaining if it would pick up moisture or decay, or whatever might happen, and approximately once in two or three weeks I would take a pinch of it and taste it. I forget what became of it finally, but it never spoiled, never de- teriorated so far as I could see. It was excellent flavor, and I be- lieve there is a great industry there waiting for somebody to come and take it. Chief Justice Hazen. Is that a soft-shell clam? Mr. Reep. No; harder than a brickbat. Chief Justice Hazen. Quahog? Mr. Reep. Quahog, rather. If I might add, Mr. Secretary—as I looked at the clam flats that are there—there is a virgin territory of thousands of square miles of clam flats, and I was invited to come up there and get a motorboat and get three or four of the Indians, and at low tide get a horse and plow and plow them up and let the Indians pick them up. And possibly the doctor may recall Mr. Charles Ingersoll, at Ketchikan. Dr. Smitu. He was formerly in our service. Mr. Reerp. He was the one that first suggested it to me before I tried the experiment. STATEMENT BY MR. A. L. PARKER, PRESIDENT OF THE BOSTON FISH PIER CO. Secretary Reprrevp. Mr. Parker, you have heard the statements kindly made by Mr. Atwood and by Mr. Poole. What is your view- point respecting the possibility of increasing the demand for fish in this country by the continuous and intelligent process of education ? Mr. Parker. Well, my opinion is, Mr. Secretary, that we have one of the best plants down there in the world, our capacity is unlimited, and what we want is fish to sell. What little advertising we have AG AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. done, we have met with great success. The only reason we have not done more is that we have not had the stock to give them. We believe that we can take care and distribute all of the fish that will come to our dock. Secretary Reprirevp. Do I gather correctly, Mr. Parker, from your thought that your plant, then, is not as yet fully used to its possible capacity ? ! Mr. Parker. Nowhere near it. Secretary Repriexp. Then, coming back to my first question: Do you think an increased demand upon your facilities could be created by an intelligent process of education continued over a time through- out the country } Mr. Parker. Very much so. Secretary Reprirtp. Do I infer correctly that that would involve on the water end an increase of the supply ? Mr. Parker. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprrevp. Do you think of any reason why we should not eat as much fish in this country as Great Britain eats per capita? Mr. Parxer. Not a bit. If they all ate as much as I do they would come up to that quota. Secretary Reprievp. Think for a moment, Mr. Parker, because that w pail be wholly revolutionary. That would be wholly revolu- tionary in the business of this country. Chief Justice Hazen. A: revolution sometimes has a good effect. Secretary Reprienp. There is no question it has a good effect. But it would mean so much to the port of Boston in particular, and in- cidentally to the sister port of Gloucester, that to say that it could be done in time in the process of evolution would mean that all that has ever been done in the fisheries of this country would be much less than half of what would then be normal. If we ate as much fish per capita as Great Britain does, we would be bringing our supply of fish food up from 2,000,000 000 pounds a year to something over 8,000,000,000 or 9,000,000,000 pounds a year. Yet, I understand, you feel that if that were intelligently gotten at it might i in time be done. Mr. Parker. I think it would come gradually. “Any campaign will come gradually. And if we can only get the stock to give them so that we can take care of that increased demand,-why, we can take and distribute it. Secretary Reprreip. Now, then, that is just the point. Assuming the demand were just as intelligently created—and I gather from what you gentlemen have said, it may almost be said to be in process; at least, there have been very intelligent, and in each case successful stabs at it—now, given that, and be given the transportation facili- ties—which I think you, as practical “business men would say, must follow and has followed in every case where the business has been developed—then what would remain is the question of an adequate supply; 1s it not? . Mr. Parker. That has been our question. As you know, at the present time it is almost impossible to go out and get tonnage built, which we are trying to do to-day. We are doing everything possibie, and we are building, as has been said before, “and building at war prices. But that is our aim and belief—that the business has just begun to develop. One reason for that, when I have heard the ques- tions that you have asked some of these men, is, why haven’t these AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. ad things been done? I think one of the reasons why it has not been done before is that there have been 30 or 40 separate concerns in Boston,.no one concern big enough to go out and do the things which you have suggested. But there has been a big change within the last year, there has been some consolidation, and in that w ay a bigger and better organization has been created to go out and cater to this trade, and I believe we have made a big stride in the business. Secretary Reprieip. Suppose we assume, for the sake of a ques- tion, that we only go half that far, and that we develop our people as fish consumers to half the extent that Great Britain has dey eloped hers. We should then need, instead of 2,000,000,000 pounds a year that we now get. something like four and one- half. billion pounds. Is there existing floating equipment anywhere on this side of the water in sight sufficient to supply that demand / Mr. Parker. I don’t think there is. Secretary Reprrenp. It would mean, would it not, a very large in- crease in the equipment of both countries—Canada and the United States—and a very large increase in the working force in order to meet that demand? Is it not so? Mr. Parker. I think that would be natural. I think with that in- creased production we would have to call on Dr. Smith to refurnish some of our grounds that we would fish from. Dr. Sarrx. I would like to ask Mr. Parker if he thinks the facili- ties of Boston, as to the fish pier and as to the general market con- ditions, are such as to properly handle the prospectiv e catch of this trawling fleet of 29 vessels of which Mr. Burns spoke this morning ¢ Mr. Parker. W hy, I think our wharf there could handie 10 times the business that is being done there to-day. Dr. SmirH. And you ‘think you would be able to dispose of that greatly increased catch profitably through the usual channels in Boston ? Mr. Parker. I think so, if it came gradually. It must come gradu- ally. We could take care of that surplus as it arrived. If it should come all at once and throw a big surplus onto the market without proper foresight to know where you are going to put it, it might floor us. It is natural to suppose that this supply has got to come in gradually. I think we could take care of it. Secretary Reprievp. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Parker. Thank you very much. Is Mr. O’Brien, president of the Boston Fish Market Corporation, here? A Voice. He went away last night. I would state, Mr. Secretary, that Mr. Fulham might speak for the Boston Fish Market Cor- poration. STATEMENT BY MR. JOHN M. FULHAM, REPRESENTING THE BOSTON FISH MARKET CORPORATION. Secretary Reprireip. A vice president of the Boston Fish Market ? Mr. Furuam. No, sir; just a director. Secretary Reprievp. Director of the Boston Fish Market? What is the nature of your business? Mr. Futuam. I am a director of the Boston Fish Market Corpora- tion, but my business is the fish business. Secretary Reprievp. In what form? 51950—18—— 12 178 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Mr. Futnam. I am a member of the Boston Fish Pier Co. Secretary Reprrevp. Do you handle fresh fish ? Mr. FutHam. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprretp. In what respect do your views clifton from those expressed by Mr. Atwood and Mr. Parker and Mr. Poole? Mr. Futnam. My views are exactly similar to theirs. Secretary Reprrevp. The fear has been expressed by a certain gen- tleman here, Mr. Fulham, and it is just mentioned to me by. my colleague, Mr. Chief Justice Hazen, that if we obtained an increased demand for fresh fish on a considerable scale by the process of educa- tion, which we have been talking about, it would be possible for countries where shipbuilding may ‘be less costly than it is in America to come in under the arrangement which we have been discussing and practically take the business from the American ships and so supply the demand by the aid of foreign vessels and foreign labor and foreign capital. Has that subject ever been given thought by you? Mr. Furuam. Why, I have thought of 1t in a way, not to any great degree, but since yesterday morning T have thought of It, and I also . Schooner. License. Bait. | Supplies. | Means Total. | —|- PMOL Geos es Se tele ele eat nn Rete See eee re een oe $142. 50 $607. 57 | $838. 56 $9.00 $1, 597. 63 ArethusSaret sey eee Gs a Eee | 161. 00 915.80 | 592. 95 Daeo 1. 675. 50 IhitQo) ca EN EMNS ASE OB e a Moonee sic seme aaas c 157.50 | 1,359.40} 1,447. 28 15. 75 2,979.93 MESSE Gorton fe eR LES eee ae ee ee 158. 00 527. 50 208. 35 | 6. 25 S80. 10 Cavalion: Sera Geese BE CARRE eRe ee ete 144. 00 784. 40 | 304. 08 | 5.50 1, 237. 98 RTO OT a eee ee ie yop CT a aOR ae ty 122.50} 1,047.08 | 284. 53 7.85 1, 461.96 Towisa RS ylNaies Sek cone ease eee SRE EEE 189. 50 429. 00 1, 425. 62 28:35 2,022. 47 Senators ook ee eS ot eee sete cee eee eee ape 3 tape ee 115. 24 9.7 124. 94 AMICON Sao EF pete EE ec CTS «Aer ee eR UE MaRS SR ER 12.7 4.95 17. 65 Saladin wise es he 5s ee eS ee BO RE eee nc ce SS Sel RRS ee | 13.95) | 5. 0 19.45 WT BS SOMA 2s acca ws rs ee RS ESS oe Lace oe ora rege a ae 57. 62 4.00 61. 62 NOrmmayoGst G2 ed Soe a ER EE ee Sa ae aS NER 8 Soe eto | 1.50 | 2. 00 3.50 Tobalet Fok. See SAS R Ee EE Ae 1,005.00 | 5,670.75 | 5,302.38 | 104. 60 |» 12,082. AMERICAN-CANADIAN Gorton-Pew FF Schooner Athletes 22 22 = $1, 800 Schooner Catherine Burke___— 2, 000 Schooner Hlsie__________+ -____ 2, 000 Schooner J. J. Fallon________ 900 Schooner Gov. Foss__--- 3, TOO Schooner Georgianna__—______ 1, 500 Schooner BH. E. Gray_______-- 1, 000 Schooner Mystery____-_-______ 1, 500 Schooner James W. Parker___ 4, 000 These figures are approximate. FISHERIES CONFERENCE. D) isheries Co. - Schooner Fannie A. Prescott. $1, 37 100 Schooner mRepubliiGe===—sannes 1, 300 Schooner Mildred Robinson___— 500 Schooner Romance __--_____ 4, 000 Schooner Smuggler___________ 2, 000 Schooner W. L. Stream_______ 400 27, TOO John Chisholin & Son, Schooners Robert and Richard—Paid out in Nova Scotia ports, 1917. License, Liverpool__—__-__ ._ $137. 75 UVR ONAL TNO 5 oe So Poet Eo Se 8. 00 OG AOCS arene ee or a 8. 00 Cpa Sin gE hon oS 70. 00 LESS Bk 8 Sle ee es ee 221. 00 ROSIN CL Ca awe vn la 14. 00 GIRO NNuinl rere ee Na 10. 00 Schooner A. NGI Se mete ash pass ea EE $138. 00 AMON aioe st aS EUS Se ge ap ee eee 8 5. 00 AN tape so IER ee i Sle 248. 00 EN OUI Ct Cee cee cote amie 16. 00 Wy PGS ass he aR 3. 50 VBE Sanlu eT Le $286. 00 STG G gig She sb res eel nV AON 60. 00 PB Bi es ees Cat Ra aaeleot neune 355. 90 TRG a OL Ce seh oe sie ET Ne (20 INO tal ester re oe ERNE 1, 174. 85 Piatt Andrews.—Paid out in Nova Scotia ports, 1917. Ordinary seining trip on half lay. (GQROSSMeSUO Charon ee ee Sane wi ee Stocks Chamoe pie ee ary esis pee AL ay Vesset ESVUUTW GR ae aye eee, ol RO 1, 245. 00 Men’s share Crew’s expenses, 1, 245. 00 145. 00 TiCe meas A. PE LS ee $67. 50 Potatoesh ai ater Bary iLey itn Wie HY BX) e621) ts i 485. 73 a hs 3 5 Rae eA nT $2, 860. 00 eye queer So Siney sn Rin 370. 00 2)2, 490. 00 20) 1, 100. 00 (55. 00 1, 000. 00 1, 000. 00 Share, $55.00. Gross expenses: Gas erence Sa Scie ess ETE eer DSS AS We Soe eA Ea OS Se $250.00 D(C as hd ae AV gE i a ha ae a As A SNS eros re es Le Me oe ae a eg Me ed EY 45. 00 ISAC Ss TI SC Me: tn ees 5 NI hs ee a ey 75. 00 370. 00 Crew’s expenses: ED pScU DTP Ve 2 0) Sie Ee ne Sr eee BY OD a 100. 00 @OOKGS MAW ENS CS aes a ea pea es MG ar 2 re a 21. 00 Hoisting engine a PU SES Eh thy Bese NCS 19. 00 TUNES elem ees es al are wa AC poh ERA PS yey ae A odes 2 AAMT 5. 00 145. 00 On a base of 19 men on an average trip of three weeks. One share for gas engine. ties 938 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Ordinary trip fresh fishing of tivo weeks’ duration, 1917. GLOSS SSO Cg Bee a a aT pe RE sR $2, 850. 00 SCO Ges CHa eek, er SRE SE SRE Oe Nee Pere ere ee 56. 00 2, 794. 00 698. 50 LS PENSES OL ATL eas Be ee ee SEN es EE eh ee i ae "883. 00 23) i, 212.50 Mens shaietse se his eS Sh eee oe ee 52. 165% Crew’s expense : TES astitis 3 1 OOO), ss UT IS ae 280. 00 TCO AD COUN G es ee ee Nee aay 2s) ee 45. 00 Gr OCe yi “oil wa Ne Ne ae ne a eg ee eee 300. 00 Ws SS ARES A eH a LU SUS A re 25. OO FV OUS TAINO OTS UN a as Se eee sitar UL 20. OO ASA YASIR a me ee ea Ly Ysa ro NBME UN cea lee CT 3. 00 Cav SPiiite WSO GU ete cele NS een ie it ea eee ee 200. 00 883. 00 Submitted by Capt. Carl C. Young. Secretary Reprievp. I wish it were possible for us to have a first- class packing-house man in the meat business here to make it clear to you gentlemen how completely the conditions of the food supply of the country have altered since 1913, and how many vears there must be of comparative avoidance of meat food in the future before we get back to the conditions of 1913. STATEMENT BY CAPT. LEMUEL E. SPINNEY, OF GLOUCESTER. Secretary Reprrerp. Capt. Spinney, give us your full name and business. Capt. Spinney. Captain and owner: owner in.a small number of vessels now, six or seven. Secretary Reprretp. You have been captain of an American steam trawler ? Capt. Sprnney. Yes, sir. Secretary Repripritp. And have recently been made captain of Canadian trawler? Capt. Spinney. Not yet, but I intend to go next week as captain, to take charge of a boat. Secretary ‘Reprrerp. Do you regard the privilege of entering Ca- nadian ports on the payment of a dollar a year per vessel as desirable? Capt. Sprnney. I do, sir. Secretary ReEprierp. ‘Have you taken advantage of the present licenses yourself ? Capt. Spinney. Yes, sir; most every year have a license. Secretary Reprimip. You didn’t get that license for fun, did you, Captain ? Capt. Spryney. No, sir; but because I needed it; couldn’t get along without it. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 239 Secretary Reprietp. And do you regard the privilege of extending that license to motor vessels as a valuable one? Capt. Spinney. I do, sir. Secretary Reprievp. Does it make it more or less valuable if in ad- dition the rate is changed from $1.50 per registered ton to a dollar per year per vessel ? Capt. Spryney. Yes, sir; I never considered the $1.50 per ton; simply had to have the license. That is all. If it had cost twice as much I would have bought it. Secretary Reprievp. Captain, I wish you would tell the commission just how you feel about this matter of allowing Canadian vessels to come directly from the fishing grounds into our “ports and go directly there from our ports, whether it is wise or unwise, hurtful or helpful ? Capt. Spryney. I think it is wise. My opinion is that if we don't come across now we won't get a chance here again. The Canadian people are making this offer, and I think we “should accept, it: I consider that when we have salt fish coming in free and and fresh fish coming in, that the Canadian boats coming in will make very little difference. The people I am going for, I understand, want all the fish that can be obtained, all that is coming, and would take more. ‘They are very much in need of a supply of fish. This boat I am going on has been under charter two years by the Canadian Government, and they have got a release and want me to go on the boat, and I am going this coming season. Secretary Reprrenp. Do you know what arrangements you are go- ing to make about the employment of your crew? Capt. Spinney. I guess I can pick up a crew between here and Nova Scotia, somewhere. Secretary Repriexp. Are you going to pay them a great deal more than you pay men out of Gloucester ? Capt. Sprynrey. No; won’t pay more. The wages there are much the same as here—the regular wages there. There is a difference outside of the regular wages of $10 a month. They pay there $30 a month and $7 on 1,000 stock, and pay here $40 a month and 7 on 1,000 stock. Secretary Reprievp. But the officers on the Canadian vessels are paid more than the officers on the American vessels. capt. Sprnney. I understand so. Secretary Reprretp. How does it come out in the total? Does it cost more or less in wages to run a Canadian vessel or an American vessel ? Capt. Spryney. I shouldn’t think the cost would be very dif- ferent, because, IT understand, they are paying somewhere between $7 and $8 a ton for coal in Halifax, so I should think the operation of a Canadian vessel and one of our fishermen would be very little different. It used to be that you could go into Canadian ports and pay considerably less for potatoes and vegetables, but now you have to pay there what you do here, I understand. There might be a little difference in flour, but sugar is about the same as it is here. Secretary Reprieip. I understand you to say that your owners, or the people behind you, want all the fish they can get? Capt. Spryney. That is what they have told me. The Leonard people, who own the boat I am going on, have their headquarters in YA AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Montreal. IT was up in Montreal the other day, and they told me they had orders for 2,000,000,000 pounds of fish, if they could get them, and they said, “ For goodness’ sake, get the boat going as quick as you can.” Secretary Reprizup. Has it ever been krought to your attention that the Canadian people eat very much more fish per man, per capita, than the people in this country? Capt. Spinney. I have heard so. Secretary Reprretp. Have you ever wondered why that was? Capt. Sprnney. I never knew the reason why. Secretary Reprretp. You regard fish as good to eat? Capt. Spinney. Yes, sir; very nice to eat. Secretary Reprietp. Doesn’t it seem very strange to you that the American people should be the smallest fish eaters among the great nations ? Capt. Spinney. It never occurred to me why that was so. Secretary Reprienp. Don’t you think that if the business were dealt with as the Chicago packers deal with the meat business the demand would increase constantly and very largely ? Capt. SPINNEY. Certainly. Secretary Reprretp. Don’t you think it would be advantageous for the people of Boston and of Gloucester—those engaged in the in- dustry—if the demand for fish increased very largely ? Capt. Sprxney. I think so. Secretary Repristp. Has your attention ever been called to the fact that the meat supply of the country has been very largely reduced ¢ Capt. Spryney. I understand that it has. Secretary Reprretp. I wonder if anybody in your family has been trying recently to buy beef steak ? Capt. SprInNEY. Well, I know the prices, all right. Secretary Reprietp. Under the circumstances you have described and under any circumstances you know of, do you see any harm that would be done to the American people by having Canadian vessels bring their tish directly in here from the banks? Capt. Spryney. I think it would be beneficial. That is my candid opinion. Secretary Reprirxp. I suppose we must think, Captain, must we not, that the people of the interior are interested in this thing as much as the people of Gloucester ? Capt. SPINNEY. I suppose so. Secretary Reprietp. They are the fellows who eat the fish 4 Capt. Sprnnry. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprizip. And what we are after is the largest amount of fish we can get. of any kind. Mr. Sweer. Captain, do you think it would be an injury to the people of Gloucester to have vessels owned by Canadians clear directly for the fishing grounds and come back direct? Do you think that would be any injury to Gloucester ? Capt. Spinney. I think it would be a great benefit to the people of Gloucester. They depend mostly on the fish business, packing busi- ness, and if they don’t come right in from the grounds they will come AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 241 just the same, the overplus of Nova Scotia. So I don't think there would be any difference in that respect, and it would be a benefit to the town. Mr. Sweer. Taking the answer you gave to Secretary Redfield and the answer you have just given to me, then, taking the two com- bined, vou practically say you think it would be advantageous to make this change permitting Canadian vessels to come here, clear directly for the fishing banks, and then come back without going to a Canadian port? You think that would be advantageous to the people of Gloucester and also to the people of the United States hving farther inland ¢ Capt. Sprnney. I think it would be advantageous; yes. Mr. Swerr. To all? eee Capt. Spinney. To all. Dr. Swirn. I would ask the captain if he is an American citizen? Capt. Sprnney. Yes, sir; I am a naturalized American citizen, Canadian born; born in Yarmouth and naturalized in Massachusetts. Dr. Suir. Did you have to change your nationality to become a ‘aptain of this Canadian trawler? Capt. Spinney. I did not. Things are pretty easy just now, you know. STATEMENT BY MR. FRANK E. DAVIS, OF FRANK E. DAVIS C2., GLOUCESTER, DISTRIBUTERS OF FISH. Secretary Repripip. What is your business? Mr. Davis. In the mail-order fish busimess. I don’t produce fish and I haven’t any vessels. Secretary Reprietp. You sell prepared fish entirely, do you? Mr. Davis. Yes. Secretary Reprietp. Only prepared fish ? Mr. Davis. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprietp. Where do you sell it ? Mr. Davis. All over the United States, and once in a while it gets outside the country. Secretary Repriztp. You say it gets outside the country. Where does it go? Mr. Davis. I have sent some to the western Canadian Provinces and some to Mexico; I have sent some to England, some to Germany, and some to France, but very seldom; have sent to the people over there who want the fish. Secretary Reprrep. I trust that you are not selling any fish to Germany at present ? ; Mr. Davis. Not if I can help myself. Secretary Reprizitp. How long have you been doing this, Mr. Davis? : Mr. Davis. About 32 years. Secretary Reprigip. Has your business been developed all over the country and abroad in this way you speak of ? Mr. Davis. The mail-order and correspondence business, you might say, and advertising in the papers, ete. Secretary Reprieip. I am told at times your shipments are quite numerous, that there are occasions when you may send out as many as or more than 1,000 packages a day. Is that so? 51950—18——16 949, AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Mr. Davis. Yes, sir. Secretary Repriexp. What I want to ask you is, whether, having had this experience over a period of time, with an opportunity to test the question whether there is a growing market for American fish from Gloucester, in your judgment the fish business is one which is capable of lar ge expansion / Mr. Davis. I think it is. I don’t think we are commencing to sell what there is an opportunity in the country to sell. Secretary Reprretp. I wonder if the gentlemen in the rear can hear that. He says he does not think we are commencing to sell what we are able to sell. Is that correct, Mr. Davis? ; Mr. Davis. It is. Secretary Reprieip. Have you been familiar with the work that the Bureau of Fisheries has done in placing on the market unused fish foods? Mr. Davis. Not very much. Secretary Reprirtp. Did you know that prac cenit with the work of one man oyer a period of two years, backed by the office force, of course, and with some literature, it has been found possible to place upon the market something in excess of 50,000,000 pounds of fish food that two years ago was not used at all? Mr. Davis. I have heard much on increase in consumption of for- imerly unused fish. Secretary Reprienp. Have the facts in connection with the adop- tion of whale meat for food been br ought to your attention ? Mr. Davis. They have not. Secretary Reprie. Have you been informed that there are a number of sea-going steamers engaged in that business now on the Pacific ? Mr. Davis. I have seen it in the papers; that is all. Secretary Reprieitp. And that there is a larger demand for the product than they are now able to supply? Mr. Davis. Well, I understood that it was increasing; that they could dispose of all they could get. ‘ Secretary Reprimtp. Why do you suppose there is this country- wide demand for fish and for products like whale meat, so that it be- comes possible to take these previously unused products and place them extensively, at small expense? What do you think are the con- ditions that make that possible ? Mr. Davis. I think one part of it has been the educational adver- tising the Government has done, and also the shortage of nieat. and also the fact that people are being educated to the advantages of fish. I think that is growing pretty rapidly. Secretary Reprrevp. And likely to continue so to do? Mr. Davis. I can not see why it will not be one of the great indus- tries of the country. Secretary Reprrerp. Now, as one familiar with the business at large, do you know of facilities existing either in the United States or Canada, or both together, which would be able to supply the de- mand if the consumption of fish in this country rose to the relative vate at which it is consumed in Canada? Mr. Davis. Well, I know it is almost impossible to get fish enough to supply the demand. I know that I can not get half the codfish that AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 243 I want, trying in this country and others. There are so many after it that it is almost impossible to buy any first-class codfish. Prices have increased and are increasing every day. Secretary Reprietp. So that the condition, as I understand yous aio put it, is that of an increasing demand and an insufficient supply 2 Mr. Davis. That is the way I look at it; yes, sir. The demand is increasing pretty fast with us, and I think with all the fishing in- dustry it is increasing, and we are not getting fish enough. I alone t see how we are going to get it in the future. Secretary Reprievp. Mr. Davis. have you ever been informed as to the extent of the fishing fleet, the trawler fleet, of Great Britain? Mr. Davis. I know they have spoken about it at different places, that it was mentioned, and it was said that what they were getting was away ahead of what we were getting here. Secretary Reprimenp. Do you know how many thousand steam ‘awlers Great Britain has, or had. at the beginning of the war? eM: Davis. I do not. Secretary Reprizny. Has it been called to your attention that the single port of Grimsby sent out a thousand or more steam trawlers ? Mr. Davis. I know there is a very large number, but I don’t know the figures. Secretary Reprieup. The reason why T have brought that to your attention is to see if I can not get this problem before the commission and the gentlemen present. Great Britain, we are informed, having been obliged i in common with all Europe to kill off its cattle for food, finds itself in a condition where the only available way to get a suffi- cient supply of protein from food is to get it from fish. Before the war their consumption of fish was at the rate of 58 pounds per per- son, as compared with 18 pounds per person in this country. On that basis, they used about 4,000,000.000 pounds of fish a year for a popu- lation of 45,000,000, as compared with a use of 2,000,000,000 pounds a year by us, with a population of 100,000,000. They are now find- ing it necessary to very greatly increase that supply of fish food. The supply they have had is not sufficient. Under the circumstances, their fishing equipment, depleted by the war, is nothing like sufficient for their own needs, and even if restored to the prewar state it would still be insufficient for their own needs. Under those conditions, which I think are widely known throughout the world, is there any reason, in your judgment as a business men, to doubt that the Ameri- can fishing business, with an increasing demand and an insufficient ‘supply, is established upon a permanent basis? Mr. Davis. Well, I think that they have got to build more vessels in both countries. The only way to supply the demand is to produce more fish. STATEMENT BY CAPT. PETER GRANT, OF GLOUCESTER. Secretary Reprigyp. Capt. Grant, what is your name and your business ? Capt. Grant. Peter Grant. Iam at present engaged in a sail loft, Tepairing sails. Secretary Reprrevp. You have been a fisherman? Capt. Grant. Yes, sir. 944 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Secretary Reprretp. Have been in command of a vessel ? Capt. Grant. Yes, sit. Secretary Repripip. For some years? Capt. Grant. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprietp. Have you had a Canadian license? Capt. Grant. No, sir; never had occasion to use it. Secretary Repriritp. Why was that? Capt. Grant. Because we didn’t fish in that part of the country. Secretary Reprietp. You didn’t go where it was needed ? Capt. Grant. Didn’t go where it was needed. Secretary Reprirtp. From your view point, Captain, would the proposed arrangement which I think you must have heard us de- scribe, whereby Canadian vessels would be allowed to come into our ports with their catches direct from the fishing grounds and go direct there from here or froiv our other ports, together with an arrange- ment whereby licenses would be granted to all classes, including moter and power vessels, at a nomin al rate of a dollar per vessel per year, be a square deal ? ¥ Capt. Grant. I should think it a square deal if you make it a dollar on both sides. I don’t think it would be fair for us to pay them a dollar and we get nothing. Secretary Reprrevp. That is a credit to your sense of fair play, of course. Capt. Grant. I think, in my opinion, that the American people are smart enough to compete with Canada on any conditions, and always have been, but I don’t see what the dollar is for. I would like to have that explained, what that dollar is for, what they tax us the dollar for? Secretary Reprrevp. As I understand it, one of the things we are going to try to find out when we go over there is that very thing. ‘As I understand it, it is simply a jominal sum required to comply with the language of an old treaty, something which, I think, as far as the amount is concerned, our friends would be oladly willing to waive. But that may or may not be so. J think we are not our solv es sure, Captain. It may or may not be required in order to comply with the exact language of the old treaty. ee T take it, the dollar itself is not a serious matter ? Capt. Grant. Oh, not at all. Secretary Reprievp. It is the principle you are concerned with ? Capt. Grant. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprieip. In that respect you are quite mght. In your opinion what else should be done by ourselves or by Canada to make the deal one in which you fee! that you are getting the glad hand and extending the glad hand ? Capt. Grant. In my opinion, I think the only thing is to take the feeling out of the people in regard to these things. You see, they feel that we were robbed by that $5,500,000 award. You ean not get the feeling over the 1861 trouble out ef the Southerners, and it is the same with our people as it has been with the Southerners. They think we were beaten, and the Canadians think they gave us Je beating. Secr ‘etary Reprrevp. Of course, there is a very large amount of gen- wine human nature in that feeling. But nowadays, you see, the son AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 945 of the Confederate soldier is fighting side by side with the son of the Union soldier Capt. Grant. Very true. Secretary Reprrerp (continuing). And Canada is giving her boys and we are giving our boys in a common fight. Capt. Grant. Surely. Secretary Repriep. So we are coming to know each other better, and when we fight side by side we like each other better. Capt. Grant. Oh, we will get over this after awhile. We will learn to eat whale meat, although it will taste awfully sour at first. Secretary Repririp. My cook is a good cook, and she doesn’t know yet that it wasn’t beef she was serving. Mr. Sweer. Did you ever eat whale meat, Capt. Grant ¢ Capt. Grant. I haven’t, but I have eaten porpoise. Secretary Reprrevp. I would quite agree with you on that, Cap- iain, but the whale is a different bird. I think we will have to send Capt. Grant a can of whale meat—and don’t tell your cook what it 1s. Mr. Davis. We will have to put it on our list to get some. Secretary Repriryp. The only difficulty is to get it. Mr. Sweer. The large amount of money spoken of, paid to Canada, was the amount settled upon by arbitration 4 Capt. Granr. Yes. Mr. Swerr. Who were the arbitrators in that dispute 4 Capt. Grant. I have no idea, but they were not very good business men. Mr. Swrer. A little too friendly to our Canadian friends. Secretary Reprisup. There was a Massachusetts man on that com- mission, too. Capt. Granr. Well, he came from the western part of the State. (Laughter. ) Secretary Reprrevp. From Pittsfield. Capt. Grant. A Gloucester man would have been smarter than that fellow, I know. Mr. Sweer. I would like to ask you, Captain, if, seriously, there is ill feeling here in Gloucester or elsewhere in the United States grow- ing out of that, if there is much feeling left on that matter Q Capt. Grant. Well, I expect that it is like everything else, hard to get rid of. Mr. Sweer. You think there is some left 4 Capt. Grant. Yes. Chief Justice Hazen. Think of our feelings when we had to pay you $20,000,000 at the time of the Geneva award. Capt. Grant. Of course, we don’t know about that. Mr. Sweer. The shoe was on the other foot then, wasn’t it, Cap- tain ? Chief Justice Hazen. That wasn’t fifty-fifty. Secretary Reprrecp. We are obliged to you for introducing a kindly element of human nature and good humor into the convention. STATEMENT BY CAPT. JOHN MATHESON, OF GLOUCESTER. Secretary Reprieip. Your name and your business, Captain ? Capt. Marneson. John Matheson, captain; go mackerel fishing on auxiliary vessels. 246 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Secretary Reprretp. You have occasion to use a Canadian license ? Capt. Marieson. If I could get it, I would. Secretary Reprizip. Would you use one if vou could get it? Capt. Mararson. Yes, siz. Secretary Reprrenp. What would you do with it? What would you use it for? Capt. Marnurson. Probably get fittings: ship men at certain times. Secretary Reprienp. For all the general purposes a ship needs a port for? Isthat about it? Is that right ? Capt. Marieson. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprinnp. Now, you have heard this proposed arrange- ment talked about, haven’t you ? Capt. Marngson. Yes, sir. Secretary Repriexp. T will assure vou that it is not the whole job, by a great deal. We have got the problem of Fraser River and other problems to tackle, but I don’t want to worry you gentlemen here. We do not, however, want you to think that this is the whole thing. Do you regard the arrangement as proposed as a square deal all around; and if not, why not ? Capt. Marueson. I don’t think we can compete with the Canadian fishermen, fitting out. from Gloucester. Secretary Reprieip. W hy not? Capt. Marurson. Because it costs us more here to fit out. Secretary Repriptp. For what ? Capt. Marnurson. Most everything; for the vessel, in the first place ; to build the vessel. Secretary Repriryp. You are referring, I take it, to the time be- fore the war? Capt. Marurson. Well, naturally, it is gomg back again, I sup- pose, after the war. Secretary Reprisip. OF course, that is a very important question. Why do you think it will go back after the war to the former condi- tions? Capt. Marngson. Well, the vessels built down there, the material put into the vessels, wouldn’t cost as much. Secretary*Reprietp. Why, again? Capt. Marnsson. Build cheaper ships. Secretary Reprretp. You mean that they are not as well built? Capt. Marurson. They serve the purpose just as well. TI wouldn’> say they are not as well built. A vessel here is built of very costly material. Down there the vessels are built of different materials, and don’t cost as much money. Secretary Reprisvp. Is that because our material is scarce ? Capt. Marneson, Say, for instance, you build a vessel of oak or of hard pine, and another of softwood, the ones built of softwood will cost less money. Still, the vessel will produce the same fish. Secretary Reprimip. And is there that difference between the usual C: mmadia in craft and ours, that one is built of hardwood and the other of softwood ? Capt. Marnrson. Yes, sir; as far as I know. Secretary Reprrmetp. What kind of planking do our hulls have in vessels built in Gloucester ? Capt. Marnerson. A first-class vessel, of oak. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. DAL Secretary Reprigip. The planking of oak? Capt. Marueson. Planking and timber. Secretary Reprieip. Throughout? Is that the usual practice? Capt. Marueson. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprretp. Copper fastened throughout ? Capt. Marunson. Not copper: g galvanized iron. Secretary Reprirevp. Galvanized iron fittings throughout. What is the difference in cost between such a vessel and a Canadian vessel doing the same work ? Capt. Marueson. I think they can fit out cheaper from a Cana- dian port. Secretary Reprretp. You mean by that, get their equipment for less @ Capt. Marnerson. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprretp. And as regards supplies 4 Capt. Maruerson. I think they could fit out with supphes cheaper. Secretary Reprierp. You mean that the supphes cost less. Now, Captain, have you made an actual comparison of those matters, or are you speaking from what has been told you? Capt. Marurson. Well, I haven't lately been to Canadian por‘s. The last Canadian port I was in was last spring, and you could get lots of things there cheaper than in Gloucester or any American port. Secretary > Reprrenp. But you were not able to get them there? Capt. Marueson. No, sir; without I violated their law. Secretary Reprrevp. But under the new arrangement vou would be able to get them? Capt. Maruerson. Yes, sii. Secretary Reprieip. So under the proposed arrangement you would have the advantage of cheapness in the Canadian ports? Capt. Marneson. I would: yes, sir. Secretary Reprrecp. On supplies and fitting out? Capt. Marusson. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprretp. Would be on an entire parity with Canadian vessels in that respect ¢ Capt. Marurson. Of course, there are two ways of looking at that. I am interested in two vessels, part owner of two, and go as master of one, myself. Suppose I went from here and fitted out one vessel] in Nova Scotia, and that my other part owners would be running a business here. I think i would be hurting them, wouldnt I? ~ Secretary Reprrevp. They certainly wouldn't get the business if vou bought the goods down there. Capt. Maruerson. That is the idea. Secretary Reprrevp. But on the other hand you would be able to pay them a larger profit, perhaps. by getting the goods elsewhere, and if you can do that and do do it, are you not working for the benefit of your company / Capt. Marurson. Of course, as I say, there are two ways of look- “ng at it. My idea is that we couldn’t compete, because you can run a vessel cheaper from a Canadian port, and under this arrangement there would be an inducement for the Canadians to stay home and ship and fish from there. Secretary Reprieip. Well, how about getting other men? Capt. Marnerson. Might in time, but the idea is to get the fish, now. YAS AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Secretary Reprienp. Have you any actual figures as to the cost of a Canadian vessel oie as you speak of ? Capt. Marueson. No, sir; I haven’t; not at the present time. Secretary Reprrenp. What do vou assume the difference in cost to be? Capt. Marumson. T should judge a third less im Canada. Secretary Reprreip. That is a Canadian vessel, doing the same work, could be built for twe-thirds of the money that an American vessel can be built for ? Capt. Maruerson. I think she could. Secretary Reprietp. People owning these vessels are in the busi- ness, I suppose, to stay? Capt. Marurson. We hope so Secretary Reprrenp. Would it not seem common sense for them to build a vessel so that she would do the greatest amount of work over the longest amount of time? Capt. Marnegson. I didn’t get that question. Secretary Reprreitp. I ask you whether it wouldn’t seem common sense for them to build a vessel so that she would do the largest amount of work over the longest amount of time ? Capt. Marieson. You mean, build a vessel that would last longer? Secretary Reprietp. Yes. Wouldn’t that seem common sense / Capt. Marneson. Yes. Secretary Reprretp. You don’t mean to have the commission understand that the Canadians don’t know how to build a good vessel ? Capt. Marnurson. No; but the material wouldn’t last as lone. You build a vessel out of birch or soft pigs sipuaice ena it won't last as long as a vessel built of oak. Secretary Reprrevp. I understand, but is that the fact always or usually, Captain ? Capt. Marueson. I imagine so. Secretary Reprievp. Well, really, do you know ? Capt. Maraeson. Well, I know they are built of softwood, down there. Secretary Reprievp. Usually or sometimes ? Capt. Marurson. Well, I have been in the shipyards and have seen them. Secretary Reprienp. That is what we want to know, precise facts. You have been in the shipyards and have seen them made of soft- wood ? Capt. Marueson. Yes, sir. Secretary RepFIeLb. Whereabouts was that yard ? Capt. Marieson. Liverpool. Seeretary Reprreip. Do vou know whether that is the custom else- where in Canada ? Capt. Marueson.. Well, I imagine it is at Lunenburg. We see the vessels after they come here. Secretary Reprienp. And find them to be softwood vessels? Capt. Mariueson. Yes, sir. Secretary Repripip. We are not attempting in anyway to ques- tion your statement, but simply want to make sure of our facts. When we get down to St. John, you know, the men there may say AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 249 the other thing, and we want to know how you know it, so as not to be taken unawares. Now, is it your opinion, then, that that is a factor which apples throughout the business generally ? Capt. Marneson. I imagine so. Chief Justice Hazen. Do you know, Capt Matheson, how much such a vessel, say, of 100 tons, a fishing schooner of 100 tons, would cost if built here to-day ? Capt. Marneson. I know that I couldnt get one built under any conditions, I myself. Chief Justice Hazmy. You couldn't get one built? Capt. Marneson. I don’t think so. They wouldn’t guarantee when it would be built. Chief Justice Hazen. TI suppose you know, Captain, that the cost of shipbuilding in Canada has tremendously advanced during the last few years? Capt. Marueson. No doubt. Chief Justice Hazen. Of what wood are vessels built here in Massachusetts and Maine constructed ? Capt. Marueson. Oak and hard pine. Chief Justice Hazen. The cost of wood of that sort has advanced tremendously / Capt. Marunson. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. I suppose you are aware that the cost of wood of all sorts in Canada has scared up to prices that are simply fabulous ? Capt. Marneson. No doubt. Chief Justice Hazen. Spruce, which two years ago was an inex- pensive wood, to-day is extremely expensive. In fact, it is hard to get it for love or money for certain purposes. You wouldn’t be able to give us to-day the difference in cost on a boat built in Canada and a boat built here or in Maine? Capt. Marneson. Some of the people here might be able to do so. T understand that shipyards are taken for an indefinite time, even where they are building fishing vessels. I couldn’t get one built if I wanted to. Chief Justice Hazen. Any fishing vessels being built in Massa- chusetts to-day ¢ Capt. Marneson. Yes. Chief Justice Hazen. Whereabouts ? Capt. Maruerson. Essex. Chief Justice Hazen. In the State of Maine? Capt. Marnrson. I think so, possibly. Chief Justice Hazen. If it is possible, we would like to get some figures in regard to ship-building costs here, and then when we go to New Brunswick we will get the cost there. If there is any body’ here who can give us such figures we would like to have them. Now, have you of late made any comparison between the cost of supplies in Canada, in Nova Scotia, and the cost of supplies here in Massa- chusetts, such supplies as are required for outfitting fishing vessels? Capt. Marneson. Vegetables there are cheaper. Chief Justice Hazen. What are you ay ing for potatoes here / Capt. Marupson. $2 a bushel. T i around that; might be somewhat less. 250 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Chief Justice Hazen. If that is the case, there is little, if any, difference in the price paid in Canada and that paid here, for pota- toes. But we would like to get a statement before the commisison of the prices paid here in this country for supplies for fishing ves- sels, and then we will have some reliable persons in the maritime provinces give a list of prices paid there. We will then know. Secr etary Reprievp. Will you furnish us memoranda on that point ? Capt. Surru. We will try to see that you are furnished figures showing what vessels are paying here and what our vessels are pay- ing down there. Secretary Reprirevp. That will be first rate. - Chief Justice Hazen. I would hike to ask a question in regard to equipment, Captain. When you spoke of equipment being cheaper in the maritime provinces, what equipment did you mean ? Capt. Marneson. Outfits in general. Some things are higher. Chief Justice Hazen. You mean nets? Capt. Marnrson. No; I wouldn’t say nets were cheaper there. Chief Justice Haznn. Well, rope? Capt. Marueson. I wouldn't be sure about rope. Chief Justice Hazen. Well, what is there you could get. if you were on board a fishing vessel cheaper in Canada Capt. Marneson. Referring to the food Chief Justice Hazen. Referring to the equipment. that is used for catching the fish, fishing equipment. Capt. Maruerson. Labor? ; Chief Justice Hazen. No; I am not talking about labor, but I am referring to the statement about equipment being cheaper. Did you mean that the food was cheaper ? Capt. Marnerson. I meant that you could fit a vessel cheaper there, always could. Chief Justice Hazen. You say fit a vessel. For what? Capt. Maruerson. Fit it for sea, to go fishing. Chief Justice Hazen. Well, take the question of the equipment that is necessary for catching fish—the nets, ropes, things of that sort—can they be purchased cheaper in Nova Scotia than in Massa- chusetts ? Capt. Marneson. I wouldn’t say on the nets. The fishermen in general would rather have American nets. I have seen fishermen buy American nets when they had to pay $24 or $26 for the nets, when they could get an English net for $6, because they would rather have the American nets, Chief Justice Hazen. It certainly ought to be much better for that price. Capt. Marneson. Yes; that is a fact: and there are men here - who will bear me out in that. Chief Justice Hazen. It is true that some of the articles required on a fishing trip would be higher in Nova Scotia than in Massa- chusetts ? Capt. Marnrson. American articles would. Chief Justice Hazen. And other articles would be higher in Massa- chusetts than in Nova Scotia? That would be true? AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. UAL Capt. Marneson. Yes. Chief Justice Hazen. And in order to strike the difference you ought to have a complete list. Perhaps Capt. Smith can give us that. I suppose you know, Capt. Matheson, from your experience, that prices in Canada are very much higher than they were some years ago? Capt. Marueson. Yes; no doubt. Chief Justice Hazen. I suppose you know that in the year 1913 the prices were very rapidly advancing in Canada ? Capt. Marneson. Yes; no doubt. Chief Justice Hazen. And that there has been a general upward trend in the price of commodities and articles in that country? You know that, I suppose? Capt. Marnurson. Yes. Mr. Sweer. When a fishing vessel starts out for the season, how large a Grea of supplies does she lav in to begin with? Enough for one tr ip? Capt. Marnrson. That is according to the trip she is going on. For mackerel fishing they generally fit out for about six weeks or seven weeks. Mr. Sweet. Get enough to last until they come back and discharge the cargo of fish? Capt. Marueson. We leave here and go to the southward, fish off New York, and, of course, there are more or less things we get there—fresh meats, butter, and stuff that wouldn’t keep very well. Mr. Sweer. If a Canadian vessel came here, unloaded her fish, and was granted clearance to the fishing banks, and then came back here, snd then went to the fishing banks” again and back again with a load of fish, where would she buy her supplies—food ? Capt. Marizsoy. Buy her supplies where she could get them the most reasonable. I would, if I was on the vessel. Mr. Sweer. And if she was running from Gloucester out to the fishing banks and bringing fish here ire ect, would she be likely to get her food supplies here or go to some Canadian Bon to get them, or somewhere else? Capt. Marnuerson. Probably take enough for a month or two months, what we call heavy food, probably use salt beef. Our fisher- men have got so that they don’t dare to carry much salt beef, as the men don’t like it. We have not carried much for five or six years. Mr. Sweeper. She would carry some supplies in bulk, in a sort of wholesale way, and then get part of her supplies on each of these voyages, each trip ? Capt. Marurson. Very likely do what we call patching out; get stuff for two or three months and patch out on the fresh stuff. Mr. Sweet. And if those food supplies cost more in Gloucester than in some Canadian port, she would be at a disadvantage to that extent, to the extent that she bought food in this market ? Capt. Marueson. Yes, sir. Mr. Sweer. Of course, it would be of some advantage to Gloucester to have that additional business, I suppose? Capt. Marneson. Yes, sir. Mr. Sweer. Now, referring to the advantages, you said when you first commenced to testify that if a vessel of yours propelled by 259 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. auxiliary power was entitled to take out one of these licenses you would get one? Capt. Marneson. I never had one in my life. Mr. Sweer. But you said you would if you were entitled to have one ? Capt. Marnrson. Yes, sir; I would. Mr. Sweer. What would be your motive in getting it? Capt. Marreson. Well, probably would go down there and fit out. Mr. Sweer. In other words, you would ‘probably find advantages in having it? Capt. Marueson. Yes, sir. Mr. Sweer. Now, then, would the advantages of having a license that would permit you with the kind of vessel you use to go into Canadian ports to discharge a small or broken cargo, as they call it, make shipments in bond here or any other place you please, rather than having to come back here, that would give you all the privileges that a Canadian fishing vessel has—would that, do you think, be any more than an offset, or would it be a substantially fitty- fifty arrangement, granting them the privilege of coming in here, that we are talking about ? Capt. Marueson. I think so. Mr. Sweer. You think it would be pretty nearly an even thing? Capt. Mariurson. Even to some extent, but, as I said before, if you had a firm here and they were interested, you would naturally hike to fit from your firm. Probably they wouldn’t want you to go some- where else. ‘ Mr. Sweer. But, speaking broadly, it wouldn’t be a very uneven bargain from what you say, I take it? Cz apt. Marurson. No. T think myself, though, that you would be practically giving the fishing business to Canada. The vessels, of course, would be coming here, but J think myself it would be the same as moving down there. Mr. Sweer. You think the Canadians would be able to catch ¢ our market if we did that, do you? Capt. MarHeson. That is what I think myself. That is my per- sonal opinion. Mr. Sweer. Are you now taking into account the facts that have been brought out here in regard to the markets, the increasing de- mand for fish from all over the country, a rapidly 1 increasing demand ? Are you taking that into account Capt. Marneson. Yes, sir. Mr. Sweet. Have you heard the testimony of several gentlemen who have testified here, that there is not enough equipment in the United States and Canada combined to anywhere near meet that demand ? Capt. Marnuerson. Yes, sir. But those men make their money han- dling fish. I don’t. The firm I go for don’t. We fish. Mr. Sweer. I know, but an enlarging or increasing market is just as much an advantage for the man who catches the fish as for the man who merely buys the fish and sells it again, isn’t it? Isn’t it for the advantage of all engaged in the fish industry to have a big demand for fish ? Capt. Marurson. Yes, sir; but the man who handles them can make the most money. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 253 Mr. Sweer. We are not deciding between the two Capt. Marneson. The more fish that comes in, the more he can make. Mr. Sweer. We are not inquiring into relative advantages in that respect. You will admit that it is an advantage to everybody if the fish market of the United States is very largely increased and brought up somewhere about where the British market j is; that it will make plenty of work probably for both Canadian and American fishermen? Capt. Marnueson. Yes; but I would probably be of the same opinion and would probably wind up like Capt. Spinney, going down and getting a vessel there. Chief Justice Hazen. We would be delighted to have you there, Captain. FURTHER STATEMENT BY CAPT. BENJAMIN A. SMITH, OF GLOUCESTER. Capt. Smirn. Mr. Chairman, I don’t want it to go out that Capt. Spinney is going away from us except temporarily. T think Capt. Spinney w ill say that he is going to fish out of Gloucester again. Isn’t that right. Capt. Spinney. Yes, sir. I am going down there tor awhile, but I live here and Gloucester is good enough fer me, and I w ould just as scon fish on this side as the other. But I didn’t have anything to do this summer and had a pretty good chance, and so I said, “I guess it will work out all right.” But this side is good enough for me. It is all right in Canada, as far as that goes, but I think if we get together and make it fifty fifty it will be better. Congressman Lurxr. Capt. Matheson, are you going to have an American vessel of your own built here ? Capt. Marueson. When the opportunity comes to get it built; would like to have one built here later. I would have one built now if I could get it. Secretary ReprigLp. Capt. Smith, can you tell us about this dif- ference in outfitting ? Capt. Smiru. I can get the figures for you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary REDFIELD. ‘We would like to get a statement of what you pay for a vessel outfitted here and in Canada. Capt. Smirn. I can get figures on a great many articles. Secretary Repriexp. Will you? Capt. Smirn. I will. Secretary Reprrerp. And making the comparison an equitable one in which the conditions are the same. Capt. Smiru. We have had vessels this year that have bought the whole outfit in Canadian ports, and I will give you those prices. Secretary Reprietp. Thank you. Capt. Smrrn. And let you know what the other vessels are paying here for them. Secretary Reprrevp. That is just what we want. We would like to have you send that information to Dr. Smith, in Washington, please. (See Exhibit W.) Capt. Smiru. I will do se. Mr. Founp. Captain, can you give us the cost of a 100-ton vessel here and the cost of a 100-ton vessel in Canada? y) 954 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Capt. Smrrn. I don’t know as I can tell you about the cost in Canada at the present time, but the Canadian vessels are cheaper than vessels here. Mr. Founp. Do they last as long as American vessels ? Capt. Smirx. No. Mr. Founp. Then an American vessel may be cheaper in the long run ¢ Capt. Smiru. She is, in the long run. For instance, one of ,our vessels is 20 years old, and I think we would class it with a vessel built in Lunenburg that was 10 vears old. Chief Justice Hazen. Then, as a matter of fact, taking a series of vears, the American vessel does not cost as much as the Canadian vessel ¢ Capt. Smirn. Not after the first five or six years. One great saving in running vessels out of Nova Scotia is that they don’t fit them so liberally as we fit them here. I am interested in a way in vessels sailing from Canada and Newfoundland, and those vessels gave us more money and the crew got more last year than from ves- sels out of here, because it costs so much more to fit the vessels here, and we gave them so much more. They demand more here. Secretary Reprretp. The same men? Capt. Smiru. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. It wasn’t so much because of the extra prices here ¢ Capt. Smrrn. No, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. But because the vessels here were fitted out, I may say, more hberally ? Capt. Smrru. Yes, sir; and more economically down there. Chief Justice Hazen. Take the pork, beef, butter, things of that sort that enter into the consumption on a fishine vessel 4 Capt. Smiru. Cost more down there than here. Chief Justice Hazun. The prices there are higher, are they ? Capt. Smirn. Yes, sir; and that is the reason why we had some of our vessels come here and fit. We have three bankers now, for instance, sailing out of Newfoundland. They took their outfit here this spring, because we could buy it much cheaper than down there, and the vessels are fitted much more economically than those same vessels would be fitted if they went out of Gloucester the last few vears. Chief Justice Hazen. Does that mean that the sailors sailing out of Gloucester demand more of what you might term luxuries? Capt. Suiru. Well, a little different class of food. Chief Justice Hazen. A higher class? Capt. Smirn. Yes. Secretary Reprrevp. Capt. Smith, have you had actual experience in sailing vessels yourself? Capt. Smiru. No, sir. Secretary Reprrevp. Are you able to say whether a Gloucester ves- sel built of oak, as has been described, is a vessel that could be driven harder ? Capt. Smiru. Oh, yes, sir. Secretary Reprrevp. Than a Canadian vessel ? Capt. Smiru. Yes, sir. _AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 255 Secretary Reprievp. Does that mean capacity to make her trips faster ? Capt. Smrru. Not necessarily; no. Secretary Reprietp. Is she a more efficient vessel / Capt. Smrru. Not for the first five years or so. When she is new she is just as good as ours. Secretary Rupr reLD. But after that ? Capt. Surrn. After that she needs more repairs than ours; don’t last as long. Secretary Reprietp. At the end of 10 years is the additional amount in a Gloucester vessel well invested or ill-invested, compara- tively speaking ? Capt. Smirn. Well invested. Secretary Reprieip. So the capital, if T understand you correctly, is invested more effectively through the life of the ship in the Gloucester vessel / Capt. Smiru. I think so; yes, sir. Secretary Reprieip. So, taking vessels by and large, a hundred of them, it isn’t the first cost that is the controlliong factor, but what ae are able to get for the cost in the long run? Capt. SM1ru. “That is the way I look at it. Secretary Reprretp. It is the same as in buying machine tools. FE or one you will pay $1.000 and for another $600, but at the end of six years the cheaper one is worn out, and the other one is still good for six years. It is the question of the work done by the two tools, respectively. relative to the cost rather than the first cost of the tools, that is to be considered ? Capt. Smiru. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprizyp. And where you can get a thing that is that much better for $1,000, you will use the $1, 000 article ‘instead of the 3600 article right along, if you have the capital ? Capt. Surrn. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprrevp. Exactly. JI ran a factory on that basis for a good many years, right along. Capt. Smirn. Yes, sir. I don’t think you save over $2.000 now between Lunenburg and Essex on the same materials. Dr. Smiru. On what total cost ? Capt. Smrra. $20,000. Secretary Reprierp. So really you have here simply two different theories in the construction of vessels—whether it is better to build a cheaper vessel and build more often, so to speak, or build a better vessel and not build so often? That is the fact, is it not, from a busi- ness standpoint ? Capt. Swirn. Yes, sir. I think it is hard to get oak in Nova Sco- tia, and always has been. STATEMENT BY MR. ORLANDO MERCHANT, OF W. H. JORDAN CO., GLOUCESTER. Mr. MaRrsHALt. Mr. Chairman, there were two Clintonias built in 1907, one in Nova Scotia and aeRO NEE here, and Mr. Merchant can tell you just what they cost at that time. 256 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Secretary Repriptp. That was 10 years ago. Mr. Ortanno Mercuant. The Clintonia built here cost $15,000 before putting anything on it, and the other cost $9,000 ready for the sea down there. I think they are both living to-day; neither one of them is worn out. Chief Justice Hazen. What was the one built here built of ? Mr. Mercuant. Oak. Chief Justice Hazpn. And what was the other built of ? Mr. Mercuant. I suppose of softwood, the same as all of them down there. They are both hving and going to-day. Dr. Suiru. Which is the best ? Mr. Mercuant. Probably the Nova Scotia Clintonia will go for five years longer, but it is not as good a boat as the other. Mr. Marsuartu. The one here has just made two trips to the Mediterranean, and I doubt very much if the other one could go abroad to-day. Secretary Reprmip. You see, the question is, when you are speak- ing of prices, considering prices in Gloucester as compared with those in Canada, whether the additional price paid for a ship here is well or ill spent. Mr. Mercuant. A Gloucester ship is better; there is no doubt about it. j Secretary Reprietp. And over a period of years would be the better investment ¢ Mr. Mercuant. Of course, there is quite a difference in price be- tween $9,000 and $15,000. The Clintonia here cost $15,000. Chief Justice Hazen. You think there would be the same differ- ence in prices now / Mr. Mercuant. I think there is. The vessel] would cost more here now. Such a vessel would cost here to-day over $20,000. Chief Justice Hazen. Yes; because the cost of everything has ad- vanced. STATEMENT BY MR. CHARLES F. WONSON, OF THE GLOUCESTER SALT FISH CO., GLOUCESTER. Mr. Wonson. Mr. Chairman, most of the testimony so far has been given by vessel owners or fishermen. In Boston, for the last two days you have heard the statements of fresh-fish men or cold-storage men. IT want to speak, as I can, from the standpoint of a class of distribu- tors of which there are quite a few in the city, who are not vessel owners and are not producers in that way, but are quite large dis- tributors and are quite an important factor in the distribution of that product. Our business here, as you know, is largely salted, pickled, and smoked fish, and it is, to my mind, as important an interest as even the fresh or cold-storage interests.. I will try to explain why. Our friends in Boston, the fresh-fish people and the cold-storage people, testified before this commission that, owing to the distance and to transportation difficulties, they were able to supply only a cer- tain area of the country. Now, without our salt-fish market how could the balance of the large territory be taken care of? Further- os AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. DST more, even in that area which they claim that they can cover well and safely at the present time there are occasions when fresh fish are not procurable on account of the weather conditions and possibly because there is not a sufficient quantity in the cold-storage ware- houses. You can see how necessary is our salt-fish product, which is a reserve supply. Further than that, it is not always convenient, it 1s not always pos- sible, it is not at all possible except for immediate consumption, for the hous sewife to have in her store closet a supply of fresh fish, and if at a moment’s notice she thinks that fish would be a gcod meal for the day she sends to the market and the market man tells her that to-day, because of this, that or the other, no fresh fish are avail- able. She then either has to buy meat or go without: her dinner. But with the salt fish on hand she knows that she is provided fer, because she has salt fish. She has salt mackerel, she has all kinds of canned fish to-day, if she is a careful housewife, and that sort of thing is growing tremendously, as demonstrated by our friend Frank E. Davis, She has a supply of each of those fish on hand, and is able to furnish her family and guests with a meal. That shows the necessity of us people who are distributors of salt fish pro- curing the material from which we can make the salt fish. The fear seems to be expressed by our fresh-fish people that 1f the Canadian or foreign vessels were allowed free access to our American ports the fresh fish would be here in such an oversupply that it would depress the market prices to such an extent that the business would not be remunerative. But without what they call the surplus supply, what we cal] an ample supply, we would not have a chance to buy those | goods at a figure which we call a splitting price, which eneiles us to do dress, cure, salt those fish, and hold them for the salt-fish busi- ness. Our friends in Boston, if you will remember, stated that they had on hand at the Pee I think, about 2,000,000 pounds, whieh could not be sold for 65 cents. Well, 64 cents, gentlemen, seems pretty cheap, when they are getting 12, 14, and 15 cents, but 64 cents is a mighty good price for fresh fish in a wholesale way. and it pays the produce ra mighty good profit. Those fish, I think I am safe in saying, could be sold for 3 cents a pound to the splitters, and th ey would command that to-day. They have sold much cheaper in the past, and yet have shown an extremely good profit to the producers of those fish, . Now, then, we must get this surplus supply, and I want to speak for my friends who are in the same sort of business that I am, in the open market. JI am not going to speak on the other side, because | am not a vessel owner and it does not interest me, except that as a citizen I want to see the closest connections in every way between the two countries. But I will speak on one side of the question and will try to show the necessity for a more ample supply of fish from some source in our American ports. Otherwise we will not have the salt-fish preducts which will enable us to do our share for the food supply of the people of this country. A very small proportion of our stock in Gloucester to-day is taken for what we term salted fish from the vessels. Most of our product to- evagtad that means a change as compared with years ago—is 258 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. brought imto the market fresh or semifresh, or iced. We take it, split it, dress it, salt it, put it into the butts, and hold it until such time as the trade demand that we take it out, cure it and pack it. So we are depending almost entirely to-day upon the fresh-fish receipts for cur stock of the salted goods. I want to say a word, if you will allow me to do so here, for the much-abused whiting, because it has had a peculiar history and I have had perhaps a peculiar experience in connection with it. This is going to be a rambling talk, perhaps, but I would like to tell the Secretary about this if he cares to hear me, because I was in the business when whiting were first commenced. to oh caught by trap and weir fishermen along the coast. For many years these w vhiting were considered a pest by the fishermen. They actin fill the traps and prevent fish of other kinds getting im, and they were thrown out of the traps by hundreds of thousands of barrels. But because there were so many thousands of these fish a great many would become tangled in the meshes of the nets, and when the nets were hauled the fish would have to be taken out by hand. As it was just as easy to throw the fish into the dory as to throw them overboard, some of the fishermen, in order to pay their overhead costs, w ould save those fish, bringing them to the splitters, and the splitters tried to see if something could not be done with them by salting them. At that time, as you know, as a fresh fish possibility they were not considered at all. Very many dealers did try to sell the fish, but the people didn’t think very much of them. The fish had no fat; they were a very watery fish. When they are salted the salt seems to ab- sorb all the moisture there is. They get very flat and it seems as if there was nothing but skin to them, and they are rather tough. Be they were cheap and were sold by hundred of thousands of barrels a 25 or 30 cents a barrel. It didn’t pay the fishermen, but at times no other fish were running and they had to take them out, and they felt that perhaps they could get a day’s work out of a dory load, two or three dollars. So they were glad to sell them for 25 or 30 cents a barrel. So they didn’t cost the dealer much. It was more a matter of labor expense than anything else. They tried to put them on the market as a cheap salt fish for the southern trade. The product, on account of its price principally, took tremendously, and very shortly they were being cured and sold by carloads to all the southern country. That trade would have been continued for years had the same education been extended to the fish dealers, the same educational policy, that is now being carried out by the Government of the country. That is to say, if vhs dealers had been educated to take any kind of fish and put it on the market in the past, it would have been the best possible think for the fish industry. But what was the con- sequence? The fish was so cheap that nobody eared much about it. A number of concerns took them on to fill in spare time for their men employed temporarily. If anything more important came in the men working on those fish w ould be taken off for the more im- portant duties, ‘and the fish would lay around perhaps 24 or 48 hours before they were finally dressed, salted, and sent down South. Anything was good enough to go down South. What was the consequence ? In two or three years the dealers com- menced to have an over-supply on hand, and they asked the trade AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 259 what the trouble was. They were told, ‘“ We can’t do any thing with the fish. Our customers won't eat them.” “Why not?” “They say they are no good; that they are not put up as good as they used to be.” It was simply want of care. But a report came in regard to the fish from a great many people. The fish, being salted, became very dry, and when fried—and most fish are fried in the South— they would curl up, and the report came to us that these fish would fly out of the pan. That was an exaggeration. They wouldn’t fly out of the pan, but they would curl up. I had at this time a thousand barrels on hand, and some of my friends move than that or as many. The trade wouldn’t take hold of them, and we about all concluded that they would have to be sent to the glue factory er the fertilizer factory, and very many barrels were so sent. But T had a thousand barrels, gentlemen, that I thought I had taken pretty good care of, and I hated to send a couple of thousand dollars to the guano factor Vy if I could help it; and so I started some experiments, and this touches on my whole point in regard to education. IT said, “I believe those fish properly prepared can be relished, if they are properly cooked,” and I took some of the fish home and, remembering what had been written me from the South in regard to the fish curling up and flying out of the pan, I said, “I will skin the fish, soak them out, and try handling them in that way. boiling them and cooking them in different ways.” I said, “Anything that is good enough for me to eat 1s good enough for anybody down the other side of the line,’ and so [I experimented with them and fixed them up in good shape, and they were all mght. When properly bandled they would not curl up and fly out of the pan, and so I simply instructed people to try and skin the fish and comply with the inclosed recipes, and I wrote my customers and brokers and said I would send those leaflets in quantity to any customer who would handle the gceods, to influence the dealer to push the goods. You had to use some inflnence, because they had been given a black eve and everybody was against them. I told my cus stomers that for every hundred barrels that they would take and market, at a certain Bae I would put in five for which I wouldn’t charge, and that would be velvet for them: That was attractive advertising, and I give you my word that that theusand barrals of fish, instead “of going to the waste pile, went to the trade South and was satisfactory. We commenced to learn some- thing about whiting and commenced to take better care of them: but in the mean time the fresh fish and cold-storage people found ‘that _ they were a pretty good fish and they brought a better price. What is in the market has sold from $7 to $10 PN hundred, and the market is eleaned out and the demand is growing. That is what can be done with whiting. I speak of whiting because everybody knows about whiting, and it has been talked about a good deal. Tt can be done with all kinds of fish. That sort of work can be done with all kinds of fish. We have had our experience here in the past with food fish that has been brought here in an unmerchantable condition, and which people have felt obliged to utilize and send out to the trade. It was done to a certain extent, but the business was ruined. The dealers came together and said, “ We will have no business left if you allow this sort of thing to continue”; and so we took a stand and said to the fish captains, “Gentlemen, you must bring in your fish in proper condition, or we will not accept it from you.” The sug- "260 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE, gestion was taken very kindly; the men understood the situation, and since then the fish have been br ought in in very much better shape than ever before. As a consequence our trade, without the war con- ditions, has continued to expand and increase. I trust, gentlemen, that in considering this question you will con- sider the advantages of the distributors, the advantages which the distributors, have with their conveniences to place before the Ameri- can public any quantity of fish that they can secure. But the diffi- culty with us who are equipped to distribute those fish is to get the fish. Weare not vessel owners and we can scarcely expect a man who is a vessel owner to furnish us with the product so long as he can utilize it himself. Consequently, we are obliged to. look to outside sources for our fish. So if you can give us the fish through any legis- lation you can make, or any treaties, I will guarantee that there are enough people in Gloucester who will and can improve their con- veniences of distribution so that we will do our part to take care of the trade. STATEMENT BY CAPT. THOMAS M. NICKERSON, OF BUCKSPORT, ME. Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we have with us here to-day Capt. Thomas M. Nickerson, from Bucksport, Me., a man who has been a sea captain and who is a large vessel owner there now, and who represents the entire fishing business of the State of Maine. He tells me that he can not make a speech, but that he is willing to be interregated on any matter. This man has risen from captain up te a large vessel owner, and is very conversant with the entire subject. I will introduce to you Capt. Nickerson. Secretary Ruprimenp. Captain, what is your full name and your business ¢ Capt. Nickerson. Thomas M. Nickerson, of Bucksport, Me.; in the fishing business; salt-fishing business. Secretary Reprrenp. Are you a fish producer ? Capt. Nickerson. I am. Secretary Reprrenp. Not a fish distributor ? Capt. Nickerson. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprievp. You are both a fish producer and a fish dis- tributor ? Capt. Nickerson. I am. Secretary Repririp. Do you own your own vessels? Capt. Nrcxerson.-I do. Secretary Reprrenp. Have you had actual experience on a sailing vessel, yourself ? Capt. Nickerson. I have. Secretary Reprrevp. Have you ever held a Canadian license, Capt. Nickerson ? Capt. Nickerson. Yes, sir. Secretary Reprrarp. Why did you have the license? Capt. Nickerson. Well, to go in to different places. ‘The vessel has been into Shelburne, Yar rmouth, different places along there, and Sydney, I guess. Secretary Reprieip. Did you feel that the license was needed ¢ Cajt. Nickerson. Why, yes, sir. Se ae AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 261 Secretary Reprizip. And thought you could afford to pay ‘the license fee / Capt. Nickerson. Well, we thought so. Secretary Reprietp. Would it be an advantage to you to have the license extended to your power vessels? Capt. Nickerson. Have none. Secretary Reprreip. You have no power vessels‘ Capt. Nickerson. No, sir. Secretary Reprrevp. Would it be an advantage to you to have the license fee reduced to a nominal charge of a dollar a year? Capt. Nickerson. Well, I w ouldn’t want to say, but if we could go in there for one thing and another, perhaps it inight be all right. Secretary Repriep. Of course, the point I had in “mind was this: You now have to pay $1.50 per registered ton for a license? Capt. Nickerson. I understand. Secretary Reprrevp. And the proposition before us contams as a portion of it the suggestion that the license fee be practically done away with and ice ‘a nominal charge of $1 per annum per vessel be substituted. Capt. Nickerson. I should feel that that would be all right pro- viding there were no concessions made from this side. Secretar y Reprretp. What do you mean by that, Captain? Capt. Nickerson. Well, I don’t want to center into that subject, but there are various things that might be referred to at the present time. I am only a fisherman, but I have been more or less down through your country on my way to Newfoundland, back and forth, for the past 12 years, and I no doubt have heard, listened to quite a number of your men in regard to one thing and another, and of late years the war: and, I being, as they knew, from what they call “the States.” they have sometimes discussed the question of us coming with them. I told them I guessed we would come, that the time was coming when we would come, and we have come, and I feel as if with what we produce and what we have done, that we, I think, are doing all that we ought to do, without giving any con- cessions. Secretary Reprrerp. When you say “concessions” de you mean that we in the United States should not grant the Canadian vessels the right to enter our ae directly ¢ C apt. Nickerson. I do. Secretary Reprrevp. And why so, Captain? Capt. Nickerson. Why, you have your own fishing grounds, your own ports; you can build vessels with your own materials, and you have got the men, and it looks to me as if you had got everything. It looks to me as if we didn’t have but a very small part in this, when it comes right down to justice and fairness. You know, it costs people more to live. more for everything here, and we can not com- pete. We can not think of competing o with these fish coming in here free. I don’t beheve it. Secretary Reprrevp. In other words, Captain, it is your idea that fish delivered to you in an American vessel costs more to deliver than it would in a Canadian vessel. Is that so? Capt. Nickerson. Well, I don’t know. Your advantages are more, of course. It is more to your advantage, you being so ‘much nearer 262 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. the fishing grounds and my company so much farther away, and your men being there. Secretary Repriecp. I am an American. Capt. Nickerson. I beg pardon. Secretary. Reprreip. You don’t have to apologize. Capt. Nickerson. I know, but you are asking me something that is pertinent to both sides. Secretary Reprievp. That is right. Capt. Nickerson. And I am answering to the best of my ability. Secretary Reprretp. What we want to get at in the commission is this. If I understand you correctly. you do not feel that you can compete on even terms with the C naga vessels. Is that so? Capt. Nickerson. I don’t, really. I don’t feel that we can. I don’t know. My gracious! I think we are doing a good deal, and I believe this is a serious question for the fishermen and the vessel owners of the States of Massachusetts and Maine, covering practically the coast of New England and probably as far as New York. I don’t know. I think we are doing all and giving all that we can, and I don’t know but a little mite more. Secretary Reprrevp. But I don’t get an answer to my question, Captain. Mr. Sweet. Is this your idea, Captain? You think, as long as we have gone into the war and are helping our Canadian friends out, that they can not respond too generously to us? ae Nickerson. There, sir, you have got it! Mr. Sweer. That is your idea? Capt. Nickerson. Now you have just hit the nail on the head. I didn’t like to bring that in, but I think that is the situation at the present time, taking things the way they are and what we are doing. T don’t want to be selfish or anything of the kind, but I think really, my gracious goodness’ sake, we are entitled to something. Secretary ReprirLp. Suppose, Captain, you look at it “from this point of view, that, relative to population and relative to resources, ima war which is of conimon interest and is as important to us as to them, Canada has dene far more in proportion than we are pro- posing to do, even. Now, looking at it from that point of view, which is the fact, if you take the relative resources of Canada and her population, think of her sending half a million men and main- taining them, a tremendous undertaking, their blood having been shed like water, as ours perhaps will be, in a common cause, if there exists any obligation by reason of what the respective nations have done in the war, the obligation is from us to them, broadly, and not from them to us. They were in it first; they have suffered far more than we. They have given of their children’ in far larger proportion than we have done, and if we were to give in proportion as they have done our army in Europe would outnumber that of Great Britain and France put together. JI am afraid you haven’t thought of that. Capt. Nickerson. I have, very carefully. I have this to say, that we are only just, practically speaking, amateurs in going in, and we have not got there. We have only just commenced, just started; but before we get through I am afraid there is going to be a different way to look at it than at the present time. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 263 Secretary Reprrevp. I hope so. Capt. Nickerson. I don’t blame you. Secretary Reprretp. Now, let us come back to this proposition, Captain. Our Government approached the Canadian Government with a request that they grant us certain privileges in their ports. The request came from us. The proposition was originally our oWn. They say, * While we nominally have free access for our catch to your ports. as a matter of fact, by reason of ancient nav igation laws, by reason of laws passed in the eighteenth century, you are imposing upon us certain restrictions which we would like to have removed.” Namely, they ask to have the right to come directly into our ports from the banks and to go directly to the banks from our ports. Now. if they give to us such rights in their ports freely, why isn’t it a fair proposition for us to reciprocate? If it is not fair, why isn’t it fair? Tf it is not fair, we want to know it. Capt. Nickerson. We pay for that privilege. Secretary Reprietp. They purpose to give us that privilege free. of course. Capt. Nickerson. Now, to speak plainly and conscientiously, we are all more or less selfish, and I am going to be as just as I can in answering that question. We have vessels “here and vou have vessels there; you have fish there and we have fish here. Now, I presume a man who actually has vessels that catch fish would naturally like to have his own markets to market his fish in. He doesn’t like per- haps to have another country, we will call it, marketing their lish perhaps in the same market. But the other man can do it, now. This Canadian country can produce fish and put them onto this market in spite of all, and do it for less money than it can be done here now, I am afraid. It is the same in the construction of vessels. As far as material is concerned, they haven’t got to go far back for what they want. They have all they need, and they have their men to build them for a Tess amount of wages, and they have got the fishing grounds nearer io them than we have in this co ountry, much nearer, and they can produce fish, you know, and more of them, for less money than we can from this coast, Massachusetts or anywhere between here and Cape Sabie. Secretary Reprrevp. Are all the banks nearer them 4 Capt. Nickerson. Yes, sir. But my line is salt fishing. There are banks off here, but they produce more fresh fish. Fresh fish come from around these grounds. Mr. Smirn. May I inquire how many vessels go from Maine ports to the salt bank fisheries? Capt. Nickerson. IT may have five or six, suppose I have another one, SIX or seven. Mr. Smiru. The total number? Capt. Nickerson. That is, bank fishing, I don’t know, but I think T am the only one sending vessels salt fishing, bank fishing. Mr. Smiru. Where are your fish sold? Capt. Nickerson. Sold out of Bucksport. They come in there. and we ship them. We cut and smoke, sell some whole, sell them both ways. Mr. Sairn. Where are your principal markets ? Capt. Nickerson. Sell in many different places—Massachusetts, New York, sometimes farther. We export some fish to Porto Rico 264 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. and sometimes to Flavana; sometimes dry and half-cured fish and send them to Porto Rico. Secretary Reprietp. Do you have trouble in getting fish enough ? apts Nickerson, Yes, sir: sometimes have lots of trouble in get- tine fish, and sometimes not so much. Secretary Reprizip. Of late you are getting all the fish you need? Capt. Nickerson. No. I buy them. Secretary Reprienp. That is, in addition to your seven or eight vessels ¢ Capt. NicKerson. No, si-—or seven now, have added one. Secretary Reprieip. In addition to the lot they can get you are still buying fish ? : Capt. Nickerson. Some on the coast. Secretary Reprienp. Any trouble in getting them when you want to buy them? Capt. Nickerson. Sometimes they don’t come too planty. Secretary. Reprizip. Is the business growing, Captain ? Capt. Nickerson. Well, now, I should say that in the past couple of years it might have improved some. Secretary Reprievp, Isn’t that a very moderate statement, Cap- Capt. Nickerson. Well, to quite an extent. Chairman Reprizrp, To quite an extent Capt. Nirexerson. Yes, sir. Secretary Repriep. Why do you suppose the business is growing so fast, Captain? Capt. Nickerson. W ell, the country 1s increasing in population. Secretary Reprieip. Short of meat, is it not? Capt. Nickerson. And all the physicians through the country are advising people more than they used to to eat fish, and it is in all the papers, and we have to take into consideration that the shortage of food this winter has caused more consumption of fish. Pom elaty Repristp. And vou think that likely to grow ? Capt. Nicxerson. Well, there, I wish I knew ! Secretary Reprrenp. You hope so? Capt. Nickerson. Yes, I hope so. Secretary Reprrenp. Where do the American people come in on this proposition, Captain ? Capt. Nroxerson. T don’t know; in regard to the people, I don’t know. Of course, you know, when you come to this question of the American people, why, there are some people, vou know, that are— well, we don’t want to go into that, perhaps, because I am not a blue blood, and when you discuss that with me we would have to go, you know, into these people that are away above fishermen, that think they are. Secretary Reprretp. Have you ever heard such a thing as com- plaint because the cost of living was so high ? Capt. Nrcxerson. I have. Secretary Reprrenp. And what about the American people being entitled to get the largest possible supply of fish at the lowest price? Capt. NrcKrerson. That is all right. Secretary Repriziwy. They ought to have it, ought they not? Capt. Nickerson. Why, I don’t know why not; provided the men in the business are properly treated. They have got to get a profit AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 265 out of their business, but they can not get the profit that they are getting down about a couple of hundred miles from us to the east- ward. Those fellows are the fellows that are making the money to-day. They are making a great deal more, in my opinion, then we are up here, and they are doing it easier, They have got the men, and they have built, I don’t know, about thirty-odd_ vessels this winter, I hear, and have all the men ‘they want and have the fishing almost, as I tell you, at their own door, and they can not help pro. ducing fish at much less, with the labor to take care of and handle it, than in this country. That is where it comes, in my opinion. Secretary Reprrevp. What percentage of the fish that comes into our country comes from Canada ? Capt. Nickerson. I haven't the statistics and I don’t keep track of that, perhaps, as much as I ought to. I don’t know. Secretary Reprretp. It is rather surprising, isn’t it, under the circumstances, with our market so very high and their costs so very low, that their entire catch is not sold in the United States? Isn't that rather surprising ? Capt. Nickerson. Well, you know, there is good air down there to cure the fish, good markets to ship the fish through the West Indies, and the men own more interest. in the vessels and take care of everything, and they are as much ahead of us as the sun is above the earth in some ways, and they can not help but getting something out of this when we can not, on account of the expense. Secretary Reprrevp. Your idea is that the Canadian fishermen run the business better than we run our business? Capt. Nickerson. I don’t know about their running it better. They are no smarter men. They have some good men and we have some good ones here. Secretary Reprrevp. Thank vou very much, Captain. We are very much obliged to you. STATEMENT BY MR. GEORGE J. TARR, OF THE GEORGE J. TARR CO., DEALERS IN FISH OILS, GLOUCESTER. Mr. Tarr. Mr. Chairman. others have expressed their views with reference to other parts of the fish industry, and I have an industry which is known as a by-product. It is as essential in every respect as the codfish business, although its yoliime of business is not as large. IT now refer to the ced-oil business. I hope, whatever may be the future legislation pertaining to this matter, it will not prevent the people of the United States from con- tinuing to bring in fish and cod oil to our country. Some years ago it was without difficulty that we got all the oil we wanted right here in this port and along the Maine coast, as far as Eastport. Gradu- ally the vessels commenced to leave, for one purpose or one reason and another, until the Grand Banks fleet that we depended upon so much has almost ceased to exist. Merchants of Gloucester have gone to other places to obtain their supplies, as you all well know, and we with our small industry had to follow suit. At that time there was a protective tariff, and I was a protection- ist, because we were getting plenty of cod oil. I was a protectionist because the menhaden industry—an industry having perhaps the 266 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE, greatest volume of money invested in it, more than was invested in the salt-fish business of New England—was then struggling for ex- istence, on account of the low price of the goods; but oradually, as all things do, as everything is doing all the time, things changed and continued to change all the time, there began to be greater de- mands for the poor menhaden oil, that was the cheapest grease on the market, competing with grease that came from France, going into the manufacture of leather. Gradually, by improvement in methods in connection with the menhaden oil, by different methods, taking better fish and converting it into a light oil, it was used in connection with linoleums, soaps, paints, and for lots of other pur- poses, the price being raised so that it was more valuable than cod oil. Cod oil, on the other hand, has to go into the leather trade. This is a very important question. Automobile leathers. sole leathers, upper leathers, kip leathers, every kind of leather worn to-day by ladies or gents, is bathed in cod oil. Now, the supply of cod oil is limited. Newfoundland pro- duces about 15,000 barrels a year: Canada runs from 7,000 to 14,000, depending on the catch. Yeu can see how limited that is when it comes to supplying the manufacturers of the United States with their oil. While menhaden oi] in what we would term an ordinary or a good year was being produced to the extent of 187,000 barrels, we have taken that right cut of the market, from where it used to be consumed, because in connection with every piece of steel, every saw, every hammer that is tempered, they use menhaden oil, and consume it in large quantities. But cod oil is distinct; there is nothing in connection with the manufacture of a piece of leather equal to cod oil. Its nature is such. We have now only 30,000 bar- rels of.cod oil, or say in a good vear 50.000 barrels, to use in the United States, where we need at least double that quantity. Now. let me give you an idea of the way things have been changed. We were buyi ing oil 20 years ago at from 30 to 35 cents a gallon. What is taking place to-day? It is $1.05 a gallon, the same oil, and there is not half enough to go around. We are paying the fishermen 95 cents and even a dollar, in some instances. It 1s an important ee to keep this market open. We can not go without it. Some will sa to you, ‘“ Get it from Norway cer Teeland.” We get very little Be there. The Germans, the first year of the war, gobbled all the cod liver oil and carried it off to Germany, and it is scarce in England. It may be surprising to you to know that the year before the war 186,000 barrels were imported into this country for consumption. We want the consumptives to still have their oil from Nova Scotia, or wherever it may come from. It has got to come. You want to bear in mind the by-products from codfish. There are the fish blad- ders, and there are the fish sounds, an enormous quantity, hake sounds. An enormous amount are imported from other parts of the world to supply the demand. Of course, those handling those fish can tell more about them than I can. I am going to digress just a bit, and only for a moment. I have been in the last 10 years visiting nearly every port in Canada, large and small, trying to find oil, and I have gone into the small hamlets and the largest cities. I have dealt with the fishermen and I have dealt with the merchants, for the last 8 years more particularly, and ne AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 267 IT want to say to you, gentlemen, if I am any kind of an observer at all, that Gloucester has done much for Canada and Canada has done much for Gloucester. The closest of feelings are now existing. The people are welcoming the men who have gone there and ‘bought green fish that never was sold before. Those fishermen are building more boats to-day and are bringing more of their sons into the busi- ness, and I think I speak w ith “authority when I say that the Gaspean coast has more fishermen on it to-day than ever before in the history of the business. That means much for the interest of the business. ) Seattles Washer ses pees seseeee fedoree Do. Gasca PAtoTes EB eso sept een 11 Ketchikan, Alaska Ose Rere Do. Gass Sealiilchtetsyene nse ee 19 do ZAG ONS ee Do. Goats ln Tian S See eer eee 10 UCWessecac Do. Total, 32 vessesls..... 2,796 Grand total, 74 vessels, 6 6,581 gross tons. EXHIBIT P. RESOLUTION PREPARED BY DR. SMITH AND MR. FOUND RELATIVE TO HALIBUT FISHING. Whereas the intensive fishing for halibut that has gone on for years on the halibut banks of the Pacific off the coasts of Canada and the United States has resulted in such serious depletion of the fishery on all but the far northern banks as to threaten its commercial extinction; and Whereas all the halibut banks are inhabited by several other kinds of highly edible fish which are caught frequently in as large or even larger quantities AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Dis than halibut on the halibut fishing gear but which fish have in past years been altogether or largely thrown away as caught, on account of little or no market existing therefor; and Whereas these fish can be produced and placed on the markets at vastly cheaper prices than halibut, so that it is in the public interest that a general de- mand therefor should be worked up and fishing for such fish as an industry en- couraged, thus lessening the pressure on the halibut fishery: and Whereas in the light of the investigations into the life history of the halibut that have been carried on up to this time, the most feasible method of ade- quately protecting the halibut fishery appears to be to divide the waters off the coasts of the United States and Canada into defined areas and prohibit all fishing for halibut in one area or several such areas for a sufficient num- ber of years to enable the immature halibut therein to reach maturity, and then open such areas to halibut fishing for a given number of years and pro- hibit such fishing on the other areas, and so on: and : Whereas the effect of such method of protecting the halibut would be to pre- vent fishing for the different kinds of “cod” and other edible fish on such uveas during the time that halibut fishing thereon would be prohibited, as the gear used to catch such fish would also capture halibut, and thus retard the development of such fisheries which might otherwise in a few years be of even more econoinic value to the general public of both countries than the halibut: Therefore Resolved, That in the opinion of this conference it would be best for the respective Governments to have exhaustive scientific investigations continue into the natural history of the halibut, in order to determine if there is any method of properly protecting it without unduly restricting or retarding the development of other important fisheries, and that meantime and forthwith each Government exert every feasible effort to create a sufficient demand for the different kinds of *‘ cod,” flounders, and other edible fish not only to take care of the species thereof now being caught by the halibut fishermen, but also to en- courage the catching of these fish as a separate industry. and it is so recommended. EXHIBIT Q. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF NAVIGATION, Washington, January 24, 1918. Memorandum for Secretary Redfield: I was wrong in stating so emphatically that the act of 1898S amending section 3109 does not apply to the Atlantic ports of the United States. It would apply, if cases arise in such ports, which is seldom, if ever, so far as I am aware, the case. The act of 1898 was designed to meet Alaska conditions. To cover both the seaboard of Alaska and the Yukon and Stikine Rivers the words ‘“ by sea or otherwise” were incorporated in the amendatory act. Those words ex- tend the act to Atlantic ports. I hasten to correct my statement into which I was led by reflection solely upon the purpose of the act of 1898 and by the fact that I have no recollection of a case under the act ever having come to my notice. I inclose full memoranda on the act of 1898. Respectfully, (Signed ) EK. T. CHAMBERLAIN, Conimissioner. EXHIBIT R. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF NAVIGATION, Washington, January 24, 1918. Memorandum for Secretary Redfield: Section 3109 of the Revised Statutes was originally section 41 of the act of July 18, 1866, “An act further to prevent smuggling, and for other purposes. The section related to foreign vessels arriving in the waters of the United States from foreign territory adjacent to the northern, northeastern, and 374 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. northwestern frontiers of the United States which were, as the phrase is used in other acts, the Canadian frontiers on the Great Lakes and the St. Law- rence River. To stiffen our coastwise laws for the development of American merchant shipping and to meet conditions arising in Alaska, being newly developed, sec- tion 3109, R. S., was amended by the insertion of the underscored words: “Phe master of any foreign vessel, laden or in ballast, arriving, whether by sea or otherwise, in the waters of the United States from any foreign terri- tory adjacent to the northern, northeastern, or northwestern frontiers of the United States, shall report at the office of any collecor or deputy collector of the customs, which shall be nearest to the point at which such vessel may enter such waters; and such vessel shall not transfer her cargo or passengers to another vessel or proceed farther inland, either to uniade to take in cargo, without a special permit from such collector or deputy collector issued under and in accordance with such general or special regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may, in his discretion, from time to time prescribe. This sec- tion shall also apply to trade with or through Alaska. For any violation of this section such vessel shall be seized and forfeited. (Repealed by Art. 1. treaty of Jan. 11, 1909, with Great Britain.)” The words “ whether by sea or otherwise,” were inserted to cover both trade between Alaska and British Columbia by sea and by the Yukon and Stikine Rivers. The words “such vessel shall not transfer her cargo or passengers to an- other vessel or” were inserted to restrict the trade of foreign ships. In so far as section 8109 was applicable. to British vessels on the Great Lakes and the St. Luwrence River it was in conflict with Article 1, treaty of January 11, 1909, with Great Britain, and the Attorney General, in an opinion dated April 2, 1915, held that to this extent section 3109 was superseded [copy at- tached], and instructions were issued to collectors. [Copy attached. ] Respectfully, (Signed. ) Hy. LT. CHAMBERLAIN, Comniissioner. HXHIBIT S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OPEICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D. C., February 9, 1898. The Hon. WiiLtiaAm P. FRY®, Chairman Committee on Cominerce, U.S. Senate. Str: Replying to your indorsement of Senate bill 8580, entitled “A bill to amend the laws relating to navigation,” in which you request a report from this department, T have to state: New and peculiar conditions, created by the discovery of gold on the Yukon River, render desirable the enactment of the inclosed bill: First. In order to strengthen and render more explicit the laws declaring our general policy that the coasting trade (including trade between the rest of the United States and Alaska) shall be reserved exclusively to American vessels. Second. In order to cover more explicitly this s tuation, seagoing vessels can proceed to St. Michael near the mouth of the Yukon. The Yukon is very shallow, in some places only 4 feet deep. Transfers of cargo and passengers from deep-draft seagoing vessels to river vessels drawing little water, are therefore necessary at St. Michael. Substantially the same is true of the Stikine River at Wrangel near its mouth. Section 1 is a stronger and more explicit statement of certain provisions of section 43847 of the Revised Statutes. It is not put in the form of an amend- ment to that section, as the revisers of the statutes saw fit to incorporate in that section certain legislation based on the treaty of Washington of 1871. The present valid’ty of that legislation has for some years been disputed, and to avoid any legislative declaration on tlat dispute as a part of this measure. where it is not involved the first section is drawn independently though in effect it amends indirectly the other portions of section 4347. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Ble) The essential amendment is in the words “or for any part of the voyage.” The question has recently been put to the Treasury whether American goods consigned to Alaskan ports from Seattle can be carried in American vessels to Victoria, a distance of only 72 miles, and at Victor’a be put on British vessels to be carried to Dyea. a distance of about 900 miles, or to St. Michnel, a distance of about 2.000 miles. The Treasury Department has ruled that this is a violation of the laws reserving the coasting trade to American vessels. It is a palpable evasion of those laws but in some quarters doubt is expressed whether the courts will not decide, as they did in the case of a shipment cf a cargo of nails from New York to Antwerp by a foreign vessel, and thence to San Francisco by another foreign vessel that the law hnd been success’ vely evaded, not violated. That decision led to the amendment of Revised Statutes 4347, by the act of February 15, 18938, prohibiting shipment ‘‘ via a foreign port.” That amendinent, however, does not, perhaps. fully cover the transactions here referred to. The policy of the Un'ted States is to confine carrying by water for the whole voyage between American ports to American vessels. It is believed that section 1 explicitly affirms that policy and removes all doubt. mection 2: Section 8 of the act of June 19, 1886 inyposes a penalty of only $2 on foreign vessels carrying passengers from one Aimerican port to another. This small penalty is whotly inadequate to preserve the coastwise carrying of passengers to American vesesIs on the long and expensive voyage from the Pacific coast of the United States to Alaska, up the Yukon, ete. The penalty is increased to $100. The penalty for the like offense imposed by the Canadian laws is #400, and I respectfully suggest that the penalty proposed by this sec- tion may be increased to that maximum. Ib cases where this may seem ex- cessive, the Secretary of the Treasury has the power to mitigate it. Section 3 is designated to give the Secretary of the Treasury full powers to regulate the transfer of cargoes and passengers from deep-sea vessels to shallow- river vessels bound up the Yukon and Stikine. The conditions under which such transfers will occur can not now be fully foreseen, so the bestowal of discretionary power in the Secretary of the Treasury seems the only way to meet the situation. After one season’s experience it will probably be possible. if desirable, to offer for Consideration more precise legislation. Section 4+: Section 8109 of the Revised Statutes is part of an act passed in 1866. The treaty for the purchase of Alaska was made in 1867. There is some doubt, therefore, whether section 8109 is applicable to Alaska. This bill makes it specifically applicable. The insertion of the words “transfer her cargo or passengers to another vessel” is necessary, as seagoing vessels at St. Michael do not *“ proceed farther inland.” There is not encugh water. Accordingly they transfer. The section is a necessary supplement to section 8 of the bill, as it fixes the penalty on the vessel for violation of the regulations. Respectfully, yours, L. J. GAGE, Secretary. 1d, AN, GE EXHIBIT T. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF NAVIGATION, Washington, April 26, 1915. General letter No. 99. Toe Collectors of Customs on the Great Lakes and Others Concerned: The Attorney General. under date of April 2, 1915, held that section 5109 of the Revised Statutes is in conflict with article 1 of the convention concerning the boundary waters between the United States and Canada concluded January 11, 1909, between the United States and Great Britain and the provisions of the treaty being later supersede the provisions of section 8109 Revised Statutes, so far as they are inconsistent therewith. This does not relieve foreign vessels from the requirements of sections 2772, 2773. and 2774 of the Revised Statutes. You will please be governed accordingly. E. T. CHAMBERLAIN, Commissioner. Oo ~I — Qe AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. HNATBID U- DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, April 2, 1915. The honorable the SECRETARY OF STATE. Str: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of January 30, 1915, inclosing copies of correspondence of the Department of State with the Department of Commerce and the British Embassy in relation to repre- sentations made by the embassy to your department to the effect that section 3109 of the Revised Statutes appears to be in conflict with article 1 of the convention concerning the boundary waters between the United States and Canada, concluded January 11, 1909, between the United States and Great Britain. You request my opinion upon the same. Revised Statutes, section 3109, is as follows: - “The master of any foreign vessel, laden or in ballast, arriving, whether by sea or otherwise, in the waters of the United States from any foreign territory adjacent to the northern, northeastern, or northwestern frontiers of the United States. shall report at the office of any collector or deputy collector of the customs, which shall be nearest to the point at which such vessel may enter such waters; and such vessel shall not transfer her cargo or passengers to another vessel or proceed farther inland, either to unlade or take in cargo, without a special permit from such collector, or deputy collector, issued under and in accordance with such general or specific regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may, in his discretion, from time to time prescribe. This section shall also apply to trade with or through Alaska. For any violation of this section such vessel shall be seized and forfeited.” Article 1 of the convention referred to above is as follows: “The high contracting parties agree that the navigation of all navigable boundary waters shall forever continue free and open for the purposes of commerce to the inhabitants and to the ships, vessels, and boats of both countries equally, subject, however, to any laws and regulations of either country. within its own territory, not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation and applying equally and without discrimination to the inhabitants, ships, vessels, and boats of both countries. “Tt is further agreed that so long as this treaty shall remain in force this same right of navigation shall extend to the waters of Lake Michigan and to all canals connecting boundary waters, and now existing or which may here- after be constructed on either side of the line. Wither of the high contracting parties may adopt rules and regulations governing the use of such canals within its own territory and may charge tolls for the use thereof. but all such rules and regulations and all tolls charged shall apply alike to the subjects or citi- zens of the high contracting parties and the ships, vessels, and boats of both of the high contracting parties, and they shall be placed on terms of equality | in the use thereof.” It will be seen that section 3169 of the Revised Statutes imposes certain restrictions upon the masters of foreign vessels with respect to the duty to report to the collector of customs and the right to transfer cargo or passengers. or to proceed farther inland, which are not imposed upon the masters of domestic ships. The treaty provides that the navigation of boundary waters between the two countries for purposes of Commerce shall be free and open, subject only to such laws and regulations, not inconsistent with the privilege of free navigation, as shall apply equally and without discrimination to the inhabitants, ships, vessels, and boats of both countries. In other words, such navigation shall not be subject to laws and regulations which are discrimina- tory. There is, therefore, in my opinion, a clear conflict between the provisions of the treaty and section 3109 of the Revised Statutes, for, since that section relates only to foreign vessels, it constitutes a discriminatory law or regulation to which, under the terms of the treaty, British ships would no be subject. It is well settled by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court that treaty provisions, which are self-executing in the sense that they require no additional legislation to make them effective, are equivalent to and of like obligation with an act of Congress. The Constitution declares that both shall be the supreme law of the land and both are equally binding upon the courts. Foster v. Neilson (1829) (2 Pet., 253, 314) ; The Cherokee Tobacco (1870) (11 Wall., 616, 621) ; Cheong Heong v. United States (1884) (112 U. S., 536. 539) ; -AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Brn Head Money cases (1884) (112 U. 8., 580, 599); Whitney v. Robertson (1888) (124 U. S.. 190, 194). Where such a treaty is in conflict with an act of Congress, that which is later in date will control. A treaty may supersede or abrogate a prior act of Congress. and an act of Congress similarly may abrogate or supersede a prior treaty. Foster v. Neilson, supra; The Cherokee Tobacoo, supra; Whitney Vv. Robertson, supra; Head Money cases, supra; Botiller v. Dominguez (1889) (130 U. S., 238, 247) : The Chinese Exclusion case (1889) (130 U. S.. 581, 600) : Horner v. United States (1892) (143 U. S8., 5790, 578); United States v. Old Settlers (1893) (148 U. S., 427, 468) : Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893) (149 U. S.. 698. 720) ; Lem Moon Sing v. United States (1895) (158 U. S., 538, 549): Wong Wing v. United States (1896) (163 U. S., 228, 230); Thomas v. Gay (1898) (169 U. S., 264, 271): Stephens v. Cherokee Nation (1899) (174 U. S., 445. 488. 484); La Abra Mining Co. v. United States (1899) (175 U. 8., 423. 460); De Lima v. Bidwell (1901) (182 U. S.. 1, 195); United States v. Lee Yen Tai (1902) (185 U. S., 213. 220, 221); Hijo v. United States (1904) (194 JU. S., 315, 324) : Sanchez v. United States (1910) (216 U. S., 167, 175-176). Article 1 of the treaty of January 11, 1909, confers rights upon the inhabit- ants and ships of the contracting nations by force of its own provisions which require no legislation to make them effective. and is clearly self-executing within the meaning of the authorities above cited. In Johnson v. Browne (205 U.S... 309; 321) it was said : ‘Repeals by implication are never favored, and a later treaty will not be regarded as repealing an earlier statute by implication, unless the two are ab- solutely incompatible and the statute can not be euforced without antagonizing the treaty.” In the present instance section 3109 of the Revised Statutes is in my opinion so clearly incompatible with the provisions of the later treaty that it must be regarded as superseded by the latter in so far as it is inconsistent therewith. It is. therefore. in my opinion, the duty of the officials, whose function it is to administer the laws and regulations relating to commerce upon the Great Lakes, to fulfill, by proper administrative action, the requirements of the treaty and it is not necessary that the statute should be expressiy repealed. As already pointed out, a treaty made under the authority of the United States is equally with an act of Congress the supreme law of the land and is binding upon the administrative officers of the Government as well as upon the courts. As to the duties of the master of a foreign shin under Revised Statutes. section 2774. referred to in the correspendence from the Department of Com- merece, L express no opinion, as the question does not appear to be now involved. Respectfully, : T. W. Grecory, Attorney General. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 378 ors ‘zz ‘9 | ezz‘ero‘ctr | cue‘esr‘b | goe ‘ces ‘ror | sto‘t¢e‘e | T2t‘oso‘os | ozr‘ter‘e | gg9‘ez0‘o. | zze‘Tee‘e | Toe‘s9e‘ze | =-=-1810g, 002 °% 000 fos GAT T0G ‘eT 619 , 098 ‘OT 6208 196 {122 T98 ‘862 O68) E20) 7aea lena “*-“S}OI]SIP SUIOYSND JOqIO [TV 96 ‘SSF Z6L 980 FZ | OLL OVP | C6F'S90'L2 | 120 68% | 998"CCL'ST | G46 0G | eo *EOL FT LOY Py | ‘PEL (899 'T Bepeer eeere eee eres “-""4sv00 OYIOBd OLL FOG‘F | SFLiscz‘cg | Lg9'zse“s | PPOTOTO“O9 | L0Z'996°% | ETL‘SOT“09 | B28'1SZ°% | FOTSEC ‘8h | SES "OFFT | OTR'ZOT ‘Fe |" ~--"topslog WIOYJAOU pu Soyer] Yvo1¥) 6LF ‘LT TOT “SCT 602 (62 966 ‘982 189 ‘IZ LEE ‘6ST | £09 “69 998 ‘£00 ‘T 119 18 SOON Ol be ola te eS ==" -==-9Uelyy IeqI1O 98F 60% ‘T | 280‘RIT‘9% | FEL ‘Zed OcG E76 OL | Fer ‘EL cre 61021 | 166 “209 PEL 909°GT | SFO ‘OTS ir HIB — [[PPeeeceeece= pb is purpsugq Mon | —S}OTISIP 4SB0d OTJULT] | —2d1 UI poxoed Jo ‘Wezory ‘YSed ZYSTA OF9 “980 “ET | 899 OFO'99T | 822 “E69 OT | EL PLP ‘ZoTc | C6E°266 TT | O25 ‘129 “6ST < | 686 “OTS “ET | 960 "COT 'ZLT z | SE9 ‘66S ‘OT | GBT ‘GOR ‘sels |- [ROL 086 (26 z T9g'1Sh + | L6b L098 s 6PF ‘OOF Tid (112 GG PSE G69 ‘108 « 926 (C98 QEOROD Te iee 2 aeni ey es ag Se nee eee SOLIJUNOD JOY}O TLV STP EFS 'T Gie&s | £10 ‘66F CUS IGEP ROMY On Glics | ILB MCG oil Olly Loc, Shewme | OSI -OGGie | YPG. 80S) Ole umn liie me ni me aiua eens puelpunoj mon Z89 £89 'f @t8e | FP6 090'F OGG LOSnies | Me0G LCS PLC ics MONO 82 ORG RCOSwL EL CG) chs} 129) O801 || G08 n6ces Gio lien et eee Gy cee mma aE Bpeury) 165 £960 <% 8 Ta | L9P cee 'T G68 96.1 | G6 S0S 92) | 912 TOC | G80.ELT Ls | 276 960% | e281 Se |) odoing 18t0 FL6 (29ST | 6IZ SST es | €0L SIF % IG “9€T S| L8Z 69 Shs | 69h 909 | 966 LIP TGs | TIS Ze S | 40L 990 9c | WOpsULy powuy TLO‘T9E‘T | F9G “6E9 « PTS ‘$29 ‘T P99 ZEG"E | 9G 620 0Gs | ELT G9E & | GPO SEP Pes | 666 OLS | POT 66L'PGs | -- KWMION 626 0Z9‘T | 9F0‘618 Fs | OTP ‘OTT SPP ‘ZOS E96 LLE ET 2 | S80 6ST | 986°SFS “2S | SZl 126 GOS EMSIOCi cee ee stastte sae Sede cece aaa ae apes SpuelIoyjeN * | :poAdosoid 9SIM.1oY}O IO ‘IO UE | poxoed 10 “pores 10 poppord ‘poyouts 10 porig OFS ‘Zh ‘9 | EZL‘ET9‘GTT | Gug‘esp‘ 20S “Gas ‘FOT | STO‘Te6‘e | 121 ‘080 ‘06 OLF ‘TELS | €89°€20‘OL CEB ATES aCe NT OS eS OG CCl fuer sere iage asl aaa ae kaireataae (R104, ese Bee — Pesala | TLT'20T | 199 ‘gee "F €G1 “Gc 69F ‘199 °% PEL ‘0S CBE GFE PLP TG 6E6 ‘OCS ZrO ‘ST PSU IER ee) sa | wieenge gy = ee SOLAPUNOD 10440 [TV GOST || TOL PIS T 919 ‘Gs 90T PLE I Tr8 76 | LLL 06S '€ geo PG | GIG 6Gr @ SOESST SSIS HLSI) Ara [seem tieaies tie By eer ase puvlpunoymaN IOP CIT ORs MOO OLO MOTs ORS TOGRY | RAE CEC KOOL LG, 1S2.8iea| 099186 kee | SSL CoOnt =a O62 sQ09800m REG COG. Ce le/SEr TOSI Gies | eee cai coi seuedmec uae: Bpeue) £69 “2 TST ‘06 OLE BE T9¢ ‘STS BEY “EZ 663 ‘Z8T GIL ‘GE 6SF ‘OST £9 ‘SE RG eho oie ene ae pol Ce RPP SP SP aR SHU OSE odoin gy 091 UL poyped 10 WoZO.Ty “YSoayy G19 Z10 ‘0% | S68 “68E 062 1 | G06 ‘TTS “LT | F19 ‘FFI ‘S8% c | SBE “EhO FI | ESL ‘ece ‘e9z 1 | 686 ‘STL ‘OT | OLT‘ZOS 69% 1 | OSF ‘OOT ‘ET | 698 “FES ‘TFS t OAT (686 ZI | GEFITPL LAT 1 | TSO ‘'6FS ZT | GIO ‘ST ‘ZST 1 | SGI 19E “OT | 620096 ‘LET 1 | FIL (690 “ET | L9G ‘CRs “cRxT 1 | OG ‘car ‘ZI | 229 ‘eee ‘OST 1 ZOG “ESL °L | 996 2P9 ZIT | 258 '296'F | G6C‘OTS‘OOL | FEL C82 F | FOL ‘SEE GOT | GZS °EP9°E | GO9‘9T9'G8 | O96FL9‘% | LHe‘TTL‘09 9 |-- 70770 Ysy Ysoty “SL07]0 “SpUuUno I "SLD]10G “SPUnod “SUDO “SPUNn0T “SLD7]0 _ SpUnod “SLD]1I0 “SPUN I SUS “onTBA “AqUBNYD ‘ane A “AqHUBNY “ONIVA “AqWQueny “ONTBA “AyMQueNy ‘oOnVA | AQUBNy? —— - — - —~ ae: s “SOSSRID, LI6I 9I6T ST61 FIGI 161 “LIGL ‘9L6L “GI6L ‘FIG ‘CL6L ‘Le 9ag buapua sunal ay) Hursnp sajoig pau ay) oyur (ysifpays ydaoxa) ysiyf fo sjuodiup “A LIGTAH Xa 379 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. “49 {10 UI poxoed ys ‘UMOYS SON[VA [BIO} oY} UT popnt Y 10} o[Qepwae oie saryUBAb ON “peze4s 018 SolTUBND OU Yor Joy ‘sodey OUT YSY paddosord 10 paino [[e JO onTBA yy JO pa a a eee eee tyj-euo ATYSnod JUasoudod sassvpo yoy As ‘ySY pound soy jo do soseyord uy ul Ysy ‘[eloyovul pur suLoy “xoorjod pue ‘ayey “yooppey ‘poo poyyes 40 ‘paryord ‘poyours “poltp oy} Ayuo yuoseidoa spunod ouy, z oed Ul} Ul Ysy J0y}0 pure “d}0 “[t0 UT poxod Ysy ‘YSY JO 901 LOY YO PUR ALTAR JOO TsNJoXo oe spunod Jo s/e}0} ou, + OF9 "980 ET | 899 ‘OFO‘99T «| 822 ‘69 ‘OT | E29 “FLb ‘2ST «| G6e‘L66 ‘IT | 02S ‘Iz9‘6ST «| 686‘9I2 ‘er | 960‘eor‘Zzt «| €e9‘66¢ ‘OT | est ‘cos Zer « | LOL ‘298 £18 (909'E 2 | €9z ‘87a G69 (S78 Te | 819 °229 LE (989'8 2 | SBF TTL OPE (869'L a | ¥8E'Ce9 ZOL "OET IL 19G ISL, | 920/919 Ts | PRE'TOL | TO9‘eTE‘Z< | LLL ‘286 PHS 'SST Gz | SEE FG £48906 Tc | GET ‘P16, | 878 ‘216'T< ¥20 981 G | ZOE RCO TEs | TAB FPO T | L1G 0e "Pez | LOT‘ocR‘T | Lee‘cer ‘oz: | 6ez‘erL‘T | cab‘FR9%z | 266‘2er‘T | oes GbE CB 900 (SSF (9 | 020 GL Le | OTT 90S 'S | OFS 'TE9‘09< | ELT ‘s98'9 | Ez9‘OOT F< | B8z‘cHe’Z | ezo‘eco"6s | FOO ‘Ger ‘9 | 292 (669 SL « GPE TEE | LEZ OZETL« | FOT‘eSS‘% | OzG ‘EST ‘soz | TL9°208'S | 68ETST‘FS2 | Be9‘90E'% | 628 ‘FOL‘SP2 | GOT ‘GLP ‘T | £62 ‘096 “C2 « vee esse tees esece esse ee eee "TRIO, Se ae Seiler SJOI}SIP SUIOJSND Ioq40 [Ty “*-"4S800 OYTOR | “*-Japdod WAioyyAOU PUB Saye] eo.I1r) “-orueyyy 10q}0 | eit ali YS iia eere purpsugq MON —S}OM STP JSvOO OTYURTZ Vy :poAtesoid osTM19q}0 10 “[Io UT poyord Jo poyes 10 paryord ‘poxouts 10 periq 380 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. EXHIBIT W. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF FISHERIES, _ Washington, February 23, 1918. Dear Mr. Secrerary: As bearing on the relative cost of outfitting fishing vessels in Massachusetts and Nova Scotia, you may be interested in the follow- ing figures furnished by the Gorton-Pew Fisheries Co. showing the cost of cer- tain staple articles for vessels engaged in the dory hand-line fishery—one out of Gloucester and the other out of Limenberg—in the spring of 1917: 1 { Gloucester. | Lunenberg. Gloucester. | Lunenberg | | s HN OUTEt eee eee barrel. . $11.00 | $10. 25 || Raisins..........- pound. | $0. 12 | $0, 12 Beetsahe ye alee barrel. 26. 50 27.00 || Coffee............ pound. _ £20 | 132 POR ate eee barrel 35. 00 | 37.00 | A ere Carsten a LE pound 35 | «43 SUGAr ee al Sais pound 084 709) || Molassese 922 2 2e-= gallon 46 575) Buttereees- eee ound 20 42 | MATE Oe. ceases ee pound. _ 17 31 Potatoeseeaase see bushel 2.75 TSAO NH CoS Seas ae dozen 35 35 eUTEMOS sere bushel. . 1. 60 60 Very truly, vours, AH. M. Smira, Commissioner. Hon, WiLLtAmM C. REDFIELD, Secretary of Commerce. EXHIBIT X. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF FISHERIES, Washington, April 3, 1918. The SECRETARY OF COMMERCE: Acting under instructions from me, Mr. H. F. Brown, local agent of the bureau at Gloucester, has recently made a canvass of the Gloucester fishing fleet for the purpose of determining the nationality of the crews. He has interviewed the captains and owners of the vessels and has obtained the best possible informa- tion for year 1917. Owing to the absence of records and the changeable charac- ter of the crews, the information is not absolutely correct, but is believed to be sufficiently so for all practical purposes. Following are the results of his can- vass for the 132 vessels composing the Gloucester fleet in 1917: DNGNNOTETG AN pa eae rs le A iG Selb Ga US ree alee ean ya SOE LN PY ( Opa akaNe ia noua ee eee od SO SMa a ee ee Zetia eran 1 INCengyaoubavall enn] ee 23s Spanish) 2s wie ee ee 1 BO UGGUS WES Cie ie SU eS eater tae GT | RASS Teanga As a 1 SKORHOG MEN AN eS ee MEG st] GE TEN ET Mes ie re i TENE OK) pipe ees me EYL Sere ce eee eves TE 14 | a DE eatilicaiy Wises ey sO near tne celui Wupere eh oe ae 3 | ED Orig ule UAE ah Ss ee (VO) It is interesting to note that on each of 15 of the vessels there was but one American and on each of 8 of the vessels there were only two Americans. H. M. SuirH, Commissioner. PRALBID ¥. BAY OF FUNDY CLOSED TO SHAD FISHING. The following order in council passed by the Canadian Government on Meb- ruary 28, 1918, proclaims a closed season for shad in the Bay of Fundy until Mebruary 28, 1922: “hat shad fishing in the Bay of Fundy waters and in all waters tributary thereto is prohibited from the Ist of March, 1918, until the last of Febru- ary, 1922.” AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 381 EXHIBIT AA. BUREAU OF NAVIGATION, GENERAL LETTER NO. 174, SUPPLEMENTAL (NO. 2). MarcwH 25, 1918. To collectors of customs and others concerned: Referring to general letter No. 174 regarding the use in the American fisheries of Canadian fishing vessels and those of other nations now acting with the United States, you are advised that the provisions of that general letter apply to vessels on the Great Lakes as well as those on the ocean, and apply also to all lakes and rivers on the Canadian boundary of the United States. Respectfully, WitriAm ©. Reprientp, Secretary. EXHIBIT BB. TREATY OF 1S18, BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN, ARTICLE I OF WHICH RELATES TO THE FISHERIES. ARTICLE I.—FISHERIES. 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 Aierica, 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 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 the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks from Mount Joly on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through the Streights of Belleisle and thence northwardly 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 in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks, of the southern part of the coast of New- foundland 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 fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled, without previous agree- ment 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 Majesty’s dominions in America not included within the above- mentioned limits; Provided however, that the American fishermen shal! be ad- mitted to enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter and of repair- ing 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 or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them. EXHIBIT CC. Mopus VIvENDTI. Established pending ratification of the treaty of 1888 between the United States and Great Britain (which treaty, however, was not ratified by the Senate of the United States); renewed annually for the past 80 years by orders in council passed by the Government of Canada. 1. For a period not exceeding two years from the present date the privilege of entering the bays and harbors of the Atlantic coasts of Canada and of New- foundland shall be granted to United States fishing vessels by annual licenses at a fee of $1.50 per ton, for the following purposes : 382 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. The purchase of bait, ice, seines, lines, and all other supplies and outfits; Transshipment of catch and shipping of crews. 2. If during the continuance of this arrangement the United States should remove the duties on fish, fish oil, whale and seal oil (and their coverings, packages, &¢.), the said licenses shall be issued free of charge. 3. United States fishing vessels entering the bays and harbors of the Atlantic coasts of Canada or of Newfoundland for any of the four purposes mentioned in Article I of the Convention of October 20, 1818, and not remaining therein more than twenty-four hours, shall not be required to enter or clear at the customhouse, providing that they do not communicate with the shore. 4. Forfeiture to be exacted only for the offences of fishing or preparing to fish in territorial waters. ». This arrangement to take effect as soou as the necessary measures cal be completed by the colonial authorities. e INDEX. Accident insurance, 38. Act of 1789. United States laws, 12. Act of 1793, United States laws, 11, 12. Act of 1898, United States laws, 48, 57, : Act of 1903. United States laws, 43. Alaska: Canadian fishing vessels at ports of. 10S—L09, 182, 216. 330. Fishing vessels entering and clearing from ports of, 18, 20. Hearings of conference in, 60, 283, 286, 365. Navigation laws of United States apply to, 21-23. Aliens in crews of American fishing vessels. 17, 120-121, 123-124. 200, 214, 219, 234-235. Alien tonnage tax, 15. American-Canadian rer conference : American delegation, 197, 292. Appointinent of, 7, 197 294. Canadian delegation, T, 197, 292. Hearings of, in United States and Canada. 5—6. T, 51. 60-62. 65, 111-112. 183, 188. 192. 197-198, 283. 286. 292, 2938. 313-314. 321. 365. Origin, purpose, and scope. T. 52. 60-66. 85. 103. 111. 160. 192-194, 197 199, 283, 291, 338. 365. Program. 7-8, 61. 101-102. 111. 112. 183. 188. 197-198. 292-293. 307, 313-314, 321. 365. Propositions to be considered. 61-66, 194. Report. to respective Governments, 7. 183, 283. 307, 365. Transmitting report of hearings to committee of Congress. 5-6. American boys. training as fishermen, 235. American citizens: AS masters and officers of American fishing vessels. 123. 141-122. Number in crews ef American fishing vessels. 120. 123-124. 200, 2354-235. American fishing vessels: Age of. 36. 307, 342. Bait. outfits. and supplies. purchase of. in Canada. TS. $1. 96. 236. 25S. 300, 303-304. 317. 335. See also Supplies. Bases of fishing operations. 210, 211. Clearance -from and entry to Canadian ports to and from fishing grounds, 5-6, 8-9, 54, 62, 69-71, 91. 194, 312-313, 329, 351-352. Custom on Atlantic coast. 24. 66, $81, 214. 221, 226, 291. 302-303. 316. 336 Custom on Pacific coast, 24, 25, 52, 65-66, TO. 216. Construction of. See Construction of vessels. Cost of. See Cost. Crews of (see also Crews)— Aliens and citizens among, 120, 123-124, 200, 234-235. As recruits for United States navy and merchant marine, 16, 17. Difficulty in obtaining, 124-127, 221-222, 228-229, 231. Food, higher class than Canadians, 297-298. Training of American boys for, 235. Wages of. See Wages. Entry. See Clearance, ete., above. Effect of SuSpenne of € ‘anadian modus vivendi on, 219. Insurance, rates of, 280-281, 305. Ketchikan. buying bait. supplies, etc., at. 109. Licenses. See Licenses. Life of, 36, 307, 342. ON D 384 INDEX. American fishing vessels—Continued. Lobster fishing— Off Canadian coast, 7, 9, 53, 57, 119, 128-129, 135-136, 139, 141-143, 158, 194, 196, 291. See also Lobster fishing. Masters, officers, citizenship of, 28-31, 123, 142, 239, 241. Number of calling at Canadian ports (1915-16), also number of calls, 225. Modus vivendi, establishment of, by Canada; privileges under ; extension to all American vessels. See Modus vivendi, Canadian. Operating expenses of, 217-218, 317-318. See also Costs; Operating expenses. Order in council, March 8, 1918, granting privileges in Canadian ports, 5-6. Places where built, 28-249. See Construction. : Ports and markets of Canada, opening of, to, 5—6, 9, 62, S1-S4, 96, 102, 194, 201, 206, 211, 223-224. 229-230, 282, 238, 247, 252, 263, 300, 316, 3385-336. Prince Rupert, buying bait, supplies, etc., 8, 109-110, 182, 216. Sale of, to subjects of other nations, 26-27, 49, 277, 857-358, 363. Sale of fish in Canadian ports. See Ports and markets of Canada, ete., above. Seamen’s act, United States, applicability of, to, 27, 30, 32, 331-882. Stermboat-inspection laws of United States, applicability to, 27-38, 540. Steamboat-inspection laws of Canada, applicability to, 357-364. Tonnage tax, United States, not subject to, 26. Transfer of, to Canadian registry, 26-27, 35, 38, 49. Treaty of 1818, rights under, 8, 51, 58, 80, 90-92, 104, 195, 219, 226, 244, 274— 275, 282-2838, 290-291. Treaty of 1888 (not ratified by Congress) ; modus vivendi by Canada pend- ing ratification of, 51-52, 92, 195, 274, 277-278, 290-291. See also Boston fisheries; Gloucester fishing fleet; Maine fishing fleet; Trawlers. : American registry : ; Canadian and other foreign vessels taking out, 35, 38, 72-78, 98-99, 106. Sale or transfer of vessels under, 26, 27, 49, 277, 357-358, 363. Atlantic and Pacific fisheries, relative importance of, 48, 49. Bait. See Supplies. Banking fleet, 266, 275, 278, 280. Banks. See Fishing grounds. Bases of fishing operations, American fleet, 211. Berths on fishing vessels, 33, 331. Bill of health, 21, 26. Boilers of vessels, 28, 34-36, 357-365. Bond, transshipment of fish in, through Canada, 9, 96. 109, 121-122, 211, 252, 314, 357. Boneless-fish industry, 268. Boothbay. Me., lobster hatchery, 95, 134. Booth Fisheries Co., 169, 220-221. Boston Chamber of Commerce, 60, 186. Boston Fisheries, 176. Consolidation of dealers, 177. Facilities of wharf, 177, 179, 188. Number of persons in, 120. Numbers of trawlers, 155-156, 177. Use of trawlers by United States Navy, 78, 155. Boundary waters, 46. Bounties to American fishermen, 12, 2d. Bounties to Canadian fishermen, 8, 26, 62-68, 147, 215-216. Bounties on ship construction, Newfoundland, 214-215. British Navy, 179-180. British registry, Sale and transfer of vessels of, 112. British shipbuilders, competition with American, 178-179, 20S. British trawlers in American fisheries: In this war, 98, 104-105, 148-149, 179-181, 193, 243, 311. Number of, 148. Taking out Canadian registry, 98, 105. Regulation of in North Sea, 230-281. See also British registry; Canadian registry; Great Britain fishing fleet ; Great Britain in war. INDEX. 885 Bureau of Fisheries, United States, achievements of, 154. 163, £73, 207—209, DAZ S1O) S22: California Director of Markets: In re fish waste as chicken food, 174, 278. See also Chicken food; Fish waste. Canada and United States in the war, 60, 65, 112, 192-195, 202, 212-213, 245, 261-263, 279. Canadian fish imported into United States, quantity of, 19, 20, 206, 354. Canadian fishing vessels: Age of, 295, 305, 342. Alaska, entering ports of, 108-109, 182, 216. 330. Bait, supplies, outfits; purchase of, in United States ports, 9, 20, 24, 39, 42, 62, 251, 297, 299-300, 304, 306. Changing character of, to trading vessels, 15, 17-18, 64, 100, 108, 105, 125, 196, 204, 291, 315, 3829, 347. Clearance from and entry to United States ports to and from fishing grounds, 5-6, 8-9, 11-20, 26, 52, 54, 62-67, 69-73, 76, 77, 97, 103, 195, 194, 312-313, 329, 347-848, 352. Custom on Atlantic coast. 21-23, 42-48, 47, 65, 66, 97, 99-100, 108, 110, 123-126, 149, 196, 204, 216, 226-228, 230, 232, 239-241, 244, 251-252, 257, 261, 263, 276, 291-292, 301-802, 314-315, 336, 354. Custom of on Pacific coast, 20-26, 39-48, 46-48, 65, 66, 70, 97, 107-110, 125, 182, 216, 227, 276, 292, 330-331. Orders February 20 and March 25, 1918, granting privilege during war, 5. Penalty for departing without, 12-14. Steam trawlers, not schooners, would benefit, War measure, as, 76-77, 198, 279, 353. Construction of. See Construction of vessels. Cost of. See Costs. Crews— Number of, 299. Plentiful, 301-302. Wages of. See Crews. Entry. See Clearance (above). Fees for entry to United States ports, 21. Insurance of, rates for, 280-281, 308. Ketchikan, buying bait, supplies, etc, 109. Life of, 295, 303, 305, 342. Navigation laws of United States applicable to, 11-27, 64-66, 291, 296. Operating expenses of, 317-318. See Cost; Operating expenses. Orders February 20 and March 25, 1918, granting privileges in American ports, 5. Ports and markets of United States, opening of, 5-6, 9, 12, 20, 62, 97, 99-100, 102, 105, 110, 194, 206, 210, 228-230, 239, 252, 257, 263, 267-268, 276, 283, 301, 316. Prince Rupert, buying bait, supplies, etc., 109-119. See also Prince Rupert. Sale to citizens of United States or other nations. 358. ; Sale of fish in United States ports. See Ports and markets of United States, ete., above. Seamen’s act, United States. applicability of, 27, 30, 32, 381-332. Steamboat-inspection laws of United States, 27-38, 340. Steamboat-inspection laws of Canada, 31, 36, 340, 357-364. Tonnage tax, United tSates, subject to, 26. Taking out American registry, 35, 38, 98-99. Transferring to trading vessel, 15, 17-18, 64, 100, 103, 125, 196, 204, 291, 315, 329, 347. United States law preventing engaging in fisheries, 11—27. Canadian harbors and waters: Jurisdiction and control of, 234. United States boats dressing fish in, 204-205, 233-234, 275, 316-317. Canadian law relating to steam trawlers, 85-93. Canadian modus vivendi. See Modus vivendi, Canadian. Canadian port charges, 9. 51950—18 25 79 (Oo. 386 INDEX. Canadian registry : American vessels taking out, 26-27, 35, 38, 49. Canadian fishing vessels taking out, 18, 52, 64, 291. Sale of vessels of, to other nations, 358. Janned fish and lobster industry. 44, 45, 938, 154, 182-188, 257, 321-822, 330, 339, 355. Captains. See Officers. Cars, refrigerating, 157, 167, 169-170, 186-187, 220. Cashes Bank, 129, 136. : Cattle-food industry, 174, 175, 181, 269. See Fish waste. Cheaper fish, 71, 73, 98, 106, 110, 316. ~ See also Expansion of American market; Food supply ; Prices for fish. Chicken-food industry, 174, 175, 181, 269-278. See Fish waste. CHES Ll, officers and crews of American vessels, 120, 128-124, 141-142, 200, 2234 — D385 C lam meal as chicken food, 175. See also Chicken food; Fish waste. Classification societies, 28. Cleaning fish in Canadian waters, 204-205, 2338-2384, 275, 316-317. Clearance and entry: American fishing vessels to and from Canadian DS to fishing grounds and return, 5-6. 8, 9, 54, 62, 66, 69-71, 91, 194, 312-313, 329, 351-352. Custom on Atlantic coast, 24, 66, 81, 214, 221, 299, 291, 302-316. Custom on Pacific coast, 24, O5, 52, 65-66, 70, 216. Order in Council, March 8, 1918, granting privileges in Canadian ports, 5-6. Canadian fishing vessels to and from United States ports to fishing grounds and He OMe n, 5-6, 8-9, 11-20, 26, 52, 54, 62-67, 69-73, 76-717, 97, 103, 105, 194, 312 313, 329, 347-348, 352. Custom on Atlantic coast, 21-23, 42-43, 47, 65-66, 97, 99-100, 108, 110, Se 149, 196, 204, 216, 296 228, 230, 932, 239-241, 244, 251-252, , 261, 263, 276, 291-292, 301-802, 314-315, 336, 354. Ga on Pacific coast, 20-26, 39-48, nani 65-66, TO, 97, 107-110, 12s 1822 QiG. 22 276; 292, 300-aale Orders, February 20 and March 25, 1918, granting privileges dur- ing war, ». Penalty for departing from United States ports without clear- ance, 12-14. Practice of in Canadian ports, 18. Steam trawlers, not schooners, would benefit, 73 War measure, as, 76, 77, 198, 279, 353. Slintonia, coe ae Coal, cost of, 2, 239; 282. Coasting Reade. tr 14, 20, 106-107, 112, 3138. > Cod-fish industry, 184, 207, 248, 267, 311, 316, Cod-oil industry, 266-267. Cold-storage law in United States, 165. Cold-storage plants: At Ketchikan, 111. At Prince Rupert, 111, 170, 171, 182. Subsidy to Canadian, 111, 171. Collectors of customs of United States: Duties relating to navigation laws, 12, 13, 21-22, 292. Duties relating to Inspection Service, 33. Rulings of, 14, 46. CoMMILTEE ON ForEIGN RELATIONS, House of Repceconticane 53. COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT AG AND FISHERIES, House of Representatives, 5-6, 51, 538-54, 56. Competition in Atlantic # isheries, 81, 84-85, 98, 104, 149, 178, 179, 221-222, 298 999 244, 246, 262, 348, 345, 349-350, 352. Conference, American-Canadian Fisheries. See American-Canadian conference. _ INDEX. 387 Construction of fishing vessels, 12, 16. American— Cost of, 105, 256, 267, 295, 307, 308, 318, 342-343. Hard lumber (oak, pine) used, 246-249, 255-256, 279, 281, 295, 307, 308, 342. Life of, 36, 307, 342. Life of, longer than Canadian, 248, 254-256, 279-280, 295, 318. Places where built, 16, 28, 72, 249. Supervision over, 28. Canadian— Cost of, 249, 256, 295, 308, 311, 318, 342-3438. Green lumber, 303, 305. Life of, 295, 303, 305, 342. Places where built, 248, 303, 309, 342. Soft lumber used, 246, 248-249, 256, 279, 281, 295, 303, 307. Comparison, Clintonia American, Clintonia Canadian, 256, 308. Great Britain— Competition with Americans, 178-179, 208. Cost in, 105. Place where built— In Canada, 249, 303, 309, 342. In United States, 28, 249. Consumption of fish, past, present, and future: In Canada, 107-108, 110, 193, 208, 240, 242, 309, 316. In Great Britain, 106, 110-111, 156, 162, 176-177, 193. 208, 210, 243, 308, 316, 319. In United States 106, 110-111, 124, 153, 156, 162, 168, 176-177, 193, 207-208, 240, 242-243, 264, 309, 316, 319. See also, Cheaper fish; Demand for fish; Educational propaganda ; Expan- sion of American market for fish; Food suppiy ; Production, increase in Coquet. case of, 12-14, 19, 23. Costs: American vessels— Construction of, 72, 105, 256, 267, 295. 307-3808, 318, 342-345. Labor (carpenters, laborers, ete.), 72. Materials and supplies (bait, nets, tub trawls, coal, ice. food, etc.), T1. 72, 75, TT, 82, 217-218, 236-239, 247, 250, 317-318. operating expenses. 217-218, 317-318. Repairs, 303. Wages of crews, ete. See Wages. Canadian vessels— Construction of, 72, 249, 256. 295, 308, 311, 318, 342-3453. Labor (carpenters, laborers, etc.). 72. Materials and supplies, 75, 77, 82, 289, 251, 295, 296, 306, 317. 845. Operating expenses, 317-318. ; Repairs, 303. Wages of crews, etc. See Wages. Comparison of American and Canadian vessels— Cost of construction 98, 213. 246-247, 254-256, 2638, 279. 295, 299. 308. 311, 318, 342-348, 345. Cost of operating expenses, 71. 75, 77, S1-84. 98, 109, 212-213, 232. 239, 246-248, 250-251, 253-256, 2638, 303, 317-818, 345, 353. Lighthouse vessels, operating expenses of, 84. Prices for fish, 18, 71, 73, 74, 123, 168, 208-209, 211, 222, 235, 242, 257, 259, 267, 268. 302, 312. 315, 320, 339, 347, 351, 354. Crews: : Of American fishing vessels— Aliens and citizens, 17, 120-121, 123-124, 200, 214, 219, 254-235. As recruits for United States Navy and merchant marine. 16, 17, 285. Difficulty in obtaining, 124-127, 221-222, 228-229, 231. Family expenses high, 71, 72. Food, higher class than Canadians, 297-298. Number of, 77, 119-120, 299. Number in Boston-Gloucester fisheries. Share in payment of licenses fees, 71. Shipping of in Canadian ports, 6. 388 INDEX. Crews—Continued. Of American fishing vessels—Continued. Training of American boys for, 235. Wages of, 82. 120-121, 127, 231, 236-237, 267, 299, 309-310, 344. Of Canadian fishing vessels— Number, 299. Plentiful, 301-309. Wages of, 82, 127, 287, 295-296, 301. 305-806, 309-310, 314, 343-844, 353. Penstons for, 157. Space for, 33, 381-332. See also Cost; Wages. Cured fish. See Salt-fish industry. Curing fish. See Dressing fish. Demand for fish: Increase in— Canada, 107, 304, 308, 346-347, 351-352. United States, 106, 110. 126-127, 149-150, 153-154, 156, 162, 164, 168, We, eels 178, 184, 185, 198, 207, 211, 220, 222, 299-230), 235, 240, 242— 248, 252-258, 319, 336. Vessels and equipment insufficient to meet, 106, 156, 207, 208, 220, 229. Nec also, Cheaper fish; Consumption of fish; Educational propaganda ; Equipment; Expansion of American market; Food supply; Production, increase in. Demand and supply. See Consumption of fish; Demand for fish; Expansion of American market; Supply and demand. Diplomacy, open, 60-61, 65, 186, 194, 293. Direct clearance. See Clearance and entry. Distribution. -See Fresh fish; Frozen-fish industry; Salt-fish industry ; Trans- portation, facilities for. Dog fish, a4, 216, 320, 323, 3388-340. Dories, 31, 32, 278, 296, 345, 353, 356. Dressing and salting of fish in Canadian harbors by American fishing renee 6, 204-205, 238-284, 275, 316-317. See also Fish waste. Duty: On fish— Into Canada, 9, 62, 83, 90, 104, 206. Into United States, 14, 45, 64, 99, 195, 206, 275, 290-291, 329. On fishing gear, nets, etc— Into Canada, 76, 79, 99. Into United States, 76, 79-81, 99. - See also, Tariff. Harnings See Wages. “Eat fish.” Gospel of, 208, 319. Educational propaganda to increase demand for fish, 110, 150, 152-154, 157, 162-166, 168, 173, 175-176, 178, 181, 184-185, 207-208, 242, 258-260, 308, 312, 322, 336, 346. See also Consumption of fish; Demand for fish; Expansion of American markets; Production of fish, increase in. Engineers. See Officers. « Enrolled vessels, 11, 38. Pntry. See Clearance and entry. Equipment : Inspection of, 31, 32, 360. Insufficient to meet increased demand for fish, 150, 154-156, 179, 188, 185, 207, 220, 258. European War. See War. Expansion of American market for fish, 44, 106, 127, 152-154, 156-157, 162, 171, 173, 176, 184, 185, 206-208. 242, 253, 260, 316, B19) 322, a00; a0z8 See also Cheaper fish; Consumption of fish: Kducational propaganda ; Food supply ; Production of fish, increase in. Expenses. See Operating expenses; cost. Export of fish from Canada, 19, 20, 206, 265, 308, 311, 346-347, 351-3852, 354. Export of fish from United States, 160, 161, 165, 206, 241, 264. Factors in fish industry, 349-351. Fertilizer (fish) industry, 174, 259, 269, 271. See Fish waste. INDEX. 389 “ Wifty-fifty ’ arrangement between United States and Canada, 91, 203-204, 209, 227, 230-231, 233, 245, 252-258, 276, 293-294, 302, 307, 318, 340, 348, 351. See also Reciprocal privileges, ete. Fish foods, new and unused on market, 154, 163, 185, 207, 242, 323. See also Food conservation and cross references thereunder. Fish grease and oil industry, cost, supply, and use of: Cod oil, 266-267. Menhaden oil, 266-267. Fish meal industry, 174-175, 269-2738. See also Fish waste. Fish waste, use of: Cattle-food industry, 174, 175, 181, 269. Chicken-food industry, 174, 175, 181, 269-273. Fertilizer industry, 174, 269, 271. Fish-meal industry, 174, 175, 269-273. Glue industry, 181, 269-2738. See also Dressing fish. Fisheries of Gloucester. See Gloucester fisheries. HWishermen. See Crews. fishing gear. See Cost; Duty; Repairs; Supplies. Fishing grounds, 64, 210, 211. Fishers’ act (of Canada), section 63, 32. Flounder industry, 1738, 207. Food Administration of United States, 48, 44, 116, 140, 164, 166. Food supply, 5-6, 438, 53-54, 60-61, 65, 67, 141, 148, 149, 164, 193, 212-218, 238, 258, 268, 278, 293-294, 356. See also Cheaper fish; Consumption of fish; Expansion of American market. for fish; Fish foods; Great Britain in War; Production of fish; Whales. Foreign Affairs, Comiittee of United States House of Representatives, 53. Foreign vessels, other than Canadian: Navigation laws of United States, applicable to, 46. Orders of United States granting privileges in United States ports during war, 5. Purchase of, to be used in the fisheries, 98-99, 112. Taking out American registry, 72, 73. See also American registry ; Canadian fishing vessels; Canadian registry ; French fishing vessels; Great Britain’s fishing tieet; Portuguese fishing vessels ; Steamboat-inspection laws. Fraser River, salmon fisheries of: Conservation of, 6-8, 52, 54-55, 62-63, 293. Drafting regulations for, 7T—8, 55. Free fish into United States, 14, 52, 64, 97, 99-100, 102-103, 110, 149, 195-196, 204, 278, 280, 290, 347. See also Duty; Tariff. Pree salt, 12, 25. Free trade, 156, 269, 280. French fishing vessels coming to United States, 202. Fresh fish: Distribution of, in Canada, 107, 308, 314, 320, 346. Distribution of, in United States, 121, 128, 155, 161-164, 169, 185, 220, 257, 314, 316, 319-820, 322. Nree into United States, 14, 52, 99-100, 102-103, 110, 149, 195-196, 204, 347 Imported from Canada, 99-100, 102, 105-106, 239, 301-302, 314, 316, 347, 35+ Increased sale of, 107, 308, 319. See also DEMAND FOR FISH; EDUCATIONAL PROPAGANDA: EXPANSION OF AMERICAN MARKET; PRODUCTION OF FISH, INCREASE IN. Frozen-fish industry, 164-167, 169, 171, 173, 174. 182-188, 186-187, 204, 223, 257, 259, 305, 311, 320-821, 346. See also FRESH FISH AND CROSS REFERENCES; Duty. Gear, 217-218, 353. Gloucester : AS a fishing port, 199, 202, 204, 210-211, 268, 277-278, 283-285. AS a manufacturing port, 210, 272. Board of Trade of, 203, 283, 285, 286, 341, 365. Master Mariners’ Association of, 283-284. Tributes to, 283-286. 390 INDEX. Gloucester fisheries : Number of owners of vessels in, 200, 202-208. Number of persons engaged in, 119-121. Number of power and sailing vessels in, 119, 200, 211-212, 223-224, 228, 238, 247, 280. Number of trawlers in, 224. Number of vessels sold and to what country, 160, 274, 277. Operating expenses of vessels. See Operating expenses; Costs. Strike of fishermen 1917, 217, 358. Glue (fish) industry, 181, 216, 259, 269-278. See Fish waste. Gorton-Pew Co., 152, 155, 200, 203, 218-219. * Grand Bankers,” 266. Gray fish, 154, 216, 320, 323, 388-340. Grense. See Fish grease and oil industry. Great Britain’s fishing fleet, 148, 149, 230. See also British trawlers. Great Britain in the war: Food supply, 148, 198, 208. 248. Shipbuilding, 148, 178-180, 186. Trawler fleet. See British trawlers. See also United States and Canada in this war. Great Lake fisheries, 62. “Green ” fish, 267. Grimsby, England, fishing port, 156, 159, 243. Haddock fleet, 278. Halibut, 6, 8, 50, 107-109, 206, 227, 276, 292. Halifax award, 147-148, 215, 244-245. Havre de Grace, Md., shad hatchery, closing of, 95. Hay-Bond treaty, 280. Hides. See Leather. High cost of living. See Cheaper Fish; Consumption of Fish: Educational propaganda; Extension of American market: Food: Prices for fish; Conser- vation. Hulls, inspection of, 28; 86-87, 360. Immigration laws of United States, applying to alien fishermen, 234-235. Importation of fish: To Canada, 128. To United States, 99-100, 102-103, 105-106, 110, 128, 148, 167, 168, 206, 210, 265, 801, 811, 351-852, 354. Imports, table showing, 128. Increased demand for fish. See Demand for fish. Increased production of fish. See Production of fish, increase in. Inspection of vessels: Laws of Canada, 31-32, 36, 340, 357-364. Laws of the United States, 27-88, 340. Reinspection, 864. United States traveling inspectors, 264. Insurance of vessels, difference in rate on American and Canadian, 280-281, 303. Japanese, on American fishing vessels, 17, 120. Ketchikan : Bait, supplies, ete., purchase at, 109. Canadian vessels putting Into, 66, 108-109, 182, 216, 880. Cold storage at, get citations from cold storage, 111. Laborers, in shipbuilding. See Wages. Lake Champlain fisheries : Conditions as to, 5, §, 58, 62, 112-119, 199, 298. Order in council, February 18, 1918, by Canada, 5. Lake of the Woods fisheries, 6. Law, Canadian, relating to steam trawlers, 85-98. Lay. See Wages; Cost. Leather, from fish skins, 3389-340. Leonard Fisheries (Ltd.), Halifax, 74+. Licensed captains, mates, engineers, 28-29. Licensed vessels, 11, 18. INDEX. 391 Licenses, Canadian, under modus vivendi, $, 91, 121-122, 195, 201, ZOLA 246, 261, 269, 276, 279, 348 Annual, to American fishing (sail) vessels only, 52, 104, 121-122, 195, 201, 223, 226, 238, 290, 300, 335, 348. Copy of, 225. Fee for— Abolishment of, permanently, proposed, 92. 97, 209. 226, 232, 244. 263. BIT, QS GUe. slYig SBioL Fishermen's share in payment of, 1 Reduction of, suge rested, 62, 69-71, 13, 79. 90-91. 96, 194, 204, 209, 226, 225, 232, 235—239, 2-4, 261, 274-2 = 300. 302, 317, 336, 348. Return of. under order in council, March 8, 1918; 6. Total amount paid annually, 69-70. Waiver of, during war, 6. Power boats not included in license privileges, 52, 63. 64, 196, 220, 223, 226— 228. 252, 290, 300, 313, 317, 349. Privileges— Granted woder, 51-52, 63, 90, 121-123, 195, 201, 211, 221, 223-226, 228, 2B, 246, 252, 290-291, 300, 335, 348. Order in council extending, during war, 6. Requirement of, waived during war, 6. Special privileges granted in Certain cases, 19, 81, SS-90, 122-123, 282-283, 313, 316, 354. Suggested issuance on permanent besis to all American vessels; also reduc- tion of fee, 8, 9, 62-64, 67, 69-711, 75-76, 79, 90, 96, 194, 204, 232, 239. 244, 252, 300, 302, 313, 316-317, 336, 348. Nee also AMERICAN FISHING VESSELS. Lobster fishing: Canadian coast— American well smacks, practice of, 6, 7, 9, 53, 57, 62, 65, 67-68, 119, 128-129, 135-136, 139, 141-143, 158, 194, Bee 291, Bill in Congress to prohibit practice, 6, 7, 27, 40-41, 53, 56, 57. 67, 136, 139-140, 143, 158, 291, cae Cie seasons for, 62, 65, 119, 196, 291, 337-338. Cost of operating Eiacke. 129-139) 142: Nationality of crews, 57, 129, 142-143. Protection of industry, 52, 53, 65, 93-94, 119, 131. 196-197, 204, 291, 321, 330, 332-334, 337-838, 355. Maine and other New England coasts— Closed seasons for, 338. Federal and State laws to regulate, 69, 93, 95, 129--140, 143, 144. 15S. 321, 330, 334. Protection of industry, 67, 68, 93-95, 129-135, 137-140, 143-146, 204, 334, 338. Maximum and minimum sizes, 68, 69, 98-94, 130-135, 137-139, 144. 146, 321-322, 330, 332-334, 355. Newfoundland law, 146. Propagation of, 95, 133, 134, 138, 144. 146, 321-822. 333. Size of ring in trap, 186-187, 144-145. Wages of lobster fishermen, 140. Lumber. kinds of. See Construction of ships. Lunenberg, fishing industry of, 222, 229, 254, 295-306. 30S. 310, 331-332. Machinery, inspection of, 31, 33-36, 340, 357, 360. 362. Mail-order fish industry, 241-242. Maine fishing fleet, number of, 264. Manifests, 42, 48. Marine insurance. See Insurance of vessels. Markets: Of Canada, opening of, to American fishing vessels, 5—6, 9, 62, S1—-S4, 96, 102, 194, 201, 206, 211, 223-224, 229-230, 2382, 238, 247, 252, 2638, 300, 316, 335-336. Of United States, opening of, to Canadian fishing vessels, 5—6, 9, 12, 20, 62, 97. 99-100, 102, 105, 110, 194, 206, 210, 228-280, 239, 252, 257, 263, 267-268, 276, 283, 301, 316. See also American fishing vessels; Canadian fish brought into United States markets: Canadian fishing vessels; Consumption of fish; Expansion of American markets. 392 INDEX. Masters of American vessels, citizenship of, 125, 142, 241. Mates. See Officers. Meat supply: i Relation of, to fishing trade, 44, 110, 153, 162, 222, 229, 235, 242-248, 264, 294, 316, 319, 347. Shortage of, 44, 153, 222, 229, 235, 238, 240, 242-248, 264, 294, 316, 319, 34 Transportation facilities for, 220-221. See also Refrigerating ears. Menhaden oi! industry, 266-267. Merchant marine, source from which recruited, 16, 17, 285. Merchant Marine and Wishevies, committee of United State House of Repre- sentatives, 5-6, 51, 58-54, 56. Modus vivendi, Canadian: : Applicable to American fishing (sail) vessels only, 52, 68, 64, 104, 121-122, 195, 201, 223, 226, 238, 290, 300, 335, 348. Copy of—(Hxhibit CC), 384. Establishment of, in 1888 and renewed annually, 51-52, 63-64, 80, 92, 195. Hxtension of (proposed), on permanent basis to all American fishing ves- sels, 8, 62-64, 67, 69-71, 75, 76, 79, 90, 96, 103-105, 194, 204, 232, 239, 244 252. 302, 312, 313,317, 336, 348, 354. Wees under. See Licenses, below. Licenses under, 8, 91, 121-122. 195, 201, 226, 232, 238. 246, 261, 269, 276; 279, B48. Annual, to American fishing (sail) vessels only, 52, 638-64, 104, 121— 122. 195, 201, 223; 226, 238, 290, 300, 335, 348. Copy of, 225. Hee for— Abolishment of, permanently proposed, 92, 97, 209, 226, 232, 244, DOR era BOLO BAU RIL ey, Pishermen’s share in payment of, 71. Reduction of, suggested, 62, 69-71, 75-76, 79, 90-91, 96, 194, 204, 209, 226; 228, 282, 288—289; 244, 260; oe 3 SOOM S02 Siieooor 348. Return of, under order Mar. 8, 1918, page 6. Total amount paid annually, 69-70. Waiver of, during war, 6. Power boats not included in license privilege, 52, 68, 64. 196, 220, 228, DIG=228) 252) 290) B00, 8238) silt 329: Privileges— Granted under, 51—52, 63, 90. 121-123, 195, 201, 241, 221), 223-226; 228, 2382, 246, 252) 290-291, 300, 335, 34s. Order extending, during war, 6. Special privileges eranted in certain cases, 19, S81, SS8—90, 122-1238, 282— 2837 a3) SillGwsb4. Suacested issuance on permanent basis fo all American vessels; also reduction of fee, S, 9, 62, (8 67. 69, 70, de 76, 79, 90, 96, 104, 204, 232), 239, 244, 252, 300, 302, 313, 316-317, 5, B48. Order in council extending, Aaa War, 6. Privileges granted under. See Licenses, above. Ports of Canada, opening of, to American fishing vessels. Sce American fishing vessels. Suspension of, 219. Text of (Hxhibit CC), 384. War order in council extending privileges, 6. See also American fishing vessels; Pifty-fifty ; Licenses; Reciprocal arrange- ments. Motor fishing vessels: Applicability of United States sterunbornt- ee aR laws to, 27-31, Licenses not granted under Modus Vivendi. See Modus Vivendi. See Steamboat-inspection laws of United States; Licenses; Power vessels. Nationality of crews, American fishing vessels, 17, 120, 128-124, 200, 214, 219, Dd 234-235. Navigation laws of United States, application of, to fishing vessels, 11-27, 64, 291, 296. INDEX. 393 Nets: ; Cost of, in Canada and United States, TS-SO, 250, 325. Duty on, in United States and Canada, 76, TT, 79, 81, 250, 296. Mending of, in Canadian ports, 221, 233, 28, 316-317. Manufacturers of, 78. Tariff (U. 8S.) classification, revision of, 78, SO. Where bought, 79, 81, 250, 296. New England fishing interests, notice of hearings sent to, 8, 62. Newfoundland : Conference has no reference to, 112, 126, 214. Crews from, for American fishing vessels, 120, 123-125, 127, 214, 221. Fish from, to United States free, 64. Imports of fish from, to United States, 64, 149, 214. Law as to lobsters, 146. Shutting out American banking fleet, 219, 280. War conditions in, 212-213. New York State. See Lake Champlain Fisheries. Northern, northeastern, and northwestern frontiers, 47, 49. “Ocean white fish,” 216. See Whiting. Offal. See Waste; Chicken-feed industry ; Fish-meal industry. Officers : American vessels— Citizenship of, 123, 142, 241. Licensed, 28-31. Number of mates, 30. Wages. See Wages. Canadian vessels— Wages of. See Wages Oils. See Fish grease and oils industry. Open diplomacy, 60-61, 65, 186, 194, 298. Operating expenses of American, Canadian, and British fishing vessels, 217-218 317-318. See Cost. Orders in Council, Canadian : Hxtending modus vivendi, 51, 52, 92, 195, 274, 290. February 18, 1918, Lake Champlain fisheries, 5. February 28, 1918, closed season for shad, Bay of Fundy, 382. March 8, 1918, granting American fishing vessels privileges in Canadian ports during the war, 5-6. See also Reciprocal privileges, ete. Orders of United States Government : February 20, 1918, granting privileges to Canadian and other vessels in American ports, March 25, 1918, applying order of February 20 to Great Lakes, ete., 5. Ottawa, suggestion that conference meet in, 51. Ownership of vessels: Individual and consolidated, 177, 200-201, 304-305. Number of owners, Gloucester fleet, 200, 302-203. Pacific and Atlantic fisheries, relative importance of, 48—49. Panama Canal act, whether applies to fishing vessels, 98-99, 106-107. Pay. See Wages. Pennington, Dr., 167, 169-170, 172. Pension for fishermen, 157 Pickled-fish industry, 257. Pike perch, Lake Champlain, 8, 58, 112-119, 199, 293. Pilotage, collection of, in Canadian ports, 214-215. Pollution of waters, 335. Ports of Canada, opening of to American fishing vessels, 5-6, 9, 62, S81—S4, 96, 102, 194, 201, 206, 211, 223-224, 229-230, 232, 238. 247, 252, 263, 300, 316, 335- 336. Port charges of Canada, 9 Ports of United States, opening of to Canadian vessels, 5-6, 9, 12, 20, 62, 97, 99-100, 102, 105, 110, 194, 206, 210, 228-230, 239, 252, 257 263 —268, 276, 2838, 301, 316. Portuguese on American fishing vessels, 17, 120-121, 200, 214, 219, 234-255. Portuguese fishing vessels, coming to United States, DO?, 356. 394 INDEX. Power fishing vessels: Applicability of United States steamboat-inspection laws to, 27-31. Auxiliary fishing vessels of Gloucester, 223-224, 228, 230. Canadian Government granting special privileges to, 19, S1, S8—90, 122-123, 282— 283, Slliss 316, 354. Tendeney toward, 96-97, 119, 200, 223-224, 315, 341, 346. ee Gloucester fisheries vessels; Motor fishing vessels; Vessels. Prepared-fish industry, 241-242. Prices for a 48, 71, 73, 74, oe 168, 208-209, 211, 222, 235, 242), 257, 259), 267— 268, 302, 312, as 320, 339, 347, 351, 354. See also Cheaper fish, Prince Rupert: Cold storage at, 111, 170, 171, 182. - Free and open market for fish, 109-119. Seattle outfitters in re privileges to American vessels, 70. Use of port by American fishing vessels, 6, 8, 70, 109-110, 182, 216. Privileges. See Reciprocal privileges; Modus vivendi. Production of fish, increase in, 64. 98, 104— 106. al 53, 183. 185-186, 188, 206, 208, 212-913, 215, 228..248, 248, 265, 267-268, 278, 313, 316, 323. 340, 346, B5i-352, 354, 356-357. See also, Demand for fish, ete.: Educational propaganda, ete.: !axprnsion of American market ; Food supply. Protection of American fishing industry, 78, 203, 205. See also, Modus vivendi: Reciprocal privileges Puget Sound, salmon fisheries of: Conservation of, 6—8, 52, 54-55, 62-63, 298. Drafting regulations for, 7-8, 55 Reciprocal privileges between the United States and Canada : As a war measure, 76, 77 By Canada— Order in council, February 18, 1918, Lake Champlain fisheries, 5. Order in council, March 8, 1918. granting privileges in Canadian ports. during the war, to American fishing vessels, 5—6. By United States— Bill in Congress, February 25, 1918, to stop American lobster smacks fishing off Canadian coast, 6. Order, February 20, 1918, granting privileges in American ports. during the war, to fishing vessels of Canada and other nations now acting with the United States, 5. Order, March 25, 1918, applying order of February 20, 1918, to Great Lakes and boundary waters, 5. To American fishing vessels in Canadian ports and to Canadian fishing ves- sels in American ports, 5-6, 67-71, 75-78, 81-84; 90-92, 97-98, 102-104, 147, 158-159, 178-179, 183, ee 202, 209-211, 213, 215, 220-221, 226-227, 229-930, 282, 245-246, 252, 275-277, 284-285, 290-294, 302, 307, 312:-313, Bilt, 329, 336, 340-341. 346, 348-349, 351-3854 See also, American fishing vessels ; Canadian fishing vessels: Pifty-fifty : Licenses; Modus vivendi. Reciprocity with Canada, proposed in 1911, 280. Refrigerating cars and se 157, 167, 169-170, 186-187, 220. Registered vessel, 18, 52, 276, 291. Registry. See American eee British registry; Canadian registry. Reinspection of vessels, 37. Relative importance of Atlantic and Pacific fisheries, 48-49. Repairs: American vessels, cost of, 303. Canadian vessels, cost of, 303. Privilege of, to American vessels in Canadian ports, 5-6, 313. See also, Cost; Treaty of 1818. Resolutions : In re protection of— Halibut, 374. Salmon, 7. Sturgeon, 39. Revised Statutes of United States. See Statutes of United States. Rope: sk See Supplies, 250, 317. ; INDEX. 395 Sale of fish: In American markets, privilege to Canadian fishing vessels, 9, 12, 20, 123; 210, 340. In Canadian markets, privilege to American fishing vessels, 9. 97. 206, 317, 340. In inland cities of Canada, 104, 241, 346. In inland cities of United States, 152, 155-157. 161-165, 167, 171-173. 185, 206—20T. 319-320. 322. 329. Increase of in Canada, 308. Increase of in United States, 162, 175. Salmon: On Pacific, 6-8, 52, 54-55, 62-63. 2938 On Atlantic, 324-327, 337. Salmon pack, size of, 44. Salt fish. into United States duty free (see table), 128. 204, 227, 239. Salt fish industry. 151-152. 160, 182-183. 206, 257-260, 263. 268. 279. 301-302, 346-347, 352. Salt, free, 12, 25. Sardines, 44, 45, 293. 340. Seal, case of, 85-93, 273-274, 281-282. Seamen's act of United States, applicability of. to fishing vessels, 27, 30, 32, Bolktoas Seattle, outfitters in, 70. Shad: In Canadian waters, 293, 323-329. 334, 337, 356, 364-365, 383. In American waters, 55, On 324, 328, 337, 364. Sharks, 179. See also, Leather. Shipbuilding. See Construction of fishing vessels. Shipment of fish in bond through Canada, 9, 96, 109, 121-122, 211, 252, 314, 357. Ships, refrigerating, 186-187. Shore fisheries, 184-185, 198, 219-200. Skins. See Leather. Slavonians, on American fishing vessels, ile Smoked-fish industry, 257, 264, 314, 329, 346. Smuggling, law to prevent, 21, 3 38, 330. Sponge-protection law, 140. States, several not cooperating with Federal Government, 95 Statistics : See Consumption of fish; Cost: Exports: Fees for licenses; Imports; Tables: Vessels. Statutes of United States: Act of 1789, 12. Act of 1788, 11, 12. Act of 1898, 48, 57, 58. Act of 1908, 48. Cold-storage law, 165. Navigation laws. See Navigation laws. Panama Canal act, 98—99, 106-107. Seamen's act. See pcanien’s act. Section 1954 R. S., 22. Section 8109 R. S., 48, 46-47, 49-50, 57-58, 108, 276, 330. Section 41351 R. S., 38. Section 4311 R. S., 11, 20, 263. Section 4420 R. 8., 26. Section 4426 R. S., 27-29. Section 4430 R. S., 362-363 Section 4431 R. S., 362. Section 4433 R. S., 362-363. Section 4463 R.S., 30. Section 4516 R. S., 32-33. Steamboat inspection laws. See Steamboat inspection laws. Steamboat-inspection Jaws of United States: Applicability of to fishing vessels, 27-38. Comparison with Canadian laws, 340. Traveling inspectors to enforce, 364. 396 INDEX. Steam fishing vessels: Applicability of Canadian steamboat-inspection laws to, 32, 35. Applicability of United States steamboat-inspection laws to, 27-32, 36. Number of, at Gloucester, 224, 315. See also American fishing vessels, Trawlers, Vessels. Steam trawlers, 28-30, 32, 35, 81, 85-90, 98, 155, 309. See Trawlers. Strike of Gloucester fishermen (1917), 217, 353. Sturgeon, protection of, 8, 39-40, 53. Subsidy to Canadian cold- storage plants, 171. Supplies (outfits, coal, grub, ice, bait, tub trawls, nets, rope, etc.), 296, 331-332, 545. American pee vessels obtaining in Canadian ports, 238, 300, 8-304, 317, 335. Canadian ane vessels obtaining in United States ports, 9, 20, 24, 39, 42, 109, 251, 297, 299, 300, 304, 306. Cost of, for Can: vdian and American fishing vessels, 82, 236-239, 247, 250- 251, 295-296, 306, 345, 353. Ketchikan, obtaining of. at, 109. See Wetehikan. Prince Rupert, obtaining of, at. 109-119. Prices of, in Canada and United States, 79, 236-238, 250-251, 254. 278, 298. Quality, 255. 29%, 310, 314 345, 355. Quantity, 251. Supply of fish, where largest from, 210, 211. Surplus supply of fish, required, 185. Supply and demand: Development and increase of, 104-106, 110, 127, 149-150, 152-156, 162, 164, 172, 175-178, 183-185, 198, 199, 206-207, 211, 222, 229, 239-240, 242-248, 252-253. 258, 319, 323, 336-3387, 346, 351. ° Relation between, 44-45, 71-72, 106, 127, 151-155, 162, 164, 168, 208-209, 230, 243, 253, 315-316, 336. See also Consumption of fish; Demand for fish; Educational propa- ganda: Expansion of American markets ; Production. increase in. 6, 79, 91, 96, 236— Tables : : Bounties paid to Canadian fishermen, 367. Cost of outfitting American fishing vessels, 236-2388. Cost of outfitting Canadian fishing vessels, 297—298. Expenditures of American fishing vessels in Canadian ports, 286, 237. Expenses of Gloucester fishing vessels, 236, 237. linports of fish into United States, 381, 382. Nationality crews Gloucester fleet, 212. Number vessels Gloucester fieet, 212. Outfitter supplies for Canadian vessels, 297. Prices for food, supplies, ete., for American and Canadian fishing ves- sels, 238. Vessels transferred to aliens, including Canadians, 373, 374. Tanning fish skins. See Leather. Paxith : A domestic problem, 52, 64, 83, 90, 103-104, 196, 201, 275, 291. Canadian on fish, 9, 83, 90, 104, 206. Duty on fish and fishing gear, nets, etc., 79-81, 99. See Duty. United States tariff act 1913, admitting certain fish free, 52. 64, 99, 105, 195-196. 204, 290-291. Territorial waters: Alaska, 21, 24. Canadian, 24, 52-53, 85-90, 196, 205,281, 292. United States, 49, 205, 276, 281, 293, 3380. Texas fish hatchery, closing of, 95. a The seal. case of Gloucester steam trawler at Halifax, $5-93, 273-274, 281-282 Three-inile limit, 85-93. 196, 204-205, 233, 275, 277-278. Tinker, 93-094. Tonnage tax, United States, on fishing vessels, 26. See also American fishing vessels; Canadian fishing vessels. Transfer of Canadian fishing vessel to trading vessel, 15, 17-18. 64, 100, 103, 105, 125, 196, 204, 291, 315, 329, 347. INDEX. 397 Transportation facilities. 157. 163-166, 169-176, 257. 269. 319. See also Refrigerating cars and ships. Trausshipment of fish, from Canada to United States, 69, TO. 96. 109, 121-122. Hills 2ay4) Biles Traveling inspectors, United States Steamboat Service, 37. Trawlers: American, 73, 230-231. 278-279. Boston fleet, 155-156. British 88, 148, 230. 243. Canadian. 73. 230-231. 278. 309. Regulation of— In American-Canadian fisheries, 28, 85-93. In North Sea, 230-231. See also American fishing vessels; British trawlers; Canadian fishing vessels; Vessels: Wages. Treaty of 1818, rights of American fishing vessels under (shelter. repairs, wood, water), 8, 51. 53. 63. 64, SO, 90-92. 104, 195, 219, 226. 244. 274, 282-983. 290-291. : Treaty of 1854. 312. Treaty of Washington. 1871. 52. 147. 148. 215. 244-245, 291. Treaty of 1888, not ratified by Congress: Proposed rights under, 51-52, 63-64, 195. 277-278, 290-291. Modus vivendi, established by Congress pending ratification of, 51-52, 92, 195, 274, 290. Treaty of 1909, 43, 46, 49-50. Tuna-fish industry. 173-174. 184. Twelve-mile limit, fishing off Canadian coast, 85-93. 205. 273. 282. See also The Seal. United States and Canada in the war, 112, 192-195, 203, 212-213, 245, 261-263, 279. See also Great Britain in the war. United States fishing vessels. See American fishing vessels. United States Navy. sources from which recruited. 16. 17. 235. 285. Vermont. See Lake Champlain fisheries. Vessels: Aliens and citizens on American fishing vessels. 17. 120-121. 123-124. 200. 214, 219, 234-235. American registry. See American registry... American fishing vessels, privileges in Canadian ports. See American fish- ing vessels: Reciprocal privileges. Bait for. See Supplies. Bill of health. 21, 26. Boilers of, 28, 34-36. 357-363. British trawlers. See British trawlers. Canadian fishing vessels, privileges in American ports. See Canadian fish- ing vessels: Reciprocal privileges. etc. Canadian port charges for American fishing vessels, 9. Clearance and entry, American fishing vessels in Canadian ports: and Canadian fishing vessels in American ports. See Clearance and entry; Reciprocal privileges. Construction of— Cost of American fishing vessels, 105. 256, 267. 295, 307-308, 318, 342-348. Cost of Canadian fishing vessels, 249, 256, 295, 30S. 311. 318, 342-343. Place of, 28, 248-249, 303, 309, 342. Cost of construction, labor, materials, and supplies. See Cost. Crews of. See Crews. Earnings of, compared with Canadian, 229, 246. Equipment, inspection of, 31, 32, 360. See also Equipment. Fishermen. See Crews: Gloucester fisheries; Wages. Fishing gear— Cost of. See Supplies. Duty on. See Duty. Food, cost of for American and Canadian vessels. See Cost. Foreign vessels taking out American or Canadian registry. See American registry : British registry : Canadian registry. French fishing vessels, in fisheries, 202. 398 INDEX. Vessels—Continued. “Grand Bankers,” 266. pee fishing fleet. See Gloucester fisheries. 41t Britain’s fishing fleet. See Great Britain’s fishing fleet. see tion and reinspection of. See Inspection of vessels. Licensed captains, mates, and engineers, 28-29. Licenses, Canadian, to American fishing vessels. See Licenses. Lobster well smacks. See Lobster fishing. Manifests, 42, 48. 2 Masters and officers of American vessels. See Officers, American vessels. Modus vivendi of Canada, American fishing vessels operating under. See Modus vivendi. Motor fishing vessels. See Motor fishing vessels ; Power. Navigation laws of United States, applicability of to fishing vessels, 11-27, 29, 196. Nets. See Nets. Number ot— Boston-Gloucester fleets, 155-156, 177, 199-200. 202-208, 211-212, 223- 294 228, 234, 238, 247, 280. Calling at Canadian ports, 1915-16; also number of calls, 225. Insufficient to supply increased demand for fish, 106, 156, 207, 208, 220, 229: Owners, Gloucester boats, 200, 202, 205. Sailing from Lunenburg, 3801-3802, 304. Sold at Gloucester and to what countries, 160, 274, 277. Operating expenses of. Sce Cost; Operating expenses; Gloucester fisheries. Officers of American vessels. See Officer, ete. Ownership of-—— Consolidation of owners, 177, 200-201. Number of owners at Gloucester, 200, 202-203. Ports of Canada, openimeg of, to American vessels. See American fishing vessels ; Reciprocal phivileges. Ports of United States, opening of, to Canadian vessels. See Oanadian fishing vessels.; Reciprocal privileges, Portuguese fishing vessels coming to United States, 202, 356. Power, fishing vessels. Nee Power. : Prince Rupert, American vessels putting in at. See Prince Rupert. Privileges to American and Canadian, See Reciprocal privileges. Quality of, 35, 36. Repairs, to United States vessels in Canadian ports. See Cost. Repairs: Treaty of ISIS. Rights of American fishing vessels under treaty of 1818S.) See American fish- ing vessels. , Seamen’s act. United States. applicability of, to fishing vessels. See Sea- men’s act. : Shelter for United States vessels in Canadian ports. See Shelter; Ameri- can fishing vessels; Treaty of 1818. Steamboat-inspection laws of Canada, applicability of. 81-382, 386, 340, 857— 364. Steamboat-inspection laws of United States, applicability of, 27-88, 340. Steam fishing vessels. See Steam fishing vessels. Supplies for (see Supplies )— At Ketchikan, See IKetchikan. At Prince Rupert. See Prince Rupert. Cost of, for Canada and United States fishing vessels. See Cost. Obtained by American fishing boats in Canadian ports. See Supplies. Obtained by Canadian fishing vessels in United States ports. See Sup- plies. The Seal, incident at Halifax, 85-93, 271-274, 281-282. Tonnage tax on United States fishing vessels, 26, Transter of— American vessels to Canadian registry, 26-27, 35, 38, 49. British and other foreign vessels to American registry, 35, 38, 98-99, 106. Canadian vessels to American registry, 35, 38, 98-99. From character of fishing vessel to trader, 15, 17, 18, 64, 100, 103, 105, 125, 196, 204, 291, 315, 329, 3477. INDEX. 899 Vessels—Continued. Treaty of 1818, rights of United States vessels under. See Treaty of 1818. Treaty of 1888 (not ratified), proposed rights under. See Treaty of 1888. United States fishing vessels. See American fishing vessels. Wages of captains and crews of American and Canadian. See Wages. Water for United States vessels in Canadian ports. See Water; Treaty of 1818. Wood for United States vessels in Canadian ports. See Wood: Treaty of 1818. Wages: Captains, mates. crews, fishermen, 120. 124, 126, 213, 231. 236-237, 267, 296, 306, 314, 343-344. 365. American fishing vessels including steam trawlers. 62, 71-77, 82, 120= 121, 127, 231, 236-237. 267, 299, 309-310. 344. Canadian fishing vessels, including steam trawlers. 62, 78-77, 82, 127. 229, 237. 295-296, 301, 305-306, 309-310, 314, 343-344, 353. Comparison of, officers and crews American and Canadian fishing vessels, 73-17, 126-127, 213, 229, 237, 254, 299. 302, 304, 309-310, 314, 343-345. Carpenters. laborers, etc., in shipbuilding, 72. Great Britain in, 180-181, 310. Rate, computation of, 74, 77. 305, 309. Sharing system on fishing vessels, 213, 217-218. 296, 299, 305, 309-310. 348, 365. War. See Canada and United States in; Great Britain in; Modus vivendi; Orders in Council: Orders of United States Government. War of 1812, 63. Waste. See Fish waste. Water for American fishing vessels in Canadian ports, 88, 317. See also Modus vivendi; Treaty of 1818. Well smacks. See Lobster fishing. Whales: Fishing for, 62, 242. Industry, 6. 62. Meat as a food, 154, 242, 245. Protection of, 6, 8. See also Leather. Whitefish. See Lake Champlain. Whiting fish industry, 165, 167, 171-172, 181, 184, 207, 216, 258~260. Wood, for American fishing vessels in Canadian ports, 313. See also Modus vivendi; Treaty of 1818. pine: hs AR is is “ Ah FP icme tail ee { Soe Se eae me rae Se ee ar etree eo . Sm Se LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Ai 0 002 875 950 9 e